If You Were A Civil War General...

Halleck
Pope

Any kidding aside, all of them could be either good or bad, depending on circumstances. For the greater part, as long as a subordinate followed orders and expectations exactly, they could expect fair and unbiased treatment from all of these, even those notoriously hard to please like Jackson and Bragg.
 
@MickeyB. Well my thinking here was they both placed subordinates on charges for doing things they could have been accused of themselves. As a subordinate of either one of them I would have resented that.
 
I second (or third) the nomination of Braxton Bragg

Braxton Bragg



http://porterbriggs.com/braxton-bragg-the-confederacys-worst-general/

Quite a few of his fellow commanders, most of whom served under him, were contemptuous of his leadership. Artillery officer E.P. Alexander said that Bragg was “simply muddle headed.” On several occasions generals in his army sent letters to President Jefferson Davis asking that Bragg be sacked. General Frank Cheatham, after the Battle of Stones River, vowed never to serve under Bragg again. After that same battle, General John C. Breckinridge, seething over a failed charge Bragg had forced him to make, challenged Bragg to a duel.


Nathan Bedford Forrest was never known as a commander easy to work alongside, but his greatest outburst against a commander came after the Battle of Chickamauga. Having won a great battle, arguably in spite of his own actions, Bragg refused to follow up his victory with further pursuit of the Union Army. This was too much for Forrest. After nearly begging Bragg for the chance to put his cavalry on the heels of the Union troops, Forrest turned from supplicant to accuser. Forrest said, “You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward, and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws and force you to resent it.” He then told Bragg that he would never obey any orders from him.
 
Who would be the worst boss to work for?

Bragg?
Meade?
Rosey?

Would love to hear some other nominations!
mike

Well, of those three, I would say Bragg. Meade and Rosecrans surely could be difficult to deal with, but Bragg seemed to take being-your-own-worst-enemy to new levels and was obsessive in his feuds (example: while still a brand-new lieutenant fresh out of West Point he started a feud with the head of his branch of service, eventually elevating it to include the commanding general of the Army, Winfield Scott).
 
Hands down Bragg. (Upon first skimming the post, I thought it asked, "who would you like to work for?" I thought, why in the world is Bragg even on there?). I'm a D.H. Hill fan, so I don't think he would like me very much! : )

I actually like Meade. For some reason I take a liking to those generals who could be known as cantankerous and moody (Meade and Warren come to mind; even Hill, but I think his big mouth got him into trouble more and people seemed put off by his carping). I have this impression that I'd work well with Meade.

Rosecrans I don't know too much about, but from what I read so far I like. He seemed another one of those eccentric types that I'm drawn to.

Among other suggestions I would say a big NO to Jackson. As much as I admire his adherence to duty and discipline it seems to me he tended to try to find fault in others. That's probably just my impression, but like one of his soldiers said about him in a Jackson bio (paraphrase): I'd like to read about Jackson from afar way better than working under him!
 
Back
Top