Jefferson Davis and his search for a good general

I see that "scheming against Bragg" meme a lot and to me it always begged the question of who, aside from Jeff Davis, actually liked Bragg and thought he was a good commander?

Begging the question? How does that apply?

The person who mattered was Davis. I recently bought Hess’s book on Bragg but delved into it only shallowly but I do recall that some of Bragg’s subordinates thought him capable.
 
In the West the Union could win battles even if outmanned i.e. Mills Spring,Lee Ridge, Prairie Grove. So yeah something' going on in terms off not so great Confederate General's.
Leftyhunter

Confederate General Richard Taylor ran Nathanial Prentiss Banks and David Dixon Porter out of Louisiana's Red River Valley in 1864. Taylor had a fraction of their force, so I guess he didn't know what he was doing?

You guys crack me up.
 
Confederate General Richard Taylor ran Nathanial Prentiss Banks and David Dixon Porter out of Louisiana's Red River Valley in 1864. Taylor had a fraction of their force, so I guess he didn't know what he was doing?

You guys crack me up.
One victory does not win wars. Yes Taylor defending a strong position did a good job. On the other hand Pea Ridge and Prairie Grove did happen. So did other Union victories in the West.
Leftyhunter
 
Confederate General Richard Taylor ran Nathanial Prentiss Banks and David Dixon Porter out of Louisiana's Red River Valley in 1864. Taylor had a fraction of their force, so I guess he didn't know what he was doing?

You guys crack me up.

Well, in fairness, Banks was incompetent and Porter ran out of water.

But Dick Taylor was an aggressive, talented hack and slash leader from the Stonewall school of war who never got the kind of command that would have shown his talents to their fullest.
 
Last edited:
Well, in fairness, Banks was incompetent and Porter ran out of water.

But Dick Taylor was an aggressive, talented hack and slash leader from the Stonewall school of war who never got the kind of command that would have shown his talents to their fullest.

Fun and little known fact: Porter ran out of water because Confederate General Kirby Smith's engineers had figured out how to divert the flow of Red River into the bayou system below Shreveport.

The Red should have been flooding in the spring of '64. Porter running out of water was...wait for it...

A Confederate Plot!
 
I'm still new to CWT, but this question and discussion intrigues me.
That being said, I think there's a little to much Jeff Davis bashing. Was he a good President? In terms of politically I think he did a good job, but militarily in the Western Theater is where he screwed the proverbial pooch lol. I think the major misstep, was Davis's loyalty to Bragg. Bragg's main flaws were his abrasive personality, and that he was thoroughly not ready or capable of Army Command, at the division level he would have shined, and maybe, with time, been an excellent combat commander. As for the alternatives available in the Western Theater, to me, the men who I believe would have been the right men for the job would be Joe Johnson, N.B. Forrest, and Richard Taylor, to me these men were either wrongly maligned, (Johnson), or not properly used. for the qualifications are as others who knew them stated:
1. Concerning Johnston
Longstreet's view: "I am inclined to think Joe Johnston was the ablest and most accomplished man that the Confederate Armies ever produced. He never had the opportunity accorded to many other, but he showed wonderful power as a tactician and a commander"

Sherman's view: I don't have the exact quote, but I recall him saying something about him not able to guess Hood's intentions, whereas Johnston only made sensible ones, apologies on my not remembering the quote exactly.

2. Concerning Richard Taylor
Forrest's view: "He's the biggest man in the lot. If we'd had more like him, we would have licked the Yankees long ago"

Charles Fenner's view" Dick Taylor was a born soldier. Probably no civilian of his time was more deeply versed in the annals of war, including the achievements and personal characteristics of all the great captains, the details and philosophies of their campaigns, and their strategic theories and practice."

Also I don't have the exact quotes handy but Generals "Stonewall" Jackson and Ewell have been quoted to have thought highly of Taylor.

3. And N.B. Forrest
There ain't enough time in the day to cover his qualifications from the viewpoint of his peer and enemies!

Jefferson Davis's main failing on the Western Theater was his dependence on West Pointers, it seems to occurred to him too late that even West Point graduates can screw up, (coughPickett!, coughPope!), and I suppose that can be forgiven as Davis was a West Pointer himself, and probably would have preferred a generalship to presidency. Now did he favor Taylor over others at some points? Yes, definitely. But not out of friendship and family, but also because knew Taylor was more than capable, only screw up is he favored his buddy Bragg WAY to much over others. But I don't think Davis was a bad President, after all the CSA could've ended up with someone like Robert Tombs of Georgia, who would've been a royal screw up. Even Robert E. Lee thought Davis was the right choice.

In the end, Davis should've left Johnston in command, while not the best in my view, he was in the right place at the right time. After all if it hadn't been for bad maps, a sudden lack of veteran troops, and qualified officers (thank you Hood!), Johnston I think would've cleaned Sherman's clock at Bentonville, and if he not been removed from command, he would have pulled a Bentonville style attack long before 1865.
Hope this doesn't qualify as a hijacking, I'm just long winded.
 
A big part of the problem was Davis' propensity to micromanage and his inability to put his own feelings aside.
He kept sticking his nose in when he should have left the generals to do their thing and failed to deal with issues such as the conspiracies against Bragg. He liked Bragg so kept him in the West, but in such an untenable position that he was unable to function properly. He hated Johnston, and was looking for any excuse to get rid of him. He got along with Lee because Lee knew how to handle him. And Hood, well Hood was just a disaster looking for a place to happen.
Davis was in some ways the Union's Best Friend and the Confederacy's worst enemy. In the circumstances, however, I'm not sure that he wasn't the best of a barrel of bad apples that were the secessionists.
Jefferson Davis was the Norths' "best general."
 
Jefferson Davis was the Norths' "best general."
To be fair to Davis most likely any President of the Confederacy would of ultimately lost.
With a smaller population and forty percent enslaved and by no means were all white people united behind Secession any President would have a difficult task at best in successfully obtaining Independence.
Even excellent generals can not break a blockade for a potential nation dependent of agricultural overseas exports. That requires a navy plus industrial ability to build ships,engines and cannons. Yes there is the Tredgar Iron Works but they were just to small to truly supply all the artillery the Confederacy needed.
Not sure any one President could magically overcome all of the Confederacy's inherent limitations.
Leftyhunter
 
I'm still new to CWT, but this question and discussion intrigues me.
That being said, I think there's a little to much Jeff Davis bashing. Was he a good President? In terms of politically I think he did a good job, but militarily in the Western Theater is where he screwed the proverbial pooch lol. I think the major misstep, was Davis's loyalty to Bragg. Bragg's main flaws were his abrasive personality, and that he was thoroughly not ready or capable of Army Command, at the division level he would have shined, and maybe, with time, been an excellent combat commander. As for the alternatives available in the Western Theater, to me, the men who I believe would have been the right men for the job would be Joe Johnson, N.B. Forrest, and Richard Taylor, to me these men were either wrongly maligned, (Johnson), or not properly used. for the qualifications are as others who knew them stated:
1. Concerning Johnston
Longstreet's view: "I am inclined to think Joe Johnston was the ablest and most accomplished man that the Confederate Armies ever produced. He never had the opportunity accorded to many other, but he showed wonderful power as a tactician and a commander"

Sherman's view: I don't have the exact quote, but I recall him saying something about him not able to guess Hood's intentions, whereas Johnston only made sensible ones, apologies on my not remembering the quote exactly.

2. Concerning Richard Taylor
Forrest's view: "He's the biggest man in the lot. If we'd had more like him, we would have licked the Yankees long ago"

Charles Fenner's view" Dick Taylor was a born soldier. Probably no civilian of his time was more deeply versed in the annals of war, including the achievements and personal characteristics of all the great captains, the details and philosophies of their campaigns, and their strategic theories and practice."

Also I don't have the exact quotes handy but Generals "Stonewall" Jackson and Ewell have been quoted to have thought highly of Taylor.

3. And N.B. Forrest
There ain't enough time in the day to cover his qualifications from the viewpoint of his peer and enemies!

Jefferson Davis's main failing on the Western Theater was his dependence on West Pointers, it seems to occurred to him too late that even West Point graduates can screw up, (coughPickett!, coughPope!), and I suppose that can be forgiven as Davis was a West Pointer himself, and probably would have preferred a generalship to presidency. Now did he favor Taylor over others at some points? Yes, definitely. But not out of friendship and family, but also because knew Taylor was more than capable, only screw up is he favored his buddy Bragg WAY to much over others. But I don't think Davis was a bad President, after all the CSA could've ended up with someone like Robert Tombs of Georgia, who would've been a royal screw up. Even Robert E. Lee thought Davis was the right choice.

In the end, Davis should've left Johnston in command, while not the best in my view, he was in the right place at the right time. After all if it hadn't been for bad maps, a sudden lack of veteran troops, and qualified officers (thank you Hood!), Johnston I think would've cleaned Sherman's clock at Bentonville, and if he not been removed from command, he would have pulled a Bentonville style attack long before 1865.
Hope this doesn't qualify as a hijacking, I'm just long winded.
Certainly a well thought out argument plus interesting quotes.
The problem with using Longstreet as a source is that his record as an independent commander is a bit problematic.
No doubt Forrest was talented but we can't know how he would do commanding a Confederate Corps or Army.
Dick Taylor is an interesting " what if".
Arguably the Union Generals in the West such has Grant,Sherman,Rosecrans, Thomas, Curtis were at least competent not to argue they never made mistakes.
Logistically the Union Army seemed to be better then the Confederate Army.
Perhaps no one Confederate general or generals could of won in the West.
Leftyhunter
 
I wonder if Forrest’s talents at independent small unit command would translate up to corps command within an army and army command. He might’ve run into his Peter Principle pretty quickly. Why just the paperwork...And he didn’t play well with others.

Howard’s education in and knowledge of the more mundane day to day details of high command were important in Sherman picking him over Logan as commander of the Army of the Tennessee.
 
Certainly a well thought out argument plus interesting quotes.
The problem with using Longstreet as a source is that his record as an independent commander is a bit problematic.
No doubt Forrest was talented but we can't know how he would do commanding a Confederate Corps or Army.
Dick Taylor is an interesting " what if".
Arguably the Union Generals in the West such has Grant,Sherman,Rosecrans, Thomas, Curtis were at least competent not to argue they never made mistakes.
Logistically the Union Army seemed to be better then the Confederate Army.
Perhaps no one Confederate general or generals could of won in the West.
Leftyhunter

A lot of folks wouldn't even consider Forrest for anything other than Cavalry, but his record shows him to be effective at commanding whatever he had under his command depending on his resources. He was just an excellent tactician. The same can be said about Taylor.

Your right about Longstreet, but I'm a bit willing to hear out his views out he was "on the ground" so to speak. I personally don't view Robert E. Lee as the best Confederate General, to me he wasn't so much a great tactician but one who was more than capable and had a gift for reading people and their actions. For example almost every General the Union threw at him till Grant, (excepting Meade, but Lee did know him better than he did Grant) was someone he knew well, and to me thus, knew how to handle, most of the time. Getting to my point, I wonder how well Longstreet would have done in command of the Army of Tennessee against Grant, and if Lee would've "rubbed off on him". He was reasonably capable, and his relationship with Grant probably would have been a great advantage to him had he got the independent command of an Army he wanted. Jefferson Davis probably should have taken note of this when he replaced Bragg.
 
It seems to me that Davis could not keep his personal favoritism and dislikes out of his military decisions. For example, he kept Polk as a general, who irritated and undercut every commander who had the misfortune to have Polk on his staff. Davis' reluctance to trust Joseph Johnston reinforced Johnston's mistrust of Davis. In the end, both had suspicions about the other man's loyalty. And both were right.
 
IMO, Davis' big problem was favoritism. Any of the corps commanders in the West, plus a couple of division commanders (Cheatham and Cleburne) would have done well if for no other reason that the men didn't hate them as they did Bragg. never liked Johnston's lack of aggression and Hood was crazy at the time he took control of the army at Atlanta.

Grant did lose the Battle of Belmont Missouri since he was driven from the field.
 
A lot of folks wouldn't even consider Forrest for anything other than Cavalry, but his record shows him to be effective at commanding whatever he had under his command depending on his resources. He was just an excellent tactician. The same can be said about Taylor.

Your right about Longstreet, but I'm a bit willing to hear out his views out he was "on the ground" so to speak. I personally don't view Robert E. Lee as the best Confederate General, to me he wasn't so much a great tactician but one who was more than capable and had a gift for reading people and their actions. For example almost every General the Union threw at him till Grant, (excepting Meade, but Lee did know him better than he did Grant) was someone he knew well, and to me thus, knew how to handle, most of the time. Getting to my point, I wonder how well Longstreet would have done in command of the Army of Tennessee against Grant, and if Lee would've "rubbed off on him". He was reasonably capable, and his relationship with Grant probably would have been a great advantage to him had he got the independent command of an Army he wanted. Jefferson Davis probably should have taken note of this when he replaced Bragg.
Longstreet on his own was a complete failure.
 
That more or less depends on who's version of events one looks at. Was he great general? Depends on who you ask, but Lee thought well of his capabilities.

Plus his post-war life colored a lot of views of him amongst his former comrades.
Any book you read of Longstreet will tell the true story and they all say the same thing. And it has nothing to do about what he said or did after the war.
 
Back
Top