Trans-Mississippi Command CSA

archieclement

Colonel
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Was formed May 26th 1862 to include Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, Indian Territory, and Louisiana west of the Mississippi River. It absorbed the previous Trans-Mississippi District (Department Number Two). which had been formed Jan 10, 1862

Commanders

Maj Gen Earl Van Dorn CSA, (January 10, 1862 – May 23, 1862, District part of Department Number Two)
Brig Gen Paul Hebert CSA, (May 26, 1862 – June 20, 1862)
Maj Gen Thomas Hindman CSA, (June 20, 1862 – July 16, 1862)
Lt Gen Theophilus Holmes CSA, (July 30, 1862 – February 9, 1863)
Lt Gen Kirby Smith CSA, (March 7, 1863 – April 19, 1865)
Lt Gen Simon Buckner CSA, (April 19, 1865 – April 22, 1865)
Lt Gen Kirby Smith CSA, (April 22, 1865 – May 26, 1865)
Smith negotiated the surrender of his department on May 26, 1865. He was the last full general to do so, which was signed June 2 1865
Brig Gen Stand Watie while not a dept commander became the last T-M CSA general to surrender on June 23rd 1865
 
I met Gen. Buckner's great grandson several years back. He was a corporate attorney in KC. He was introduced to me as Chip Buckner. After we'd talked a bit regarding his client I learned his full name and I asked if he was a descendant of the famous General. He thought I meant his Grandpa, also a famous General who was killed on Okinawa during the battle there.
 
Quite a list of generals, some questionable talent until you get to Kirby Smith and Buckner. The rest really had their problems in battle or with women (Van Dorn). Holmes was not up to the administrative work, although he fought ok in the East, Lee thought him slow and a mediocre fighter. Hindman just displeased people in general, but he did not produce the desired results in the department.
 
Quite a list of generals, some questionable talent until you get to Kirby Smith and Buckner. The rest really had their problems in battle or with women (Van Dorn). Holmes was not up to the administrative work, although he fought ok in the East, Lee thought him slow and a mediocre fighter. Hindman just displeased people in general, but he did not produce the desired results in the department.
Tom Hindman probably understood the Trans-Miss better than the others, hence his short duration as CG,
 
Hindman just had a talent for angering the wrong people.

When he arrived in Arkansas, Van Dorn had left it in chaos, with the Arkansas State government practically non-existent. He brought order and put an end to folks profiteering and taking advantage of the chaos. He didn't just put an end to it, he did it with a vengeance, and their complaints to Richmond weren't listened to, and Holmes was a fella less likely to ruffle feathers so Hindman got demoted, only to later have to handle Holmes' work for him because he was so weak a commander. Plus Hindman kinda only focused on Arkansas, and ignored the rest of the Trans-Mississippi in his short time in command, can't really blame him as it was in the most chaos and most vulnerable.

I've always liked Hindman, and I've always felt he wasn't given the credit he deserved. Was he the best field commander or administrator? No, but he miles above Holmes, and not as corrupt and glory hungry as Kirby Smith. Richmond used the Trans-Mississippi as a dumping ground for officers seen as unfit and poor commanders, but Hindman stands as an exception in this as the Trans-Mississippi had no one, and Beauregard thought him the best officer to send out here to straighten up Van Dorn's mess and get the supplies flowing. Hindman did it, even as just the commander in Arkansas after Holmes came along, and when they thought he was needed back east he went back east. Not the best Army commander, but good at brigade level, and decent at division.
 
Quite a list of generals, some questionable talent until you get to Kirby Smith and Buckner. The rest really had their problems in battle or with women (Van Dorn). Holmes was not up to the administrative work, although he fought ok in the East, Lee thought him slow and a mediocre fighter. Hindman just displeased people in general, but he did not produce the desired results in the department.
Hindman embraced partisan rangers, which produced substantial results at virtually no cost to the CSA. He also embraced conscription in Arkansas, I've always thought too aggressively, it lowered the quality of the troops and increased resentment from the population.
 
General Richard Taylor would probably have been a good choice for command of the Trans-Mississippi. But I guess his lack of a West Point education held him back.
 
General Richard Taylor would probably have been a good choice for command of the Trans-Mississippi. But I guess his lack of a West Point education held him back.

Not really, after the Red River Campaign him and Kirby Smith really got into it, and Taylor was promoted to Department command in Alabama where he finished the War as a Lieutenant General commanding the Department Alabama, Mississippi and East Louisiana. He was one of only two Confederate Lieutenant Generals not educated at West Point. So his abilities were recognized, but to me he should have replaced Kirby Smith, but in the eyes of the governments on both sides the Trans-Mississippi was a good dumping ground for bad or otherwise worthless officers, and them ordering Taylor back East of the Mississippi could be sign of the esteem he was held in versus the contempt of Kirby Smith, who was often said to more interested in serving "back East".

(The other non-West Point LG was General Nathan Bedford Forrest.)
 
For the records; one of three. Wade Hampton was the other.

Your right, I should've included him. But unlike the other two he really didn't have a command warranting the rank, I suspect the promotion was more political than military necessity and merit. I have no wish to belittle Hampton's excellent service, but he never really had a noteworthy Lt. General's command even by Confederate standards or great notable independent victories or battles. So yeah I forgot, but I think its forgivable, as his service as Lt. General was really forgettable.

(In the Carolinas Campaign Hampton's command was barely division sized and he operated a small contingent of a small Army with several officers outranking him above him, Taylor had a Department, with Forrest and his Cavalry Corps acting more or less independently as well.)
 
Well, lets see. Hampton commanded the Cavalry Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia and in the end essentially the cavalry of the Army of Tennessee. Sounds like pretty warranting commands to me. It is an interesting and recurring fact that he tends to get recognition and command when the situation didn´t work out because unlike so many other (often more flashy) guys he was actually competent and dependable.

But I´m bringing up Hampton for the records, not to throw his name in the hat for Trans-Mississippi command. Of course I´d never throw Forrest into that hat either ...
 
Last edited:
I referred to Hampton's service as Lt. General as mostly forgettable, not his service overall, or before then. Also as I recollect his transfer to South Carolina was by his request after going there for recruiting and supply matters, for obvious reasons, and there were other notable cavalry commanders operating there, like General Joseph Wheeler who were more than capable of commanding the decimated Cavalry Corps there. Outside of the Battle of Monroe's Crossroads, a small often forgotten affair, I'm not sure Hampton directly commanded or played a large part in any battle.

But yes let us return to the Trans-Mississippi.
 
I referred to Hampton's service as Lt. General as mostly forgettable, not his service overall, or before then. Also as I recollect his transfer to South Carolina was by his request after going there for recruiting and supply matters, for obvious reasons, and there were other notable cavalry commanders operating there, like General Joseph Wheeler who were more than capable of commanding the decimated Cavalry Corps there. Outside of the Battle of Monroe's Crossroads, a small often forgotten affair, I'm not sure Hampton directly commanded or played a large part in any battle.

But yes let us return to the Trans-Mississippi.

The one that always intrigued me as a what if, was Van Dorn, what If he was left in charge of the T-M after PR? May seem a odd choice at first as at PR and Corinth he's over his head in army command of combined arms. However he do decent in charge of cavalry at Holly Springs and Thompsons Station afterwards

1-For the most part the T-M after PR was cavalry operations, from Marmadukes 1st and 2nd raids, Shelbys Raids, Price's raid, Camden expedition, operations in Indian Territory ect, mounted or cavalry operations featured prominently due to distances required to be covered. And a lot of the infantry had xfered east after PR

2- compared to what he got after he left, he would have least demonstrated some gumption.
 
The one that always intrigued me as a what if, was Van Dorn, what If he was left in charge of the T-M after PR? May seem a odd choice at first as at PR and Corinth he's over his head in army command of combined arms. However he do decent in charge of cavalry at Holly Springs and Thompsons Station afterwards

1-For the most part the T-M after PR was cavalry operations, from Marmadukes 1st and 2nd raids, Shelbys Raids, Price's raid, Camden expedition, operations in Indian Territory ect, mounted or cavalry operations featured prominently due to distances required to be covered. And a lot of the infantry had xfered east after PR

2- compared to what he got after he left, he would have least demonstrated some gumption.


I suspect if he stayed he would have locked horns with Curtis when he moved his Army SE down the White River, and probably would have lost again and been replaced by someone else.

That was the problem with Van Dorn, as a commander of say a brigade or even division of Cavalry he was decent and could even be expected to pull off a brilliant coup every once in a blue moon, but as an Army commander he was WAY out of his element, and thought process and the results were dismal.

To me Van Dorn is almost like a more fortunate Confederate version of George Custer in his way of doing things, and like Custer, you give him too much leash he'd run wild. Case in point he was losing in Arkansas and Beauregard requested reinforcements and cooperation, instead Van Dorn ignored his mandate, (the Trans-Mississippi), and went East to recover his reputation and probably seek glory in "the real war" and did so with disastrous results for the Trans-Mississippi and his Army East of the Mississippi. This is something I can picture Custer doing in Army command, and that along with other thing things, (heck they even look alike), is why I look at Van Dorn and Custer as to sides of the same coin. Good Cavalry officers, but horrible independent Army commanders
 
I suspect if he stayed he would have locked horns with Curtis when he moved his Army SE down the White River, and probably would have lost again and been replaced by someone else.

That was the problem with Van Dorn, as a commander of say a brigade or even division of Cavalry he was decent and could even be expected to pull off a brilliant coup every once in a blue moon, but as an Army commander he was WAY out of his element, and thought process and the results were dismal.

To me Van Dorn is almost like a more fortunate Confederate version of George Custer in his way of doing things, and like Custer, you give him too much leash he'd run wild. Case in point he was losing in Arkansas and Beauregard requested reinforcements and cooperation, instead Van Dorn ignored his mandate, (the Trans-Mississippi), and went East to recover his reputation and probably seek glory in "the real war" and did so with disastrous results for the Trans-Mississippi and his Army East of the Mississippi. This is something I can picture Custer doing in Army command, and that along with other thing things, (heck they even look alike), is why I look at Van Dorn and Custer as to sides of the same coin. Good Cavalry officers, but horrible independent Army commanders
But thats in part of what makes him an intriguing wild card to me. The T-M was somewhat unique in having this large buffer zone of inhospitable remote terrain, Moves such as Curtis would be very susceptible to having been cut off from supply, such as Grant with Holly Springs, If someone had been in charge who had used the cavalry more proactively in counteroperations.

But I prefer commanders who seize the initiative, between Van Dorn or Holmes, I'd roll the dice with a Van Dorn everytime
 
Last edited:
But I prefer commanders who seize the initiative, between Van Dorn or Holmes, I'd roll the dice with a Van Dorn everytime

Holmes was most definitely a bit overly cautious and slower than molasses, but Van Dorn's problem was he had no caution. Holmes was more suited to being a Department's desk clerk, (his relationship with Hindman shows that), Van Dorn had glory on the mind, and acted appropriately.

Van Dorn's biggest fault was he was a gambler. He'd take a report and act on it without confirming it, or throw caution to the wind throw everything at the problem, he never stopped to figure out what his enemy was up to when they did something and wouldn't hesitate to send his troops into battle before they were ready for it, and he would leave himself open to counter attacks by the enemy.
(Elkhorn Tavern/Pea Ridge and Corinth being good examples of his faults, one could say Lee's assessment of Hood being "all lion and none the fox" could hold true with Van Dorn as much as it did with Hood where Army command was concerned.)

Holmes was too contemplative, Van Dorn not enough.

But Hindman was a good example of everything balanced. He was an aggressive field commander, and aggressive able administrator, maybe not the best of either those fields, okay definitely not the best, but way better than Holmes or Van Dorn.
 
Back
Top