West Pointers in the Civil War

[Elennsar]

The last option is for anything that doesn't fit conveniently in one of the above categories - please elaborate on how you feel if you pick this.

Naturally, there were exceptional nonWest Pointers (not counting VMI and similar here - not to say they didn't count, but that they're also professionally trained) and West Pointers who were worse than useless.

So the question is, on the whole, how does it seem to have compared...comparing Burnside and Forrest is not a fair evaluation of the general run of things (though an arguement that on the whole being a West Pointer was a disadvantage because of ____ would be very interesting.)

 

[captainrlm]

I don't really think I know enough to answer such a broad question. Obviously there were some good and bad soliders, both West Point and non-West Point.

One point (no pun intended) I've read before is that some people think the Union should have mixed up West Point trained soldiers with the volunteers more frequently in order to spread the experience/training of the professional soldiers around and expose more volunteers to that type of training. The theory is that such an arrangement would have helped the volunteer soldiers become better fighters sooner.

Would that have been practical? Or even legal? If so, would it have worked? It sure sounds logical to me, but would the volunteers & regular army soldiers have co-oplerated or would the volunteeers have been a bit resentful at professional soldiery, specifically the discipline?

 

[cash]

I don't really think I know enough to answer such a broad question. Obviously there were some good and bad soliders, both West Point and non-West Point.

One point (no pun intended) I've read before is that some people think the Union should have mixed up West Point trained soldiers with the volunteers more frequently in order to spread the experience/training of the professional soldiers around and expose more volunteers to that type of training. The theory is that such an arrangement would have helped the volunteer soldiers become better fighters sooner.

Would that have been practical? Or even legal? If so, would it have worked? It sure sounds logical to me, but would the volunteers & regular army soldiers have co-oplerated or would the volunteeers have been a bit resentful at professional soldiery, specifically the discipline?

In June of 1861 a West Point-trained officer took command of the 21st Illinois and turned it from a rebellious mob of men into a disciplined fighting unit. He had not been in the regular army at the outbreak of the war but was a former captain who had a difficult time getting a commission when the war began. He accepted a position from the governor training new recruits and finally the governor appointed him to command the 21st Illinois.

The points being not all volunteer officers had no West Point training, not all West Pointers were still in the army when the war began and thus were available to command volunteer units, and volunteers would accept the discipline of a professional soldier.

Oh, by the way, that colonel of the 21st Illinois went on to bigger and better things soon after. He was appointed a brigadier general of volunteers by Abraham Lincoln and eventually commanded all the armies of the United States. His name was Ulysses S. Grant.

Regards,
Cash

 

[5fish]

Early vs Later

It seems the west Pointers did better but they got most of the early opportunities of the war. They got most of the early promotions to senior officers ranks. The non west pointers had to work their way up so one can see by the end of the war many non-West pointers were preforming as well or better then their West Point counterparts.

May be it just first years of the war verses the later years of the war...

a thought..

 

[captainrlm]

One example of unfair (perhaps) opportunities that I recallof was in the Atlanta campaign when McPherson was killed and a replacement was needed.

John Logan was apparently the logical candidate, but he was a non-West Pointer and Sherman wanted a "professional" and gave the position to Oliver Howard over Logan (and also over Hooker, who then resigned)

Granted, that was not in the first year of the war, but if that treatment could happen after 3+ years of fighting, how often did it happen early on?

It seems the west Pointers did better but they got most of the early opportunities of the war. They got most of the early promotions to senior officers ranks. The non west pointers had to work their way up so one can see by the end of the war many non-West pointers were preforming as well or better then their West Point counterparts.

May be it just first years of the war verses the later years of the war...

a thought..

 

[cash]

It seems the west Pointers did better but they got most of the early opportunities of the war. They got most of the early promotions to senior officers ranks. The non west pointers had to work their way up so one can see by the end of the war many non-West pointers were preforming as well or better then their West Point counterparts.

May be it just first years of the war verses the later years of the war...

a thought..

The most famous were John Logan and "Don't Call Me Lawrence" Chamberlain on the Federal side, Wade Hampton and John B. Gordon on the rebel side. Who else?

Regards,
Cash

 

[Blockaderunner]

Don't forget Nathen Bedford Forrest.

 

[OpnDownfall]

Don't forget Benjamin H. Grierson, either.

 

[Nytram01]

Was there a bias against non-West Pointers then?

As for non-West Pointers I can think of a few Confederate ones (unless I've got some of them wrong).

*Daniel Weisiger Adams
*William Wirt Adams
*Henry Watkins Allen
*William W. Allen
*George T. Anderson
*James Patton Anderson
*James J. Archer
*Frank Crawford Armstrong
*Turner Ashby
*William Barksdale
*Rufus Barringer
*John D. Barry
*William B. Bate
*Richard L.T. Beale
*Hamilton P. Bee
*Henry L. Benning
*Milledge Luke Bonham
*John C. Breckenridge
*John C. Brown
*William M. Browne
*Ellison Capers
*William Henry Carroll
*Benjamin F. Cheatham
*Patrick Ronayne Cleburne
*Howell Cobb
*Thomas Reade Rootes Cobb
*George Doles
*Basil W. Duke
*James Fleming Fagan
*Winfield Scott Featherston
*Joseph Finegan
*John B. Floyd
*Nathan Bedford Forrest
*States Rights Gist
*John B. Gordon
*John Gregg
*Wade Hampton
*Thomas C. Hindman
*John D. Imboden
*Walter P. Lane
*St. John Richardson Liddell
*William W. Loring
*John S. Marmaduke
*Benjamin McCulloch
*John Hunt Morgan
*Edmund W. Pettus
*Albert Pike
*Gideon J. Pillow
*Camille Armand Jules Marie, Prince de Poignac
*Sterling Price
*George W. Randolph
*William Paul Roberts
*Jerome B. Robertson
*Lawrence Sullivane Ross
*Joseph O. Shelby
*Preston Smith
*William B. Taliaferro
*Richard Taylor
*Robert Toombs
*Stand Watie
*Louis T. Wigfall
*Felix Zollicoffer

 

[Elennsar]

In regards to bias, I can only answer in regards to the Army of Northern Virginia.

As best as I can determine, Lee strove to have professionally trained officers in charge as far as possible - primarily West Pointers.

By the time Hampton and Gordon recieved their promotions to major general, they had been in the army for three years. Prior to that, his major generals are almost exclusively West Pointers (Rodes was VMI).

There does not appear to be any bias against nonprofessionals at work on that level, though. Simply the desire for the best officers available leading to high commands going to the professionally trained.

 

[footeghost]

Unfotunately Bragg. N.B. Forrest, Patrick Cleberne Nuff said

 

[Elennsar]

Using Forrest as a typical nonprofessional - or Bragg as a typical professional - is grossly unrepresentive of both groups.

Also, Cleburne does not count as a "nonprofessional" - though he's not a West Pointer.

As stated, this is about the typical performance of West Pointers vs. typical nonprofessionals (Cleburne counts as a professional soldier.

So no offense, Ben, but not relevant.

So do you think most nonprofessionals behaved better than their West Point counterparts?

I'd like to hear why - same to anyone who feels strongly that West Pointers performed better.

I'm not voting because I think some individuals benefited from West Point (In brief: Bragg, Lee - say whatever else you like about Bragg but he did have a functional knowledge base to train and prepare troops and he used it to good effect early in the war) and some didn't (Polk, Pemberton) - not necessarily because they were great officers, but because they actually learned something.

 

[cash]

In my previous post I deliberately limited it to non-West Pointers who did well. If we want to expand to non-West Pointers who didn't do well on the battlefield, we could add:

Butler
Banks
Ledlie
and several others.

But what, really, would be the purpose? We can all come up with West Pointers who did great and West Pointers who did terribly, non-West Pointers who did great and non-West pointers who did terribly. Ultimately I think that exercise would be wasted effort.

Instead we have to take the overall view. Look at the top commanders on each side and they are overwhelmingly West Pointers. War is a meritocracy at the top because mens' lives are at stake. So if the first guy doesn't do well he gets replaced with someone else, and if he doesn't do well he gets replaced, and so on until either the war is lost or you find someone who wins. By the end of the war everyone had been tested, and the West Pointers as a whole, with few exceptions, came out on top on both sides.

Regards,
Cash

 

[Elennsar]

What would be interesting is to determine how many chances nonWest Pointers even had to rise above division level. That is, was there any form of West Point clique at work?

Unknowns are just that - treating them as potential positives in the making is not realistic.

But for instance, John Gordon was only promoted to even division command very late in the war - would have risen faster if he had gone to West Point? Did he rise as fast as was reasonable? It does take a certain getting used to and learning to master the skills, which West Pointers - however ill prepared for large armies - had at least the basic knowledge of from their training.

It is worth asking, if only in regards to the clique issuse - though I think that was a concept born of jealous nonWest Pointers(some of which, admitedly, were overlooked - but on the whole, incompetents don't survive in war.)

 

[matthew mckeon]

There is a book called "The Class of 1846" The West Pointers who became the junior leaders in the Mexican War, and senior leaders in the Civil War.

West Point stressed a similar vocabulary for all officers, and regardless of the specialization(engineer, artillery, infantry etc.), all officers were trained to understand all branches of the service and how to use them, and the terrain on the battlefield. This type of preparation paid dividends in Mexico, and for both sides, the Civil War.

T. W. Higginson, the colonel of the First South Carolina Volunteers(a regiment of black soldiers), was truely a military outsider, being a minister before the war, and a writer and literary editor afterwards. During the war he wrote an excellent essay on the virtues of a standardized military preparation for all officers. Professionals know and enforce the daily routine of each regiment, sanitary regulations, uniforms, cooking, training, discipline, all the boring and necessary tasks that kept a unit in fighting trim, and the death from disease in check. The West Pointer may not be a genius, and he may be a snob, writes Higginson, but listen to what he says.

 

[ole]

Just a general impression, but overlaying yesterday's with today's templates, when you don't know, you go with the guy who has the degree. He may have a room-temperature IQ, but he does have the degree. This really promising civilian has a way to go to overcome that advantage.

So, naturally, earlier on, the first pick was the West Point graduate. It got easier for the civilian later, but the bias was never really overcome.

 

[larry_cockerham]

Just a general impression, but overlaying yesterday's with today's templates, when you don't know, you go with the guy who has the degree. He may have a room-temperature IQ, but he does have the degree. This really promising civilian has a way to go to overcome that advantage.

So, naturally, earlier on, the first pick was the West Point graduate. It got easier for the civilian later, but the bias was never really overcome.

Not to mention N.B. Forrest?, but he never worried too much about the bias as he watched the West Pointers squirm watching and/or looking for him. I know, an exception to the rule. As for me, I'd take the degree as well. They could always be fired or shot.