West Pointism

[atlantis]

West Points graduates brought many valuable skills to the confederate army, but none had commanded a Corp much less an army. The Mexican war experience of the graduates did it not blind them to the fact the Rebellion was going to be a conflict of a different nature, not to mention the advances in weapon technology.
So, was Davis right to rely so heavenly on West Point Graduates are should he have been more open to non-west point graduates in senior positions.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

I believe Davis was fundamentally correct in favouring West Point graduates over civilians. When the fate of the rebellion was at stake, entrusting his army to complete amateurs would have been grossly irresponsible.

 

[Belfoured]

I believe Davis was fundamentally correct in favouring West Point graduates over civilians. When the fate of the rebellion was at stake, entrusting his army to complete amateurs would have been grossly irresponsible.

Agree. It was still a war that required military training/knowledge. None of that was eliminated just because the forces were larger.

 

[bankerpapaw]

West Points graduates brought many valuable skills to the confederate army, but none had commanded a Corp much less an army. The Mexican war experience of the graduates did it not blind them to the fact the Rebellion was going to be a conflict of a different nature, not to mention the advances in weapon technology.
So, was Davis right to rely so heavenly on West Point Graduates are should he have been more open to non-west point graduates in senior positions.

West Pointers, North or South, were much more qualified to lead than political generals were.

 

[JeffBrooks]

How much better was a West Point education than an education at one of the various private military colleges in the South, such as VMI?

 

[Piedone]

How much better was a West Point education than an education at one of the various private military colleges in the South, such as VMI?

Good question. I am thrilled to hear the answers….

 

[Desert Kid]

I am kinda starting to see why Forrest didn't care for them too much.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

How much better was a West Point education than an education at one of the various private military colleges in the South, such as VMI?

I think West Point, Norwich and VMI were broadly comparable in terms of quality of education, and it would be very difficult to quantify the differences between them so as to say one was inherently better than the others.

 

[Stryker65]

I believe Davis was fundamentally correct in favouring West Point graduates over civilians. When the fate of the rebellion was at stake, entrusting his army to complete amateurs would have been grossly irresponsible.

I agree with this, but only in the early years of the war. As the war progressed, there came many reliable non-West Point officers, many of whom were not favored for promotion at all (Richard Taylor, Cleburne, etc).

 

[Old Soldier]

Why recruit West Pointers? Probably because they were assumed to be thinking along the same lines as the opposition officers and generals. This means they had a better chance of predicting actions and taking precautions. Experience in the field was a great educator for the others - and those who did the choosing..

Take a look at first Bull Run/Manassas. The guy that stands out is Jackson - not a 'West Pointer' but from the Virginia Military Institute. To be sure, the Union plan was workable - but did not take into account the inexperience of the commanders and troops. It looked good on paper, but paper does not win battles. It also affected civilian morale on both sides. The casualty lists hit home hard - a factor not usually taken into account at that time.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Why recruit West Pointers? Probably because they were assumed to be thinking along the same lines as the opposition officers and generals. This means they had a better chance of predicting actions and taking precautions. Experience in the field was a great educator for the others - and those who did the choosing..

Take a look at first Bull Run/Manassas. The guy that stands out is Jackson - not a 'West Pointer' but from the Virginia Military Institute. To be sure, the Union plan was workable - but did not take into account the inexperience of the commanders and troops. It looked good on paper, but paper does not win battles. It also affected civilian morale on both sides. The casualty lists hit home hard - a factor not usually taken into account at that time.

Umm...Jackson was a West Pointer. Class of 1846.

 

[Hester]

Why recruit West Pointers? Probably because they were assumed to be thinking along the same lines as the opposition officers and generals. This means they had a better chance of predicting actions and taking precautions. Experience in the field was a great educator for the others - and those who did the choosing..

Take a look at first Bull Run/Manassas. The guy that stands out is Jackson - not a 'West Pointer' but from the Virginia Military Institute. To be sure, the Union plan was workable - but did not take into account the inexperience of the commanders and troops. It looked good on paper, but paper does not win battles. It also affected civilian morale on both sides. The casualty lists hit home hard - a factor not usually taken into account at that time.

He taught at VMI.

 

[Old Soldier]

Thank you for correcting me. He was not a particularly good teacher however, but he had experience in the Mexican-American War and was not working on just theory. Some of the US generals also fought in that war - but not all. Did they learn anything from it?

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

I agree with this, but only in the early years of the war. As the war progressed, there came many reliable non-West Point officers, many of whom were not favored for promotion at all (Richard Taylor, Cleburne, etc).

Taylor had no prior military education or service. Although completely unqualified, Taylor started the war as a colonel in command of a regiment and finished the war as a lieutenant general. Cleburne was an immigrant whose only prior military service was as an enlisted man in the British Army. He died as a major general in command of a division. I think these two guys made out okay. As a matter of opinion, I just don't believe the Confederates had a large pool of civilians who were obviously as good as trained regulars. A few probably were, but likely not more than a few.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Thank you for correcting me. He was not a particularly good teacher however, but he had experience in the Mexican-American War and was not working on just theory. Some of the US generals also fought in that war - but not all. Did they learn anything from it?

I would argue that some US generals like Grant and Thomas who fought in that war certainly did. The same is true of their Confederate counterparts, particularly Lee and Jackson. With others, you have to wonder.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Umm...Jackson was a West Pointer. Class of 1846.

Jackson graduated 17th in a class of 59, a remarkable achievement for a man with minimal education before he entered the Long Gray Line.

 

[Stryker65]

Taylor had no prior military education or service. Although completely unqualified, Taylor started the war as a colonel in command of a regiment and finished the war as a lieutenant general. Cleburne was an immigrant whose only prior military service was as an enlisted man in the British Army. He died as a major general in command of a division. I think these two guys made out okay. As a matter of opinion, I just don't believe the Confederates had a large pool of civilians who were obviously as good as trained regulars. A few probably were, but likely not more than a few.

Exactly! But then of course there were many "trained regulars" who did not, of course, turn out that well. Among these: Theophilus H. Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Alexander R. Lawton, Bragg, to name a few.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Exactly! But then of course there were many "trained regulars" who did not, of course, turn out that well. Among these: Theophilus H. Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Alexander R. Lawton, Bragg, to name a few.

Quite true. Even now, we have no way of knowing in advance who will prove to be a capable leader in time of war. It is guesswork at the best of times.

 

[Belfoured]

I would argue that some US generals like Grant and Thomas who fought in that war certainly did. The same is true of their Confederate counterparts, particularly Lee and Jackson. With others, you have to wonder.

You mean like, for example, Gideon Pillow?

 

[Belfoured]

Exactly! But then of course there were many "trained regulars" who did not, of course, turn out that well. Among these: Theophilus H. Holmes, Benjamin Huger, Alexander R. Lawton, Bragg, to name a few.

Of course there were. The question is who are you going to appoint in 1861? Somebody with professional military training (and that can certainly include some of the reputable non-USMA academies) or somebody whose only "training" is fighting in a small unit in Mexico or even less? Doing the latter is called "rolling the dice" IMHO.