Stonewall Why did Longstreet outrank Jackson by 1 day?

However, his administrative performance in the Trans-Mississippi was what I was referring to (which is why I mentioned that field talent was hardly a prerequisite for generalship). The Trans-Mississippi was a theater command, not an army command, and as such was an administrative duty commanding multiple line officers in the field with differing objectives, not a line duty itself.

A Crisis in Confederate Command also describes how Kirby Smith's administrative abilities weren't all they were cracked up to be either. His department was overburdened by petty bureaucrats, needless red tape, inefficiency, and corruption. Kirby Smith himself wasn't involved in any corrupt activities but many of his subordinates were. Lots of soldiers and officers complained about the bureaucracy, red tape, and corruption in Kirby Smith's department. The term "Kirby Smithdom" was actually used in a derogatory fashion by many.
 
Granted he wasn't facing the A-Team, but Kirby Smith managed to keep Union troops out of the Trans-Mississippi with no more than 30,000 men and Theophilus Holmes, Sterling Price and John B. Magruder as subordinates (Richard Taylor was pretty good though). Not too bad when you come right down it.

I think the Union troops were kept out of the Trans-Mississippi despite the efforts of Kirby Smith. He allowed Banks to escape when Taylor could have inflicted enormous damage on the floundering Union army and navy. He deprived Taylor of troops just when they were the most needed. He attacked Steele for no reason (Steele was already retreating) and wasted the lives of hundreds of his soldiers.
 
I think the Union troops were kept out of the Trans-Mississippi despite the efforts of Kirby Smith. He allowed Banks to escape when Taylor could have inflicted enormous damage on the floundering Union army and navy. He deprived Taylor of troops just when they were the most needed. He attacked Steele for no reason (Steele was already retreating) and wasted the lives of hundreds of his soldiers.

I'm confused. He is faulted for letting one opponent (who was retreating) escape but faulted for trying not to let another opponent (who was also retreating) escape.

In my opinion he made the right call. Once both opponents turned back, there was more upside and a higher probability of success in focusing on Steele.
 
I'm confused. He is faulted for letting one opponent (who was retreating) escape but faulted for trying not to let another opponent (who was also retreating) escape.

In my opinion he made the right call. Once both opponents turned back, there was more upside and a higher probability of success in focusing on Steele.
Yeah, there's something of a cake-and-eating-it-too issue here; there's also the part about how the Trans-Mississippi was rife with bureaucracy and corruption (before Kirby Smith got there, incidentally), which Kirby Smith himself wasn't involved in, that he managed to prevent from keeping him from doing his job, but that was somehow apparently his fault? Honestly, I'm not entirely sure whether Saruman is deriding him or praising him, because most of what he's used as examples of the general's weaknesses don't actually seem to be particularly big flaws...
 
Granted he wasn't facing the A-Team, but Kirby Smith managed to keep Union troops out of the Trans-Mississippi with no more than 30,000 men and Theophilus Holmes, Sterling Price and John B. Magruder as subordinates (Richard Taylor was pretty good though). Not too bad when you come right down it.
I'd say Smith was jumping in front of the parade and looking as if he was leading it. The Red River Campaign was won INSPITE of Smith, not because of him. He wanted desperately for Taylor to send Walker's Greyhounds (1/2 Taylor's force) to AR instead of finishing off Banks. So much more could have been won.
 
I'd say Smith was jumping in front of the parade and looking as if he was leading it. The Red River Campaign was won INSPITE of Smith, not because of him. He wanted desperately for Taylor to send Walker's Greyhounds (1/2 Taylor's force) to AR instead of finishing off Banks. So much more could have been won.

It is my opinion that the primary reasons the Confederates won the Red River campaign were:
#1 concentrated forces from the entire region (ie Green's cavalry from Texas; Churchill's infantry from Arkansas/Missouri);
#2 used engineering to manipulate the water level; and
#3 the U.S. had a bad plan.
It is my opinion that Smith deserves credit for 1 and 2.
 
The following is a timeline of some events of the Red River and Camden Campaigns. The suggestion that Steele was already in retreat when Kirby Smith detached troops from Taylor is not borne out by the timeline. Having started Banks on the road to retreat, Kirby Smith made a command decision to go after Steele. The fact that Taylor didn't like does not mean Kirby Smith was wrong.
  • April 8 - 9: Battles of Mansfield and Pleasant Hill, Banks begins retreat.
  • April 15: Kirby Smith detaches three divisions from Taylor to Arkansas.
  • April 15: Steele advances to Camden.
  • April 15: Banks sends message from Grand Ecore requesting Steele join forces with him to renew attack on Shreveport.
  • April 18: Steele's foraging detachment defeated at Poison Springs.
  • April 21: Banks returns to Alexandria.
  • April 23: Steele receives message from Banks and responds that it is not possible.
  • April 25: Another of Steele's foraging detachment defeated at Mark's Mill.
  • April 26: Steele retreats from Camden.
  • April 27: Banks receives orders from Grant ending the Red River Campaign.
  • April 29 - 30: Battle of Jenkins' Ferry.
  • May 3: Steele returns to Little Rock ending the Camden Campaign.
 
I'm personally of the opinion that Taylor could have done more damage to Banks had Kirby Smith allowed him to continue - assuming that Banks didn't miraculously rediscover his backbone in the meantime, which was unlikely - and I'm also fairly sure Steele probably would have fallen back anyway even on the mere assumption that he would be attacked. However, events worked out for the Confederate troops anyway, so Kirby Smith's decisions aren't really an indictment on his skills when the counter-arguments are entirely based on assumptions.
 
It is my opinion that the primary reasons the Confederates won the Red River campaign were:
#1 concentrated forces from the entire region (ie Green's cavalry from Texas; Churchill's infantry from Arkansas/Missouri);
#2 used engineering to manipulate the water level; and
#3 the U.S. had a bad plan.
It is my opinion that Smith deserves credit for 1 and 2.

I believe it was the Federals who built a dam in order to raise the water level.
 
I'm confused. He is faulted for letting one opponent (who was retreating) escape but faulted for trying not to let another opponent (who was also retreating) escape.

No he is faulted because he made the wrong decisions. He deprived troops from Taylor when Taylor had Banks and his navy in a very vulnerable position. If Banks or his navy had been forced to surrender, there would have been huge repercussions on Union morale and the entire war effort.

Attacking Steele when Steele was already on the retreat and victory would have made no difference (Steele couldn't have been destroyed or captured), was wasteful. Kirby Smith's headlong assault at Jenkin's Ferry was bloody and pointless. Kirby Smith just wanted the personal glory of a "victory."
 
Yeah, there's something of a cake-and-eating-it-too issue here; there's also the part about how the Trans-Mississippi was rife with bureaucracy and corruption (before Kirby Smith got there, incidentally), which Kirby Smith himself wasn't involved in, that he managed to prevent from keeping him from doing his job, but that was somehow apparently his fault? Honestly, I'm not entirely sure whether Saruman is deriding him or praising him, because most of what he's used as examples of the general's weaknesses don't actually seem to be particularly big flaws...

Deriding him. Kirby Smith botched his military strategy and failed to stamp out corruption. He created a bureaucratic mess that barely functioned. He was lucky he had excellent subordinates to win the victories for him that held the Trans-Mississippi together.
 
You've done a lot of homework.

I shared your blog with a lifelong Louisiana historian. He said, while he's never heard of it, it sounds completely feasible. He noted that their is a levy there blocking the bodies of water today.
He recommended a book from 1866. "Among the Cotton Thieves".

Thank you.

LSU Professor Gary Joiner also talks about this Confederate engineering work in his various books on the Red River such as
One **** Blunder From Beginning to End
 
Last edited:
I'm of the opinion that Jackson was good but not great. Tactically, he could be brilliant or dreadful. His Valley Campaign was impressive but it was against very subpar opponents. A lot of his legend stems from the fact that he was killed right when things started to go south for the AoNV. It became natural for people to look back and say "if only Jackson were there."

R
There is no doubt that Jackson would've at the very least attempted to take Cemetery Hill. And I believe he would have pulled it off. The XI and I Corps were already on the run. Jackson would've definitely sent Johnson in that direction before the Union forces had a chance to really dig in. I think that's where a lot of the "if only Jackson were here" stuff comes from.

To be fair to Ewell, Lee wasn't really clear on what he wanted. But Jackson wouldn't have balked; he'd have seen it needed to be done and done it.
 
There is no doubt that Jackson would've at the very least attempted to take Cemetery Hill. And I believe he would have pulled it off. The XI and I Corps were already on the run. Jackson would've definitely sent Johnson in that direction before the Union forces had a chance to really dig in. I think that's where a lot of the "if only Jackson were here" stuff comes from.

To be fair to Ewell, Lee wasn't really clear on what he wanted. But Jackson wouldn't have balked; he'd have seen it needed to be done and done it.

I disagree. Johnson wasn't on the field until much later when Union reinforcements were arriving on the line.

At the time of Lee's order, there simply weren't enough troops to chance a direct assault, not to mention that there weren't any good places to form up for an attack.

R
 
I disagree. Johnson wasn't on the field until much later when Union reinforcements were arriving on the line.

At the time of Lee's order, there simply weren't enough troops to chance a direct assault, not to mention that there weren't any good places to form up for an attack.

R
Yes...Jackson alive and on the field on day one does not guarantee a win.
 
I disagree. Johnson wasn't on the field until much later when Union reinforcements were arriving on the line.

At the time of Lee's order, there simply weren't enough troops to chance a direct assault, not to mention that there weren't any good places to form up for an attack.

R
That is true. My point is that Jackson would've seen it needed doing and made the attempt given the same orders from Lee that Ewell got. Whether that would've led to a Confederate victory no one can say. But it certainly would've helped to have that hill. I do believe Johnson could've gotten it done; Union reinforcements weren't yet fully deployed and were finishing up a hard march when he came up. Plus they certainly had the initiative on July 1.
 
Back
Top