Why didn't the CSA develop more leaders?

[JerryD]

One thing I have never understood is why there was such a difference between the CSA and the USA in terms of developing leaders. The generals in the USA who failed got shelved and others given a chance, until at last a group of leaders emerged who led the US to victory. McDowell, Pope, Banks, Fremont, McClellan, Buell plus others were shelved, and Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Schofield, Ord and others rose. Meanwhile, essentially the same people who led CSA forces at the very beginning were the same people who were leading it at the end, other than the addition of Hood. Johnston and Beauregard, who seemed to be everywhere at the beginning of the war, were everywhere at the end as well. Lee also had a leading role as Presidential advisor, so his move to command of the ANV was more lateral. Even Bragg was kept in a position of authority.

Why werent more early leaders shelved, and why weren't more mid-level leaders promoted and given a chance? And who, among the mid-level CSA leaders, might have made for a good army commander?

 

[hughes]

Many promising mid-level officers were killed and the pool was pretty small at the outset.

 

[Borderruffian]

Jefferson Davis was adverse to promoting Officers who didn't have a Sheep Skin from Hudson High to Flag Grade Rank and if he did they seldom very seldom got Major Command. Davis was a Hudson High snob.

 

[JerryD]

Jefferson Davis was adverse to promoting Officers who didn't have a Sheep Skin from Hudson High to Flag Grade Rank and if he did they seldom very seldom got Major Command. Davis was a Hudson High snob.

Lot of truth there. But I think there were some good candidates. I always thought Richard Taylor, for example, was under utilized. Patrick Cleburne and Wade Hampton were two others. I'm sure there were also a lot of brigade commanders deserved a more prominent role.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Jefferson Davis was adverse to promoting Officers who didn't have a Sheep Skin from Hudson High to Flag Grade Rank and if he did they seldom very seldom got Major Command. Davis was a Hudson High snob.

Yes, Davis has to take some responsibility for not recognizing that the Confederate high command was in need of new blood, and making the needed promotions/demotions.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Jefferson Davis was adverse to promoting Officers who didn't have a Sheep Skin from Hudson High to Flag Grade Rank and if he did they seldom very seldom got Major Command. Davis was a Hudson High snob.

"Hudson High" is a new one by me. Gave me a good laugh.

Davis was himself a West Pointer.

It's interesting that the antebellum Army rank & file were widely looked down upon as riffraff and many viewed the standing army with skepticism with a not insignificant minority outright hostile to West Point's existence (especially after 1861 when a third of the officers went south), but the officers were mostly various levels of snobbish. It wasn't as bad as the British Army, but it was far from the shining example of American meritocracy ideals it should have been.

I suppose the fact that OCS was non-existent and mustangs were rare contributed to it. Graduating West Point put you in a rather exclusive club in the 19th century, much more than in most of the 20th century.

 

[JerryD]

Part of this question was also about the failure to shelve generals who were perceived to have failed. Lincoln had no problem shelving McClellan, for example, rightly or wrongly. Why didnt Davis shelve Johnston? I know he had supporters who exerted pressure on Davis, but why did Davis cave in an keep appointing a general that he had no confidence in? Was it truly a matter that the CSA had no generals who could be trusted with an army other than a handful? I find that hard to believe. Meade was a rather undistinguished division and then for short time, corps commander who, when given the chance, showed he was more than competent to lead the AOP. Were there really no CSA counterparts who just needed to be given a chance?

 

[JerryD]

"Hudson High" is a new one by me. Gave me a good laugh.

Davis was himself a West Pointer.

It's interesting that the antebellum Army rank & file were widely looked down upon as riffraff and many viewed the standing army with skepticism with a not insignificant minority outright hostile to West Point's existence (especially after 1861 when a third of the officers went south), but the officers were mostly various levels of snobbish. It wasn't as bad as the British Army, but it was far from the shining example of American meritocracy ideals it should have been.

I suppose the fact that OCS was non-existent and mustangs were rare contributed to it. Graduating West Point put you in a rather exclusive club in the 19th century, much more than in most of the 20th century.

Just finished a book that was very tongue in cheek that called it "Kill School".

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Not only was the Army of Tennessee stagnant at the very top with Bragg in command for 1 1/2 years, but Hardee and/or Polk held an AOT corps command from Shiloh until the fall of Atlanta.

The AOTP didn't need seven corps, but it certainly gave a lot of opportunities to seperate wheat from chaff.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I always thought Richard Taylor, for example, was under utilized.

Didn't he get sidelined out west because he butted heads with Stonewall?

 

[DixieRifles]

Jefferson Davis was adverse to promoting Officers who didn't have a Sheep Skin from Hudson High to Flag Grade Rank and if he did they seldom very seldom got Major Command. Davis was a Hudson High snob.

I was going to say Jeff Davis had something to do with retaining some of the commanders beyond their welcome.
But I couldnt say it like you did.

 

[JerryD]

Didn't he get sidelined out west because he butted heads with Stonewall?

I know he fought under Jackson, but was not aware they butted heads, but then Jackson butted heads with a lot of folks. To be honest, I am not sure why he was sent west.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

One thing I have never understood is why there was such a difference between the CSA and the USA in terms of developing leaders. The generals in the USA who failed got shelved and others given a chance, until at last a group of leaders emerged who led the US to victory. McDowell, Pope, Banks, Fremont, McClellan, Buell plus others were shelved, and Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Schofield, Ord and others rose. Meanwhile, essentially the same people who led CSA forces at the very beginning were the same people who were leading it at the end, other than the addition of Hood. Johnston and Beauregard, who seemed to be everywhere at the beginning of the war, were everywhere at the end as well. Lee also had a leading role as Presidential advisor, so his move to command of the ANV was more lateral. Even Bragg was kept in a position of authority.

Why werent more early leaders shelved, and why weren't more mid-level leaders promoted and given a chance? And who, among the mid-level CSA leaders, might have made for a good army commander?

Good question, but a Big question as well. I'll place part of the blame on Jefferson Davis. He refused to remove from key positions individuals who he liked and had a pre-war friendship with (names that first come to mind are Leonidas Polk and Braxton Bragg). Davis also would NOT give higher positions to people he did not particularly like, even if they were highly capable (example, P.G.T. Beauregard). There is a lot more to be said and learned about answering the question that you posed. It should be interesting.

One thing I have never understood is why there was such a difference between the CSA and the USA in terms of developing leaders. The generals in the USA who failed got shelved and others given a chance, until at last a group of leaders emerged who led the US to victory. McDowell, Pope, Banks, Fremont, McClellan, Buell plus others were shelved, and Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Schofield, Ord and others rose. Meanwhile, essentially the same people who led CSA forces at the very beginning were the same people who were leading it at the end, other than the addition of Hood. Johnston and Beauregard, who seemed to be everywhere at the beginning of the war, were everywhere at the end as well. Lee also had a leading role as Presidential advisor, so his move to command of the ANV was more lateral. Even Bragg was kept in a position of authority.

Why werent more early leaders shelved, and why weren't more mid-level leaders promoted and given a chance? And who, among the mid-level CSA leaders, might have made for a good army commander?

 

[RedRover]

I know he fought under Jackson, but was not aware they butted heads, but then Jackson butted heads with a lot of folks. To be honest, I am not sure why he was sent west.

In his memoir, Taylor says he became seriously ill and hospitalized. However, recommended by Jackson for a major-generalship of volunteers by Gen. Jackson, and so promoted, and sent west for division command.

It was understood by some, like James M. Mason of VA, that the promotion came at Jackson's behest after the Valley Campaign...

 

[rupert822]

In my opinion it had at least something to do with the full general rank adopted by the CSA. It left commanders like J. Johnston, Bragg, and Beauregard feeling entitled to something more than Corps or departmental command. I also think the Union's adoption of a general in chief nearly throughout the war, rather than too late, contributed.

 

[JerryD]

In my opinion it had at least something to do with the full general rank adopted by the CSA. It left commanders like J. Johnston, Bragg, and Beauregard feeling entitled to something more than Corps or departmental command. I also think the Union's adoption of a general in chief nearly throughout the war, rather than too late, contributed.

Interesting point re: General In Chief. Can you elaborate on that? I'm guessing you are saying the GIC was able to review performance and bring worthy candidates to the President's attention?

 

[rupert822]

Hey Jerry, you are more or less on the money of what I meant. Whoever was in charge for the Union was able to push their people for good or bad. Lee was able to get a fair few commanders out of the ANV but it took more art than Grant telling Meade to just overlook Sheridan's insubordination and let him go after Stuart because he "usually knew what he was about".

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

In his memoir, Taylor says he became seriously ill and hospitalized. However, recommended by Jackson for a major-generalship of volunteers by Gen. Jackson, and so promoted, and sent west for division command.

It was understood by some, like James M. Mason of VA, that the promotion came at Jackson's behest after the Valley Campaign

Is Taylor the only Confederate general sent away from Virginia during the war as a reward rather than a punishment?

 

[Jamieva]

One thing I have never understood is why there was such a difference between the CSA and the USA in terms of developing leaders. The generals in the USA who failed got shelved and others given a chance, until at last a group of leaders emerged who led the US to victory. McDowell, Pope, Banks, Fremont, McClellan, Buell plus others were shelved, and Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Schofield, Ord and others rose. Meanwhile, essentially the same people who led CSA forces at the very beginning were the same people who were leading it at the end, other than the addition of Hood. Johnston and Beauregard, who seemed to be everywhere at the beginning of the war, were everywhere at the end as well. Lee also had a leading role as Presidential advisor, so his move to command of the ANV was more lateral. Even Bragg was kept in a position of authority.

Why werent more early leaders shelved, and why weren't more mid-level leaders promoted and given a chance? And who, among the mid-level CSA leaders, might have made for a good army commander?

I don't totally agree with this premise. Early confederate leaders included Pillow and Floyd at Fort Donelson. Floyd never had active field command again and Pillow was at best a brigade commander after that. AS Johnston was killed at Shiloh. Felix Zollicoffer was killed in early 1862. Beauregard never had a major field command after Shiloh until he had to quickly move into action to block Butler and did quite well at it. Lee speaks for itself.

So basically when you boil it down what you are really asking is why couldn't they get a better commander for the Army of Tennessee. Well as someone previously pointed out, a lot of that goes on Davis.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

why there was such a difference between the CSA and the USA in terms of developing leaders.

In my humble opinion, the CSA had too many "generals to start with".

To me it seems many of the Confederate guys were more concerned about rank rather than
the "big picture".

Joe Johnstone is the first to come to mind.

Jefferson Davis made matters much worse with his favoritism and pettiness.