Why didn't the CSA develop more leaders?

[RedRover]

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

Kirby Smith commanded a brigade as a brigadier at Manassas... ended up promoted to a departmental command in East Tennessee, etc. and commanded the "Army of Kentucky" in mid-1862, etc. before heading west of the Mississippi as a full general.

 

[Pollaco]

There were alot of Colonels who would have probably wound up as generals had the war lasted much longer.

 

[Pete Longstreet]

I don't think it was necessarily the development of leaders, but the retention of leaders. This is where you see the drastic difference in Lincoln vs. Davis. Lincoln, unlike Davis, was able to put aside his personal feelings towards something or someone for the greater good of the Army. Throughout the war, Lincoln relieved general after general of command until he finds the right man for the job. Davis on the other hand, retains his commanders, even after numerous defeats, failures, retreats, etc.

If the roles were reversed, I highly doubt Lincoln would have retained Bragg in such a commanding position. Especially after meeting with him and several subordinates, who all agreed he was unfit for such high command. Lincoln was able to fit a round peg in a round hole, Davis struggled with this mindset because of his personal feelings towards that individual.

Shelby Foote even said when the war began, the south was much better "generaled". The CSA had the leaders when the war started, it was the administration that failed to utilize those leaders or put them in a position which gave the CSA the greatest chance of success.

 

[Pollaco]

Got to agree with Pete, the South had the talent at the beginning. It was misused and misplaced by the administration.

 

[jackt62]

I always thought Richard Taylor, for example, was under utilized. Patrick Cleburne and Wade Hampton were two others.

None of whom had a WP education, as others have remarked as being so important to Jeff Davis. Moreover, Cleburne stood no further chance of promotion after his advocacy of black enlistment. Until Stuart's death, Wade Hampton butted heads with R.E. Lee and Lee's nephew Fitzhugh, so that was a big career stopper.

 

[jackt62]

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?

Lee did shelve Huger, Magruder, and Holmes after the Seven Days battles for their perceived failures. As far as Johnston was concerned, his wounding at Seven Pines and subsequent lengthy recovery probably solved Davis' problem about replacing him at that time. As you rightly point out, Davis did relieve him in front of Atlanta; the reason why Johnston kept reappearing was simply the lack of sufficient senior officers. Even so, it was Lee who requested Johnston's reinstatement in North Carolina in the Confederacy's waning days.

 

[jackt62]

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.

I believe Taylor's tenure with Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley was good and he was considered a capable officer. As such, and as Taylor took ill during the Seven Days campaign, upon recovery was sent to Louisiana to bolster Confederate forces in the region.

 

[JerryD]

Lee did shelve Huger, Magruder, and Holmes after the Seven Days battles for their perceived failures. As far as Johnston was concerned, his wounding at Seven Pines and subsequent lengthy recovery probably solved Davis' problem about replacing him at that time. As you rightly point out, Davis did relieve him in front of Atlanta; the reason why Johnston kept reappearing was simply the lack of sufficient senior officers. Even so, it was Lee who requested Johnston's reinstatement in North Carolina in the Confederacy's waning days.

If I was not clear, I was questioning why more army commanders were not developed, not just mid-level officers. Of course mid-level officers arose throughout the war, but it seems the number of army commanders was extremely limited because they kept on recycling the same guys. .

I get that some may think the there was a lack of senior leaders, but that is only because they were not developed. It would have been easy for Lincoln to go back to McClellan a third time after Fredericksburg, but he gave an untested Joe Hooker a chance. And when Hooker failed, he gave an untested Meade a shot. It just feels like the CSA, for some reason, did not do the same. if Davis had truly lost faith in Johnston he should have stuck by his guns and found someone else. And when that person failed don't go back to Johnston, but find someone else again. And I dont believe there were no talented generals who were worthy of a chance. Until they are put in the drivers seat you wont know what you have.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Even so, it was Lee who requested Johnston's reinstatement in North Carolina in the Confederacy's waning days.

Joe Johnston was the ideal general for the 1865 NC Campaign. He didn't have the army to fight Sherman so stall & withdrawal was the preferable strategy until he could join up with Lee. And Bentonville was exactly the kind of battle Johnston had sought in Georgia a year earlier.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

I was questioning why more army commanders were not developed, not just mid-level officers

Because that just wasn't how the Davis and the CSA worked. I had, in another thread, about how there were many promising North Carolina officers but Davis and other CSA officers felt great distrust of them because NC had strong Unionist leanings - even though they had signed up for the CSA. That led to GREAT dissension and resentment by these NC officers to Davis. Plus they hadn't gone to "Hudson High" (love that phrase) and… by the time "they" and Davis figured out they had better use these promising officers, they had mostly killed off the promising ones in futile attacks.

 

[CSuniforms]

Wow! and I mean wow! How come and why? That is why this Forum exists and why we have so many books on the Civil War that discuss these topics. My two cents-- there is a belief for the South to win their Independence and keep all of their State Territory they had to do it in 1861 or early 1862. Richmond was well aware of the 100,000 Union soldiers McClellan was raising and training in the East and out West the 100,000 in the Western Department with a Fleet of Ironclad gunboats to boot, were going to be on the move and ready to invade somewhere. Initially we had Beauregard and Johnston of the East in charge--- and that A. S. Johnston who was killed at Shiloh the other General in Command in the West. What both lacked was arms, men and supplies. Southern Manhood shown at Bull Run was praised but so was the Yankee fighting spirit at Shiloh. Southern Manhood and a Bowie knife was not going to be enough to defeat the Federal people. There was a great shortage of modern rifled arms in the Confederacy and all that goes with it-- men also. What these Generals were given to win the War was not enough. Hold on yes to gain some early victory's-- but crush the Yankees no. There were the Cleburnes' and the Forrests' in the West and yes we had Stonewall and Lee in the East, but they had to win and win soon. If the War was dragged out as it was, the South was for all purposes doomed even with a Victory like Chickamauga or Chancellorsville. The point as to why did not the Confederacy promote or develop better Generals is at Davis's feet. He did have a thing for West Pointers, even if they did not give him what he wanted a complete rout of a Union Army, just a stalemate to the end. In the meantime we had Lincoln. Lincoln was more into success on the Battlefield than your Soldier's Diploma. He saved Grant because Grant gave him victories and Sherman too and all the rest of the Armies in the Western theatre. The Confederates? They stuck with the West Pointers to the end-- Remember Davis did not want to give up an inch of Southern soil to the Federals. He believed if the South was recognized and won their Independence anything occupied by the North he might lose. So-- all the Troops they had were spread out all over the Southern Borders for thousands of miles, not in one huge Army in Richmond or Nashville. The Union Army for them had no borders to worry about-- it was all the USA. Yes, the South had great Generals and Armies-- but needed to capture Washington DC, Louisville, Kentucky, march into Ohio or Pennsylvania all the way to Baltimore, Maryland and re-take cities like Nashville or New Orleans or even Winchester Virginia and hold it-- and they could not do it. That would have given them Independence. They had some chances-- hoping for the best-- but hoping does not win a War...

 

[Cavalier]

Just an opinion, but with both sides using armies of rank amateurs, most of which had little or no military experience whatsoever, and lots fewer with any actual combat experience at all, if I we're in charge I would have been seeking out the ones with the most military experience that I could find as opposed to guys whose sole qualification for command was their political clout. Of course their are always exceptions, but as far as corps and army commanders were concerned anyway, if I had them available, the high school on the Hudson graduates would have been my first pick.

John

 

[Borderruffian]

Joe Johnston was the ideal general for the 1865 NC Campaign. He didn't have the army to fight Sherman so stall & withdrawal was the preferable strategy until he could join up with Lee. And Bentonville was exactly the kind of battle Johnston had sought in Georgia a year earlier.

And now I'm headed South Ward My heart is full of woe I'm going back to Geogriey, to find my Uncle Joe

 

[jackt62]

I was questioning why more army commanders were not developed, not just mid-level officers. Of course mid-level officers arose throughout the war, but it seems the number of army commanders was extremely limited because they kept on recycling the same guys.

Yes, that is a good question. In contrast to the north, the Confederacy had a smaller crop of trained officers, many who resigned their US Army commissions. I don't know whether that would account for the greater need to recycle the same guys but it might have some bearing.

 

[Steven Rockwell]

It wasn't just men who, like Davis, went to West Point. Obviously, connections are a factor, but one other approach to consider is the culture of the South. it was very much based on the English aristocracy, where a man's place was decided by birth. Yes, there were men of commercial worth and the nouveau riche, but by an large someone in the South stayed at the level of his father. Family rank mattered. West Point was developed not only to provide military leaders but to provide a nation of rustics with a gentleman's finishing school. Combine the two and you have the breeding ground for the Confederacy's early military leaders.

Later one and those numbers dwindled, Davis not allowing men of lower birth or social standing to rise to high command, men like Pat Cleburne for example, hampered him, but by the same token Davis wasn't saddled with political generals the way Lincoln was with men like Ben Butler. The generals Davis had at the top were already established soldiers, proven officers, and very likely from the best southern families. After all, politicians are politicians and back scratching existed in the 1800s and it would have been beneficial to for some member of Congress or a governor to send the scion of one of a state's finest families to West Point. Colonels and lower ranked militia leaders may very well have been from the money class or even popular with the locals and voted into position, but those at the top of the Army deserved to be there because...well, they just deserved it.

 

[Jamieva]

If I was not clear, I was questioning why more army commanders were not developed, not just mid-level officers. Of course mid-level officers arose throughout the war, but it seems the number of army commanders was extremely limited because they kept on recycling the same guys. .

I get that some may think the there was a lack of senior leaders, but that is only because they were not developed. It would have been easy for Lincoln to go back to McClellan a third time after Fredericksburg, but he gave an untested Joe Hooker a chance. And when Hooker failed, he gave an untested Meade a shot. It just feels like the CSA, for some reason, did not do the same. if Davis had truly lost faith in Johnston he should have stuck by his guns and found someone else. And when that person failed don't go back to Johnston, but find someone else again. And I dont believe there were no talented generals who were worthy of a chance. Until they are put in the drivers seat you wont know what you have.

He tried to give Hardee a chance he turned it down. The failure to find another army commander really is more a testament to the failure of the senior officers of the army of Tennessee to perform.

 

[JeffBrooks]

I think there are several examples of Southern commanders who really only came into their own in the last half of the war. Early, Gordon, Cleburne, Ramseur, and Breckinridge come to mind.

 

[rupert822]

Two more things that have occurred to me. First, it seems from my recollection there was a lot of argument about troops from the same state being brigaded together and commanded by their own in the CSA (a la the Continental Army), which was, if nothing else, limiting. Second, the Union had contested elections doing the war (Lincoln finally axed McClellan just after the mid-term), which I don't think I can really quantify the effect of, but can opine that if a Johnston/Beauregard ticket had the chance to run against Davis they may well have given it a go.

 

[bamaman]

Kirby Smith commanded a brigade as a brigadier at Manassas... ended up promoted to a departmental command in East Tennessee, etc. and commanded the "Army of Kentucky" in mid-1862, etc. before heading west of the Mississippi as a full general.

Because everyone knows that northerners are smarter than southerners !

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

Going along with what @Jamieva said, no one and I mean no could get along with AP Hill. Jackson was difficult at best and prone to court martialing people. Lee absolutely hated managing his corps commander's emotions yet they couldn't seem to manage themselves.

Hill and Longstreet were threatening to duel so Lee sends Hill over to Jackson in 1862.


Lee had the idea of putting AP Hill and Jackson together thinking they were both good and they would do even better together and that was a disaster.

If they can't manage themselves how can they grow and develop the supposedly more immature officers?