Why didn't the CSA develop more leaders?

[NH Civil War Gal]

And I just thought of this. Out of that whole group we will never know how they saw or thought of growing officers or anything else because only Longstreet survived to write memoirs and his are problematic (and super boring).

 

[Nathan Stuart]

With all the nepotism and politically connected appointments that occurred, it's difficult to imagine that there were any pathways for developing officers. There was also some resistance by the Confederacy's leadership (e.g. Davis) to promoting those individuals without formal military training to the highest command roles.

Thought these impediments prevented any promising officers being developed to attain senior command positions.

 

[JerryD]

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?

You forgot to mention everyone's best bro, D.H. Hill.

 

[Library Lady]

It's pretty clear the Confederacy made use of West Point graduates for their high command, but what about graduates of VMI, the Citadel and the military academy in Louisiana that Sherman helped found and later became LSU? Were these people used to their full potential? If they weren't, then why not?

 

[Borderruffian]

With all the nepotism and politically connected appointments that occurred, it's difficult to imagine that there were any pathways for developing officers. There was also some resistance by the Confederacy's leadership (e.g. Davis) to promoting those individuals without formal military training to the highest command roles.

Thought these impediments prevented any promising officers being developed to attain senior command positions.

One of Davis 's worst appointments in regards to nepotism and connections was Earl Van Dorn. Van Dorn had been only a very marginal junior officer during his duties in Texas pre-war but being a nieghbor of Davis and having the oh so important Sheep Skin from Hudson High got him a Major General command in the Trans-Miss where he promptly lost at Pea Ridge and it can be argued that over marching his forces and seriously out marching his supply and ammunition trains seriously effected both any strategic and tactical advantage he might have had. Once Van Dorn and his army were over the Mississippi for the Iuka -Corinth Campaign his Lieutenant of Cavalry/Dragoon " training didn't serve him any better and he never recrossed the big ditch, which eventually led to a jealous husband shooting him dead during the Franklin Campaign. Another of the good moves by that Military Genius Jeff Davis.

 

[Steven Rockwell]

It's pretty clear the Confederacy made use of West Point graduates for their high command, but what about graduates of VMI, the Citadel and the military academy in Louisiana that Sherman helped found and later became LSU? Were these people used to their full potential? If they weren't, then why not?

Looking at the list, there were some Citadel and VMI graduates who ended up as generals, but none seemed to have risen to the level of corps commander. I can't tell you why offhand except maybe it had to do with not having active service time in the US Army or led units before the war or just West Point grads looked down on them as second string types or they weren't in "the club" or whatever the reason.

It just seems to me that the key to getting high command in the CSA was going to West Point and/or being tied to Davis or Lee somehow (Stuart serving under Lee before the war for example).

Here are the lists by the way:

Research Guides: Archive Research Guides: VMI Civil War Generals

Research Guides: Archive Research Guides: VMI Civil War Generals

www.vmi.edu

General and Flag Officers – The Citadel Alumni Association

citadelalumni.org

 

[CSuniforms]

Looking at the list, there were some Citadel and VMI graduates who ended up as generals, but none seemed to have risen to the level of corps commander. I can't tell you why offhand except maybe it had to do with not having active service time in the US Army or led units before the war or just West Point grads looked down on them as second string types or they weren't in "the club" or whatever the reason.

It just seems to me that the key to getting high command in the CSA was going to West Point and/or being tied to Davis or Lee somehow (Stuart serving under Lee before the war for example).

Here are the lists by the way:

Research Guides: Archive Research Guides: VMI Civil War Generals

Research Guides: Archive Research Guides: VMI Civil War Generals

www.vmi.edu

General and Flag Officers – The Citadel Alumni Association

citadelalumni.org

As a sideline, in the Western Theatre we had a number of political Generals who became Colonels or Brigadier Generals to help raise troops for the Union Cause. Many of them became Corp Commanders later in the War. Grant and other West Pointers took them under their wings and if they did well in the Field they kept their rank and their Commands and promoted. On the Southern side-- how many Colonels became Brigadier Generals and rose to Command whole Divisions and Brigades but not the overall Command of an Army. The West Pointers had and kept those jobs--

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Thought Van Dorn performed better as a mounted commander (e.g. his cavalry raid at Holly Springs). He was never suited to leading infantry units, let alone being in army command.

 

[gc45]

When pormoting up, you get more pay. When relieved of command, how many lost their rank and if not loosing one's rank their pay might remain the same therefore, i submit, the CSA treasury may have something to say via Davis on promoting middle officiers to the top tier; just a thought. Also, the Union had more finances? and could afford more Generals. Again, just a thought.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

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.

Longstreet was sent west on a Temporary basis, not as a punishment.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

When pormoting up, you get more pay. When relieved of command, how many lost their rank and if not loosing one's rank their pay might remain the same therefore, i submit, the CSA treasury may have something to say via Davis on promoting middle officiers to the top tier; just a thought. Also, the Union had more finances? and could afford more Generals. Again, just a thought.

Interesting concept, whether or not it entered into the picture.

 

[Pollaco]

One of Davis 's worst appointments in regards to nepotism and connections was Earl Van Dorn. Van Dorn had been only a very marginal junior officer during his duties in Texas pre-war but being a nieghbor of Davis and having the oh so important Sheep Skin from Hudson High got him a Major General command in the Trans-Miss where he promptly lost at Pea Ridge and it can be argued that over marching his forces and seriously out marching his supply and ammunition trains seriously effected both any strategic and tactical advantage he might have had. Once Van Dorn and his army were over the Mississippi for the Iuka -Corinth Campaign his Lieutenant of Cavalry/Dragoon " training didn't serve him any better and he never recrossed the big ditch, which eventually led to a jealous husband shooting him dead during the Franklin Campaign. Another of the good moves by that Military Genius Jeff Davis.

It never dawned on me about Van Dorn's "Mississippi connection" with Davis. I wondered how he went from Colonel to Major General in only 4 months

 

[gc45]

Like when Grant took over, meade still had rank and pay although still in command somewhat, Grant was his superior calling the shots, money did not seem to be an issue. For the CSA funds were a huge deal in comparison. Training up top tier officiers took a lot of time and money, more than 4 years. The Union had that advantage as most had served many years as top officiers, their pay was established and ratified thru congress before the war whereas the south had fewer west pointers from top commands not to mention many were farmers, planters, plantation owners but not career Generals or even officiers. Did not several just pay themselves plus the cost of raising an army?

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Like when Grant took over, meade still had rank and pay although still in command somewhat, Grant was his superior calling the shots, money did not seem to be an issue. For the CSA funds were a huge deal in comparison. Training up top tier officiers took a lot of time and money, more than 4 years. The Union had that advantage as most had served many years as top officiers, their pay was established and ratified thru congress before the war whereas the south had fewer west pointers from top commands not to mention many were farmers, planters, plantation owners but not career Generals or even officiers. Did not several just pay themselves plus the cost of raising an army?

Yes. Also, by one count 638 West Point graduates served in the Union Army, while 259 served in the Confederate Army.

 

[121st PA Vols]

Stayed loyal!?
Don't forget the quality (number) of Southern officers that stayed with the North. A few.

* Farragut (Tenn), New Orleans. Go Navy!
* George Thomas (Va), some consider him the top US general.
* Winfield Scott (Va), the derisively labeled Anaconda Plan did initiate a stranglehold! And the wisdom to understanding the Mississippi's importance is self-evident. One of the most underrated (certainly understated) men in the war? To a respected degree seeing the big picture unlike other more celebrated men.
These were big, big losses for the South right up front. Not a 'developmental' issue but impactful and related to the overall view on leadership.

There are more depending how you define "Southern"; born there, moved there as a youth and so forth. Those might be the big 3. Maybe Meigs (Ga) US quartermaster and others.