Re: Disputatious generals, in general
- I find it interseting that the 'political-ization' of the war in the
west was so different for both sides.
For the CSA, Richmond had a heavy-hand in most affairs, whereas
Washington allowed the Generals on the ground great autonomy in
determining their own destiny.
I'm thinking specifically of Polk and Davis' cronyism and the amount
of letter writing (not reports) between Davis and the AoT's division
and corps officers. The fact that many CSA general officers were
dumped out west with egos to protect and reputations to prove helped
add fuel to the mix.
USA political generals, Butler and McClernard especially, performed
distinct tasks and then were shunted aside (of course, Butler was
given the pooprtunity to fail in the east).
--- In civilwarwest@y..., "M. E. Heatherington" <meheatherington@h...>
> This question goes far beyond B. Bragg and his subordinates, and ifit's
> already been asked-and-answered before, I apologize forinadvertently
> bringing it up again, but it's a thing that has puzzled me since Ibegan my
> own meager CW studies long ago, namely: Why were so many generals,on both
> sides, allowed to get away with refusing orders? Why weren't ThatAwful
> Bishop and Ben Butler and Nathaniel Banks and others of their ilktaken out
> and shot, or at least dismissed? Why did both sides let these primadonnas
> get away with behavior -- and time after time, too -- that ought tohave
> resulted in their being defrocked or disbarred or whatever theritual is?
> Surely, surely, after a man has blatantly, flagrantly, willfully
> and ruined a battle plan, and unwarrantably got men killed, surelyhe ought
> to be removed if not beheaded, even if his only possible replacementis a
> 12-year-old girl? Surely, not all of the generals were civilians,who
> presumably couldn't be expected to understand that when one'ssuperior gives
> one a command, one's task is to carry it out, not to muse upon it --*this*
> although I confess the concept doesn't seem all that unclear to
> civilian? Surely, not all of these generals had so much politicalpull that
> they had to be kept on or the Republic/the Confederacy would totter?http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> So what was the reason? I would dearly love for someone to explain.
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at