Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Disputatious generals, in general

Expand Messages
  • hank9174
    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
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 21, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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 if
      > already been asked-and-answered before, I apologize for
      > bringing it up again, but it's a thing that has puzzled me since I
      began 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 That
      > Bishop and Ben Butler and Nathaniel Banks and others of their ilk
      taken out
      > and shot, or at least dismissed? Why did both sides let these prima
      > get away with behavior -- and time after time, too -- that ought to
      > resulted in their being defrocked or disbarred or whatever the
      ritual is?
      > Surely, surely, after a man has blatantly, flagrantly, willfully
      > and ruined a battle plan, and unwarrantably got men killed, surely
      he ought
      > to be removed if not beheaded, even if his only possible replacement
      is a
      > 12-year-old girl? Surely, not all of the generals were civilians,
      > presumably couldn't be expected to understand that when one's
      superior gives
      > one a command, one's task is to carry it out, not to muse upon it --
      > although I confess the concept doesn't seem all that unclear to
      > civilian? Surely, not all of these generals had so much political
      pull that
      > they had to be kept on or the Republic/the Confederacy would totter?
      > So what was the reason? I would dearly love for someone to explain.
      > Madelon
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.