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

Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Questions on Leadership in the West

Expand Messages
  • James L. Choron
    Sam, Actually, Kirby-Smith wasn t too bad considering what he had to work with, which wasn t much. He did a pretty good job of holding Trans-Mississippi
    Message 1 of 11 , Aug 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Sam,

      Actually, Kirby-Smith wasn't too bad considering what he had to work with,
      which wasn't much. He did a pretty good job of holding Trans-Mississippi
      together. He was almost completely cut off after the middle of '64, and was
      faced with not only the Union Army on two fronts but with having to garrison
      for indian problems and protect a very long border with Mexico, as well as
      orchastrate blockade running and cross-border commerce. The man had his
      hands full, and didn't have too much in the way of resources to work with.

      That's one of the things that truly annoys me about the Red River Campaign,
      considering what Banks had in the way of men and resources, it did more or
      less defeat himself by his choice of routes, order of advance/battle and by
      distancing himself from his naval support. With what he had, he could have
      easily defeated Kirby-Smith's forces had he advanced and deployed properly.
      As it was, the Confederate forces only had to attack, or defend against, the
      portion of Banks' army that was actually in front of them, now his entire
      force.

      Jim

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Sam Shurtleff" <sambeaux64@...>
      To: <civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 10:39 PM
      Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Questions on Leadership in the West


      > --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "William Gower" <billgower@c...>
      > wrote:
      > > I am just new to the War in the West as my studies in the past have
      > always
      > > been on the Eastern Campaign, so this may seem like a stupid
      > question but
      > > were there any Generals in the West that were capable on the side
      > of the
      > > South?
      >
      > JEJ was, in my opinion. ASJ might have been, but he got himself
      > killed at Shiloh.
      >
      > -sam
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Art Bagley
      Here are few other CSA leaders you might consider above-average in ability: Manigault Gist Richard Taylor [trans-Mississippi] Hardee Sterling Price[?] Joe
      Message 2 of 11 , Aug 31, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Here are few other CSA leaders you might consider above-average in
        ability:

        Manigault
        Gist
        Richard Taylor [trans-Mississippi]
        Hardee
        Sterling Price[?]
        Joe Shelby

        ArtorBart
      • Tom Mix
        While Stuart was a courageous and fine commander he was not equal to Forrest. Jackson had a history of being fine as an independent commander but not as a
        Message 3 of 11 , Aug 31, 2004
        • 0 Attachment

          While Stuart was a courageous and fine commander he was not equal to Forrest. Jackson had a history of being fine as an independent commander but not as a cooperative commander working in conjunction with joint actions. Chancellorsville was fine example of his great independent but his performance at Antietam left something to be desired as well as during the 7 days. Where as Cleburne, Cheatham, Stewart, and others worked very well together in joint actions, they just had to deal with Bragg and Hood.

          Tom m

           

          -----Original Message-----
          From: LWhite64@... [mailto:LWhite64@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 2:29 PM
          To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Questions on Leadership in the West

           

          Its in the higher levels that the AOT suffered from lack of good commanders.  You have brigade and divison commanders who are on par with any in the ANV, but its the lack of Jacksons, Stuarts, etc that hurt, instead we have Polks.

           

          Lee



        • LWhite64@aol.com
          But the same can be said for Forrest, he worked well in independent command, but didnt work well with others. As to Corps command, none of them until very
          Message 4 of 11 , Aug 31, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            But the same can be said for Forrest, he worked well in independent command, but didnt work well with others.  As to Corps command, none of them until very late in the game did all that well with helping the army.  Also, the Army is torn apart by the infighting and the Commander factions, ie the Anti Bragg and Pro Bragg men, whose rivalries didnt disappear when Bragg resigned.
             
            Lee
          • Tom Mix
            Lee, Good points but even at Franklin Forrest went out and did pretty much what he was ordered to do despite a strong, some say threatening, disagreement with
            Message 5 of 11 , Aug 31, 2004
            • 0 Attachment

              Lee,

              Good points but even at Franklin Forrest went out and did pretty much what he was ordered to do despite a strong, some say threatening, disagreement with Hood. Now he didn’t do it with enthusiasm but he did it. However, Hood paid little or no attention to what Forrest reported, if my ever decreasing memory is correct.

              Forrest was better independently but that is also the nature of cavalry in general. Stuart, outside of Chancellorsville, worked independently. Buford worked in near perfect cohesion with the infantry but that was how he was redesigning the cavalry wing.

              Tom m.

               

              -----Original Message-----
              From: LWhite64@... [mailto:LWhite64@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:11 PM
              To: civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [civilwarwest] Re: Questions on Leadership in the West

               

              But the same can be said for Forrest, he worked well in independent command, but didnt work well with others.  As to Corps command, none of them until very late in the game did all that well with helping the army.  Also, the Army is torn apart by the infighting and the Commander factions, ie the Anti Bragg and Pro Bragg men, whose rivalries didnt disappear when Bragg resigned.

               

              Lee



            • DPowell334@AOL.COM
              In a message dated 8/31/2004 11:07:42 PM Central Daylight Time, ... Specifically in regard to Forrest, I must disagree. In 1863, Forrest was wholly unsuited
              Message 6 of 11 , Sep 1 3:56 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                In a message dated 8/31/2004 11:07:42 PM Central Daylight Time, tmix@... writes:


                While Stuart was a courageous and fine commander he was not equal to Forrest. Jackson had a history of being fine as an independent commander but not as a cooperative commander working in conjunction with joint actions. Chancellorsville was fine example of his great independent but his performance at Antietam left something to be desired as well as during the 7 days. Where as Cleburne, Cheatham, Stewart, and others worked very well together in joint actions, they just had to deal with Bragg and Hood.

                Tom m





                Specifically in regard to Forrest, I must disagree. In 1863, Forrest was wholly unsuited for senior cavalry command, and when he got it, he failed repeatedly to provide the kind of Intel Bragg desperately needed during either Tullahoma, the crossing of the Tennessee, or during Chickamauga. Unfortunately for Bragg, Wheeler was even worse.

                Forrest was an independent raider. He was only good in that role until late in 1864, which by then was far too late for the South.

                Of the two corps commanders and 4 division commanders holding that rank during Chickamauga, only two stand out in the AOT - William T. Martin, who was a transfer from the ANV to run a brigade and then a division under Wheeler, and Frank Armstrong, who took over Forrest's Division. The quality of their day to day reports and their understanding of the cavalry role were head and shoulders above the rest. Below them comes Wharton. Forrest was very uneven, Wheeler and Pegram complete failures.

                Dave Powell
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.