Alternate Confederate Presidents?

Besides Jefferson Davis, who were the best candidates for POTCS and would their selection have helped or hampered the CS war effort?
 
Almost anyone was a better choice than Jefferson Davis. Davis tried to fill his cabinet with yes-men and used them as scapegoats for failed policies. He micromanaged the war, yet never came up with a plan to win it. He appointed generals based on seniority and/or personal friendship. He sent diplomats to seek foreign recognition, yet gave them nothing to negotiate with. He often turned allies into enemies. And without Davis the damage done to the Confederate cause by Braxton Bragg, Leonidas Polk, Lucius Northrop, John Hood, and perhaps William Pendleton is reduced.

Best choices, IMO, but with no chance of the nomination are John Breckinridge and John Reagan. People that appear to have been considered at the time were Howell Cobb, Robert Toombs, and Alexander Stephens. Robert Barnwell Rhett probably wanted the job, and is one of the few choices I think would be worse than Davis. Toombs probably could have had the position if not for a bit of overimbibing and Stephens nearly got it, but Davis' supporters did a better job of politicking. Less likely possibilities, but not needing ASB's would be William Yancey, Christopher Memminger, and Louis Wigfall.
 
Almost anyone was a better choice than Jefferson Davis. Davis tried to fill his cabinet with yes-men and used them as scapegoats for failed policies. He micromanaged the war, yet never came up with a plan to win it. He appointed generals based on seniority and/or personal friendship. He sent diplomats to seek foreign recognition, yet gave them nothing to negotiate with. He often turned allies into enemies. And without Davis the damage done to the Confederate cause by Braxton Bragg, Leonidas Polk, Lucius Northrop, John Hood, and perhaps William Pendleton is reduced.

Best choices, IMO, but with no chance of the nomination are John Breckinridge and John Reagan. People that appear to have been considered at the time were Howell Cobb, Robert Toombs, and Alexander Stephens. Robert Barnwell Rhett probably wanted the job, and is one of the few choices I think would be worse than Davis. Toombs probably could have had the position if not for a bit of overimbibing and Stephens nearly got it, but Davis' supporters did a better job of politicking. Less likely possibilities, but not needing ASB's would be William Yancey, Christopher Memminger, and Louis Wigfall.

It seems to me unlikely that anyone will be elected Confederate president in November 1861 unless he was first elected provisional president in February 1861--which presumably rules out those of your candidates who are from Kentucky (Breckinridge) or Texas (Reagan or Wigfall). John Breckinridge might have made a good Confederate president (he was IMO the best Confederate Secretary of War, though not appointed until the situation was hopeless) but it was not until December 1861 that he was expelled from the US Senate and that Kentucky (or a government purporting to speak for it) was admitted to the Confederacy. Even Texas did not join until March 1861. (Davis was elected provisional president of the CSA on February 9, 1861, a day after the provisional Confederate Constitution was adopted. It provided that "No person, except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of one of the States of this Confederacy at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President..." http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csapro.asp

The most likely alternatives to Davis are the Georgia trio of Alexander Stephens, Robert Toombs, and Howell Cobb. The problem with Stephens is that his opposition to "despotic" Davis measures like conscription, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. would have made things even worse for the Confederacy. (Of course you might say that he opposed them only because Davis supported them, and that as president he might endorse them, but I doubt that. He seems to have been sincere, and he did not really hate Davis personally.) Cobb was somewhat controversial, being associated with the corruption of the Buchanan administration. His candidacy was really more the product of his brother Thomas than of his own efforts. Many people have wished Toombs (despite his drinking problem) had been chosen, noting that he had warned against firing on Fort Sumter. ("It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal.") But even if as president he would want to resist the temptation to fire the first shot, I doubt that Confederate public opinion would allow him to hold back for very long.

I think a fire-eater like Rhett or Yancey is unlikely--the Confederacy is trying to persuade the Upper South to join them and Great Britain to recognize them, and someone with an extremist reputation is not the right man for the job.
 
Many people have wished Toombs (despite his drinking problem) had been chosen, noting that he had warned against firing on Fort Sumter. ("It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal.") But even if as president he would want to resist the temptation to fire the first shot, I doubt that Confederate public opinion would allow him to hold back for very long.

That really makes him sound like he would have been the best man for the job then, who likely would have had to bow to public pressure but would have done it in the most intelligent way he could.

He might have been right about "It is fatal." I don't think it was ever possible for the Union to lose the war based on being outfought, unless Britain joined, but a distasteful beginning on the Union side could have potentially made the Union public lose its nerve early on, setting the stage for a later Peace Democrat victory.
 
Many people have wished Toombs (despite his drinking problem) had been chosen, noting that he had warned against firing on Fort Sumter. ("It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal.") But even if as president he would want to resist the temptation to fire the first shot, I doubt that Confederate public opinion would allow him to hold back for very long.


How long would it have needed to be? Istr that Ft Sumter's provisions were already running down when it was attacked.

Of course that would still leave Ft Pickens, so the war might just have started there instead.
 
It seems to me unlikely that anyone will be elected Confederate president in November 1861 unless he was first elected provisional president in February 1861--which presumably rules out those of your candidates who are from Kentucky (Breckinridge) or Texas (Reagan or Wigfall).

That's why I said Breckinridge and Reagan had no chance of the nomination. Even if Texas had joined before the election of the provisional president, they had too small a population for one of their men to be considered for CSA president. Reagan was one of the most effective CSA cabinet members. He seemed to understand the importance of the western theatre. And for a Confederate politician, he was amazingly good at getting along with people,

The problem with Stephens is that his opposition to "despotic" Davis measures like conscription, suspension of habeas corpus, etc. would have made things even worse for the Confederacy. (Of course you might say that he opposed them only because Davis supported them, and that as president he might endorse them, but I doubt that. He seems to have been sincere, and he did not really hate Davis personally.)

On the other hand, if President Stephens did decide those measure were necessary, it might silence opposition, much like "only Nixon could go to China". Stephens would be almost certain to have a better diplomatic policy than Davis, though foreign recognition would still be extremely unlikely. And it would be hard for Stephens not to get along better with his generals or do a better job of assessing their abilities.

Many people have wished Toombs (despite his drinking problem) had been chosen, noting that he had warned against firing on Fort Sumter. ("It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal.") But even if as president he would want to resist the temptation to fire the first shot, I doubt that Confederate public opinion would allow him to hold back for very long.

Toombs would only have to manage public opinion for a couple days to gain Ft Sumter without a shot, since they were nearly out of supplies, and the Union commander had said he was going to surrender when supplies ran out. He seems one of the clearest thinking CSA politicians, which would have helped them.

I think a fire-eater like Rhett or Yancey is unlikely--the Confederacy is trying to persuade the Upper South to join them and Great Britain to recognize them, and someone with an extremist reputation is not the right man for the job.

This is the best explanation I have seen for why the Fire Eaters were marginalized. So instead of an extremist, they chose Davis, a man incapable of admitting he was wrong and valued friendship over competence.
 
I would suggest Robert M. T. Hunter, who is still the youngest person to hold the position of Speak of the House and Hunter was pictured on the Confederate $10 bill.
He has good knowledge of law, after studying law at both the Winchester Law School and University of Virginia. He was admitted to the bar at the age of 21.
He will always try and find the common ground, he had tried to find schemes for a peaceful adjustment of the differences between the north and south.

If you can keep Stephen A. Douglas from dying of typhoid fever, he might be a good leader, he was nicknamed the "little giant" for his short physical form was out done by his powerful and decisive figure in politics.
He was also a stanch believer in democracy.

John C. Breckinridge should have been in Confederate politics way before 1865, he was given the duty of trying to win the War, after years of defeat, its like giving a mechanic a car after its been crushed into a cube asking him if he can fix it. I know Breckinridge was a little young to take command of the state, at only 40.

Last but not least Joseph E. Johnston or Robert E. Lee, both of these men were decorated military career officers.
As soon as they succeeded they knew they were heading for war, it was the only known future of the CSA, so why not choice a man who had already lead an army into war, why not try and run a nation that was being led into a war.
 
Honestly, I think most choices for president would be worse than Davis, who has a kind of unfairly bad reputation. For all that he gets the blame for sticking with his favorite generals, Lee, A.S. Johnston and Bragg are almost certainly better than political generals that could have gotten the positions, and better than many of the generals that Lincoln gave high command to. Also, if someone from Georgia or South Carolina had been president(i.e. Cobb or Stephens) or even worse, someone from Virginia, then the C.S.A's focus on the eastern theater at the expense of the west would have been far more pronounced. Frankly, given how ineffective most of the Confederate government was (admittedly, partly due to Davis' autocratic nature), it's hard to see anyone aside from Breckinridge or Reagan (who are both already discounted) as being much better.

Also, the idea of Stephen Douglas as Confederate president manages to make no sense on multiple levels.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Stephen A. Douglas ?

Also, the idea of Stephen Douglas as Confederate president manages to make no sense on multiple levels.

Stephen A. Douglas?:confused: in the confederacy? A collective "huh?" rolls across the cosmos...

Yeah, I'm seconding the motion of the gentleman from Perhapsburg on this one...

Left field choice would have been John Tyler, although being a Virginian, the timing is off - of course, he'd already been president, once.:rolleyes:

Best,
 

Gaius Julius Magnus

Gone Fishin'
If you can keep Stephen A. Douglas from dying of typhoid fever, he might be a good leader, he was nicknamed the "little giant" for his short physical form was out done by his powerful and decisive figure in politics.
He was also a stanch believer in democracy.

.
The man who in the last few days of the election campaigned against southern secession, in the last days of his life supported Lincoln and the Union war effort, and wasn't even from the South?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I've been doing a great deal of research on Robert Toombs for my upcoming novel House of the Proud (sequel to Shattered Nation), in which he is a major character. Had he become President, he would have had some strengths and some weaknesses. His most obvious weakness, the one which lost him the chance of being President during the Montgomery Convention, was his drinking problem. He drank a lot, he drank often, and he couldn't hold his liquor at all. Just two drinks would send the poor fellow over the edge. Needless to say, this is not a good quality in a chief executive.

Another factor to consider is that Toombs despised the idea of a standing army and a professional officer corps. He hated West Point and the men who had graduated from it, considering them little more than foolish snobs. He was one of the few men in the Confederacy who thought Robert E. Lee was an idiot. Although his own military service as a brigade commander had one moment of glory at Antietam, it was otherwise disastrous; nevertheless, he thought he knew better how to run armies and fight battles than any professional officer. I don't think that this would been a very beneficial trait for the President of what would have been an embattled nation.

On the other hand, one of the things Toombs would have had going for him was that he understood government finance and fiscal policy better than perhaps any other Southern statesman. He saw the folly of trying to finance the war through printed money and tried to stop it, but no one was paying any attention. State's righter that he was, Toombs still felt that heavier taxation would have been preferable to additional printed money. The South lost the war because of inflation more than any other single cause. Davis never quite grasped the nature of the problem, but Toombs surely would have. Whether he could have done anything about it is another question.
 
If you can keep Stephen A. Douglas from dying of typhoid fever, he might be a good leader, he was nicknamed the "little giant" for his short physical form was out done by his powerful and decisive figure in politics.
He was also a stanch believer in democracy.

if the POD was back in 1840s sure. i mean you have to completely change his political dynamic from a staunch unionist to a pro-slaver
 
The man who in the last few days of the election campaigned against southern secession, in the last days of his life supported Lincoln and the Union war effort, and wasn't even from the South?

Also the man who criticized Lincoln for not calling out more men? Why not Fremont while he is at it?:rolleyes:
 
I've been doing a great deal of research on Robert Toombs for my upcoming novel House of the Proud (sequel to Shattered Nation), in which he is a major character. Had he become President, he would have had some strengths and some weaknesses. His most obvious weakness, the one which lost him the chance of being President during the Montgomery Convention, was his drinking problem. He drank a lot, he drank often, and he couldn't hold his liquor at all. Just two drinks would send the poor fellow over the edge. Needless to say, this is not a good quality in a chief executive.

Another factor to consider is that Toombs despised the idea of a standing army and a professional officer corps. He hated West Point and the men who had graduated from it, considering them little more than foolish snobs. He was one of the few men in the Confederacy who thought Robert E. Lee was an idiot. Although his own military service as a brigade commander had one moment of glory at Antietam, it was otherwise disastrous; nevertheless, he thought he knew better how to run armies and fight battles than any professional officer. I don't think that this would been a very beneficial trait for the President of what would have been an embattled nation.

On the other hand, one of the things Toombs would have had going for him was that he understood government finance and fiscal policy better than perhaps any other Southern statesman. He saw the folly of trying to finance the war through printed money and tried to stop it, but no one was paying any attention. State's righter that he was, Toombs still felt that heavier taxation would have been preferable to additional printed money. The South lost the war because of inflation more than any other single cause. Davis never quite grasped the nature of the problem, but Toombs surely would have. Whether he could have done anything about it is another question.

No, the biggest reasons the South lost because it had 1/3 the population, 1/10 the industry and no one to counter US Grant. Not that inflation wasn't devastating, but it was as much a symptom as a disease. I agree the South should have taxed more and not print up as much money but part of the reason you had high inflation is that when the Yankees took an area and the people fled from it they took their money with them resulting in more money in a smaller area. Add to it the fact that every time you had a Yankee raid that destroyed property you had less goods made with the same amount of money floating around, at the end of the war it skyrocketed as no one wanted to be the last person holding CSA dollars when it was clearly only a matter of time before it became worthless.
 
Top