Jefferson Davis Confederate General

[JWQ]

Even those Peace Democrats (beyond the traitorous copperheads) really didn't want to end the war with a recognized Confederacy. They wanted a negotiated Peace to end the war with a Union Victory. 1864 is simply too late for the war to be won for the Confederacy, and I very much doubt that a General Davis shifts the balance that significantly.

Not really relevant. Lincoln was worried he might lose the election, but when you actually look at the results his fears were actually completely unfounded. Lincoln CRUSHED McClellan. It wasn't even close. You'd need massive shifts in multiple states to get McClellan to even have a decent showing. to actually win you'd need the vote totals shifting by 5+ percent in many states, which its extremely difficult to have happen. Even IF it did, that doesn't actually give the CSA much of a boost. Why? Because Lincoln is still president. He's still president until March 1865, that gives five months to continue the war, and by that point Petersburg is less than a month from falling. When it goes Richmond falls too.

Beyond even that, the shifting fortunes of war meant McClellan had to completely denounce the entire peace platform of the copperheads. And since McClellan himself was a former general, if an overly cautious one, I sincerely doubt there are any circumstances under which he looks at the military situation in March 1865 and decides, "yeah, let's just abandon the war we've got in the bag and give up. That seems sound."

There's no evidence of that. Yes many people in the Lincoln Administration and among the Republicans thought losing the election inevitable, but the thing is they aren't actually a reliable source on that front, because they don't have the information we do. IF the election had been close then you might have a point. But it wasn't. 1864 was a landslide. Lincoln beat McClellan across the board. He got 55% of the vote, TEN TIMES more electoral votes. McClellan only carried three states. He only even came CLOSE in three more, Pennsylvania, New York, and Conneticut. And even if all three swung to him, Linclon still would have won in a slam dunk. If the ENTIRE Confederacy had been allowed to vote in the election then Lincoln still would have crushed McClellan nationally.

The Blind Memorandum was a pledge to respect the election results if they should go against him, which is crtical because the United States at the time was very fragile, and if someone at the time had decided to be 45 instead then it might well have doomed the country even after Union victory.

You have a major flaw in your logic. Lincoln believed that he would lose without significant military success. He got the success and won comfortably. You are arguing that since he won comfortably, he didn't need the success. I'll take his judgment over yours.

No, you're making the mistake of assuming the people of the time had perfect judgement of their situation. This is completely untrue. You're just saying correlation equals causation. But the reality is that elections aren't nearly so cut and dry as the simplistic cause and effect put forward says. Would McClellan have done better if Atlanta hadn't fallen? Probably. But he wouldn't have done one hundred electoral votes better. That's why I pointed out that even if he managed to flip the "close" states (that is states with under a 5% margin) he still would have been thrashed by Lincoln in the end. McClellan needs a swing of 7% nationwide for that to happen, and there's no basis to think its ever going to. Lincoln, despite his fears was very popular with a very important group, the army, and while they weren't allowed to vote in several states (notably New York, which was the closest state in the election) they DID write home urging their families to support him.

This sort of thing is something that Lincoln almost certainly didn't know, but we can with hindsight see it. Lincoln winning reelection wasn't the result of some specific military success.

before I begin I'm not responsible for slavery or even the constitution protecting slavery. It would have probably been better without cotton gon reviving slavery while not praising slavery I will note that slavery created a biracial society in the south. I do agree with President Lincoln that the bonds holding the nation together would be strained if America made a rabid break from the past. I support allowing slavery to eventually die out a natural death with no Jim crow and the south preserving the economy. Black people also won't have to suffer massive unemployment either with the economy being preserved instead of imminently ending. Also, race relations could mean coexistence in their biracial society. Unlike in the north where Free-Soilers didn't want plantations to take the best land and bring black people in their frontier. I favor before slavery ends on the south desired time table allow laws to soften slavery.

1 Yes Jefferson Davis probably could have defeated General Sherman before he was even close to Atlanta here is a could documentary

2 Davis would have been the better of the political generals, but he would not have been the best option to stop Sherman either. Actually, Joe Johnston had the right idea of preserving limited southern manpower exchanging it for land. The confederacy, fortunately, has a nice list of good generals that could very well stop Sherman.

3 Yes the south could have won their independence. Lincoln very well could have lost his election if Atlanta had been a confederate victory. Or even if other battles had gone different Lincoln would have lost the election.

4th. The border states did look favorably on the side of the peace democrats and it was thought that the democrats would have done well in 2 new England states Connecticut, New Hampshire. George B. McClellan could have won the Belllwheather states of Penslaviania, Ohio, Indiana The soldiers under his command actually loved him and it is possible he could have retained Loyalist support from the army of the potamic. Nonetheless, he might still be have been able to rely on civilian voting support. If the confederates could have held on to Atlanta that media victory could not be used to the Republicans' advantage.

When President George B. McClellan is inaugurated on March 4th and promises to end the war as active commander in chief. President Mcclellan makes sure soldiers are to be given full pardons. The emancipation proclamation will be canceled as it was illegal, to begin with. Eventually, the court would strike against the emancipation proclamation. The freed slaves would likely be deported to Liberia rather than be returned to their masters. The president would favor the southern states quickly returning the union if politics allow it back to Jefferson Davis as a general then

B

 

[Just a Turteldove Fan]

No, they weren't both good people. The Confederacy was founded upon slavery. It fought in defense of, and to expand slavery. It was evil. And so were the people who fought for it.

Sorry to disagree with you. But just to keep it clear, I do not defend the CSA. Slavery as Linchon once said is a moral evil. Is totally stupid and one of the worse crime in human history. But we can just say, they were bad people. Because not all were, Lee for example. He did not like Slavery and he only join the South because of Virginia. Both sides were bad. Even if the north was in some way better. The north didn't have slavery but they did had inmigrants. And we all know how opresed they were. The Union did not figth for Slavery they did so to preserb the union. As Linchon said numerous times, this changed when the North aproved to outlaw slavery, compleatly. The problem with our times is we say time after time. CSA bad and US good. No is not true, most of the people in the CSA didn't have slaves. They were to poor, the people are not necesarily bad. They were just teached to think that slavery was good. The people weren't bad, the institution of slavery was bad. The south had the rigtn to succede, but they did attack the federal propety. But to keep it clear, no law existed to prevent leaving the Union. And the war was pretty much cause by Linchon, that did not want to sell the forts to the confederecy when he could. I'm not trying to justify the CSA, just keep clear that thousand of people died because of Linchon words. Was it woth it, well that is something you need to think yourself. I personally think that was worth it. Because million of Slaves could stop leaving as such. But well no one haves the truth about the Civil war. Because nor the Union, nor the CSA were good. Even if the CSA had bad institutions, this doesn't keep the Union free of crimes, like the genocides to the natives. So stop protecting both of them, because no one was good. Both countries made things wrong, like all countries. So please, stop defending any sides. In wars, there is no good side and bad side. There are only two sides, I don't have anything more to say. Have a good day gentleman.

 

[JWQ]

Sorry to disagree with you. But just to keep it clear, I do not defend the CSA. Slavery as Linchon once said is a moral evil. Is totally stupid and one of the worse crime in human history. But we can just say, they were bad people. Because not all were, Lee for example. He did not like Slavery and he only join the South because of Virginia. Both sides were bad. Even if the north was in some way better. The north didn't have slavery but they did had inmigrants. And we all know how opresed they were. The Union did not figth for Slavery they did so to preserb the union. As Linchon said numerous times, this changed when the North aproved to outlaw slavery, compleatly. The problem with our times is we say time after time. CSA bad and US good. No is not true, most of the people in the CSA didn't have slaves. They were to poor, the people are not necesarily bad. They were just teached to think that slavery was good. The people weren't bad, the institution of slavery was bad. The south had the rigtn to succede, but they did attack the federal propety. But to keep it clear, no law existed to prevent leaving the Union. And the war was pretty much cause by Linchon, that did not want to sell the forts to the confederecy when he could. I'm not trying to justify the CSA, just keep clear that thousand of people died because of Linchon words. Was it woth it, well that is something you need to think yourself. I personally think that was worth it. Because million of Slaves could stop leaving as such. But well no one haves the truth about the Civil war. Because nor the Union, nor the CSA were good. Even if the CSA had bad institutions, this doesn't keep the Union free of crimes, like the genocides to the natives. So stop protecting both of them, because no one was good. Both countries made things wrong, like all countries. So please, stop defending any sides. In wars, there is no good side and bad side. There are only two sides, I don't have anything more to say. Have a good day gentleman.

While I truly do appreciate you commenting about this. The discussion was supposed to be about Jefferson Davis as a general. Yet somehow I was the one who got blamed for everything accused of glorifying slavery. (Out of context however if it makes anyone feel any better the love of my life is half Black and we have discussed marriage)
So may I ask you to vote who would be the Best General for the Army of the Tennessee or Mississippi?

 

[Walle Ras]

He may have done better as a General than as a President. From what I've read, he was a fairly competent officer... though his medical condition may have hampered him as a field commander, particularly in winter months. He had some organizational ability - maybe he'd be a good QM?
The "lost cause" mythologising has made a lot of people forget it, but Davis wasn't particularly popular as a President... he was damn near despised by a good many of the populace...

Actual lost causer

Only like him relatively, not a huge fan nor have I ever heard of any of my southern nationalist freinds being huge fans.

Lee is where its at.

 

[Aghasverov]

Actual lost causer

Only like him relatively, not a huge fan nor have I ever heard of any of my southern nationalist freinds being huge fans.

Lee is where its at.

A Chasid is a "lost causer"? I'm intrigued....
Granted, there's JP Benjamin... and also David Yulee (who converted), but still....

 

[JWQ]

A Chasid is a "lost causer"? I'm intrigued....
Granted, there's JP Benjamin... and also David Yulee (who converted), but still....

Please argue on conversations I Dont want to get banned.

 

[Aghasverov]

Please argue on conversations I Dont want to get banned.

Understood. Not intending to start an argument, just commented b/c I find it interesting, s'all

 

[JWQ]

Understood. Not intending to start an argument, just commented b/c I find it interesting, s'all

Oh I appreciate it,but this discussion got out of hand a month ago it went from supposed to be about Jefferson Davis or good Confederate generals. To how the union are morally right and how the confederacies evil .well I don’t want it to be like that. You are free to watch my other discussions and even comment .

 

[Comte de Geneve]

I voted for Breckenridge but the more I think about it Kirby Smith would have been the best choice. I think he is greatly underrated since he spent much of the war as the pro-consul of the trans-Mississippi. I don't understand those who voted for Cleburne since he was never of sufficient seniority to merit an army command. That said I think Jeff Davis would have been of more value to the CSA as a general than as President. Even if that does nothing else than keeping Bragg (ech!) from command.

 

[JWQ]

I voted for Breckenridge but the more I think about it Kirby Smith would have been the best choice. I think he is greatly underrated since he spent much of the war as the pro-consul of the trans-Mississippi. I don't understand those who voted for Cleburne since he was never of sufficient seniority to merit an army command. That said I think Jeff Davis would have been of more value to the CSA as a general than as President. Even if that does nothing else than keeping Bragg (ech!) from command.

Well Bragg was good at training troops and in my timeline he’s the general of training troops program. For the army of Tennessee or Mississippi I think Hardy would’ve been the best pick. In my alternative history Cleburne is promoted to corps commander . Kirby Smith is definitely a good trans Mississippi general and Had him instead of Van Dorn in my timeline. I plan after a illegal usage of black confederate militia acting as soldiers I plan for my alternative president to replace possibly court-martial them with Jeff Davis as the new commander of the army of Tennessee despite success from Hardee and Cleburne.

 

[JWQ]

Actual lost causer

Only like him relatively, not a huge fan nor have I ever heard of any of my southern nationalist freinds being huge fans.

Lee is where its at.

Most of lost cause is propaganda,but I would not say all of it. After all victory = writing history books 📚. We have come to the point when anything ever sympathetic to CSA is evil and propaganda. But I’ll be reasonable I think
Anyway what do you have to say about good picks for the Western theater? Also I like some union Generals Winfield Scott, Rock 🪨 of Chickamag, I think the Lee Wallace the author of Ben Hurr is a good writer and I’m glad he could write his book.

anyway if you like you could message me at doing a better job of presenting both sympathetic view points heck everyone is welcome to

 

[JWQ]

Jefferson davis Talent as a confederate general or sectary of war

Suppose Jefferson Davis had rejected the offer of being the president of the confederate states of America. Instead, he preferred to be General in the confederate army, particularly the rank of General in chief of the confederate army. Still, He was willing to be posted where ever the...

www.alternatehistory.com

If the conversation is about Jefferson Davis military talent or feasibility to what likely post he would’ve earned had he rejected the presidency please comment