Patrick Cleburne as Corps Commander?

Anaxagoras

Banned
Patrick Cleburne was arguably the best division commander of the Civil War. But for whatever reason (foreign birth? lack of West Point education? advocacy of enlisting slaves into the army?) he was never given command of a corps in the Army of Tennessee. He temporarily commanded an ad hoc corps at the Battle of Jonesboro and did not do particularly well, but it can be argued that the odd circumstances of that particular engagement were more to blame than Cleburne's leadership.

Suppose Cleburne had been given command of a corps of the AoT at some point in 1864. He might have succeeded to the command of Polk's corps after Polk was killed in June, Hood's corps after Hood took command of the army in July, or Hardee's corps after Hardee was reassigned in September.

How do we think he would have done? Would he have been as good a corps commander as he had been a division commander? Or would he have turned out more like A.P. Hill, having been promoted above his own level of competency?
 
My suspicion would be like Ewell - not truly a Peter Principle candidate, but less good at corps level than division level.

As for why not, I suspect multiple factors, so a POD where he gains a corps would take some commitment on the part of whoever is trying to get him that - or Davis finding him appealing for some reason.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
As for why not, I suspect multiple factors, so a POD where he gains a corps would take some commitment on the part of whoever is trying to get him that - or Davis finding him appealing for some reason.

He was always Hardee's right hand man. If Hardee becomes the AoT commander, Cleburne would be more likely to be appointed to command his corps.
 
He was always Hardee's right hand man. If Hardee becomes the AoT commander, Cleburne would be more likely to be appointed to command his corps.

Maybe. I half-remember reading someone mentioning in another discussion on this subject that Hardee wasn't sure if Cleburne could handle a corps.

Can't see why, though.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Maybe. I half-remember reading someone mentioning in another discussion on this subject that Hardee wasn't sure if Cleburne could handle a corps.

Can't see why, though.

Not sure it was that so much as Hardee not wanting to lose his best division commander. But who knows for sure?
 
The key to Patrick Cleburne's success was that he trained his men up to a very high standard, and was always as thoroughly prepared as humanely possible. For example, Cleburne was not the type of general who would leave uncovered gaps in his line were he given time to inspect it (either personally or through a staffer), as A.P. Hill carelessly did on at least two separate occasions. He was very careful, yet also very aggressive.

I therefore think he would do well as a corps commander. Comparing him to Hood, for example, there would have been none of the abject inattention to staff work and logistics that plagued Hood's corps (and later army) command. Competency would have been his byword. He would have been at least as good as A.P. Stewart was at the same level, and perhaps even better.

However, the earliest Cleburne could have conceivably become a corps commander was in the wake of Chattanooga. Given that the entire eastern establishment was set on promoting Hood as soon as an opening became available, that opening was lost and it would be a huge stretch to say that anyone in Virginia would have overturned Hood's candidacy in favor of an unknown immigrant out West. The only way I could see that coming forward is if Hood were to sicken and die before he could be promoted.

The next opportunity was after Polk's death, and that was when A.P. Stewart was promoted. I don't see Cleburne being so much better than Stewart as to make any difference in any battle that was fought after that.

Finally, Cleburne could have been promoted to replace his mentor Hardee, following Hardee's prissy departure. Cleburne was unquestionably a better soldier than Hardee IMO. Even so, it's very hard to see such a change making any difference in the course of either the campaign or the war at such a late date.

A number of historians have pointed out that if Cleburne had been promoted to corps command in the winter of 1863/64, then it might have been Cleburne and not Hood that replaced Johnston. That is a very tasty bit of counterfactualism, but as I wrote before, I think you have to assume Hood has sickened and died for it to work... and it also looks well beyond Cleburne as a mere corps commander.
 
Maybe. I half-remember reading someone mentioning in another discussion on this subject that Hardee wasn't sure if Cleburne could handle a corps.

Can't see why, though.

Hardee was a strict, by the book general who thought you had to have years of experiance to be given a higher command position. When he was offered command of the Army of Tennessee in 1864 he thought he didn't have enough experiance to handle the position despite being a Corps Commander since early 1862, Cleburne was promoted to division command shortly before the battle of Murfreesboro and only had a year's full experiance at that level. Hardee thought Cleburne was not experianced enough to be ready for a Corps Command in 1864.

Another possible reason may have been the old US Army senstivity over seniority. When a Corps Command became available in the summer of 1864 Hardee suggested Cheatham for command of it because Cheatham had seniority over the other Division Commanders.
 
Top