Who should have commanded the Army of Tennesse?

Who should have commanded the Army of Tennesse?

  • John Bell Hood

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • William J. Hardee

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Patrick Ronayne Cleburne

    Votes: 1 8.3%
  • John C. Breckinridge

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Joseph E. Johnston (shouldn't have been removed)

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    12
Who should have commanded the Army of Tennesse after Joseph E. Johnston in 1864?

John Bell Hood - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bell_Hood

William J. Hardee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Hardee

Patrick Ronayne Cleburne - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cleburne

John C. Breckinridge - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Breckinridge

Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGT_Beauregard

Joseph E. Johnston (Shouldn't have been removed) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Johnston

Other - anyone you think could have done well in command of the Army of Tennessee
 
From everything I have ever read Joe should not have been sacked. As he was Cleburne was the best already in the west, I believe Breckingridge was in Richmond by this time if not he would have been a fair choice as he was well liked by the AOT. Hardee is second of those in theater. Beauregard tends to get a bum rap but every article by ACW historians I read rate him as good. Hood was a very good division commander but went down hill after Gettysburg. Forrest was an excellent Cavalry commander who never lost a battle he was in command of. Any of Lee's Lts. would do well but the loss of any will hurt the ANV mayhap fatally.

IIRC the order of seniority of those available besides Hood Was:
Beauregard
Breckinridge
Hardee
Cleburne
Forrest

Any of which would not have destroyed the AOT with the attack at Franklin.
 
Just a few thoughts:

I dont think that there was ever really a solid arguement for Joe Johnstons removal. He had performed admirably against Sherman and before he was replaced the AoT was losing less men while Sherman was losing more and stretching his supply lines to their limits. Joe Johnston saw his chance to attack just before his removal and planned to attack Thomas' forces and hopefully destroy or cripple them while Shermans Army was scattered but Davis removed him before he could bring his plan to action.

Why Hood was chosen above the other candidates is simple. First Davis liked him and second Hood had spent a lot of time during the Atlanta campaign criticizing his commander to the Confederate President. He had spent so long doing so that he effectively manouvered himself into Johnstons position.

William J. Hardee was Robert E. Lee's choice for commander of the AoT and when asked by Davis to recomend a new commander for that Army Lee said "...Hood is a good fighter, very industrious on the battlefield, careless off, and I have had no opportunity of judging his action, when the whole responsibility rested upon him. I have a very high opinion of his gallantry, earnestness and zeal. General Hardee has more experience in managing an army. May God give you wisdom to decide in this momentous matter." Hardee no doubt would not have thrown away the lives of his men as Hood did but whether he would prove an effective enough commander to turn Sherman away I dont know.

By all rights, if Johnston's removal was inevitable, then Beauregard should have gotten command. Not only because he was the highest ranking officer available to the Confederacy at the time but also because he had the most experience of the available candidates as an Army commander and had performed well, even though he was defeated out West. Beauregard's biggest problem is that Jefferson Davis hated him more than he hated Joe Johnston so he was never going to get command.
 
This is a tough one.

Hood is out, he was an excellent subordinate commander and a disaster as an Army commander.

Johnston did an excellent job of manuever, but he realized only too well the odds aginst him. His withdrawl from Washington earlier in the war was a careful, prudent, and wrong thing to do. For the CSA to win, they needed a leader more willing to act daringly.

Forrest has been mentioned, but while brilliant, his pride and temper could have made working with subordinates problematic.

Beauregard, Breckinridge, Cleburne, and Hardee all have potential.

I'll rate Cleburne lowest simply because he never held independant command. It's entirely possible that he could have handled being an army commander, but the war is full of men who performed well in subordinate positions, but not when commanding an Army.

Beauregard suffers from indifferent health, an obvious concern. Also, his (and Johnston's) track record when partnered with each other seems better than either man independantly.

Which leaves Breckinridge and Hardee. Lee's recommendation tips the balance for me.

So I guess my order of favoring is Hardee, Breckinridge, add Beauregard to Johnston, Beauregard, keep Johnston, Cleburne, Forrest, then Hood.

It's not surprising Jefferson Davis picked Hood. He had a talent for making bad decisions.
 
Who should have commanded the Army of Tennesse after Joseph E. Johnston in 1864?

John Bell Hood - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bell_Hood

William J. Hardee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Hardee

Patrick Ronayne Cleburne - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cleburne

John C. Breckinridge - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Breckinridge

Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGT_Beauregard

Joseph E. Johnston (Shouldn't have been removed) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Johnston

Other - anyone you think could have done well in command of the Army of Tennessee

Personally, my first choice would be not to remove Johnston in the first place. Then, in order of preference of the other choices given...

Hardee--the most experienced officer of the group, and well respected by the other generals and soldiers of the army (conflict between the generals of the AOT was the major cause of it's downfall, and I think Hardee could have avoided that).

Breckinridge--Had served with the AOT before, and like Hardee, was able to get along well with the other AOT generals.

Hood--I think Hood gets a bum rap in a lot of ways. His battle plans during the Atlanta campaign were quite good, and had they been properly carried out (there is a strong argument to be made that personal dislike between Hood and the other AOT generals had a role in the fact that they weren't), could have resulted in a far different outcome to that campaign. His strategy during the Tennessee campaign, particularly at Columbia/Spring Hill, was nothing short of brilliant. Again, poor execution by his subordinates (again, very likely partially due to personal animosity toward Hood by other AOT generals) caused the loss of an excellent opportunity created by Hood's planning. His one serious mistake...and it was a doozey...was Franklin. But if his subordinates had not failed him at Spring Hill, Franklin would never have occurred.

Beauregard--His one advantage is that he, like Hardee and Breckinridge, had served previously with the AOT and was somewhat respected by the other officers there. However, he was given to grandiose, extremely complicated planning which invariably led to chaos on the battlefield (Shiloh is a prime example of this). He was good at running a siege campaign where maneuvering troops in the field was not a big issue, but out in the field, well, he sucked.

Cleburne--Perhaps surprising that he should end up on the bottom of the list, but he had no experience commanding anything larger than a Division. We have no idea of what his skills would have been in the field of grand strategy. He demonstrated an excellent command of relatively small scale tactics, and he been raised to Corps command at some point, then he might have made a good choice, as that would have at least given him some idea of grand strategic movement. Hood at least had that advantage before he was raised to Army command.

Other choices...Nathan Bedford Forrest. Forrest actually, at the end of the war, did command a small army in central Alabama and did pretty well at it, despite being defeated at Selma by larger Union forces armed with massive firepower provided by Spencer repeating rifles. He had an instinctive grasp of strategy and tactics, and never seemed to have a problem communicating his plans to his subordinates. An AOT with Forrest in command could have been a deadly thing.
 
Top