Who would have made an even worse CSA president than Davis?

Any of the fire eaters.

Any of them.

Davis was genuinely the best of a bad lot, that's how bad they are.
 
Well, to start with the most viable rivals, Toombs was a drunk, Cobb was love him or hate him, the Fire-eaters were Lenin-types whose ideology, like Objectivism flipped the bird at the world and called it good......and little Alec Stephens had the right attitude to be as self-destructive as some 20th Century leaders, like Davis preferring winning arguments to winning the war. Incredible as it is, Jeff Davis really was the CSA's best choice to be POCS in the 1860s. This says more about his rivals than it does about Davis. :eek:
 
Okay, I have to ask because this has just been bothering me. Hopefully those more knowledgeable about the period than I can answer it. How did the CSA have such good military officers but such terrible civilian leadership? I can't help but think that had the Confederates somehow managed to win a military victory (unlikely but doable), the political leaders would have somehow thrown it away.
 
Okay, I have to ask because this has just been bothering me. Hopefully those more knowledgeable about the period than I can answer it. How did the CSA have such good military officers but such terrible civilian leadership? I can't help but think that had the Confederates somehow managed to win a military victory (unlikely but doable), the political leaders would have somehow thrown it away.

Because political leadership is hard to find, and good generals are (relatively) easy in a war where both sides are going in with lawyers and West Pointers making up most of the officer corps.

That's the general answer, the specifics get into how the pre-war South was ruled by a selfish aristocracy.
 
Well, to start with the most viable rivals, Toombs was a drunk, Cobb was love him or hate him, the Fire-eaters were Lenin-types whose ideology, like Objectivism flipped the bird at the world and called it good......and little Alec Stephens had the right attitude to be as self-destructive as some 20th Century leaders, like Davis preferring winning arguments to winning the war. Incredible as it is, Jeff Davis really was the CSA's best choice to be POCS in the 1860s. This says more about his rivals than it does about Davis. :eek:


I thought Fire-eaters were hard core reactionaries not Communists. Maybe a drunk would have made a better president than Davis. Davis 1) Micromanaged the war 2) Appointed nothing but toadies and sycophants 3) Played favorites with his generals allowing Bragg and Pembelton stay in positions they were unsuited for while pushing off Johnston and Beauregard 4) Wasted his time on petty paperwork instead of looking at the big picture 5)Acted like a total dictator. How much worse could Toombs be?
 
I thought Fire-eaters were hard core reactionaries not Communists. Maybe a drunk would have made a better president than Davis. Davis 1) Micromanaged the war 2) Appointed nothing but toadies and sycophants 3) Played favorites with his generals allowing Bragg and Pembelton stay in positions they were unsuited for while pushing off Johnston and Beauregard 4) Wasted his time on petty paperwork instead of looking at the big picture 5)Acted like a total dictator. How much worse could Toombs be?

Different ideologies, same level of batshit insanity.

1) Lee might disagree. I'm not saying this is entirely untrue, just that it can be exaggerated.

2) Is definitely exaggerated. Davis certainly was not like Lincoln in the sense of being willing to work with men who thought poorly of him to win the war, but nor did he simply appoint men because they had chapped lips from all that butt kissing.

3) Bragg was the best commander the AoT ever had. This is not just damning the others. Beauregard was a fantasy-land strategist and he did appoint Joe Johnston to three important positions - hardly pushing him off. Obviously the second was problematic, but that had to do with both men deserving each other.

4) Is true so far as it goes, but none of the other guys have any kind of vision either.

5) A total dictator? The Confederacy could have used more dictatorship.

I don't like Davis, but the people who criticized him most loudly rarely have any room to talk.
 
Okay, I have to ask because this has just been bothering me. Hopefully those more knowledgeable about the period than I can answer it. How did the CSA have such good military officers but such terrible civilian leadership? I can't help but think that had the Confederates somehow managed to win a military victory (unlikely but doable), the political leaders would have somehow thrown it away.

The generals weren't all that hot either. Most of the competent ones looked competent primarily because they were up against dittoheads, when Lee met Meade his magic vanished for a reason. Most of the Union generals weren't what I'd call special by any standards but that lack of quality applies just as thoroughly to the CS Armies. The Thomases and Grants, Lees and Cleburnes, they were rather more rare than it seems. :(

I thought Fire-eaters were hard core reactionaries not Communists. Maybe a drunk would have made a better president than Davis. Davis 1) Micromanaged the war 2) Appointed nothing but toadies and sycophants 3) Played favorites with his generals allowing Bragg and Pembelton stay in positions they were unsuited for while pushing off Johnston and Beauregard 4) Wasted his time on petty paperwork instead of looking at the big picture 5)Acted like a total dictator. How much worse could Toombs be?

They were backing an ideological state based on an economic system most of the world at the time would have found cause to make them a pariah state. That's where the reference came in.

Davis did not micromanage the war, at least no more than Lincoln did. There was a period of time in 1862 where Lincoln and Stanton were in charge of the Union war effort and Lincoln could be quite interfering in campaigns.

That factor also applied to the Union, both Grant and Sherman got their commissions for political reasons, that's also why Rosecrans, not Thomas got the position of commander of the Army of the Ohio/Cumberland.

This is a definite thing Davis had and Lincoln did not.

This applies to the CS Departmental system which was an obvious failure from the first and Davis was unable, unwilling, or both to recognize this.

Also a factor, but morality and freedom hardly plays into how wars are won.
 
The generals weren't all that hot either. Most of the competent ones looked competent primarily because they were up against dittoheads, when Lee met Meade his magic vanished for a reason. Most of the Union generals weren't what I'd call special by any standards but that lack of quality applies just as thoroughly to the CS Armies. The Thomases and Grants, Lees and Cleburnes, they were rather more rare than it seems. :(



They were backing an ideological state based on an economic system most of the world at the time would have found cause to make them a pariah state. That's where the reference came in.

Davis did not micromanage the war, at least no more than Lincoln did. There was a period of time in 1862 where Lincoln and Stanton were in charge of the Union war effort and Lincoln could be quite interfering in campaigns.

That factor also applied to the Union, both Grant and Sherman got their commissions for political reasons, that's also why Rosecrans, not Thomas got the position of commander of the Army of the Ohio/Cumberland.

This is a definite thing Davis had and Lincoln did not.

This applies to the CS Departmental system which was an obvious failure from the first and Davis was unable, unwilling, or both to recognize this.

Also a factor, but morality and freedom hardly plays into how wars are won.


Political reasons, yes but Lincoln could work with people he disliked if it gave him victory while Davis couldn't . Lincoln said he would hold Little Mac's horse if it gave him victory. I couldn't see Davis saying that.
 
Political reasons, yes but Lincoln could work with people he disliked if it gave him victory while Davis couldn't . Lincoln said he would hold Little Mac's horse if it gave him victory. I couldn't see Davis saying that.

That would definitely be true, yes. Given how the Davis feuds with Beauregard and Johnston got started, I daresay that making McClellan a Reb would have been a brilliant move by the Union. :D
 
That would definitely be true, yes. Given how the Davis feuds with Beauregard and Johnston got started, I daresay that making McClellan a Reb would have been a brilliant move by the Union. :D


Again, outside being a drunk how was Toombs worse? Being a drunk in and of itself doesn't make you worse than Jeff Davis. After all this is JEFF DAVIS we are talking about. Serious question as I don't know the political leaders as well as the generals.
 
An aging and decrepit Sam Houston, Of course he would have entered into secret negotiations with Lincoln and had the South undone within a couple of months.

Though that would have made the South much better off, it's also why Houston was a political outcast at the time.
 
We've been talking about potential replacements of Jefferson Davis as president, but I also read that Davis had flirted with the idea of being a Confederate General. Davis had served as the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, as well as Chairman of the Commitee of Military affairs, and had raised a volunteer regiment and fought as a colonel during the Mexican American war. So, how do you think Jeff Davis would have done as a Confederate General?
 
We've been talking about potential replacements of Jefferson Davis as president, but I also read that Davis had flirted with the idea of being a Confederate General. Davis had served as the Secretary of War under Franklin Pierce, as well as Chairman of the Commitee of Military affairs, and had raised a volunteer regiment and fought as a colonel during the Mexican American war. So, how do you think Jeff Davis would have done as a Confederate General?

Badly.

Davis would be an "interesting" subordinate, and his policies as president do not indicate he'd handle high command well.
 
Well, to start with the most viable rivals, Toombs was a drunk, Cobb was love him or hate him, the Fire-eaters were Lenin-types whose ideology, like Objectivism flipped the bird at the world and called it good......and little Alec Stephens had the right attitude to be as self-destructive as some 20th Century leaders, like Davis preferring winning arguments to winning the war. Incredible as it is, Jeff Davis really was the CSA's best choice to be POCS in the 1860s. This says more about his rivals than it does about Davis. :eek:

Toombs was smart enough to know attacking Ft Sumter was a blunder. And Toombs knew getting foreign recognition required offering something in return, like favored nation trading status. Even Rhett, one of the few men who would have been a worse choice, knew that.

Davis valued loyalty above competence - Bragg, Polk, and Northop did heavy damage to the Confederate cause.

Davis was a poor judge of military skill. AS Johnston was out of his depth. Joe Johnston might have been inadequate, but replacing him with Hood was a gigantic blunder.

Davis could not tolerate dissent. Men lasted in Cabinet positions until they started having ideas of their own or Davis needed a scapegoat for his failed policies.

Davis had a talent for alienating potential allies. Wigfall, one of the few Fire Eaters who might have made a better President, started the war as Davis' friend, but that changed very rapidly.

Davis was starting to become divorced from reality. He claimed Sherman's March would be just like Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. (Grant dryly remarked that Davis had neglected to mention who would be providing the snow.) Davis claimed losing Richmond was a good thing as it freed Lee to maneuver again. After Lee and Johnston surrendered, Davis still thought the war was winnable if he could get to Texas.

Most other choices lacked at least one of these flaws. Even another man with all of these flaws probably would have had more competent (or at least less incompetent) friends than Bragg, Polk, and Northop.
 
Toombs was smart enough to know attacking Ft Sumter was a blunder. And Toombs knew getting foreign recognition required offering something in return, like favored nation trading status. Even Rhett, one of the few men who would have been a worse choice, knew that.

Davis valued loyalty above competence - Bragg, Polk, and Northop did heavy damage to the Confederate cause.

Davis was a poor judge of military skill. AS Johnston was out of his depth. Joe Johnston might have been inadequate, but replacing him with Hood was a gigantic blunder.

Davis could not tolerate dissent. Men lasted in Cabinet positions until they started having ideas of their own or Davis needed a scapegoat for his failed policies.

Davis had a talent for alienating potential allies. Wigfall, one of the few Fire Eaters who might have made a better President, started the war as Davis' friend, but that changed very rapidly.

Davis was starting to become divorced from reality. He claimed Sherman's March would be just like Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. (Grant dryly remarked that Davis had neglected to mention who would be providing the snow.) Davis claimed losing Richmond was a good thing as it freed Lee to maneuver again. After Lee and Johnston surrendered, Davis still thought the war was winnable if he could get to Texas.

Most other choices lacked at least one of these flaws. Even another man with all of these flaws probably would have had more competent (or at least less incompetent) friends than Bragg, Polk, and Northop.

Unfortunately for all that this is so, Davis was what qualified as a statesman by the standards of the Old South, and was shrewd enough to see that the UK and France would only intervene if first the CSA had already won. Toombs had a tendency to get falling-down drunk, Rhett sincerely believed his own propaganda about slavery and its benefits, Stephens had the same tendency and the kind of ideological inflexibility like Rhett that would have disintegrated the CSA far faster.....
 
Top