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

How did the CSA have such good military officers but such terrible civilian leadership?

The short answer is that they didn't. Lee was a good theatre commander, the other army commanders didn't even come close. None of them demonstrated the strategic vision to coordinate multiple theatres while the Union produced at least four men who did.
 
Different ideologies, same level of batshit insanity.
Well you could say the same about Davis... they all supported slavery. The Fire-Eaters were distinguished by being the pushers of secession, but with seccession done were they really distinctively insane in any way that would have handicapped the war effort?
 
Last edited:
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.....

Although getting falling down drunk is a handicap I don't think all by itself makes him worse than Davis. Davis had many handicaps.
 
Well you could say the same about Davis... they all supported slavery. The Fire-Eaters were distinguished by being the pushers of secession, but with seccession done were they really distinctively insane in any way that would have handicapped the war effort?

That would depend on the individual, but they would be even less capable of compromise of any sort whatsoever than Davis, who was capable of seeing reason at times.

Although getting falling down drunk is a handicap I don't think all by itself makes him worse than Davis. Davis had many handicaps.

Since Snake hasn't elaborated on how it is a handicap, why do you think it isn't crippling to his ability to perform any of the functions of president through either being in a stupor or a handover?
 
Although getting falling down drunk is a handicap I don't think all by itself makes him worse than Davis. Davis had many handicaps.

Put it this way-suppose that a major crisis is hitting the CSA on the battlefield and the President has drunk himself into a stupor and is unable to respond. Who reacts in that situation? The Veep? Secretary of War? Samuel Cooper? Suppose also that Toombs writes a letter to Lincoln, Davis-style and does so drunkenly. In the honor-bound CS society he'd look dumber than in the relatively less so North by far.
 
Well you could say the same about Davis... they all supported slavery. The Fire-Eaters were distinguished by being the pushers of secession, but with seccession done were they really distinctively insane in any way that would have handicapped the war effort?

Yes, yes, they really were. Imagine a CSA that tries to restart the slave trade.....you'd get an Anglo-US curbstomp of the Confederacy. :eek:
 
That would depend on the individual, but they would be even less capable of compromise of any sort whatsoever than Davis, who was capable of seeing reason at times.



Since Snake hasn't elaborated on how it is a handicap, why do you think it isn't crippling to his ability to perform any of the functions of president through either being in a stupor or a handover?


It is less that it isn't crippling more that it may be the lesser of two evils. Davis had so many flaws that a drunk might actually do better. We ARE talking about Jeff Davis here. That isn't exactly a high standard to meet.
 
It is less that it isn't crippling more that it may be the lesser of two evils. Davis had so many flaws that a drunk might actually do better. We ARE talking about Jeff Davis here. That isn't exactly a high standard to meet.

Toombs had the usual prickliness of a Confederate politician and you either loved him or hated him. The people who hated him, and Rhett will hate any CS President whose name is not Rhett, will hate him more venomously than Davis's haters hated him. There will be haters who gonna hate regardless, but if it's more vindictive you get the same problems in a different fashion. Particularly if South Carolina goes ahead and bombards Sumter anyway.
 
Put it this way-suppose that a major crisis is hitting the CSA on the battlefield and the President has drunk himself into a stupor and is unable to respond. Who reacts in that situation? The Veep? Secretary of War? Samuel Cooper? Suppose also that Toombs writes a letter to Lincoln, Davis-style and does so drunkenly. In the honor-bound CS society he'd look dumber than in the relatively less so North by far.

The VP or Secretary of War I presume. Writing a letter to Lincoln while drunk may well be less of a problem than some of the things Davis did. I am NOT saying him being a drunk is not a problem just that it might be less of a problem than Jeff Davis. This is more about what I think of Davis than anything else.
 
The VP or Secretary of War I presume. Writing a letter to Lincoln while drunk may well be less of a problem than some of the things Davis did. I am NOT saying him being a drunk is not a problem just that it might be less of a problem than Jeff Davis. This is more about what I think of Davis than anything else.

And that would be necessarily constitutional how? Suppose when Toombs sobers up he cashiers the Secretary of War and rescinds all those orders as a threat to his own power.
 
It is less that it isn't crippling more that it may be the lesser of two evils. Davis had so many flaws that a drunk might actually do better. We ARE talking about Jeff Davis here. That isn't exactly a high standard to meet.

No, but it is someone who can usually avoid suicidally stupid decisions.

A drunk, I'm not sure.
 
And that would be necessarily constitutional how? Suppose when Toombs sobers up he cashiers the Secretary of War and rescinds all those orders as a threat to his own power.

That's the Secretary of War's job to a large extent. The president is there for the long term political-strategic questions not the daily crisis.
 
No, but it is someone who can usually avoid suicidally stupid decisions.

A drunk, I'm not sure.


Just because he is a drunk doesn't mean he is drunk ALL the time. Depending on what type of drunk he is he may not even want to make decisions when he is drunk.
 
Since Snake hasn't elaborated on how it is a handicap, why do you think it isn't crippling to his ability to perform any of the functions of president through either being in a stupor or a handover?

1) Toombs was not a heavy enough drinker for his performance to be crippled in OTL.

2) Davis was periodically incapacitated by neuralgia.
 
Just because he is a drunk doesn't mean he is drunk ALL the time. Depending on what type of drunk he is he may not even want to make decisions when he is drunk.

There have been several famous/successful politicans that drank a lot: Peter the Great, Churchill, Sam Houston, ...

Among military men prussian general Blücher is a good example of an functioning alcoholic: He was both a strong drunk and a gambler but still very successful because he picked the right subordinates to do all the planing.
 
There have been several famous/successful politicans that drank a lot: Peter the Great, Churchill, Sam Houston, ...

Among military men prussian general Blücher is a good example of an functioning alcoholic: He was both a strong drunk and a gambler but still very successful because he picked the right subordinates to do all the planing.


Exactly, and he doesn't have to be a Churchill. He just has to be more sucessful than Jeff Davis. This isn't exactly hard to do.
 
Top