WI: Jefferson Davis as Confederate General, not President?

[Zioneer]

How could Jefferson Davis (who as I understand was considered to be a terrible Southern president) become a Confederate general, rather than the leader of the Confederacy?

Who would become President in his absence, and what would likely be his reputation among the Southern generals?

How about in a modified Civil War, i.e., a sort of Civil War that happens without the Texas annexation or the Mexican-American War? I ask this because in my Deseret TL, there will be no Mexican-American War, and I was wondering if I could use Jefferson Davis for a different purpose than in OTL.

 

[Elfwine]

He certainly would have preferred being a general, but I'm not sure he'd be that good at it. Not sure who takes his place - all the available options (in 1860 at least) are even worse.

 

[Know Nothing]

Breckinridge would have been an excellent choice as president but he is only possible in a scenario where the South provokes a conflict immediately and then the Upper South secede as well when Lincoln calls for volunteers.

Because they are not accepting a Kentuckian as president unless Kentucky has seceded.

 

[Alternatehistoryguy47]

If I remember correctly, Robert Toombs wanted to be the Confederate President... maybe he gets picked instead, and Davis offers his services to the new Confederacy?

 

[Zioneer]

If I remember correctly, Robert Toombs wanted to be the Confederate President... maybe he gets picked instead, and Davis offers his services to the new Confederacy?

So Toombs would be the most likely Confederate President if Davis isn't one?

Going back to my third question, if a smaller-scale Civil War erupted in the 1850s (or even on schedule in the 1860s, but with different circumstances), without the territories won in the Mexican war, who would be Confederate president, and what would Davis's role be? Could he still be a general then? Which OTL figures would not become generals, and who would become generals regardless?

 

[Readman]

Well for one the Mexican War is where R.E.Lee made his name, so there's one. that's not to say he might not distinguish himself in another theatre

 

[Nytram01]

It's easy to get Davis to be a Confederate General instead of President. Have Toombs or Cobb or Stephens or any public figure from South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi or Lousiana become the President of th Provisional Government of the Confederacy instead of Davis and he'll continue in the role of Mississippi's top militia General - instead of handing that role to Polk - and never get involved in politics as a politician and when the Confederacy moves on from Provisional to full then whoever was the Provisional President will become full President.

Likely Davis will take the command Polk had in OTL and Polk will be his main subordinate, then he will willingly subordinate himself to Albert Sidney Johnston. He may even, eventually, become Commander of the Army of Mississippi/Tennessee.

 

[AtriumCarceris]

From what I know, it's not too out there for Davis to be a general, as apparently he would have preferred it. Who would be president instead though, I couldn't say. I put Davis as president in my Timeline and replaced him with Judah Benjamin because he was useful to the story, not because I felt he was actually an incredibly likely replacement.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

How could Jefferson Davis (who as I understand was considered to be a terrible Southern president) become a Confederate general, rather than the leader of the Confederacy?

Who would become President in his absence, and what would likely be his reputation among the Southern generals?

How about in a modified Civil War, i.e., a sort of Civil War that happens without the Texas annexation or the Mexican-American War? I ask this because in my Deseret TL, there will be no Mexican-American War, and I was wondering if I could use Jefferson Davis for a different purpose than in OTL.

Jeff Davis had been in the military beforehand and then a senator and then a Secretary of War at one point, that he was a man who was at home in military affairs was well tested. Breckenridge, like someone said, could be president since he did run on the Southern Democrat (and pro-secession) ticket against Lincoln in 1860.

As for an earlier Civil War, well, aside from a few critical issues that weren't the Mex-Am War I don't think there would've been much of a chance aside from either Taylor's Texas dispute (ended by his death) or the Nullification Crisis, both of which were more poignant issues that illustrated greater tensions.

The problem was with the Civil War was that the Southerners were the ones who were going to be reactionary, the whole thing was the South feeling encroached upon, it doesn't make their reasons any less immoral but it does make their behavior somewhat more predictable in the event of a crisis. The Mexican-American War was hugely a Southern-backed effort, the North wasn't going to declare war on the South for it.

 

[Elfwine]

Encroached on after the North finally got sick of the South pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing.

How dare the rest of the country vote for a candidate that doesn't do everything the South wants on slavery.

The relevance to this: So long as the South considers anything less than having slavery assured of the full support of the government unacceptable, sooner or latter things will break down.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Encroached on after the North finally got sick of the South pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing and pushing.

How dare the rest of the country vote for a candidate that doesn't do everything the South wants on slavery.

The relevance to this: So long as the South considers anything less than having slavery assured of the full support of the government unacceptable, sooner or latter things will break down.

Indeed, I'm not one of those interminable Lost Causers I was just saying that the South was largely reactionary, and yes, the way the system worked, it is very possible that the Civil War would always have happened in some way.

 

[Elfwine]

Indeed, I'm not one of those interminable Lost Causers I was just saying that the South was largely reactionary, and yes, the way the system worked, it is very possible that the Civil War would always have happened in some way.

Reactionary as in ultra-conservative, yes, reactionary as in reacting to outside actions...is downplaying how it created the circumstances that lead to some Illinois lawyer winning in 1860.

Intentionally or not.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Reactionary as in ultra-conservative, yes, reactionary as in reacting to outside actions...is downplaying how it created the circumstances that lead to some Illinois lawyer winning in 1860.

Intentionally or not.

Indeed, the South was plenty willing to be very proactive if it needed to be, i.e. the previously-cited Mexican-American War and the fact that it was largely motivated by Southern expansionism.

 

[Elfwine]

Indeed, the South was plenty willing to be very proactive if it needed to be, i.e. the previously-cited Mexican-American War and the fact that it was largely motivated by Southern expansionism.

And provocative, as the "compromise" of 1850 indicated.

 

[Errnge]

without the mexican american war, a lot of the circumstances would be different from 1850-1865.

no pres. taylor (the hero of the mexican war) which means no pres. fillmore. less worry over expanding slavery...

i don't know, you might not even have a civil war without the mexican american war

 

[Fiver]

As President, Davis had a talent for making enemies, an inability to admit he was wrong, a capacity for self-delusion, cared about loyalty (meaning complete agreement) more than competence, and wasn;t near as smart as he thought he was.

Those traits aren't going to help him as a general, either.

He also suffered from intermittent bouts of neuralgia, which would severely impede his ability to command in the field.

 

[pnyckqx]

without the mexican american war, a lot of the circumstances would be different from 1850-1865.

no pres. taylor (the hero of the mexican war) which means no pres. fillmore. less worry over expanding slavery...

i don't know, you might not even have a civil war without the mexican american war

Not to mention no combat experience for Jefferson Davis or a myriad of other CW generals on both sides.

It kind of makes the point of him serving as a general moot.

 

[Zioneer]

As President, Davis had a talent for making enemies, an inability to admit he was wrong, a capacity for self-delusion, cared about loyalty (meaning complete agreement) more than competence, and wasn;t near as smart as he thought he was.

Those traits aren't going to help him as a general, either.

He also suffered from intermittent bouts of neuralgia, which would severely impede his ability to command in the field.

What was he good at, then? What role could he play well in the Confederacy?

 

[Thespitron 6000]

What was he good at, then? What role could he play well in the Confederacy?

Vice-President.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

What was he good at, then? What role could he play well in the Confederacy?

Could always be Secretary of War like he had been in the US government except for the other side this time around, probably his best position really, I didn't know about the neuralgia thing but he was truly an atrocious leader as CSA president, stubborn, pigheaded, played favorites with his generals, sucked in general.

Give him an advisory (i.e. cabinet) position where he isn't the big boss but that lets him practice his specialties.