View single post by Scout
 Posted: Sat Sep 6th, 2008 02:18 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Scout
Member
 

Joined: Thu Mar 13th, 2008
Location: Nashville
Posts: 45
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Why is it that there was so much conflict among Western Confederate Generals? And so little effective conflict among the Western Union Generals?



That is a bigggg question, I will try to focus on the earlier part of Kirby-Smith and Bragg. During the summer and fall, the invasion of Kentucky was a joint expedition. The problem was that Bragg and Kirby-Smith came from two different departments and the high command never formally worked out who had overall command...due to vague (imagine) orders Kirby-Smith operated as an independent until Bragg actually reached the Lexington area. Even when Bragg arrived, K-S was uncooperative and operated on the flank, not in conjuction with Bragg's movements.

The Confederacy had serious problems in some situations when combined armies came from different departments. (Longstreet - Bragg -Chattanooga) ( Pemberton-Johnston- Vicksburg) etc. But the Union was not without conflict. Halleck spent the better part of '62 trying to sack Grant. Sherman was practically run off in the beginning. Mcpherson was only saved by his political connections. Rosecrans was forced out ....so on and so forth. The major difference is that in spite of their issues the Union problems are not illuminated due to eventual victory. And quite clearly the success of Grant is the modifier in the above examples. A winner can rise above such conflcits (Jackson and AP Hill/ DH  Hill et al.) (Grant and Mcpherson, Warren, Rosecrans et al.)

oops i think i've diverted....

in regards to Javal's Spring hill note....it is a blunder to be sure, and certainly would have prolonged the war in middle TN, with Hood's decision at Franklin being a criminal result. i would also add Longstreet's entire East TN campaign...and Bragg's decision to send him there..

 Close Window