Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
10-03-2011, 14:29   #1
PatsytheNazi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shankill Road, Loyalist East Belfast
Posts: 1,219
Why were the Confederate officers so better than the Union ones ?

In the American Civil War, the Confederate officers from junior to senior seemed to be so better than the Union officers. Why so ?

It seems to me that the Union army, through no fault of the rank and file who fought with as much bravery and tenacity as the Confederates but seemed to have poor leadership and eventually won by superior numbers and resources. I was going to post this on the History forum but I'm sure Manic Moran and a few of more of you military guys would have more knowledge.
PatsytheNazi is offline  
Advertisement
10-03-2011, 14:50   #2
Raging_Ninja
Registered User
 
Raging_Ninja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 887
That may have been true in the east, but it was the other way round in the west where the Union forces did quite well against the Confederates.
Raging_Ninja is offline  
10-03-2011, 23:41   #3
n32
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,005
Slightly off topic but keep an eye out for ''Gettysburg'' on one of those movies4men on Sky (channel 323) i think. Martin Sheen is in it and a few more big names. THe film is in 3 two hour blocks. It covers the Battle of Gettysburg from the Union and the Confederate side and it is a superb film. There is one very poignant subplot where a Confederate officer is remeniscing about the outbreak of the war and the breakup of former comades who went their separate ways to both sides. A must see.
n32 is online now  
11-03-2011, 00:59   #4
Corsendonk
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,894
Politics? The Army of the Potomac seemed more concerned with who had what job than the actual enemy.


http://www.wood.army.mil/engrmag/pdf...n%20secure.pdf
Corsendonk is offline  
(3) thanks from:
11-03-2011, 12:32   #5
donaghs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,308
Many Confederates were motivated by what they saw as a Northern invasion of their homelands. The North didn't have the same strong unifying motivations. The main motivation in the North was to put down a rebellion. The end of slavery was a very noble cause, but was not an official war aim until after Gettysburg, and unfortunately to be blunt, not everyone in the North was sympathetic towards the slaves or Black people.
donaghs is offline  
Advertisement
11-03-2011, 20:02   #6
banie01
Registered User
 
banie01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,480
You also should take account of the much higher proportion of Southern born officers who entered the army and had a military education.

The majority of Southern planter family sons attended military schools for their initial education(Even today there is a preponderance of Military schools in the South)and even the majority of Westpoint attendees and graduates upto 1861 were from Southern states.

This focus on martial education came about in part from Southern upper classes believe that they were the inheritors of the European chivalric ideal and is further evidenced by the widespread practice of duelling and honour killings in the antebellum south.

In the South it was a respectable and honoured profession to enter the army. Professional Soldiery was seen by Southern planters as an almost a Knightly vocation,( there are some very interesting works on this thesis, I'll see if I can find the links)
One that was supported via the old wealth and aristocratic aspirations of the planter class.
Whereas in the antebellum North with the Industrial explosion and the growth in trade and enterprise, many men who would otherwise seek their futures in the army persued their American dream instead.

Last edited by banie01; 11-03-2011 at 21:33. Reason: Added paragraph
banie01 is offline  
11-03-2011, 22:41   #7
Manic Moran
Moderator
 
Manic Moran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Danville, California
Posts: 11,025
I wonder if there's not a bit of romaniticism involved. The Southern Gentlemen, conducting themselves in appropriately dignified manner whilst engaged outnumbered by a superiorly resourced enemy in a doomed resistance...

If you think about it, were the likes of JEB Stuart or Nathan Forrest really better cavalry commanders than Buford, Sheridan or Wilson? For Thomas Jackson or Patrick Cleburne on one side, you've got people like George Thomas or George Meade on the other. Grant was no poor officer either. Perhaps not as great a leader as Lee, but when it came to getting the job done, the US couldn't complain, even without the Lee Charisma. And, of course, you have that small little issue of Sherman traipsing half way around the country on his stroll to the sea.
Manic Moran is offline  
12-03-2011, 12:30   #8
PatsytheNazi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shankill Road, Loyalist East Belfast
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by banie01 View Post
You also should take account of the much higher proportion of Southern born officers who entered the army and had a military education.

The majority of Southern planter family sons attended military schools for their initial education(Even today there is a preponderance of Military schools in the South)and even the majority of Westpoint attendees and graduates upto 1861 were from Southern states.

This focus on martial education came about in part from Southern upper classes believe that they were the inheritors of the European chivalric ideal and is further evidenced by the widespread practice of duelling and honour killings in the antebellum south.

In the South it was a respectable and honoured profession to enter the army. Professional Soldiery was seen by Southern planters as an almost a Knightly vocation,( there are some very interesting works on this thesis, I'll see if I can find the links)
One that was supported via the old wealth and aristocratic aspirations of the planter class.
Whereas in the antebellum North with the Industrial explosion and the growth in trade and enterprise, many men who would otherwise seek their futures in the army persued their American dream instead.
Very good. I vaguely remember some documentary mentioning the southerners attendance at military school etc pre the war whereas the union army officers were often very inexpericenced.
PatsytheNazi is offline  
12-03-2011, 13:24   #9
Corsendonk
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatsytheNazi View Post
Very good. I vaguely remember some documentary mentioning the southerners attendance at military school etc pre the war whereas the union army officers were often very inexpericenced.
From Wiki

Quote:
With few active officers to fill many commands, the two Civil War armies had to look to other persons for military leadership. Lower ranking U.S. Army officers, Mexican-American War veterans and military school graduates in civilian life would fill many top and field grade officer positions. Many positions were also filled by foreign emigres, some of whom had military training, and politicians and other civilians with no military training. Some became good generals but many others were poor commanders.

At the outbreak of the Civil War, 296 U.S. Army officers of various grades resigned. Of these, 239 joined the Confederate Army in 1861 and 31 joined after 1861. Of these Confederate officers from the U.S. Army, 184 were United States Military Academy graduates. The other active U.S. Army 809 officers, 640 of whom were West Point graduates, remained with the Union. Of the approximately 900 West Point graduates in civilian life at the beginning of the war, 114 returned to the Union Army and 99 joined the Confederate Army.[48] Norwich University in Northfield, Vermont furnished more officers to the war than any other military school except the United States Military Academy and Virginia Military Institute. The school contributed 523 officers to the Union Army and 34 to the Confederate Army.[49] Norwich was the only military college in the Northern states, other than West Point, which had a sizable number of military trained alumni who could provide a significant number of officers to the Union Army.

Of the 1,902 men who had ever attended Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, 1,781 fought for the Confederacy. One-third of the field officers of Virginia regiments in 1861 were V.M.I. graduates.[50] The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina provided at least 6 general officers to the Confederate Army as well as 49 field grade officers, and 120 company grade officers.[51] Another alumnus of The Citadel, Colonel Charles C. Tew, was killed on the eve of his promotion to brigadier general.[52]
Corsendonk is offline  
Advertisement
12-03-2011, 22:03   #10
xflyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,778
Sherman and Grant were as good as any southerner, better they were ruthless in their execution of the war aims. That isn't romantic but they represented the early example of the American general we all know and love, ahem! But the civil war was the first really technological American war. The presage of things to come. On the Northern side anyway.

Southerners may have had the advantage that there is a tradition of military service but in the end the Northeners had the whip hand because they had the resources the southerners didn't.

There is a romantic element to Lee, Jackson and Stuart. They were good but made enough mistakes to remove the gloss, although to be fair Jackson did get killed by a picquet of his own army. Whether he lived or died it wouldn't have changed the result though.

A fascinating period, I think.
xflyer is offline  
14-03-2011, 03:47   #11
Einhard
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Everywhere. I'm impoten, er, omnipotent.
Posts: 6,639
I've been reading a fair bit about the Civil War recently, and I think one of the reasons for the comparative success of the Confederate armies, is that they were almost always on the defensive, were often heavily dug in, and could pick and choose the field. In the majority of battles, the Union had to attack heavily entrenched positions. In the few battles where the Confederates gave battle, as Gettysburg and Chatanooga, they suffered heavy defeats, and in the former, Lee was guilty of serious misjudgement.

Also, the fact that the Confererates were so outmatched in military and industrial capacity, meant that their commanders had to be more resourceful and daring.

Finally: McClellan. I'm finding myself despising the man!!
Einhard is offline  
14-03-2011, 12:50   #12
PatsytheNazi
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Shankill Road, Loyalist East Belfast
Posts: 1,219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Einhard View Post
I've been reading a fair bit about the Civil War recently, and I think one of the reasons for the comparative success of the Confederate armies, is that they were almost always on the defensive, were often heavily dug in, and could pick and choose the field. In the majority of battles, the Union had to attack heavily entrenched positions. In the few battles where the Confederates gave battle, as Gettysburg and Chatanooga, they suffered heavy defeats, and in the former, Lee was guilty of serious misjudgement.

Also, the fact that the Confererates were so outmatched in military and industrial capacity, meant that their commanders had to be more resourceful and daring.

Finally: McClellan. I'm finding myself despising the man!!
Very true and often forgot about in discussions on the American Civil war.
PatsytheNazi is offline  
18-03-2011, 17:12   #13
MajorMax
Registered User
 
MajorMax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: nunayabidness
Posts: 702
I've always thought that the rapid expansion of the Union army and the appointment of incompetent political Generals (Nathaniel Banks, I'm looking at you) Gave rise to officers who were hopelessly out of their depth. Decent company commanders were expected to take command of half trained Regiments and in some cases Brigades, and the results were self evident. Not that the CSA didn't have it's share of Political Generals (John Breckinridge, you muppet)

But I think that the alleged superiority of the conferate Generals is due at least in part to the fact that the confederacy lost the war and southerners needed to believe that they were out-produced and out manned not out fought or out generaled.

Look at JEB Stuarts abscence before Gettysburg when Lee desperately needed up to date intelligence. "Granny" Lee's reputation at the start of the war was as an overly cautious worry wart and if Albert Sidney Johnston hadn't been killed at Shiloh then I dooubt that Lee would have risen past Corp command. Don't get me started on "Stonewall Jackson" Mad as a bag of Spiders.
MajorMax is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet