"Junior Level Leadership in The ANV..." Topic

Gentlemen, a discussion please…
I am currently reading the book, "Southern Invincibility: A History of the Confederate Heart", by Wiley Sword, and in Chapter Sixteen page 151 he makes this statement:

"In fact the major strength of this army (ANV), lay not only in it's capable and exalted senior commanders, but equally in the subordinate officers. The high quality of skilled and trained leadership at a junior level was truly the ANV's seceret of success. As one noted historian has written, "effective second tier talent was one reason why this army outperformed the Western Confederacy's "Hard Luck" Army of Tennessee"… "

This got me to thinking….Hmmm…Is he correct in saying that the second tier – junior level commanders were "the secret to the success"?

So I decided to do a little asking.

I am asking your opinions on this. Do you agree with this statement or disagree? If so, why do you agree/disagree. Any thoughts and comments are also appreciated.

BTW…I am also posting this on a non-wargaming related site, so that I can see the responses there and see if there are any parallels between the train of thought there, and here…

Murph

It's an interesting theory, and I know there were plenty of noted 'hard-fighting' brigade commanders in the ANV, but I wouldn't say there were more of them then in other Confederate (or Union) armies. But I will freely admit that brigade/regimental level commanders are not an area I have studied a lot.

-Will

Hmm. I disagree. Too often it looks like there were no Majors or Colonels that stepped up to the next level. Within a Regiment, possibly. But as the ties to state were stronger than "the cause" it was hard for many to rise above the regiment

Are we talking about colonels? or lieutenants?

There are those who argue that Gettysburg was won by the USA thanks to the superior quality of its majors/ltcs.

Junior level offiers at the beginning of the war were elected by the company in CSA volunteer and State units. This was the case with the 31st Alabama Rgt whose history I have at my desk in the office ( I am looking at it now). As well as in the book 'The Marble City Boys' which is a mmemoirs book.
Regular Army CSA ,very few, I have not checked about.

In many cases the company commander, a Captain, was also elected. Often this was the man with the money. In some cases it was pre-determined as the man doing all the recruiting for that company.

This became an issue of my diary/letters home discussion when two groups were merged to make a single company.

Those men with a lot of military training or schooling were quickly elevated out of company ranks to become wither field officers or part of command staffs.

So the high experience level junior officers would not have been the case early or even in 1862 IMHO.

I agree with that statement by Wiley Sword.

The ANV had many outstanding junior officers. Joseph Carpenter of Carpenter's Battery is one that comes to mind. He started out as an ordinary private till Jackson captured some artillery and remembered him from VMI. Carpenter's Battery was outstanding through out the war serving with the best Brigade in the ANV, The Stonewall Brigade. Captain James Bosang was another outstanding Company Commander of the Stonewall Brigade. There was also many others, such as Captain Pegram of Pegram's Battery of Stuart's Cavalry.

I disagree with Saber6 about that ties to the state were greater than the cause and to rise above Regimental level did not seem to happen. Just to name a few officers that started as Colonels to rise to Generals in the ANV: A.P. Hill, Richard Ewell, Jubal Early, JEB Stuart and Wade Hampton. Even at the end of the war, junior officers of the ANV continue to step up.

The ANV did out perform the Army of Tennessee for many reasons, mainly due to a better commander (Robert E. Lee) and its many incredible junior officers that provided leadership second to none

From Confederate records of Clay County Alabama of survivors receiving pensions. Clay county did not exist in the ACW it was created later from the counties of Randolph and talladega.

I am sure that loyalty to the State was key to some recruits but that was not an all-encompassing factor. Some men joined to be with male family and friends; some joined because of the unit type arty or cavalry as opposed to infantry.

One soldier George Washington Bailey (from Ga) was disabiltiy discharged adn re-enlisted 5 times. (served in the 10th Rgt + 37th Rgt + 1st Consript + 3rd Ala + Bonham Reserve Company.

Thomas Bonner ELECTED 1st Lt of the Co I Wilcox Rgt in 1863. he served in both Ala and Ga units.

Men were often discharged when wounded and re-enlisted when they recovered or came off parole (from being cpatured and exchanged). The new unit come be their old unit or another unit.

Henry Evans enlisted in the 22nd Ala Inf and later reenlisted in the Barbee's Arty.

James farrow seved in the 50th tenn Rgt and the 6th Ala Cav.

Interesting question. If it were true you'd have to ask the question: why? Junior officers in both the North and South came from pretty similar sources with similar backgrounds. There was once a historical school of thought about the "Southern Military Tradition" that claimed that Southerners grew up in a more martial climate and were better acclimated to military life. This theory gained a lot of advocates in the North after the war as a way of explaining early Southern successes. In fact, it became what today we'd call a conspiracy theory, that claimed the South had been planning for the war for years. More recent scholarship has pretty well debunked this theory. (One amusing part of the original theory used the statistic that more Southerners attended West Point than Northerners. This was true only because more Southerners FLUNKED OUT of West Point than Northerners and were replaced by new Southern cadets :) )

John W Hamil served with the 9th ga inf, reenlisted to the same unit, reenlisted 62 Ala Cav.

William Coley enlisted as a private 13th Ala , re-enlisted 59th Ala Co A as a private in 1862 and was elected as a 2nd Leiutenant for 12 months. After that he reverted to a private.

One interesting aspect of disability reenlistments that is noted is that some of these men served in support positions. I saw positions listed : nurse, blacksmith, camp guard, forage wagon driver, hospital ambulance driver, firemen, storage clerk, hospital ward master and others.

One guy I am looking up his name tonight was an officer in a infantry unit but reenlisted in a cavalry unit as a private after he recovered from wounds.

I disagree that junior officers from North and South came from pretty similar backgrounds. Junior Officers from the South mainly grew up in a rural environment where Junior Officers from the North grew up in an urban environment.

Loyalty to the state was very much a factor. Robert E, Lee is a prime example of loyalty to his State. He did in fact turned down command of the Union Army due to his loyalty to Virginia.

I think what people are forgetting is that there was and are two military schools in the South before the war and after the war. These two schools, the Citadel and Virginia Military Institute, did turn out many Southerners whom were more accustomed to Military Life then his Northern counterpart.Because of these two military schools, the South did have better trained Junior Officers then the North.

It is also true that officers were elected at the first of the war but after 1863 the process of electing officers was stopped in the CSA. In the South before the war being in a Militia Units was part of the tradition. In fact it was a Virginia Militia Unit that stop John Brown's group in Harper's Ferry. These Militia units elected officers that were of money but sometimes because of service in the Mexican War or because of attending the Citadel or VMI.

There is no fact that more Southerners flunked out of West Point then Northerners. There is fact that a Military Tradition was in place in the South starting with the Revolutionary War when the best Continental Regiments were from Virginia.

One unusual enlistment was one local soldier enlisted in an Arkansas infantry unit.

I personally do not put much credance in the fought for the State myth. For for home and family, yes. Rates of r-enlistments for discharged soldiers is too great to deny that position.

There is too much disparity in county, church pension records and graveyard markers to support the ONLY for the Sate concept. In border counties it was far from unusual for recruiters from neighboring States to enlist in those counties. In my part of Alabama that is certainly true. i did an article in my Time Portal Passages focusing on a summary of these records as to units searched in.

One concept that many people forget is that loyalties were divided. In every one of the counties in my area are soldiers from the Union buried in a cemetary somewhere. Uncommon yes but they are there.

Another aspect against the all for States is that many of the Southern States had not been part of the USA or the local State for that long. Mississippi and much of Alabama had been a State for only 40 years or so. in fact a large part of east Alabama was Creek land until the 1830s which meant that they had not been part of the State for less than 30 years. The same was true for parts of Georgia and Florida.

This was also the same situation for CSA States further West.

I wonder if there is a place to find a summary of pre-1860 military schools. I know we had several in Alabama. One was at Athens Alabama, near Huntsville where the mothers burned the cadet uniforms to keep them from defending the school from Union raiders. (Much like the episode in John Wayne's movie about the ACW raids.

I would not be surprised that more were found in the South than the North.

Rebel222, you need to check your facts. Despite there being several large cities in the North, the vast majority of Northerners lived on farms or in small towns--just like in the South. The idea that most Northerners were city boys is a myth. I believe that the census of 1860 showed that only about 10% of Northerners lived in large cities.

And the matter of more Southerners flunking out of West Point is a statistical fact. General educational standards in the South were lower than in the North and it showed at West Point.

As for pre-war military schools, there were dozens of them in both the North and the South. It was a very trendy thing prior to the war. The first (or maybe it was the second) superintendent of West Point left the army and went on to found a whole chain of military schools in the North (partly out of spite as he left the Point on bad terms).

As I said in my post, the notion of a "Southern Military Tradition" has been pretty well de-bunked by modern historians. There's a standard book on the subject and if I could find my graduate school notes I'd give you the title :)

Wow…great opinions…
Scott…the next paragraph following the one I discussed brings up the idea that many southerners, (especially eastern southerners as opposed to western southerners) had more "Training" due to the more formations of state militia units, etc…

All in all so far it's an interesting book, but I feel that sometimes the author makes a declarative statement and then doesn't support it with facts…

ScottWashburn, please produce facts about what you are stating as I have in my posts produced facts. Just because you state something does not mean it is fact and/or the gospel truth. Produce facts about your statements. Everybody has a right to their opinion. Your opinion and mine are very different on this subject. Just because you state that you were in Graduate School does not mean your statements are fact. I, too attended Graduate school at VPI and studied under Dr. James Robertson, a leading Modern Historian of the War Between the States. I have a MA in American Military History specializing in the War Between the States. Just because I have my MA also means just because I state my opinion it is not the gospel truth without facts to back up my statements

I think Dr.Robertson,Douglas Freeman, Shelby Foote and others would say your statement about "Southern Military Tradition" being debunked by modern historians is not true because there is that long standing Tradition in the South. Whom are these modern historians that you speak of that state this? Could you please name some of these historians. There is that Tradition still today, which is represented by the Virginia National Guard Regiments that can trace their history/roots from regiments in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War and the War Between the States. The Virginia National Guard does this to keep Southern Military Tradition alive and to honor these old historical regiments. Some of our most famous Generals in American History up to the War Between the States were Southerners; George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Sam Houston. and Zachary Tyler which have helped the South create this Military tradition. My family has served in the military since my first ancestor served on the 2ND Virginia in the Revolutionary War, part of the reason we serve is because of the Southern Military Tradition.

The Citadel and Virginia Military Institute were/are not "trendy" schools. They are as tough to get into as West Point if not tougher. To attended either school is an honor and such modern Generals such as Patton and Marshall have attended VMI. Part of the Southern Military Tradition that happens to this day at VMI is for the Freshmen Kadets to salute a statue of "Stonewall" Jackson. The "Rats" as they are called (since the start of the School) must pass Jackson at least twice a day since his statue is right outside their dorm. I guess this is not Southern Military Tradition.

Never in all my years of studies have I heard and/or read that more Southerners flunked out of West Point then Northerners. Please quote an source on this subject. I would also like to know these Northern Military Schools that you speak of, have never heard of them and/or read about them. Please quote an source or give names of these schools.

I do believe that that your 10% number is not true, and that it is my belief that the last census before the war was in 1860. I did not say that Northerners grew up as "city boys" but in an urban environment. I will stick by that statement. I also think saying that the educational standards were lower in the South and it showed in West Point is not true. Numerous Southerners rank in the top 10 of their classes at West Point such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson. In fact, the worst students in West Point history at the time was George Custer, whom in turn was a very good Union Cavalry Commander in the late stages of the War. Robert E. Lee was also Superintendent of West Point dissipate his "lower educational standards" from where he grew up in Virginia.

I also guess having the University of Virginia and William and Mary College plus numerous other colleges in Virginia and/or the South helped contribute to this "lower educational Standard". Abe Lincoln grew up some in Kentucky (considered by some to be part of the South) where he home- schooled himself enough to become a lawyer and President of the United States. "Lower Educational Standards"?

Truly, we are off the original subject of why junior officers of the ANV were better then their brethren in the Army of Tennessee. A good reason could be that the majority of graduates from the Citadel and VMI served in regiments from South Carolina and Virginia. These Regiments served mainly in the Army of Northern Virginia. I think the true fact of why junior officers did better in the ANV comes from their commander, Robert E. Lee's leadership.

I'm a Southerner Rebel222 but i agree with Mr. Washburn.

Still and all, the theory that Southern junior officers were any better than their Northern counterparts because of northern "urban" raising is just so much hooey.

The largest city in Maine was still smaller than Charleston, or Richmond, or Atlanta, and yet Maine produced any number of fine young officers.

The old Army of the Potomac was often out-Generaled, but never outfought, and after he got his patoot whipped at Gettysburg, Old Lee could only travel a road that led to defeat, regardless of the desires and fanciful deliriums of any number of Southern Apologists.

That the ANV is said to have a "better class" of junior officers than the Army of Tennessee seems to me more a case of the old FFV core once more raising it's feverish sense of entitlement than any actual evidence.

The ANV just had better PR folks among it's descendants. Nothing more.

FFV?

Rebel222,

Well, as I said, I'll have to find my notes from school and I think they are up in the attic. It's been a few years :) However, since we seem to be flaunting credentials here, I too have a Masters Degree in US Military History. My advisor was Dr. Russell Weigley ("The American Way of War", "Eisenhower's Lieutenants", "The Age of Battles" "A Great Civil War", etc. etc.), who many considered to be America's top military historian in recent years (I admit that is a matter of opinion). However, my statement on the flunk-out rate at West Point is not something I made up, it came from one of the book I read in my first year in graduate school and whose title and author is stubbornly refusing to come to mind. I will try to produce some documentation as soon as I can.

And my statement about military schools being "trendy" was in no way meant to disparage any school, I simply meant that prior to the war there were a lot of them in both North and South and that they were much more common than they are today.

As for Southern National Guard units having long and proud heritages, well, so what? The same thing goes here in the North. Every guard unit in Pennsylvania, New York or Massachusetts can trace its lineage back to some colonial-era militia regiment. And on the subject of militia, the pre-war North had a much larger, much better organized and trained militia on average than the South. Actually, that was another thing that blasted book I can't remember covered in detail. Must find my notes….

FFV: First Families of Virginia.

One might note that, since Lee took command, Pete Longstreet was the only non-Virginian to reach Corps Command.

Just sayin'… but that Virginia blue blood runs deep and strong.

"That the ANV is said to have a "better class" of junior officers than the Army of Tennessee seems to me more a case of the old FFV core once more raising it's feverish sense of entitlement than any actual evidence.

"The ANV just had better PR folks among it's descendants. Nothing more."---TKindred

Utterly false.

For those interested in this subject, I strongly suggest the following title that provides excellent research, solid facts and in-depth analysis.

Two Great Rebel Armies: An Essay In Confederate Military History

by Richard M. McMurry

ISBN 0-8078-1819-4

Regards,

Scott Bowden

Sorry, Scott.. nut I disagree with your assertion regarding my opinion.

Regardless of McMurry's claims and presentation, anyone, and I mean ANYONE who researches this period will first have to research and understand the post-war mindset of Southern Apologia that colours everything written since Lee took off his uniform and put away his spurs.

What about McMurry's claims and presentations are false? Be specific.

Intereseting enough…it's this SAME VERY BOOK (by McMurry), that Sword uses as part of the argument.

"
As one noted historian has written, "effective second tier talent was one reason why this army outperformed the Western Confederacy's "Hard Luck" Army of Tennessee"… "
"

Which then seems to bring us back to full circle…can we agree with Sword statement, or can't we?…

Myths ( like urban vs rural) become truths in many folks understandings and that really doesn't hurt anything, and no amount of serious discussion will change minds already made up on either side of the question. So I hope you will cheerfully disagree!!

Which, as I understand it, is ScottBowden's point exactly. Sword's argument is valid and is supported by evidence, among which is McMurry's very fine study.

As is so often the case, folks who make baseless claims (like TKindred's) have only their preconceived notions as evidence when challenged.

Me ke aloha,

MJ

I can think of two other military schools in the South: The University of Alabama (at Tuscaloosa), and the one in Louisiana (now LSU, I believe) where Sherman was head-master just before the war.

Junior officers were sometimes elected in Northern regiments as well, in the early days, at least. Others were rewarded for recruiting efforts.

I think there were three important factors that made the ANV better than the AoT:

1. Lee was a good judge of talent, and was somehow able to get the weak links transfered to other departments (which then had to make do with his cast-offs).

2. The quality of the opposition.

3. The internal bickering among the army, corps and division commanders in the AoT, instigated mostly by Polk, but sometimes Hardee and others.

Much of it comes down to: success breeds success and losing becomes a habit. Because he was a winner (and tactful) Lee could prevail on Davis to transfer out those officers that Lee didn't want and leave him or return to him the ones he wanted. On the other hand, because Polk and Bragg and A. S. Johnston (and Pemberton if we want to get into the AoM) were friends of Davis the AoT was stuck with them, which led to lost battles, which led to further discontent and bickering, which led to more lost battles, etc., etc.

So, what exactly are my "baseless claims?" I never discounted Scotty's comments per se. I said that, when researching ACW material, you first had to familiarize yourself with the post-bellum attitudes and mindsets.

I said:

Regardless of McMurry's claims and presentation, anyone, and I mean ANYONE who researches this period will first have to research and understand the post-war mindset of Southern Apologia that colours everything written since Lee took off his uniform and put away his spurs. </Q>

There is a clear and present bias by, especially, Virginians against anything to do with the Army of Tennessee and that narrative exists to this day.

There are always agendas at work, and one needs to consider any information or opinion in ought of them, mine, Scotty's, Scott's. etc included.

Respects,

Well comparing the ANV with the AOT could be a very interesting, very, very long, thread , with a lot of very good discussion, and likely some "varied" opinion to say the least!!

So we have slid from a discussion over junior officer leadership to one of debating two Southern commands AoT and ANV!

Guys you do know that several units fought in both groups. Did they change officers? well no.

I am not going to debate whose evaluation of research data is correct or better. I am only reporting from county recordsand comments from the families or veterans themselves. massive amounts of material was gathered in the 1911-14 time frame to celebrate the 50 year rememberance of the war. Additional gatehrings and reevaluation of the 1910 materail was conducted for the centenial in 1960. Even TOPPS issed a set of bubblegum cards honoring the soldiers of the war.

As i have stated with examples the same soldiers enlisted in different units and many fought in both theatres as well as remained at home (late in the War) for local assignments.

The idea or myth that soldiers from one side was automatically better than the other or that a soldier assigned to Amry of Northern Virginia was automatically better than his next door neighbor who was assigned to the Army of Tenn also not a position that can be defended in adebate. Too much speculation.

The same is true for Junior company grade officers. However when you get to the Brigade -Divisional- Corps command then preformance. Recovery and maintaining an ability to remain combat effective was crucial for both commands.

Which CSA command had greater challenges? faced greater Union Forces? had more territory to be responsible to defend/ All are valid questions whose answers (IMHO) may make the ability issue mute.

From Tsalladega Alabama County records in Oct 1861 27,000 initial troops had been raised for service with CSA most of these were mexican War veterans or had some prior military experience. By Dec 1863, 9,000 of these initial recruits had be killed.

The 31st Rgt raised in talladega County "… compaosed of undisciplined independent minded farmers who were led by men mostly lawyers who had earned a name in sate and local politic…"

The section had an unusual notation that made me wonder how common the practice was. While assigned to Bragg's command in 1862 part of the rgt (4 companies) was reassigned to the Western Amry based in Vicksburg. So the 31st Rgt was assigned to two commands at the same time. At Corinth the Rgt had maintained a 8 company structure but had only 260 men assigned (Gen Tracy status report) The low numbers of the Regiment could be related to the transfer though the unit had particpated in a number of actions. The two sections were reunited in 1983 when the parent unit was also transferred to Vicksburg. There the command learned that a number of men had been transferred further out west!

From the same records another interesting note: '…Simon Morriss had six sons to enlist in the CSA army. As they departed the father sent a slave along with each son to attend to their neeeds (there is no indication that these were EMs or officers). The slaves would return home to obtain neccessary clothing and supplies and return the items to the brother wo which they were assigned.

The idea of a slave travelling alone from the home to the front and back is interesting. Were there 'convoys of these men guided by CSA guardds or did they travel alone? If alone, were there no desire to escape? maybe some did? It is just a situation that I had not heard much about.

It seems that many gamers want simple answers provided by otherswithot having to do research. I am sure like many other things even resaons to this trend is complicated with about as many answers as there are gamers feeling this way.

For those in the USA spend some time at a local and university library (you can get many records from counties in other States through the Library exchange program) or the county courthouse or even a church to experience some valuable reading. These are often providing tidbits of data but they are more entertaining than many novels.

Here is a tidbit I came across this morning. JJ Renfroe, baptist preacher assigned as a CSA chaplain wrote home in 1864 stating that almost all of his sermons occured in the front lines. …" The last sermon that I preached lasted only an hour and during that time three members of the congregation were wounded by minie balls…'

ANother fact that we as gamers do not think much about.

It seems that many gamers want simple answers provided by otherswithot having to do research.

I don't blame them for not wanting to reinvent the wheel. Why should they start from scratch if someone else has already done it? I don't mind sharing my knowledge, and I don't mind asking questions of those who know more than me.