"Rating Richard Taylor" Topic

In the vein of my A.S. Johnston thread, let's talk about Richard Taylor, both in terms of his use on a tabletop (to make Exceptional or not), and more generally in historical terms – how good was his generalship?

He won substantive Confederate victories in 1863 and 1864, and one could wish he'd been somehow on the spot when Johnston was relieved at Atlanta (I believe he ranked Hood). But what affects me most is, as part of my 1865 OOB project, seeing his letters as temporary AoT commander – he instructs Stewart's Corps to proceed north to Johnston on the basis that he doesn't need 5000 infantry to defend against raids and it wouldn't be enough to fight a pitched battle. He retains French's division to man Mobile (he also kept half of Clayton's, under Liddell's command).

It sounds strange, but a Confederate general offering to give up troops is a rare sight. Lee did it in two winter campaigns; Bragg did it after the second of those campaigns, mostly to try to mitigate politicking in the army. I can think of no other large-scale example. So either Taylor was making a poor judgement as Bragg had done, but without the quite understandable (if unacceptable) motive; or he was simply a man of fine judgement who saw the wider cause as more important than his own sector. (I refer you to 49.1.943 for the letter involved.)

I think he was an able general whom Davis did not use to his full potential. I don't know if that's because he wasn't a West Pointer, or if Davis wanted to avoid the appearance of nepotism, or if Davis thought he WAS using Taylor well by giving him command of a theater.

It is strange that Davis relied so heavily on lesser generals like Bragg, Pemberton, and Johnston when he had Taylor, who I think was better than them all.

I would rate him exceptional on the tabletop, certainly.

I think it was his rheumatism that held him back more than anything. Even as far back as the seven days, and I think the Mexican war, it kept him bedridden at times

I think he was exceptional especially in the West which tended to be a weakness

Jackson and Ewell's both thought very highly of him and his military knowledge which speaks volumes

He definitely was one of the Confederacy's ablest generals and he was just as definitely used far below his ability level.

Why use him when Braxton Bragg was available?

Well, indeed – I'm a Bragg partisan myself (whilst seeing his warts and all), and am not surprised that he was not used in 1863 in the West – he was both too junior and there was a competent (or, at least, that was Davis' judgement) commander in place. Again, Johnston was the natural replacement for Bragg; but the problems with corps commanders in the AoT left Hood as the only viable option in June. Obviously the good on-the-ground options at the start of 1864 for the corps command Hood got would have been Stewart or Cleburne; but Taylor might equally have done the job if transferred over.

Of course, at that point he was just finished defeating the Trans-Mississippi Union offensive of 1864, so perhaps it's also not surprising he wasn't called across then. And by the end of August Hood was still in post; Davis would have had to be willing to take quite a risk to dump a second army commander in two months, though I think it's plain (to us) Taylor would have been the better bet by that point.

By the time he took over command of the Western Theater (under Beauregard's direction), it was obviously too late to do much, though his forces resisted manfully at Mobile, and Forrest put up more of a fight than credited at Selma.

A Bragg partisan, eh? I'll admit Braxton could train up good infantry and he could plan the movement of troops quite well. This is offset by his tendency to become indecisive in the face of the enemy and his stress-related illnesses. What does him in is his extremely poor management skills. A lot of his generals were contemptuous of him and he had no touch with the rank and file, at least those from Tennessee – who made up a large part of the army. I don't think he was the root of all evil and many of his subordinates sabotaged him. But his unique personality undermined any of his skills.

He did quite well at every level he was placed at, but then he was given time to work his way up one level at a time -- had he been jumped up too high too quickly it might have been a different story.

I'd say Taylor was generally competent, but he benefitted from not being connected with most of the disasters that hit the Confederacy in 1863 and 1864. My understanding was that in 1865 Taylor was under orders to pass troops along to Beareguard rather than retain them.

Lee detached troops on a number of occasions. Shortly after assuming command of the ANV, he sent Whiting's division and Lawton's brigade to join Jackson, although they did come back a few days later. After pushing McClellan back he detached Jackson with three divisions to go after Pope. Around the time of Fredricksburg he detached Walker's former division. In 1863 he detached Longstreet twice, first to Suffolk and then to Tennessee. In 1864 he returned Breckinridge's troops to the Valley, then sent Early with the Second Corps, and periodically sent other troops to assist Early. In late 1864 he detached troops to Wilmington and Hampton with some cavalry to face Sherman.

Taylor comes across as a most competent and aggressive General who had clearly taken on board much of what he had witnessed while serving under Jackson.

In wargaming terms, he would rate as aggressive under most rules. Exceptional? I would say yes, for all that he faced off against a much lesser Union commander in N.P.Banks, Taylor laboured under severe restrictions in troop numbers and his relationship with Kirby Smith.

Remember Taylor was his fathers secretary during the Mexican war until rheumatoid arthritis struck him down and after that he studied military history and strategy in the intervening time between 1848 and 1860

Gentleman;

I am away from my library to extract the exact quote, but …

When discussing his intention to fight Banks' army at what would be the Battle of Mansfield on 8 April 1863, one of his officers commented to the effect:

"But General, Banks has …" ##### "men!" (IIRC ##### was 30,000)

To which Major-General Richard Taylor responded (again, IIRC) "Gentleman, I fought Banks in the Valley. I'd attack him if he had a million men."

He knew his man – and with his Louisiana troops almost literally defending their homes, and his Texans itching for a fight – he knew his army – and his army knew him. And he was right.

It may have been a minor campaign in a backwater area, but Taylor exhibited traits that were sadly lacking in the Army of Mississippi/Army of Tennessee commanders throughout most of the war.

Bragg was universally despised by the entire Army, generals and men. Joe Johnston was fully competent, but his refusal to take command from Bragg on principle, while honorable, left the army with Bragg to the detriment of the country. Later, when he took command, his poisoned relationship with President Davis prompted him to refuse to guarantee that he would fight for Atlanta and he was replaced, by Hood, who then single handedly tore the heart out of his Army over the course of three battles in six days outside Atlanta, Georgia, and then destroyed what was left in one late afternoon outside Franklin, Tennessee

One can never prove what might have been, but it is not possible that the army could have been worse off with Taylor in command. (Of course, one could probably argue that the army could not have been worse off with ANYONE else in command!)

Just my thoughts …

Mark E. Horan

Just my thoughts.

Oh, another great Taylor anecdote …

In 1862 when Taylor's troops were sent to join Jackson in the Valley, Jackson observed Taylor's disciplined troops marching and commented to Taylor "Your command has no stragglers", to which Taylor responded "Sir, I do not tolerate straggling in my command" to which Jackson replied, "I should have you instruct my men – they straggle badly."

Says a lot about his discipline by troops that loved him!

mark