Jefferson Davis Confederate General

Who would have been the best Commander for the army of the Mississippi ?Da

  • General Braxton Bragg

  • Jefferson Davis

  • Patrick Cleburne

  • John C Breckenridge

  • General Hardee

  • Thomas Hindman

  • Other please write it down so I may include the option

  • Nathaniel Bedford Forrest(not Forrest Gump)


Results are only viewable after voting.
What if Jefferson Davis became a confederate General instead of president of the confederate states? Would Jefferson Davis Have been a worthy enough to be the Commander of the army of Tennessee? I’ve been the best confederate general who would’ve been the commander of the army of the Tennessee?Tactics and strategy due play a role but sodas logistics and other leader ship abilities
 
Davis wanted a military role, rather than the presidency.

However, he didn't have the credentials for command of a major army. He retired from the US Army as a lieutenant, and he commanded a volunteer regiment in Mexico. At most he would be a brigade commander. To start with, that is; if he did well, he could be promoted to division or corps command, or command of a minor army. One might compare to John Breckinridge, who I think would be the most successful Confederate "politician-general". Sterling Price was another. Though unlike them Davis had the credential of being a West Point graduate.
 
He may have done better as a General than as a President. From what I've read, he was a fairly competent officer... though his medical condition may have hampered him as a field commander, particularly in winter months. He had some organizational ability - maybe he'd be a good QM?
The "lost cause" mythologising has made a lot of people forget it, but Davis wasn't particularly popular as a President... he was damn near despised by a good many of the populace...
 
He may have done better as a General than as a President. From what I've read, he was a fairly competent officer... though his medical condition may have hampered him as a field commander, particularly in winter months. He had some organizational ability - maybe he'd be a good QM?
The "lost cause" mythologising has made a lot of people forget it, but Davis wasn't particularly popular as a President... he was damn near despised by a good many of the populace...
I have never known any lost cause historians to praise Jefferson Davis. In fact, my timeline civil war book tells he never was popular with the commoners of the confederacy.
 
Last edited:
Davis wanted a military role, rather than the presidency.

However, he didn't have the credentials for command of a major army. He retired from the US Army as a lieutenant, and he commanded a volunteer regiment in Mexico. At most he would be a brigade commander. To start with, that is; if he did well, he could be promoted to division or corps command, or command of a minor army. One might compare to John Breckinridge, who I think would be the most successful Confederate "politician-general". Sterling Price was another. Though unlike them Davis had the credential of being a West Point graduate.
I appreciate you commenting! However Pettus made Davis a major general of the Army of Mississippi. Who would have been a good commander of the army of the Mississippi? Joe Johnston is not a good field commander (but perhaps a competent General and Chief. ) Who would be the best pic to command the army of the Mississippi
 
I appreciate you commenting! However Pettus made Davis a major general of the Army of Mississippi.
Mississippi governor Pettus could appoint Davis a major general of volunteers in the Mississippi state militia.
That is, the Mississippi volunteer regiments being called into Confederate service. The Army of Mississippi was a formation of the Confederate States Army; Pettus had no authority over it whatever.

And whatever rank Pettus gave Davis would not determine his command assignments.

Who would have been a good commander of the army of the Mississippi?
The Army of the Mississippi was a Union army formation. As to command of the Confederate Army of Mississippi, that was up to the Confederate government, i.e. President not-Davis as commander-in-chief. The commanders of the major CS armies were all career US Army officers who had been colonels, with the exceptions of Kirby Smith, a major, Pemberton, a captain, and Hood, a first lieutenant (who achieved army command after four promotions for success in the field).
 
Mississippi governor Pettus could appoint Davis a major general of volunteers in the Mississippi state militia.
That is, the Mississippi volunteer regiments being called into Confederate service. The Army of Mississippi was a formation of the Confederate States Army; Pettus had no authority over it whatever.

And whatever rank Pettus gave Davis would not determine his command assignments.


The Army of the Mississippi was a Union army formation. As to command of the Confederate Army of Mississippi, that was up to the Confederate government, i.e. President not-Davis as commander-in-chief. The commanders of the major CS armies were all career US Army officers who had been colonels, with the exceptions of Kirby Smith, a major, Pemberton, a captain, and Hood, a first lieutenant (who achieved army command after four promotions for success in the field).
Well considering Jefferson Davis was almost elected president he has the political aspirations to be a General . (Polk, Forest and I recal Breckinridge. . I think at minimum Davis would be a brigadier general what she would be competent in I don’t know if he would make a good army of the Mississippi . Who do you know would make a good commander of the army of Tennessee?
 
Mississippi governor Pettus could appoint Davis a major general of volunteers in the Mississippi state militia.
That is, the Mississippi volunteer regiments being called into Confederate service. The Army of Mississippi was a formation of the Confederate States Army; Pettus had no authority over it whatever.

And whatever rank Pettus gave Davis would not determine his command assignments.


The Army of the Mississippi was a Union army formation. As to command of the Confederate Army of Mississippi, that was up to the Confederate government, i.e. President not-Davis as commander-in-chief. The commanders of the major CS armies were all career US Army officers who had been colonels, with the exceptions of Kirby Smith, a major, Pemberton, a captain, and Hood, a first lieutenant (who achieved army command after four promotions for success in the field).
Well that is a shame I already put him as commander of the army of Mississippi given his fame. I want to replace him any ideas who I could replace him with?
 
The "lost cause" mythologising has made a lot of people forget it, but Davis wasn't particularly popular as a President... he was damn near despised by a good many of the populace...

The southern histories of the first few years after the war were very hard on Davis painting him as a fool who lost a winnable war through incompetence and arrogance. That evolved towards a later view that he was an effective leader who made the most of an impossible situation. Which evolved again in the last 50 years to a more negative view closer to the original.

Which is right is heavily a matter of prospective. From my prospective Davis' military background was a double edged sword in terms of his role as Commander in Chief in that he could read the military situation, but often veered into acting as the general and chief of his armies instead of simply the political head.
 
Last edited:
What would have made the war winnable? If the Confederacy had made a mad rush to attack D.C. and grab the federal government?

It depends on ones reading of politics in Europe and the northern states.

There are those who in 1865 and today believe that Europe was one tiny step from throwing its entire weight behind the CSA early in the war so that a few different diplomatic and military moves you would have had the British and French navies slugging it out with the US. I think that notion is dead wrong and there was no appetite in Europe for another war anytime soon after Crimea.

There are those who also believed in 1865 and today that public opinion in the North was one step away from throwing in the towel at critical moments. I don't agree from my reading of the war and tend towards the view that the North if it had more setbacks would have simply mobilized for war to the levels the South did.

My reading of the war is that the South could have ended up with easier terms if the war ended years earlier or little Mac had become President, but an independent nation was never in the cards once the North committed to war. But, I would never presume to say definitively I am right as who knows perhaps my reading is entirely wrong and most of Britain was chomping at the bit to enter the war behind the scenes... though I doubt it based on the evidence collected to date.
 
Last edited:
I kindly disagree the south could have won the civil war though the chances where not big I hate repeating this out,but I did make a alternative history where president Cobb is the confederate president It is not as good however. compared to year 2 of the alternative history.

My biggest defense is Washington DC was not heavily fortified by bull run. Given how bad the military situation it looks like Spain would be Cajoled to help the confederates. The south should never have attacked Fort Sumter

(I forgot to addQuotes )
In the timeline the confederates

  1. Don’t attack Fort Sumter first allowing Lincoln to be the aggressor
  2. Don’t Violate Kentucky’s Neutrality
  3. Don’t have A draft first,because it violates freedom and state rights until Lincoln starts conscription early
 
Last edited:
I kindly disagree the south could have won the civil war though the chances where not big I hate repeating this out,but I did make a alternative history where president Cobb is the confederate president It is not as good however. compared to year 2 of the alternative history.

My biggest defense is Washington DC was not heavily fortified by bull run. Given how bad the military situation it looks like Spain would be Cajoled to help the confederates. The south should never have attacked Fort Sumter

Washington in 1861 as with 1814 was not a five hundred plus year old capital like many in Europe where there is so much psychological attachment to it that wars end the second they are taken by an opposing army.

But, you are correct that it is possible. But, I would argue it required politics in the North coming apart as in Congress and the President prioritizing their battles with one another over the military one in front of them. In my view the North would have had to have shot themselves in the foot and perhaps the leg too a few times to make defeat plausible which nations at war have done more then once in the past.
 
Last edited:
You would need more people than just Davis to have a different mindset than OTL. But my read is that the South's best chance of seceding would have been to

(1) not fire on Sumter. Keep swallowing "insults" and "provocations" as long as necessary while the fait accompli gradually hardened. OTL many people realized that the war would probably be bloody and nasty and even many abolitionists and radicals counseled Lincoln against doing anything. Many northerners also thought it was bluff and the South would eventually fall apart and come running back with its tail between its legs if the Union did not react but that a war would harden Southern sentiment against returning. The longer the South goes without a war, the more the enthusiasm for war for Union among the common northerner dies down. A very adroit Southern leader could be able to help things along by sending peace commissioners with ambiguous noises about possibly being willing to consider a return and then you keep finessing things along. 'We first want to see if the Crittenden amendments pass.' 'but what about Maryland' Delay, delay, delay. Or offer terms that are close to independence but that you claim aren't. "All we want is autonomy with the right to set our own tariffs and a regional government, but we will remain under the Flag!"

(2) make noises for foreign consumption about being willing to consider emancipation of some kind, you tell them that all really want 'national liberation against Northern aggression.' That would make a huge difference in the UK attitude, potentially. It would require a lot of finesse to manage the domestic side of it, you would have to have a different Southern political culture. The commitments could have lots of caveats or be relatively meaningless or after you've won independence you could just ignore them ( no plausible Confederate government could actually talk about emancipation and mean it, given the shocking realities of their attitudes about race). Along the same lines, don't deliberately withhold cotton as a weapon, not even a little bit. Act like you are a good international citizen of the British-led mercantile community just wanting to trade your cotton and those nasty Jonathans keep getting in the way of commerce. Try to give British and French capitalists a stake in your future by selling them future rights to cotton or taking out loans guaranteed with vast tracts of transmissippi land or something.

3) give more encouragement to the Vallandigham types by offering to negotiate a peaceable return and hint that Lincoln is the obstacle. Or engineer for negotiations to fail but in a way that you can point fingers at Lincoln.. Again would have to be adroit and would require finesse, but it could be done.

Lincoln correctly recognized that he was engaged in a politico-military struggle. Southern leadership labored under the delusion that they were in a military struggle.
 
Last edited:
That I have done minus emancipation so far . Well I do have states have confrences to promote humanitarian treatment.

I’m planning a northwest copperhead rebellion I hope in 1863
A copperhead rebellion would hurt more than it would help, imho.
 
The Howell Cobb revolution summary of war of 1861
What would have made the war winnable? If the Confederacy had made a mad rush to attack D.C. and grab the federal government?

Washington in 1861 as with 1814 was not a five hundred plus year old capital like many in Europe where there is so much psychological attachment to it that wars end the second they are taken by an opposing army.

But, you are correct that it is possible. But, I would argue it required politics in the North coming apart as in Congress and the President prioritizing their battles with one another over the military one in front of them. In my view the North would have had to have shot themselves in the foot and perhaps the leg too a few times to make defeat plausible which nations at war have done more then once in the past.

You would need more people than just Davis to have a different mindset than OTL. But my read is that the South's best chance of seceding would have been to

(1) not fire on Sumter and keep swallowing insult as long as necessary while the fait accompli gradually hardened. OTL many people realized that the war would probably be bloody and nasty and even many abolitionists and radicals counseled Lincoln against doing anything. Many northerners also thought it was bluff and the South would eventually fall apart and come running back with its tail between its legs but that a war would harden Southern sentiment against returning. The longer the South goes without a war, the more the enthusiasm for war for Union among the common northerner dies down. A very adroit Southern leader could be able to help things along by sending peace commissioners with ambiguous noises about possibly being willing to consider a return and then you keep finessing things along. 'We first want to see if the Crittenden amendments pass.' 'but what about Maryland' Delay, delay, delay. Or offer terms that are close to independence but that you claim aren't. "All we want is autonomy with the right to set our own tariffs, but we will remain under the Flag!"

(2) make noises for foreign consumption about being willing to consider emancipation of some kind, you just really want 'national liberation against Northern aggression.' That would make a huge difference in the UK attitude, potentially. The commitments could have lots of caveats or be relatively meaningless or after you've won independence you could just ignore them ( no plausible Confederate government could actually talk about emancipation and mean it, given the shocking realities of their attitudes about race). Along the same lines, don't deliberately withhold cotton as a weapon, not even a little bit. Act like you are a good international citizen of the British-led mercantile community just wanting to trade your cotton and those nasty Jonathans keep getting in the way of commerce. Try to give British and French capitalists a stake in your future by selling them future rights to cotton or taking out loans guaranteed with vast tracts of transmissippi land or something.

3) give more encouragement to the Vallandigham types by offering to negotiate a peaceable return and hint that Lincoln is the obstacle. Or engineer for negotiations to fail but in a way that you can point fingers at Lincoln.. Again would have to be adroit and would require finesse, but it could be done.

Lincoln correctly recognized that he was engaged in a politico-military struggle. Southern leadership labored under the delusion that they were in a military struggle.
1 the south dose not attack fort Sumter Lincoln does everything he can do to provoke the south until he invaded his own country . Union recruits aren’t plentiful in that time line (which I wish y’all would read it)

2 Given the needed time the csa stock piles on weapons,munitions and sells cotton exchanges it for war supplies. CSA government gives subsidies toward war industries as they are preparing for total war but the subsidies shall expire.

3 The CSA has a secret service do you harm to the Lincoln war machine before it begins. Judah Benjamin is the head of the Secret Service until hostilities begin. The CSA will purchase medical supplies, revolvers and rifles from northern businesses like in actual history until fort Sumter . They accuse Lincoln that he wishes to emancipate the slaves . At first only the Deep South is in the fight with upper south volunteers .
A copperhead rebellion would hurt more than it would help, imho.
You clearly have not read American alternative history what ifs Book 📖. So hypothetical scenario it does contain a lot of historical points and it tells you the reality too. Well I’m not sure if I would favor a Confederate troops being their agents of course though. factories could be destroyed which would help the Cause .

1 Cobb refuses to attack fort Sumter and Lincoln simply bullies the south provokes it and finally invades with only the Deep South fighting . Virginia and the upper South are sympathetic to the Deep South and send volunteers and supplies,but they accept Lincoln Neutrality. The upper south government is more willing to tolerate volunteers from the upper south for the confederacy then from the union and there are biased state laws.

2 The CSA Secret service fuel the anti war movement sabotaging the Lincoln war machine before it even begin and they could unify and strengthening the copperhead movement .

3 Given the time the south proceeded to buy up weapons from the north particularly Colt weapons. The south has sufficient time to prepare for total war .Kentucky and northern farmers sell food to the confederates so they may stockpile.

1861 Cobb revolution. Before fighting broke out New York city under massive bribery secedes From NEW York state declaring a tariff free City . The copperhead forces effectively take control of the forts and ships and customs. After war breaks out is declared New York city quickly re-join the NY under full pardon from wrongdoing

Union General Lee after heavy losses against Beauregard‘s fortifications,fire ships Torpedos, and other devices takes Charleston and Savanna from the rebels. Union general who reluctantly accepted the rank of major General gives Chilverous Surrender Terms to captured confederate soldiers. During the siege he sent federal money 💰 to pay for Damages, proved conscientious about killing civilians and provided compensation to civilians harmed by war.
General Lee pushes back the Confederates winning battle after battle. Joseph Johnson decides to conduct a Fabian strategy this move importantly preserves the southern military and General Lee often is forced into many frontal assault killing many union soldiers,but winning battles . The csa with competent leadership motivate the CSA at a better rate then actual history allowing there forces not to give up.

The Confederates where losing the war right until Lincoln suspend habeas corpus under executive order and it becomes publicly known over Lincoln’s possibly illegal actions as president. Lincoln has no choice to suspend habeas corpus because confederate partisans are operating and in great numbers in DC itself and around the city. Union politicians are even assassinated During the event . Union general Robert E Lee compels with orders to withdraw union troops from Georgia to defend DC returns home with his southern troops and anyone who doesn’t want to fight in the war anymore. General Robert E Lee excepts the rank of major general for Virginia and latter the confederate army. Lee is primarily training troops while some veterans will be sent from the Deep South. General Robert E Lee though a former union general would encourage union veterans to join the southern cause General Bragg General of training soldiers also has train some of the Confederate troops if not many meaning The Confederates are well disciplined. General Robert E Lee also would’ve helped training these troops
Battle Of Manassas
B44C97C3-DF6C-4951-A88F-B0BD8E54636E.jpeg
Unlike an actual history The Confederate do not almost lose the battle of bull Run, Because Beauregard is not present. General Robert E Lee is instead the commanding general who works well with his good friend and colleague Joseph E Johnston. The confederates Keep strong defense and successfully counterattack the union forcing many of the raw panicked recruits to run like an actual history. this book largely explains the failures of what the Confederates dead at the battle of bull run and many other civil war battles. General Robert E Lee successfully captures most of the union army ants in stonewall Jackson to first go to take Washington DC after a week they Confederates take DC. In a gesture of goodwill the Confederates return soldiers as well as captured union politicians after a little while passed. The Confederates and XTC as the Southern CSA capital. The Confederates release the prisoners and ask for an armistice. If the bluecoats refuse they will hold the capital hostage. (civil War very well could’ve ended under these terms that I have done) New York City’s declares separate from the union in protest of the armistice not being followed declaring at a free city. In 1862 Lincoln breaks the Peace talks
 
Last edited:
Davis made mistakes but who was the better alternative? His biggest ones were supporting Bragg and replacing Johnston with Hood.
 
Davis made mistakes but who was the better alternative? His biggest ones were supporting Bragg and replacing Johnston with Hood.
Howell Cobb for the presidential pick and Robert Toombs a good vice president pick. First of I have not heard that cobbs brother who defiantly believed he would have made a good presidential pick. Johnston would have made a better General in chief, not a field commander. Davis would have been worth a brigadier general and mabey a major general
 
Top