[lit-ideas] Re: The American Civil War, why and how it was fought
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0700
Donal,
Your comments are more practical than my “If either side had leaders who didn’t
exceed their capabilities and would submit to their more competent compatriots
it would have won in in a very short period of time.” The people who fit that
qualification seem to have been so doubt-filled that they never reached the
top. Burnside for example was extremely competent but he didn’t believe he was
qualified to lead an army. He refused the assignment but Lincoln insisted.
Then through no fault of his own he had some bad luck, bad luck seemed to haunt
him, as when an unseasonable rain bogged down his whole army as it tried to
cross a river. He pleaded to Lincoln to relieve him but Lincoln was so
attracted to this general who would list his own shortcomings and take
responsibility for failures that he wouldn’t accept his request. Burnside kept
on requesting removal and when it became obvious that the army had lost
confidence in him (because of his bad luck) Lincoln reassigned him.
Then there were others who started out shy and unassuming. John Bell Hood was
one. He loved to serve under leaders who valued his fighting ability. He was
good looking, highly favored by Jefferson Davis, fearless and applauded
wherever he went. He was a “rock star” and thought it only fitting that he be
allowed to lead an army. As a corps commander he violated military protocol
and sent telegraphs to Jefferson Davis running down his superior Longstreet
until he finally got his Army and his chance and he blew it. His mistakes
destroyed his army at the battles of Franklin and Nashville. Most historians,
I gather, tend to abuse Hood today but if everyone keeps telling you that you
are a rock star won’t you eventually believe it? Who has the character to
resist that sort of praise?
Grant truly was a rock star as a general. Lincoln was delighted to have him in
charge of the army. He wasn’t promoted beyond his ability – until he was
offered the nomination for the presidency; so even Grant succumbed to the
praise.
Sherman was another rock star and was closer to what we are looking for. He
was one of the most “modern” of the generals who fought in the civil war (the
other was Bedford Forrest). His battles are still studied today and he too
was offered the presidency but being wiser than Grant said that he would not
accept the nomination and that if he received it and won the presidency he
would not serve as president. He wasn’t kidding.
Nathan Bedford Forrest was another rock star. He was truly brilliant. Douglas
Haig, for example, studied Forrest’s tactics. But there was never a chance
that Forrest would be promoted beyond his abilities because he was not a
graduate of West Point. He wasn’t a graduate of anything. He proved himself
time and time again. He kept making the right decisions and doing the right
thing but generals above him preferred what they had been taught at West Point
to what he was telling them.
Another question that might be asked is what sort of Civil War we might have
had if there were no West Point.
Lawrence
From: Donal McEvoy
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: The American Civil War, why and how it was fought
Lawrence, excuse my stepping into this thread, which has several interesting
strands: the what-ifs of this apparent crucible for future developments, that
the casus belli was not slavery (it's been elsewhere suggested that slavery was
brought it as a casus for strategic more than principled reasons - to keep
anti-slavery outside states, like Britain, from supporting the South), and
assessment from the POV of the military historian.
Of particular interest is the theme of failures of leadership, and what seems
to support an old Billy Connolly argument that the first way to reform politics
is to find out who wants to be politician and then ban them for life from
politics (of course, we know they would dissemble to get round any such ban;
and some good candidates would be banned): in the Civil War you almost seem to
suggest a like ban in terms of military leadership might have ensured victory
for the side that adopted it:-
>If either side had leaders who didn’t exceed their capabilities and would
>submit to their more competent compatriots it would have won in in a very
>short period of time.>
This theme is of pressing contemporary relevance given how power is distributed
in our societies and how tenuous are often the controls over than power.
Currently we seem, both politically and economically [to say nothing of many
other spheres where failings cannot at least produce wars or economic
catastrophe], to suffer from failures of leadership in a way that goes way
beyond us 'getting the leaders we deserve' - incompetent or barely competent
narcissists push themselves to the front of the queue when 'leadership' roles
are being distributed and we suffer the results. This kind of failure of
leadership seems widespread in our society and, ballot box aside, leaders in
many fields seem to be able to use their position to shield themselves from
their being removed from leadership even where that leadership has failed:
moreover, such failings also have a corrosive affect on the good-will and
energy of those subject to such leadership.
Crowbarring in the obligatory Popper reference: P somewhere suggested we would
be better off with a political culture where a politician would gain support,
rather than lose it, through an honest detailing of their failings in policy
and administration - indeed gain more support from detailing such mistakes than
would be gained by proclaiming successes; yet I recall a politically minded
friend regarding this suggestion as bizarre, which indicates how far even
intelligent people see politics as an inevitable game of 'never admit mistakes
(unless it would be a strategic mistake not to do so)'. [It seems to me this
approach may be distinguished, at least in principle, from 'always admit
mistakes (unless it would not be strategic to do so)']. Insofar as it is
correct that we would not respond favourably to a more honest and self-critical
politician, perhaps we do get the politicians we deserve.
But among the distinct issues these failings of leadership raise:- one is how
such leaders, especially the narcissistic type, may be most blind to their own
failings (which therefore go uncorrected), and this is a failing that cannot
easily be laid at the door of the public, even one assumed to respond better to
'success-talk' than 'failure-talk'. One might think education would produce
properly self-critical individuals - but we must all have striking experience
of highly educated people who see facing their failings as an affront to their
highly educated status: that is, that a pernicious kind of intellectual
dishonesty and dogmatism can go hand-in-hand a high level of intellect and
education. A root problem is surely than the desire for a leadership role is
often linked with a desire for status, and a desire for status is often
antithetical to a properly self-critical approach to life and its problems.
Apart from being perhaps another striking example of this phenomenon, which is
perhaps too little studied and understood given its potentially and actually
calamitous impact, are there any useful lessons the Civil War throws up as to
how failures of leadership might be averted or mitigated? [Short of "the great
leader laid low...killed outright by his own men", per Dylan's great Civil War
song "'Cross the Green Mountain".]
Donal
Plymouth
Other related posts:
