View single post by Hellcat
 Posted: Tue Nov 8th, 2011 09:23 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
Root Beer Lover

Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 899

  back to top

I have to wonder if that would have been true, Cogswell. By one definition it is leadership based on intellectual criteria. By another it is a system in which folks are chosen to lead based on their achievements. I'm looking at Jackson here. Great general, certainly one of the best the South had in my opinion. But like Grant he wasn't terribly noteable after the Mexican-American War. In 1851 he went on to become a professor at VMI and in 1859 he part of the VMI contengient providing an extra military presence at John Brown's hanging. Those really seem like the highlights of his military career during the period between the two wars. And yet then there's what he became during the war. He started out a colonel and became a general following his operations agains the B&O. He then took his brigade to Bull Run (Manassas) where I'd argue his star really began to rise when Bee said he was standing like a stone wall. By the end of October he was already a Major General. That's a pretty fast rise and it does seem based on his talents.

Grant was no Jackson. I'm not saying that he was. But I am saying that there was at least one Confederate General who may be argued was able to grow in the way they did based on their talents during the war.

I can't say I've really paid much attention to Gordon, pender, so I don't know enough there to really agree or disagree with you.

 Close Window