Bragg, Polk, and Hardee

[Josh]

Braxton Bragg, Leonidas Polk, and William Hardee were all significant Confederate commanders in the west, mostly with the Army of the Mississippi / Army of Tennessee starting in early 1862. Bragg would be with that army until late 1863, Polk until his death in mid-1864, and Hardee until late 1864.

All three commanded Corps at Shiloh. After the Siege of Corinth, Bragg commanded the army while Polk and Hardee commanded his corps/wings during the Kentucky Campaign & Perryville, Stones River, and the Tullahoma Campaign. Hardee left (due to issues with Bragg) and missed Chickamauga, but returned for Chattanooga where he replaced Polk (who also left because of issues with Bragg). After Bragg was relieved, Polk and Hardee both commanded Corps under Joe Johnston during the Atlanta Campaign. Polk was killed and Hardee got a transfer because of issues with Hood's bloody overly aggressive strategies.

Bragg frequently feuded with Polk and Hardee (and with Edmund Kirby Smith during and after the Kentucky Campaign). Bragg effectively lost every campaign he fought, except for the one where he had numerical superiority (Chickamauga) and then arguably only due to luck (the Confederate "piledriver" attack was unknowingly aimed at the gap that Wood accidentally opened in the Union line). However, I don't recall Polk or Hardee ever delivering a particularly impressive performance in any battle. Even on the first day of Stones River it seems the Confederate's best work was due to a combination of surprise and division commanders like Cleburne.

How would you rate the three generals in question: good, okay, or bad? Would things have gone differently for the Confederates if Bragg had been relieved after the Kentucky Campaign or Stones River, either by Joe Johnston (the likely choice and Bragg's eventual successor), Hardee, or Polk? Was the western army essentially doomed by mediocre upper leadership and were there any division commanders who should've been raised to higher command? (Pat Cleburne is the only great divisional commander in that army I can think of.)

['Aussie Rick']

You raise some very good points and an interesting question Josh. I read a very good book (or so I thought) on this subject some many years ago; Jefferson Davis and His Generals: The Failure of Confederate Command in the West by Steven E. Woodworth.


by Steven E. Woodworth

[Jan C]

This is a good book. I've been reading it for a while.

['Aussie Rick']

Glad to hear you have been enjoying the book Jan. His other book; Davis and Lee at War, is just as good (I think), have you read that one as well?

by Steven E. Woodworth

[Josh]

I've added both Woodworth books to my To Read lists.

I've previously read Peter Cozzens' books on Chickamauga and Chattanooga - This Terrible Sound: THE BATTLE OF CHICKAMAUGA and The Shipwreck of Their Hopes: THE BATTLES FOR CHATTANOOGA.

I'm currently reading several books in preparation for a history presentation in January about the Kentucky and Murfreesboro campaigns:
by Earl J. Hess
by Kenneth W. Noe
by Peter Cozzens
by Larry J. Daniel

[Jan C]

No, I don't have that one. I believe I do have another one pf his books but can't think of the name of it. He may only be an editor on this one. I shall check when I get back to the laptop where I can check it. Now I'm in the dentist's waiting room.

The other one I have of his is A Scythe of Fire: A Civil War Story of the Eighth Georgia Infantry Regiment but I don't think I've started it yet.

['Aussie Rick']

Some great books there Josh, I have a two in my library; Perryville and No Better Place to Die and the other two on order would you believe! I hope your history presentation goes well.

[David]

No Better Place to Die is outstanding. I will have to check out Woodworth.

As for the Generals

Braxton Bragg: Finally I would have to rate him as bad since he was so disliked by his own command officer corp. Old Pete didn't have much to say nice about him either when he joined him.

Leonidas Polk: Better Bishop than General

William Hardee-wrote a nice manual, not very good either.

Great question

[Josh]

I believe Hardee's "Tactics" was really just a translation of a French manual into English?

[Jon]

It relied on a French guide but he also modified and expanded it quite a bit. Here is an article by Allen Mesch about it http://salient-points.blogspot.co.il/...

[R.E.]

All three generals appear as characters in my novels, with Leonidas Polk in particular serving as a major supporting character.

In terms of competence, Bragg presents a mixed picture. I think he was a very gifted administrator and organizer, and a solid strategist. However, on the battlefield his tactical performance was strictly average, and he certainly had a deficit when it came to inspiring great feats or loyalty from his officers and rankers.

Polk was not a very good general, almost the polar opposite of Bragg. His colleagues, officers, and rankers at least respected, and often adored him, despite his military shortcomings. Yet those shortcomings were great, and Polk's passive-aggressive nature and insubordinate streak was sure to cause discord wherever he went.

Hardee was merely competent. As a general officer, he merits B- grades pretty much across the board -- good enough, but nothing spectacular. He was also fussy, and the only superior he ever really got along with was A.S. Johnston, who had been over him for Hardee's entire army career.

An interesting thing to realize about Polk and Hardee is that even Joe Johnston didn't think very much of them, and they didn't like it. Something I wonder about is if they had spent more time with Old Joe, would they have turned on him in the way they did against Bragg?