Product Description

Confederate General P. G. T. Beauregard once wrote that "no people ever warred for independence with more relative advantages than the Confederates." If there was any doubt as to what Beauregard sought to imply, he later chose to spell it out: the failure of the Confederacy lay with the Confederate president Jefferson Davis. In Jefferson Davis' Generals, a team of the nation's most distinguished Civil War historians present fascinating examinations of the men who led the South through our nation's bloodiest conflict, focusing in particular on Jefferson Davis' relationships with five key generals who held independent commands: Joseph E. Johnston, Robert E. Lee, P. G. T. Beauregard, Braxton Bragg, and John Bell Hood. Craig Symonds examines the underlying implications of a withering trust between Johnston and his friend Jefferson Davis. And was there really harmony between Davis and Robert E. Lee? A tenuous harmony at best, according to Emory Thomas. Michael Parrish explores how Beauregard and Davis worked through a deep and mutual loathing, while Steven E. Woodworth and Herman Hattaway make contrasting evaluations of the competence of Generals Braxton Bragg and John Bell Hood. Taking a different angle on Davis' ill-fated commanders, Lesley Gordon probes the private side of war through the roles of the generals' wives, and Harold Holzer investigates public perceptions of the Confederate leadership through printed images created by artists of the day. Pulitzer Prize-winner James M. McPherson's final chapter ties the individual essays together and offers a new perspective on Confederate strategy as a whole. Jefferson Davis' Generals provides stimulating new insights into one of the most vociferously debated topics in Civil War history.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #652282 in Books
• Published on: 1999-07-01
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 256 pages

From Amazon.com
Jefferson Davis's Generals is one of the most complete examinations of the Confederate president's relationship with his top military officers. A collection of essays edited by Gettysburg College professor Gabor S. Boritt, it benefits from a variety of viewpoints and concise interpretations. Davis's reputation as a wartime leader inevitably suffers in comparison to Abraham Lincoln, as James M. McPherson (author of Battle Cry of Freedom) points out: "Davis was thin-skinned and lacked Lincoln's ability to work with critics for a common cause." His relationship with General Joseph E. Johnston is deemed "dysfunctional" on these pages, and another writer says his dealings with General P.G.T. Beauregard "reeked of mutual loathing." After the war, both Johnston and Beauregard blamed Davis for the South's defeat. Emory M. Thomas offers a revisionist view of Davis and his most famous commander, Robert E. Lee: "Historians have believed, as the Confederate president believed, that Lee and Davis were in strategic accord when, in fact, they were not." This is a provocative idea, but it is argued persuasively here. Davis, says Thomas, wanted to fight an essentially defensive war of attrition; Lee believed all along that only a speedy war would secure Southern independence. Another essay, by Lesley J. Gordon, focuses on the neglected subject of how Davis and his generals' wives influenced their husbands. Many readers will no doubt want to delve deeper into the issues raised in Jefferson Davis's Generals, and the book's final pages offer a very helpful narrative bibliography for further reading. --John J. Miller

From Library Journal
In this new edited work from Boritt (Why the Civil War Came, Oxford Univ., 1996), eight essayists catalog Confederate States of America president Jefferson Davis's personality flaws and his dysfunctional relationships with his five commanders. A study of Davis and Gen. Joseph E. Johnston shows them at odds over conflicting strategies, loss of mutual confidence and respect, and a breakdown of communication. Pierre Beauregard's hatred of Davis spanned the war, and yet the general willingly cooperated with his president. Braxton Bragg's western campaign suffered from executive meddling, hostile subordinates, and an overabundance of Davis cronies on his staff. John Bell Hood is seen as the incompetent beneficiary of the president's favoritism. Surprisingly, a final contribution by historian James McPherson deflates the book's argument, contending that battlefield strategy far outweighed personalities. While this is a worthy addition to Civil War historiography, the fine sections on the role of the generals' wives and Davis iconography could have been more effectively integrated, and in the summary chapter the contributors appear to be in a civil war of their own making concerning the book's thesis. Recommended for public and academic libraries.AJohn Carver Edwards, Univ. of Georgia Libs., Athens
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Review
... an estimable collection edited by one of the foremost Civil War scholars. American Studies Today

Customer Reviews

Jeff Davis and his commanding generals.
Why did the South lose the war? Well, Jefferson Davis interfered with the role his commanding generals played in their respective theaters. Davis enjoyed a good relationship with Robert E. Lee but less desireable relationships with Johnson and Bragg. The Western commanders and the Army of Tennessee were a less dangerous foe to the Union forces.
In this book of essays from different authors, Davis's relationship with such generals as Johnson, Bragg, Hood, Lee, and others are portrayed. His interference in their commands made the difference in the West. Lee was more of a diplomat and managed to cope and modify Davis's demands for the Army of Northern Virginia. Also portrayed is a unique essay on how the wives of these Generals also had an effect on the war. Jeff Davis was a poor commander, and most of his Generals (with the exception of Lee) failures. Lincoln was the better Commander in Chief and that is one of the reasons he won the war.
A good read about the command function of the leader of a nation.
This book stirs your interest in why the South lost and the North won.