Degree

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

History

Document Type

Dissertation

Abstract

Abstract

Army command in the Civil War was heavily influenced by political considerations. The politics of command manifested themselves in three ways: national level politics, institutional level politics and personal level politics. Successful army commanders needed to obtain at least a modicum of success in each of these areas. Generals Buell and Burnside (both U.S. officers) and General Bragg (who fought for the Confederacy) did not and consequentially failed as army commanders. Buell’s failure was at the national level, Burnside’s the institutional level, and Bragg’s primarily the personal level. Each of the three engendered strong opposition to their tenures as army commander and each was subsequently relieved. Historical analysis reveals the  idiosyncrasies that generated their failures. —for Buell, hubris; for Burnside, timidity; for Bragg, imperiousness—but each also reveals common structural elements within the American military institution, founded on certain key values; loyalty, duty, respect, service, honor, integrity, and courage. Although the politics of command in American armies have changed somewhat since the Civil War the underlying values have not. The failure of senior commanders to satisfy army ethics and values remain today, though in a distinct minority. Such failures today often carry the same political repercussions as they did for Civil War commanders. This dissertation offers Civil War-era case studies to help modern readers see the tensions that arise in the case of different categories of leadership failure. Ethics and values mattered during the Civil War and still do today. The politics of command are still with us.

Date

7-12-2026

Committee Chair

Sheehan-Dean, Aaron

LSU Acknowledgement

1

LSU Accessibility Acknowledgment

1

Download

Available for download on Monday, July 02, 2029

Share

COinS