CivilWarTalk.com - A free and friendly Civil War community.
CivilWarTalk.com
The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk  

Go Back   The Dispatch Depot at Civil War Talk > The Backpack - Essential Discussions > Civil War History - The Eastern Theater

Civil War History - The Eastern Theater Discuss any and all battles, movements, and events occuring in the Eastern Theater here! This includes any actions in tha area east of the Appalachian Mountains in the vicinity of the river capitals of Richmond and Washington D.C.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-10-2004, 07:46 PM
wt_jimbos's Avatar
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 113
Default

It seems Hooker blamed Sedgwick for the failure of his plans that resulted in the disaster at Chancellorsville.

Dairy of Col. Charles S. Wainwright, USA, Cheif of Artillery, First Army Corps, Army of the Potomac.
"May 31..The General sat with us for an hour, and spent that time in an attempt to justify himself as to the result of chancellorsville... He based his defense for not attacking Lee on monday [May 4] first that he expected Lee would attack his own right...The second excuse...was worse than the first, being an attempt to throw the whole blame on General Sedgwick. He was very bitter against "Uncle John", accusing him of being slow and afraid; also of disobeying orders directly. Now for a general to make such charges against an absent subordinate, in defending himself before a lot of young officers, while he takes no official notice of it, is-well, i hope Hooker was drunk while here, for his own sake....My feelings are divided between shame for my commanding general, and indignation at the attack on so true, brave, and modest a man as Sedgwick ...That Sedgwick did not do what Hooker wanted him there is no doubt...but this was more from Hooker's fault than his, owing as it was to the indistinct, even non-sencical wording of the orders recieved, and the fact that they were delivered from twelve to twenty-four hours later than they should have been...I got my information on both sides as direct as possible"

In a chapter of <u>The U.S. Army War College Guides to Civil War Battles: Guide to the Battles of Chancellorsvile &amp; Fredericksburg. </u>
Intelligence in the Chancellorsville Campaign.
When he suspended his own attack Hooker instructed Sedgwick, who commanded 40,000 men at Fredericksburg, "to keep a sharp lookout, and attack if you can succeed." But Segdwick, who received a steady flow of reports from "balloons in the air" to the effect that the Confederates had withdrawn many troops from their lines at Fredericksburg to meet Hooker's advance from the west, decided not to attack. Major General John F. Reynolds, who commanded I Corps, Cautioned against making an attack and speculated that the Confederates "have been...showing weakness, with a view of delaying Hooker, in tempting us to make an attack on their fortified position, and hoping to destroy us and strike for our depot over our bridges."

My question is how much was Sedgwick to blame for the events of the Chancellorsville campaign.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-14-2004, 08:26 AM
wt_jimbos's Avatar
Private (25+ posts)
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 113
Default

"Always the dam' darkies, nothing but the darkies" doesn't anyone want to talk about the fighting no more!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-08-2005, 08:05 PM
Admiral_Porter's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 381
Default

Sedgwick did indeed move cautiously but one corps should not be expected to rescue six others. Hooker had 2 corps with him, I and V, which didn't even see combat.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-27-2005, 11:49 PM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 521
Default

My question is why did Sedgewick attack directly up Marye's heights, doing what an entire army failed to do instead of flanking the position and going directly for Lee's rear. even though only one CSA brigade (barksdale) was behind the wall on May 3rd. With the addition of Gibbon's division Sedgewick had a 10:1 advantage over general Early's 3500 men. If Sedgewick had forded North of Fredericksburg as Hancock and Couch suggested to Burnside six month's earlier, He had the opportunity to destroy the ANV in detail. Am I correct in that Lee only had Anderson, McClaws and Early to fend off Hooker and Sedgewick while Jackson's 28K men were marching in the woods to attack Howard? Why did Hooker not coordinate with Sedgewick and send Meade to attack Lee from the Zoan church side putting him under pressure on 3 sides?
Respectfully
Matt.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-28-2005, 03:41 PM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: VA
Posts: 524
Default

I would guess that Sedgewick did not want to wait to outflank Early's line. He probably figured that Early would combat his moves ****her north and somewhat blunt his flanking column. Thus, he figured a frontal assault was the quickest approach. That's just my gues....not sure of the explanations Sedgewick gave.


As to the second part of the question you posed...I guess that is the big question. Why didn't Hooker attack? Obviously he should have. He was still to cowed to go on the offensive. His explanation of losing faith in himself is pretty good.

Respectfully
__________________
Up men, and to your post! And let no man forget today that you are from old Virginia!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-28-2005, 04:23 PM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 521
Default

nbforrest,

Looking at Stephen W. Sears book on C'Ville, he quotes Hooker's orders to Sedgewick " On May 3rd Sedgewick was to come up from Fredericksburg, and fall on Lee's rear. That order, Hooker said later, ' was premptory and would have justified him losing every man of his command in its execution'. " The only way to avoid that was crossing the Rap. north and west of Maryes heights, taking Barksdale, and Early in turn, in the flank. According to Sears that accounts for 8400 men that Lee had to respond with. Early could not move west because of Lee's need to protect the supplies coming up the RF&P RR. This left only Anderson and McLaws divisions being forced to move east. By the time they did so, Sedgewick would have been well established on Lee's rear.

According to the map in Sears' book representing 6 am May 3rd, Slocum's 12th and Couches' 2nd corp were capable of attacking McLaws and Anderson to give Sedgewick a free hand in dealing with Early. Once dealt with, Sedgewick would've turned taking Anderson and McLaws in the rear.

In order to deal with Stuarts assault on Hazel Grove, send Meade and Reynolds down the Hunting road on the south side of Ely's Ford Rd, 2nd corp ANV finds 20,000 AOP troops in its rear. Sears pgs 308, 315, Chancellorsville
Respectfully,
Matt
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-28-2005, 07:53 PM
Admiral_Porter's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 381
Default

Wasn't Early in the process of moving his men when Sedgwick attacked and only in the nick of time did Barksdale's men get back to the stone wall?
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-28-2005, 08:21 PM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 521
Default

I believe he was compelled to move them south to protect the RF&P by Sedgewick's attack. What was he doing prior, moving west towards Lee?
Respectfully,
Matt
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-28-2005, 08:22 PM
Admiral_Porter's Avatar
Corporal (250+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
What was he doing prior, moving west towards Lee?
Yes I believe so unless my memory has failed me. It has been awhile since I read anything about Chancellorsville.

Forrest can probably help us out.
__________________
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-28-2005, 09:09 PM
Sergeant (500+ posts)
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: NY
Posts: 521
Default

Admiral Porter,
According to Sears, he was indeed withdrawing westward and it was only Uncle John's crossing that forced to him to return. Sears claims Early had 8 guns and 1200 men at Marye's Heights. At its closest point to the town, Sedgewicks men had only 450-600 yards to cross under fire as opposed to over 1000.
respectfully
Matt

Last edited by milhistbuff1; 11-28-2005 at 09:13 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Back to top
Bringing the American Civil War to Life. Copyright © 1999 - 2008, CivilWarTalk.com. Site Version 4.3
The American Civil War | Forum | Resource Center | Image Gallery | Links | Site Map | XML | Donations