Civil War History - The Eastern TheaterDiscuss 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.
Worst corps commander in the AoP? Definitely the Main man, Otis Howard. To his defeats at Chancellorsville & Gettysburg I would add his unwillingness to take responsiblity for those errors.
I acknowledge that "the Dutchmen" didn't like him from the beginning and he reciprocated with mistrust towards them (wasn't he prejudiced towards immigrants?), so maybe he should have been transferred to a different corps? It's a pity that his corps was unjustly labelled as cowards due to Howard's faults.
Sherman characterized him as "a polished and Christian gentleman, exhibiting the highest and most chivalric traits of the soldier"- so maybe it would have been better if Howard had become the soldier of Christ? Wouldn't he be a better chaplain instead of being a general?
PS. Chitlins?? Hey, we have a similar dish in Poland, it's very popular, but I've never forced myself to try it.
As for the defeat at Chancellorsville:
Genl Howard enumerated three causes of this "disaster": dense woods, the panic produced by the enemy's reverse fire, and the absence of Gen. Barlow's brigade. The second cause can be doubted, as Howard's subordinates in their reports don't admit that there was any panic among their men; on the contrary- they lay stress on their soldiers' good behavior in the face of the overwhelming attacking forces.
The first cause- dense woods- doesn't justify Howard. Wasn't it his duty to adjust his planning to the situation & geography of the area? The same with the third cause- who- if not the corps commander- was responsible for that absence?
One more thing. Genl Howard could indeed be prejudiced to his non-American subordinates. He mentioned his "difficulties arising from the different nationalities in this command".
As for the defeat at Chancellorsville:
Genl Howard enumerated three causes of this "disaster": dense woods, the panic produced by the enemy's reverse fire, and the absence of Gen. Barlow's brigade. The second cause can be doubted, as Howard's subordinates in their reports don't admit that there was any panic among their men; on the contrary- they lay stress on their soldiers' good behavior in the face of the overwhelming attacking forces.
The first cause- dense woods- doesn't justify Howard. Wasn't it his duty to adjust his planning to the situation & geography of the area? The same with the third cause- who- if not the corps commander- was responsible for that absence?
One more thing. Genl Howard could indeed be prejudiced to his non-American subordinates. He mentioned his "difficulties arising from the different nationalities in this command".
So they spoke German just a minor problem. All of his excuses are doubtful for truth is both enlisted and officer panic. A lack of leadership prevailed that day in May 1863.
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
A lack of leadership prevailed that day in May 1863.
Exactly, and most blame should be on Howard. Problem with him was that he couldn't learn from his mistakes- at Gettysburg he repeated his errors. Yet the press considered the corps responsible of that, not the corps commander.
On the other hand, Sherman made good use of Howard's Corps during his stroll through Georgia. If Howard were that bad, I doubt that Sherman would have picked him to lead half his army.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Bobbie, I am gonna have to respectfully disagree on some things. When it comes to Chancelorsville, I do agree there were some glaring mistakes made, and some of them on Howard's part, but I would have to say his subordinates also deserve a great deal of blame too for not entrenching their men. Now remember, we are going into the third year of the war, and digging in was not a prevalent tactic up to this point, especially in the AoP. I do agree the line should have been refused (bent back at the flank) and Howard shouldn't have gone with Barlow, but stayed with the corps. But I wouldn't put the blame solely on him. And he did an amazing job with the Army of the Tennessee, and was commended by Sherman, so I would have to say that that speaks for something.
And I would not characterize Howard as having lost at Gettysburg. Yes, his corps did a sizeable amount of skedaddling, but the Union forces were being attacked from two directions, and the ground where the 11th Corps was fighting was not ideal, and Pfanz, in his book on the first day, says the the unit commanders chose their ground poorly, not Howard, In fact, Howard probably did a great deal to save the battle for the Union, by placing artillery and a brigade on Cemetery Hill and designating as a fall back point. The 1st Corps was fought out (this was the last battle for the 1st Corps; it was soon consolidated into the 5th Corps) and though they fought valiantly, they were outnumbered greatly. Howard did all he could to save the Union army, and chose the best ground on the field. His men lost, but I would not say through any fault of Howard's. If you haven't, pick up Pfanz's Gettysburg: The First Day. He lays it out pretty clear.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
On the other hand, Sherman made good use of Howard's Corps during his stroll through Georgia. If Howard were that bad, I doubt that Sherman would have picked him to lead half his army.
ole
I don't trust Sherman and his choices He explained that he picked Howard to succeed Genl McPherson because he "needed commanders who were purely and technically soldiers, men who obey orders and execute them promptly and on time". Logan and Blair were also taken into consideration, but Sherman regarded them as "volunteers", not professional soldiers.
So Sherman didn't state that Mr. Howard was a good commander. Only a commander who would be good at obeying & executing orders.
Bobbie, I am gonna have to respectfully disagree on some things. When it comes to Chancelorsville, I do agree there were some glaring mistakes made, and some of them on Howard's part, but I would have to say his subordinates also deserve a great deal of blame too for not entrenching their men. Now remember, we are going into the third year of the war, and digging in was not a prevalent tactic up to this point, especially in the AoP. I do agree the line should have been refused (bent back at the flank) and Howard shouldn't have gone with Barlow, but stayed with the corps. But I wouldn't put the blame solely on him.
All right, I admit that his officers were also responsible for this defeat. He should have written so in his reports instead of blaming the woods or the panic among rank and file.
Quote:
And he did an amazing job with the Army of the Tennessee, and was commended by Sherman, so I would have to say that that speaks for something.
I agree that he wasn't that bad in the AoT. But for me it doesn't put his action of May 1863 in better light.
Considering Gettysburg, I confess to not having read the Pfanz book. So I repeal (temporarily) my negative remarks on Howard's performance at Gettysburg
I don't trust Sherman and his choices He explained that he picked Howard to succeed Genl McPherson because he "needed commanders who were purely and technically soldiers, men who obey orders and execute them promptly and on time".
Fair enough. Sherman himself needed the security of a superior officer. However, when you examine the bottom line, it would seem that the requirement for "men who obey orders and execute them promptly and on time," was a primary factor in the ultimate military successes of the Federal Armies.
Howard's failures, which you've admirably outlined, may well be because he had no orders to obey and promptly execute.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
[quote=Bobbie;81054Considering Gettysburg, I confess to not having read the Pfanz book. So I repeal (temporarily) my negative remarks on Howard's performance at Gettysburg [/quote]
You definitely should; they are wonderful reads and do a great job with each day individually. Pfanz hasn't done a book on Pickett's charge, though I don't think he will. That part of the battle is quite well written on and I don't think another book added will add much more to the understanding. But get them, they are excellent. Fairly cheap on Amazon last I saw.
Concerning Howard, the AotT seemed to like him, from what Woodworth wrote in his Nothing But Victory. The men of the Army of the Tennessee had served under Grant, Sherman and McPherson, and they loved them and respected them, knowing that with them, they would fight. Now, I do admit, Howard did follow Sherman's orders quite a bit and he wasn't given much independent command, seeing as Sherman was there the entire time, but he capably followed those orders and he had a good army in the AotT. I think he was a capable leader, he just needed men under him who were willing to follow him and whatever orders were given.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
