Worst Corps Commander in 1863?

gary · #1 10-16-2006, 10:28 PM

Which Union Corps Commander in the Army of the Potomac was the worst? If you were in command of the Army, who would you sack?

manofdreds · #2 10-17-2006, 05:40 AM

I'm assuming this is around the Gettysburg campaign. If I were in command it would be Gen'l Slocum of the XII Corps. During the battle a lot of attention was on Sickles and his intentions which led to the destruction of his corps. But I think Slocum's action, particularly during Day one should be studied and scrutinized. It seems to me he lost heart and disobeyed orders. While the I and XI Corps was getting destroyed Slocum and the XII Corps sat idled on the Baltimore Pike. HHHhmmmmmmmmmmmmm and where was he during the rest of the battle? LOL. I'm sure others on the board can answer this more in detail

whitworth · #3 10-17-2006, 08:02 AM

manofdreds, normal history tends to fault Slocum somewhat, but look who was up in front of the XII Corps. You have Major General O.O. Howard in charge of the battlefield and Major General Carl Schurz, a political general, in command of the infamous XI Corps. Most historians tend to ignore Schurz and his command on July 1. Should the XI Corps have pushed through Gettysburg and engaged with the town at their back? I really doubt this was a sound tactical move. Another corps would have added more chaos up with XI Corps.
I give Slocum credit for realizing that the XI Corps would tumble back through Gettysburg, once Ewell and Early came up. Even Meade didn't trust Howard in overall command. He sent Hancock to take charge; a general who never commanded a corps in combat.

SpartanGSG · #4 10-18-2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitworth

manofdreds, normal history tends to fault Slocum somewhat, but look who was up in front of the XII Corps. You have Major General O.O. Howard in charge of the battlefield and Major General Carl Schurz, a political general, in command of the infamous XI Corps. Most historians tend to ignore Schurz and his command on July 1. Should the XI Corps have pushed through Gettysburg and engaged with the town at their back? I really doubt this was a sound tactical move. Another corps would have added more chaos up with XI Corps.
I give Slocum credit for realizing that the XI Corps would tumble back through Gettysburg, once Ewell and Early came up. Even Meade didn't trust Howard in overall command. He sent Hancock to take charge; a general who never commanded a corps in combat.

I have seen in some blogs where those who subscribe to revisionist history suggest Schurz had the presence of mind to understand that actions taken on the right flank day one represented his "understanding" he had to sacrifice the 11th Corps in the interests of providing a holding action to allow the Federal Army to reform on C-Ridge. This represents a strategic understanding of a very chaotic situation I believe was above and beyond his competence. There is not one shred of evidence that there was any tactical advantage to taking the positions the 11th Corps was assigned to take that day.
Regards,
Spartan

matthew mckeon · #5 10-18-2006, 08:54 PM

I would have fired Sickles ASAP. The Third Corps fought hard, but was handled very badly by Sickles and his commanders.

Generals Kilpatrick and Pleasanton of the Cavalry Corps performed disappointingly. Pleasanton was a schemer, but a military cipher and Kilpatrick showed poor tactical judgement on July 3rd, poor judgement that his troopers paid for. I would have fired Pleasonton, and made Buford cavalry commander, and made Custer a divisional commander.

11th Corps, the hardluck unit of the corps. It was deployed badly, and subjected to a furious assault. Howard could have done a better job, but he didn't lose his nerve and understood the Cemetary Hill was a key position. But what a contrast with 1st Corps under Doubleday, who performed very well, and should have been promoted to corps commander. I think 11th should have been broken up and assigned to other commands.

I don't think that Schurz purposely used the 11th as a speed bump for the Confederates to buy time. If he had been in a more defensible position he could have bought as much time with fewer and less humilitating losses.

manofdreds · #6 10-19-2006, 12:29 AM

In my readings, i was under the impression that the XI corps position was predicated on support from XII Corps. Did Howard not send messages to Slocum on the situation and that he should come up? If I'm not mistaken, Hancock also sent messages to Slocum. I do agree that Pleasanton and Kilpatrick should've been fired.

whitworth · #7 10-19-2006, 08:49 AM

Well the 11th Corps was broken up after Gettysburg. It just took a little time.
Brigades were transferred to South Carolina within months. BG Schimmelfennig and Col. von Gilsa were soon gone. Meade wanted to transfer Howard to another corps, but moved what was left of Howard's 11th Corps to the western army later that year.
MG Schurz was sent with Howard to Tennessee and had a court of inquiry after the battle of Wauhatchie, near Chattanooga. After that Schurz got the best "professional shuffle" of the Civil War. He retained his stars to the end, but got moved and moved and never commanded a corps in combat again.
Even von Steinwehr, who did a credible job, holding Cemetery Hill with his division, was replaced when the 11th and 12th Corps were combined for Sherman's march into Georgia.

As for Sickles, he lost a leg and never got recalled by Meade as a Corps commander. Kilpatrick was transferred to Sherman in the west and Slocum and his corps went with Howard to Tennessee.

In fact, not one Corps commander at Gettysburg was with the Army of the Potomac at Appomattox. Death, wounding and transfers, completely changed the command structure.

OpnDownfall · #8 10-19-2006, 04:02 PM

By the record books, O. O. Howard' the 11th Corps was a hard luck outfit, but they apparently did not improve under Howard.
Interestingly, later in the war, Sherman kept Howard as a Corps Commander on his March to the Sea, while relieving Hooker, who was a much better corps commander, by the record books.

P.S. I know how and why it happened, but it has been noted that under a better general, Howard was a better corps commander

samgrant · #9 11-21-2006, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpnDownfall

By the record books, O. O. Howard' the 11th Corps was a hard luck outfit, but they apparently did not improve under Howard.
Interestingly, later in the war, Sherman kept Howard as a Corps Commander on his March to the Sea, while relieving Hooker, who was a much better corps commander, by the record books.

Sherman should have promoted Logan.

ole · #10 11-21-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Sherman should have promoted Logan.

Logan thought so, as well. Howard, although not particularly skillful, was a West Pointer, solid, and reliable. Logan was a civilian, a politician, volitile, and frequently performed very, very well. I think, in the end, Sherman made his choice for reliable and sympathized with Logan to the extent that he had him lead the AotT in the grand review after the war. Logan, back in politics after the war, exacted payback.
Ole