Civil War History - General DiscussionFor Discussions on Civil War Era Personalities, Politics, Issues, Campaigns, Battles, and more. Serious Civil War Discussions Only Please! All other posts will be deleted.
Gentlemen:
I've read the same sort of thing both in the positive and the negative. Sherman, for example, tended to share, as much as possible, the rigors of his men. And Lee tried to not be overly comfortable when his men had little.
Then there were those who took their rank as a birthright for comfort amid the miserable. Kindofa "it takes all kinds" thingy. There are examples within our contempories as well, but we each have our examples, and that would be OT.
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
There's a very good reason you want your commanding general/officer well fed and warm. You want him to concentrate on winning the battle.
As a first sergeant of a Headquarters and Headquarters Company (HHC), my job was to take care of all the day-to-day details to free up the officers so they could concentrate on the future, and not be bothered with the little 'stuff.'
As a matter-of-fact, I had to on many occassions, discourage my officers from helping the enlisted men set up camp (tents, generators, latrines, etc.). I actually had angry words with more than one officer that it was not his/her business to act like a private and pound a tent stake in the ground, but it was their job to contact higher headquarters for support and intelligence, to be planning the battle and save the lives of their soldiers, not try to get 'points' by acting like a regular guy.
Many was the time I ordered (not asked) the officers of my company to the head of the chow line in the field so they could get the food when it was good and hot. If an officer is hungry and cold and thinks only of himself, he or she is not worth a dam to his men. They will make mistakes and get people killed. All real soldiers know this and go along with this practice.
It is the sergeants who eat last, making sure their men are taken care of and get the food and supplies they need. Officers MUST be thinking of other things, important things, not where their next meal is coming from or where they will sleep for the night.
I hope I have made my point.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Neil, in your experiences with HHC, did you come to any conclusions about the best strategies by commanding officers in keeping up morale in soldiers, while the officers still had better creature comforts, and with the soldiers being aware of the officers' advantages?
Unionblue,
I agree with Matthew McKeon here, your argument about Hood would convince me if those warm food and conditions led to exponetially better judgment, alas they did not. That "Chateau generalship" is what made WWI so bloody and long and I sincerely hope its practicianers are roasting in h*ll for the amount of unnecesary casualties their strategies and tactics inflicted on a generation now all but gone.
Chateau Generalship is a myth. 78 British generals were killed in World War 1.
Improved communications, increase in the size of armies, and an increase in the size of battlefields made it necessary for them to be further back.
The generals of World War I were stuck in a tactical quagmire not that different from what was experienced by Civil War generals. By 1918 the British and Germans perfected Blitzkrieg type tactics.
Neil,
I realize what you mean by your post and your experience as a 1st Sgt. However, here were exceptions to what you say and what I'm about to say doesn't include a "Cmdg. Gen." but a divisional Cmdr.; fairly high rank to say the least.
Gen. P.R. Cleburne made the customary military distinction between his men, subordinates and himself, per his prior British army military service and experience. Cleburne was different in taking a rudimentary Divisional Hd. Qtrs. which rivaled his men's qtrs. by a mere tad. His discipline was extraordinarily different than most Maj. Genl.'s in his teaching a soldier something with his punishment for infractions, as opposed to just plain and brutal punishment. Cleburne's diet was ditto the private soldiers he commanded's diet, even though more and better food might be available. Hence, Gen.Clebrne never put on airs, punished fairly and humanely while sharing in the same hardships his men experienced. Thus, Cleburne gained the TOTAL respect and dedication from his men as any general officer in the CS or US armies. His military service, as well as his mens was exemplary.
***
Gen. Hood was a nontypical case scenario. His physical disabilities waived his ability to choose to remain outside or in rudimentary quarters. I don't like Hood's choices in battle plans, but he deserves to be, as all people do, to be seen in the fair light of retrospect. The man had lost a leg at Chicamauga, use of an arm at Gettysburg and he took Laudanum (opiate pain killer) and concommitant whiskey; which potentiates the strength of both (or potentiation). His physical condition relegated him to a sheltered Hd. Qtrs. But, on the other had, Hood should have retired to a noncombatant position and he and his men would have fared much better, IMO.
Admiral Porter,
The point is, if you are insulated from front line conditions, and the consequences of your decisions, what happens to your decision making?
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
