Top Three Corp Commanders?

[Bowen]

The problem with replacing Bragg, even in 1863, is who will take his place? Joseph Johnston and P.G.T. Beauregard aren't exactly gangbusters and neither gets along with Davis. Within the army, Polk is horrific and Hardee is average. Neither would make good army commanders. Lee was very hesitant about transferring any decent officers from his army. The best option would probably be Richard Taylor but then you'd need to find a replacement for him in the Trans-Mississippi. In the end, for a long time, it was Bragg or bust and, unfortunately for the Confederacy, he was mostly a bust.

R

Joe Johnston or G.T. Beauregard were the best choices available and either one would have been far preferable to the irascible, neurotic Bragg. This illustrated the problem - the CSA had few really good Army commanders and its strength lay in its brigade and division commanders. Had he lived perhaps Albert Sidney Johnston might have improved considerably but unfortunately the Confederacy out West needed exceptional commanders not just competent ones. Don't overlook the outstanding job Beauregard did putting together the Army of Mississippi after the Ft. Donelson debacle when President Davis sent him out west to assist A.S. Johnston in February 1862. Hardee was far from average and in fact was a very good corps commander during most of the war. On December 31, 1862 which was the first day at Stones River he turned in as good a corps commander performance as any corps commander on either side did during the Civil War.

 

[NedBaldwin]

.... In the end, for a long time, it was Bragg or bust and, unfortunately for the Confederacy, he was mostly a bust.

R

Compared to what?
During during the year and a half before Bragg -- when the army was under AS Johnston and Beauregard -- Confederate lost hold of Kentucky and most of Tennessee.
During during the year and a half after Bragg -- when the army was under JE Johnson and Hood -- Confederates the Atlanta campaign and the Franklin/Nashville campaign.
To me, in comparison, the Bragg period seems like less of a bust.

 

[Bowen]

Compared to what?
During during the year and a half before Bragg -- when the army was under AS Johnston and Beauregard -- Confederate lost hold of Kentucky and most of Tennessee.
During during the year and a half after Bragg -- when the army was under JE Johnson and Hood -- Confederates the Atlanta campaign and the Franklin/Nashville campaign.
To me, in comparison, the Bragg period seems like less of a bust.

After a promising beginning, Bragg made a muck of the Kentucky campaign and threw away a victory on the first day of Stones River (December 31, 1862). He made good plans but did not have the flexible mind to change things when they started to not work out. He was a poor army commander and had little ability or even desire to win the hearts or respect of his subordinates due to his obnoxious and peevish personality. William C. Davis of Civil War Times Illustrated wrote that he felt that Bragg often was not in his right mind. At least when Joe Johnston commanded the A o T the army held together and the lives of its men were not thrown away.

An interesting thought - what if George Henry Thomas went with the Confederacy and commanded the Army of Tennessee?

 

[Bowen]

I doubt even Robert E. Lee could have held the vast territories out west that the Army of Tennessee commanders were charged with defending against the likes of a Grant and even Rosecrans (who was up until September 20, 1863, a skillful strategist).

 

[JCM6395]

Grant in command......Corps Commanders......Hooker....Hancock....Sherman.

 

[Bowen]

Grant in command......Corps Commanders......Hooker....Hancock....Sherman.

Sheman's combat record as a corps commander actually was rather mixed. Hooker (whom he disliked) had a better combat record (as a Corps commander), heck Black Jack Logan was a better fighter when he succeeded Sherman as head of the XV Corps. Grant however relied upon Sherman a lot and had great working and personal relationship with him. I think that George H. Thomas was the best Union corps commander and the second best army commander (after Grant). I always thought that Sherman would not have done so well if he was brought East to command the Army of the Potomac in 1864 as Meade expected. The hammer blows that Grant and Lee dealt each other in the Overland campaign probably would have unnerved him (Sherman). The war in Georgia which was one more of maneuver than daily combat was more suited for his personality. By the way Grant somewhat disdained Hooker (he was influenced by Sherman) and came to dislike Hancock as well (more for personal than professional reasons).

 

[rpkennedy]

Compared to what?
During during the year and a half before Bragg -- when the army was under AS Johnston and Beauregard -- Confederate lost hold of Kentucky and most of Tennessee.
During during the year and a half after Bragg -- when the army was under JE Johnson and Hood -- Confederates the Atlanta campaign and the Franklin/Nashville campaign.
To me, in comparison, the Bragg period seems like less of a bust.

Bragg did about as well, or better than, any of the alternatives but he just wasn't particularly successful for various reasons. In that, I would call him a bust.

R

 

[rpkennedy]

Joe Johnston or G.T. Beauregard were the best choices available and either one would have been far preferable to the irascible, neurotic Bragg. This illustrated the problem - the CSA had few really good Army commanders and its strength lay in its brigade and division commanders. Had he lived perhaps Albert Sidney Johnston might have improved considerably but unfortunately the Confederacy out West needed exceptional commanders not just competent ones. Don't overlook the outstanding job Beauregard did putting together the Army of Mississippi after the Ft. Donelson debacle when President Davis sent him out west to assist A.S. Johnston in February 1862. Hardee was far from average and in fact was a very good corps commander during most of the war. On December 31, 1862 which was the first day at Stones River he turned in as good a corps commander performance as any corps commander on either side did during the Civil War.

We all know the kinds of commanders Johnston and Beauregard were. Johnston didn't become appropriately aggressive until it was way too late (in 1865) and Beauregard was very limited, in regards to his abilities (his reputation was his best weapon).

The reason I call Hardee average was because Stones River was basically the only really good thing he did during the war. At Shiloh, he and the other corps commanders were all but spectators, he did ok at Perryville, he did adequately during the Atlanta Campaign, and did the best he could opposing Sherman in Georgia and North Carolina. Frankly, he just never really got a chance to shine outside of Stones River. Certainly nothing that warrants his promotion to army commander (and he was considered for it several times, I believe).

R

 

[rpkennedy]

After a promising beginning, Bragg made a muck of the Kentucky campaign and threw away a victory on the first day of Stones River (December 31, 1862). He made good plans but did not have the flexible mind to change things when they started to not work out. He was a poor army commander and had little ability or even desire to win the hearts or respect of his subordinates due to his obnoxious and peevish personality. William C. Davis of Civil War Times Illustrated wrote that he felt that Bragg often was not in his right mind. At least when Joe Johnston commanded the A o T the army held together and the lives of its men were not thrown away.

An interesting thought - what if George Henry Thomas went with the Confederacy and commanded the Army of Tennessee?

I have the same opinion as Jack Davis (IIRC) that George Thomas has become overrated in recent decades.

R

 

[rpkennedy]

I think if anything he was historically underrated by the Grant-Sherman-Sheridan [deleted by Moderator - such a word is not appropriate-M. E. Wolf, Aug. 16, 2013 4:49 p.m.]

In the last few decades, Thomas has been raised up so that he was one of the best commanders of the war, taking on an almost mythic reputation. He was good, but he wasn't as good as recent historians have described him (IMHO).

R

 

[NedBaldwin]

.... Hooker (whom he disliked) had a better combat record (as a Corps commander)....

What information or criteria did you use to decide that?

 

[Billy Yank]

Commanding General: U.S. Grant

I Corps - Gen. W.S. Hancock
II Corps - Gen. Jas. Longstreet
III Corps - Gen. Dan'l. Sickles

Cavalry Commander: Gen. N.B. Forrest
Artillery Commander: Gen. Henry Hunt

 

[gary]

Jackson
Hancock
Reynolds

 

[Bowen]

What information or criteria did you use to decide that?

The book Fighting Joe Hooker by Walter H. Hebert and James A. Rawley, Sherman disliked Hooker (see Sherman's memoirs), and Grant's memoirs (Grant who did not know Hooker very well was influenced by Sherman's antipathy as well as Henry Halleck's and Henry Slocum's well known dislike of Hooker). Herbert and Rawley feel that the two men (Sherman and Hooker) were in many ways too alike in temperament to get along. He might have a point. Sherman's letters to his wife Ellen during the Spring of 1863 express concern for the Eastern Army with Hooker in command. The irony is that outside of Chancellorsville, Hooker had a rather good combat record (actually better then Sherman's).

 

[R. Evans]

Commanding General: U.S. Grant

I Corps - Gen. W.S. Hancock
II Corps - Gen. Jas. Longstreet
III Corps - Gen. Dan'l. Sickles

Cavalry Commander: Gen. N.B. Forrest
Artillery Commander: Gen. Henry Hunt

May I ask why Sickles?

 

[NedBaldwin]

The book Fighting Joe Hooker by Walter H. Hebert and James A. Rawley, Sherman disliked Hooker (see Sherman's memoirs), and Grant's memoirs (Grant who did not know Hooker very well was influenced by Sherman's antipathy as well as Henry Halleck's and Henry Slocum's well known dislike of Hooker). Herbert and Rawley feel that the two men (Sherman and Hooker) were in many ways too alike in temperament to get along. He might have a point. Sherman's letters to his wife Ellen during the Spring of 1863 express concern for the Eastern Army with Hooker in command. The irony is that outside of Chancellorsville, Hooker had a rather good combat record (actually better then Sherman's).

I wasnt asking about who liked or did not like Hooker.
I was wondering how you made a decision about his combat record at a Corps commander.

 

[Bowen]

I wasn't asking about who liked or did not like Hooker.
I was wondering how you made a decision about his combat record at a Corps commander.

His combat record at Seven Pines, Malvern Hill, Second Manassas, Antietam, Chattanooga, and during the campaign to Atlanta was quite good. His personality with its tendency to criticize his superiors, less so. Sherman's combat record at Chickasaw Bayou, Vicksburg (May 19 and 22, attacks) , Chattanooga (Tunnel Hill) , Kenesaw Mountain - not so good.

 

[rpkennedy]

His combat record at Seven Pines, Malvern Hill, Second Manassas, Antietam, Chattanooga, and during the campaign to Atlanta was quite good. His personality with its tendency to criticize his superiors, less so. Sherman's combat record at Chickasaw Bayou, Vicksburg (May 19 and 22, attacks) , Chattanooga (Tunnel Hill) , Kenesaw Mountain - not so good.

Hooker was a very good division commander and a good corps commander. But, as you pointed out, he liked to play politics against his superiors, something not exactly a virtue in a corps commander. He would constantly be attempting to jockey for the army commander position which would make it almost impossible to trust him with a corps.

R

 

[Billy Yank]

May I ask why Sickles?

My Compliments, Corporal Evans. I believe Gen. Sickles' beloved III Corps would have marched through hell for him. His Corps has a fine combat record. His Division and Brigade Commanders performed well under him. Some folks just don't like him as a person, (Barton-Key Affair). The West Point coterie would not admit him to their exclusive club because he was a "politically appointed" commander from Tammany Hall. His often criticized maneuver on Day 2 of Gettysburg, sacrificed the AoP's III Corps, but decisively blunted Longstreet's force and inflicted horrible casualties - fatally weakening the ANV. Sickles was fearless under fire and inspired the confidence of all who served under him.

 

[NedBaldwin]

His combat record at Seven Pines, Malvern Hill, Second Manassas, Antietam, Chattanooga, and during the campaign to Atlanta was quite good.

and I again I ask why? What is it about his performance at these times that makes you conclude he was quite good?

Take Antietam for example. I'm no expert on that battle, so what I know might be superficial, but my understanding is that he led a bloody attack that wrecked his Corps and he got wounded, taking him out of the battle for the rest of the day. What was quite good about it? And what was quite good about what he did at Ringgold Gap? New Hope Church? Peachtree Creek?