A Military Challenge

Lubliner

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Location
Chattanooga, Tennessee
What I desire to discuss here is the motivations of both generals, Butler and Gillmore, and to qualify an opinion on whether or not General Gillmore designed to undermine Butler as a professional soldier that had gained political leverage, possibly knowing of General Grant’s preference for military direction, and also to fulfill his own ambitions.

The basis for this opinion is established by the Correspondence, Orders, and Reports found in the Official Records.
There was one use made to Wikipedia that told of General Gillmore's West Point achievement, and further information is found there.
But in searching the O. R. I find no mention by General Grant of Gillmore's role in defending Washington, nor of his appointment thereafter.
Below is a brief synopsis for forming the foundation of which my opinion is based.
Thank you,
Lubliner.
 
General Butler was a politically appointed general from the beginning of the rebellion.
He displayed leadership and assertiveness in taking Baltimore in 1861, possibly saving the State for the Union. Yet the stricture of protocols maintained at the time denied legitimacy for his success. He was making decisions upon policy while being commander at Fortress Monroe, and was removed for assignment to New Orleans.
Up until December of 1864 he held positions of leadership, such as in New Orleans in 1862, or made commander of the Army of the James, as the Government tried to appease the New England powers. His learning curve appreciated during the conflict as the war aims changed, and Washington accommodated him in roles that would bring success.

General Quincy Gillmore graduated from West Point at the top of his class. He excelled in his performances and gained laurels in his approach to artillery bombardment, and defensive engineering. He was made the Department Commander of the Southern Coastal District including Florida in 1863, and was given opportunity in early 1864 to bring Florida back into the Union. The disaster at Olustee that occurred may be placed upon premature movements made by his subordinate general in charge while he himself was at St. Helens Island Headquarters. He immediately afterward put in for a new command with his Tenth Corps anywhere it could be used advantageously. Washington accepted his proposal once again, and General Grant placed him under General Butler with the Army of the James. More than once political favors had been extended to him, and by late April of 1864, being relocated to Gloucester Point Virginia, he put his Tenth Corps troops upon transports and proceeded up the James River to disembark at Bermuda Hundred, May 5 and 6. He landed without opposition, and thus began the Spring Offensive for all the Union Armies in the field.

After another failure, and accused of disobedience to orders, General Butler removed him from command on June 9. In one month’s time he superseded direct orders by suggested alternatives instead of compliance. He also failed to advance and attack the enemy, though he was given his own discretion, at least once. But General Butler commented his own orders came from Lieutenant-General Grant, and General Gillmore’s compliance was absolutely necessary. He also commented to General Halleck that his abilities of leadership were deficient to his command.

Lubliner.
 
I can't believe I am defending Butler. It seems clear by his conduct Gillmore as a regular army man had disdain for political general Butler. Gillmore was obligated to obey lawful orders and Butler was within his rights to remove Gillmore furthermore Butler is correct that his orders came from Grant.
 
Thank you @atlantis for your thoughts. I agree the General had good reason. But what I find so intriguing is whether Butler saw General Gillmore as a threat to his own command. I also wonder on the other hand, whether General Gillmore conspired with Smith, or attempted to put Butler in a bad light, and thus replace him as the commander of the Army of the James. General Gillmore attempted to have an investigation convened upon his dismissal, and said the General was personally disrespectful to him since arriving under his command. General Grant got Butler to drop the charges, and essentially removed him from the theater of operations.
Lubliner.
 
I have always understood there was a conspiracy between Gilmore and "Baldy" Smith (who had a long record of arguing with his superiors) to ensure the failure of Butler's campaign.
 
I believe Butler knew what Gillmore was up to. Butler was a professional survivor and politician. He was fluent in scheming and was never hindered by his lack of ethics. He and his brother Andrew were never adverse to a little finagling. Butler used the same moral compass that guided Dan Sickles actions.
Regards
David
 
I have always understood there was a conspiracy between Gilmore and "Baldy" Smith (who had a long record of arguing with his superiors) to ensure the failure of Butler's campaign.
When Gillmore first responded to Butler with a written suggestion about May 7, on the coming movement, he had General W. F. Smith sign below his own signature. Later, after much correspondence and update reports from his front, the rift was clearly visible between the two commanders. When Butler notified Grant about June 9, with the charge of disobedience and vacillation, General Gillmore sent in a rebuttal statement, with depositional attachments from at least four of his general field officers exonerating his actions. I find this highly suspicious and a bit premeditated on General Gillmore's part. Whether or not it was openly discussed ahead of time, or just planned to influence the other field commanders into lining up in his favor, I have yet to discern. Thanks for the input here. I seem to remember Butler reporting the actions of Gillmore as purposely jeopardizing his goals, and causing the failure of immediate success.

I have always looked with some doubt upon Major-General Gillmore concerning his ulterior motives. He is absent from Olustee when he ought to have been present, IMO. Also he had failed somewhat in all his undertaking at Charleston. He was committed to his own Tenth Corps and when transferred he left behind many complaints within that department. His only real accomplishment I can recall was the reduction of Fort Pulaski outside of Savannah. He was riding on that one laurel, and blew his own trumpet in Washington. I think he was self-serving and conniving with his motives and opportunities.
Lubliner.
 
I believe Butler knew what Gillmore was up to. Butler was a professional survivor and politician. He was fluent in scheming and was never hindered by his lack of ethics. He and his brother Andrew were never adverse to a little finagling. Butler used the same moral compass that guided Dan Sickles actions.
Regards
David
I find it questionable that General Grant decided in favor of Gillmore, to get Butler to drop the charges. Supposedly Gillmore got sent to Washington and was present commander in the defense of that city when it was attacked by Early's troops, but I find nothing in General Grant's report mentioning Gillmore in any capacity whatsoever. And he did mention and gave credit to two other Generals for their performance in that raid on Fort Stevens.
Lubliner.
 
Lubliner, you have given us quite the puzzle to solve. Which of these two conniving self promoters is in the wrong. One option is they are both guilty of playing dirty. Oh to have been the proverbial fly on the wall.
 
Lubliner, you have given us quite the puzzle to solve. Which of these two conniving self promoters is in the wrong. One option is they are both guilty of playing dirty. Oh to have been the proverbial fly on the wall.
Part of my own research hit that spot of, 'Wait a minute...!' and I could not dig deeper until I gathered some other opinions. On another thread here Should Thomas Have Been Given Command in the West in 1864, Rather Than Sherman? | South & Western Theaters | Page 7 (civilwartalk.com) on post #124 I stated:
"From what I read so far in the Official Records, Volume 36, General Weitzel was ordered by Grant to lead the venture against Fort Fisher. Butler did not forward the order and Weitzel never received it. Instead Butler went down himself, leaving Weitzel behind, watched the explosion and then abandoned the position by returning to Fort Monroe, instead of supporting the follow up. He was removed from command for deserting the post."
The idea is almost haunting to me that Gillmore would act in a manner that promoted his own interests above his country, and even moreso if he wasn't qualified to lead a Corps in the field. I see Butler's point was up front and plain, nothing dirty about it. He judged a man he had skepticism of and acted upon it. He was supposed to cut the rail link between the two cities, Petersburg and Richmond, to keep troops from being shuffled up to Lee. He initially wired Grant that the Bermuda Landing was a success, and the first excursion taking place would let Grant rest assured of no more reinforcements sent up from the Carolina's to strengthen Lee. It was soon recognized that all was not as reported, and on the second attempt is where Gillmore proved his own deception. My take on it so far.
Lubliner.
 
Part of my own research hit that spot of, 'Wait a minute...!' and I could not dig deeper until I gathered some other opinions. On another thread here Should Thomas Have Been Given Command in the West in 1864, Rather Than Sherman? | South & Western Theaters | Page 7 (civilwartalk.com) on post #124 I stated:
"From what I read so far in the Official Records, Volume 36, General Weitzel was ordered by Grant to lead the venture against Fort Fisher. Butler did not forward the order and Weitzel never received it. Instead Butler went down himself, leaving Weitzel behind, watched the explosion and then abandoned the position by returning to Fort Monroe, instead of supporting the follow up. He was removed from command for deserting the post."
The idea is almost haunting to me that Gillmore would act in a manner that promoted his own interests above his country, and even moreso if he wasn't qualified to lead a Corps in the field. I see Butler's point was up front and plain, nothing dirty about it. He judged a man he had skepticism of and acted upon it. He was supposed to cut the rail link between the two cities, Petersburg and Richmond, to keep troops from being shuffled up to Lee. He initially wired Grant that the Bermuda Landing was a success, and the first excursion taking place would let Grant rest assured of no more reinforcements sent up from the Carolina's to strengthen Lee. It was soon recognized that all was not as reported, and on the second attempt is where Gillmore proved his own deception. My take on it so far.
Lubliner.
It is my understanding the rail link was cut for a few hours, so could Butler have heard the line was cut and snapped off a wire to Grant.
 
It is my understanding the rail link was cut for a few hours, so could Butler have heard the line was cut and snapped off a wire to Grant.
I think so. He sent his report in on May 9, 1864 and begins it, "Our operations may be summed up in a few words....General Kautz, with 3,000 cavalry from Suffolk, on the same day with our movement up the James River [May 5] forced the Blackwater, burned the railroad bridge at Stony Creek, below Petersburg, cutting in two Beauregard's force at that point, and is now operating against Hicksford and Weldon. We have landed here, entrenched ourselves, destroyed many miles of railroad, and got a position which, with proper supplies, we can hold out against the whole of Lee's army....General Grant will not be troubled with any further reinforcements to Lee from Beauregard's force." [page 10/11, Series 1, Volume 36, part 2].
Butler was tooting his horn and not knowing the tune. He claims the force sent north by Beauregard was A. P. Hill's and he whipped them bad. The others of Beauregard's force were cut off by Kautz further south. The battle of Ware Bottom Church on May 12-20 is when the actions of pursuit and defense were promulgated. The Brigades of the First and Second Divisions were badly bloodied in the battle, and the confederates pushed back and created the Howlett Line guarding the railroad at Chesterfield, and pushed the Yankees back into their own defenses. On June 9 another offensive was mounted, and this is when Gillmore vacillated, and maybe lost his stomach for attacking [vernacular]. Also he was removed from command by the 12th over what may be termed 'temerity', in my own vocabulary.
 
I have always understood there was a conspiracy between Gilmore and "Baldy" Smith (who had a long record of arguing with his superiors) to ensure the failure of Butler's campaign.
I today found this article in a search; Bermuda Hundred 1 (bluegraymagazine.com) that allows a page to be read, and to read the rest, purchase the issue. But it did mention 'Baldy Smith" involved in promotional activity saying Butler was not too worried about him. Smith wanted independent command to raid down on Raleigh from Suffolk. Anyway, the 'checkered past' had not really been given a good foundation for me, what with the 'cracker line' etc. so I was aware of hearsay that was all.
Lubliner.
 
In fact, the brigade guarding Ware Bottom Church had supplies delivered to it, and part of the reason they had to retreat was due to running out of ammunition a few days later. The italicized part of the report I mentioned above I take to be Kautz's cavalry actions, because by the 9th, all going on at the James River flank was an attempt for reconnoitering, and the confederates fell back to their own defenses near Chesterfield, and Howlett's Farm. The leading Union skirmishers and pickets suffered no loss that day.
Lubliner.
 
Back
Top