1. Welcome to the CivilWarTalk, a forum for questions and discussions about the American Civil War! Become a member today for full access to all of our resources, it's fast, simple, and absolutely free!
Dismiss Notice
Join and Become a Patron at CivilWarTalk!
Support this site with a monthly or yearly subscription! Active Patrons get to browse the site Ad free!
START BY JOINING NOW!

Battle of Chancellorsville Begins

Discussion in 'The Eastern Theater' started by frontrank2, May 1, 2016.

  1. Noonanda

    Noonanda Private

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    81
    Location:
    Fredericksburg Virginia
    He also wrote some of these things a month or 2 after the battle IIRC, and at that point is trying to CYA so he doesnt get blamed with the whole debacle.
     

  2. (Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
  3. Andy Cardinal

    Andy Cardinal Sergeant

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2017
    Messages:
    660
    Location:
    Ohio
    This thread has been quiet for awhile, but I have just reread Sears in preparation for my 1st visit to Chancellorsville and one thought occurred to me:

    Hooker's plan was brilliant and it's execution up to May 1 was excellent. Part of it's success up to that point was Hooker's penchant for keeping everything to himself. Lincoln did not know what he was going to do, his generals did not know what he was going to do, and neither did Lee. The only other time during the war I remember Lee being that unprepared for what his opponent was doing was when Grant crossed the James in 1864.

    Hooker's flaw I believe was an insistence on maintaining personal control over all parts of his divided army. Sears argues that is why the turning column halted and remained stationary at Chancellorsville on April 30. Sears states that if Hooker had been present, he may have decided to continue the advance east toward Lee's rear. But Hooker was in Falmouth directing the 1st & 6th Corps crossing of the Rappahannock.

    It seems possible that he would have been successful had he trusted any of his lieutenants enough to place them in charge of one of the wings and let that person direct its movements. It seems obvious that Hooker did not trust any of his commanders enough to do so. He could not be in two or three places at the same time. He relied on telegraph communication to make up the difference, but there was enough breakdowns in the telegraph to impede his ability to do so.
     
    James N. and frontrank2 like this.
  4. Bruce Vail

    Bruce Vail 2nd Lieutenant

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,624
    I'm curious as to what caused Gen. Lee to remove Brig. Gen. Raleigh Colston from command after this battle. Someone had commented here that Colston "lost control" of his troops, but I still don't know what that means exactly.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

Share This Page


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)