Chancellorsville Chancellorsville

[Andy Cardinal]

I just completed reading an older biography of Warren (by Emerson Gifford Taylor, copyrighted 1932 by Emily B. Warren). There are no citations in the book and it based largely off his letters.

Here is what's written about Chancellorsville:

"He does a lot of scouting; he acts as an aide-de-camp and courier, ; when the battle is joined, he rides continually under fire to critical points on the field -- and, once arrived, he coolly orders generals what to do; he places artillery where it's needed; on his own responsibility, he directs the movement, positions, and fire of a whole army corps. Under cover of darkness cover, uneasy corps commanders come to headquarters and ask Warren's advice. While the army commander sleeps -- his door locked against interruptions to his repose -- the generals urge Warren to assume Hooker's responsibilities. In whispers, they beg the young engineer to draft and sign, in the sleeping commander's name, an order of battle for the whole army. He alone, the generals tell him, knows what is best to be done; he alone can coordinate the corps scattered efforts." (P. 107-108)

As I mentioned, no sources cited in this book. So my question to any Chancellorsville experts out there -- is there any basis to this story that the (unnamed) corps commanders went to him? I assume this refers to the period Hooker was disabled by the pillar. And I assume there obviously was no locked door because I assume Hooker's headquarters were in a tent.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Oh, sometimes you see old LoC photos where the HQ will be a civilian home, abandoned? Hang on- just looked up Hooker's HQ there, at " Chancellorsville House " ? Interested without knowing a thing just to see poor Warren defended. Hope the experts have some input.

Was Emily his daughter or a relative, trying to set the record straight, perhaps?

From LoC's Civil War collection

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Notice after posting this sketch is numbered, ' 9 ' tree line behind he house, ' 6 ', infantry on road passing house, leading right out of frame and '5 ' , infantry on road intersecting, leading out of frame bottom left ' 7 's 'artillery line of defense, foreground, etc.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

I know Hooker used the Chancellor House as his headquarters until May 3. After the army fell back from Chancellorsville they established a new line closer to the river on May 3.

Hooker was disabled during the fighting on May 3 when a shell hit & splintered a porch pillar Hooker was leaning against.

The house caught fire & burned during the fighting on May 3.

 

[Jamieva]

That account sounds extremely self serving

 

[Carronade]

I've read several biographies from that era that were distinctly slanted in favor of the subject person, often in a narrative style without references. They seem to have projects of people who particularly admired their subjects. The idea of impartial, well-researched biographies seems to be a recent innovation.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

That account sounds extremely self serving

I agree.

Emily B. Warren (1875-1965) was the general's daughter.

 

[Jamieva]

To me, with none of the other generals backing up that story, it has no weight. If it was true, then some of the others would have mentioned it. I had never heard this story until i read it here.

 

[jackt62]

I agree the story is self serving except that the description of Warren reconnoitering the field seems consistent with his expertise as an engineering officer.

 

[Jimklag]

I just completed reading an older biography of Warren (by Emerson Gifford Taylor, copyrighted 1932 by Emily B. Warren). There are no citations in the book and it based largely off his letters.

Here is what's written about Chancellorsville:

"He does a lot of scouting; he acts as an aide-de-camp and courier, ; when the battle is joined, he rides continually under fire to critical points on the field -- and, once arrived, he coolly orders generals what to do; he places artillery where it's needed; on his own responsibility, he directs the movement, positions, and fire of a whole army corps. Under cover of darkness cover, uneasy corps commanders come to headquarters and ask Warren's advice. While the army commander sleeps -- his door locked against interruptions to his repose -- the generals urge Warren to assume Hooker's responsibilities. In whispers, they beg the young engineer to draft and sign, in the sleeping commander's name, an order of battle for the whole army. He alone, the generals tell him, knows what is best to be done; he alone can coordinate the corps scattered efforts." (P. 107-108)

As I mentioned, no sources cited in this book. So my question to any Chancellorsville experts out there -- is there any basis to this story that the (unnamed) corps commanders went to him? I assume this refers to the period Hooker was disabled by the pillar. And I assume there obviously was no locked door because I assume Hooker's headquarters were in a tent.

The simplest reason for doubting this story's accuracy is the fact that Civil War generals were really, really, really touchy about rank. Generals didn't even obey other generals if they felt they outranked the other fellow. This ranks right up there on the BS scale with the story that Grant deferred to John Rawlins on all military decisions.

 

[Jamieva]

Correct, at the time he was only a Brigadier that had led a brigade. There is no way that higher ranking officers would have gone to him and told him to basically run the army.

 

[Wellwords]

I can't find my reference right now, but somewhere online (maybe hathitrust) there's a scanned record which is really incredible (I think I remember it was volume 71) that has actual transcripts of interviews the US government did with a bunch of Union army soldiers and officers. It also has a lot of transcripts of telegrams to various folks, including Lincoln and Hooker. I think part of what they were trying to figure out was if it was really Hooker's fault they lost Chancellorsville.

From one of the interviews I read, I remember there was a commander (not sure who or what rank) who had said in an interview that someone rushed into his command very unprofessionally and told him that the 11th was running away and he needed to do something. And so that commander ignored them because they were unprofessional. And then a while later someone else came in looking more professional, and told him the same thing, and then he followed up on it.

Sorry I don't have the exact quote or the page it was on or the name of the reference. *sigh* I'll see if I can dig it up at home if anyone is interested.

But in any case, he did say flat out that there were both professional and unprofessional couriers running about on the battlefield at Chancellorsville.

Not sure if that helps?

 

[Carronade]

I can't find my reference right now, but somewhere online (maybe hathitrust) there's a scanned record which is really incredible (I think I remember it was volume 71) that has actual transcripts of interviews the US government did with a bunch of Union army soldiers and officers. It also has a lot of transcripts of telegrams to various folks, including Lincoln and Hooker. I think part of what they were trying to figure out was if it was really Hooker's fault they lost Chancellorsville.

From one of the interviews I read, I remember there was a commander (not sure who or what rank) who had said in an interview that someone rushed into his command very unprofessionally and told him that the 11th was running away and he needed to do something. And so that commander ignored them because they were unprofessional. And then a while later someone else came in looking more professional, and told him the same thing, and then he followed up on it.

Sorry I don't have the exact quote or the page it was on or the name of the reference. *sigh* I'll see if I can dig it up at home if anyone is interested.

But in any case, he did say flat out that there were both professional and unprofessional couriers running about on the battlefield at Chancellorsville.

Not sure if that helps?

I think it's a revealing insight. One key element of command is to remain calm in critical situations. If someone comes running in screaming that the sky is falling, that may just mean that that individual is panicked, or that he's gotten his "information" from the troops who are running away the fastest, i.e. the most panicked themselves. A professionally delivered report, even of the most dire situation, is a better basis for action.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[chucksr]

Post battle, Hooker commended Warren for his actions at Chancellorsville so apparently Warren did something right during that battle but, in all reality, what you are discussing is a daughter's apology for a father that had to fight tooth and nail to redeem his reputation from, in my opinion, an unfair loss of command.
The book, seen in that context, should be allowed to stand as an example of how deeply the wound to reputation could become during that post Civil War period--even daughters shouldered the burden of redemption. I think that is commendable and footnotes aren't necessary--take the book for what it is, a testament to family loyalty.

 

[James N.]

... I think part of what they were trying to figure out was if it was really Hooker's fault they lost Chancellorsville.

From one of the interviews I read, I remember there was a commander (not sure who or what rank) who had said in an interview that someone rushed into his command very unprofessionally and told him that the 11th was running away and he needed to do something. And so that commander ignored them because they were unprofessional. And then a while later someone else came in looking more professional, and told him the same thing, and then he followed up on it...

But in any case, he did say flat out that there were both professional and unprofessional couriers running about on the battlefield at Chancellorsville.

Wellwords, that sounds like what I've read about the situation around the Eleventh Corps headquarters of Oliver O. Howard around and just before the time of the attack by Stonewall Jackson's Corps. Howard had ignored Hooker's warning to look out for his flank and afterwards was trying to shift the blame for his surprise onto others; he was probably the one being interviewed. The Eleventh Corps was largely made up of relatively recent German immigrants, many of whom didn't speak English, and Howard was a New England Yankee who didn't speak German, nor did any of his staff members. The "unprofessional" officer was very likely Capt. Hubert Dilger, a veteran of the army of the Grand Duchy of Baden and professional artilleryman who commanded arguably the best battery in the corps and even the entire army! Dilger realized something was afoot and had gone to see for himself and recognized what was about to happen, racing back to report to headquarters. Because he stammered his findings in his broken German-English, Howard's staff refused to let him see the general! I've long thought Howard was a jerk who in perfect Peter Principle fashion had risen above his level of competence; unfortunately for some reason he enjoyed the friendship of influential men in higher positions who covered for his carelessness and stupid errors.

Welcome to the forums!

 

[Wellwords]

I can't find my reference right now, but somewhere online (maybe hathitrust) there's a scanned record which is really incredible (I think I remember it was volume 71) that has actual transcripts of interviews the US government did with a bunch of Union army soldiers and officers. It also has a lot of transcripts of telegrams to various folks, including Lincoln and Hooker. I think part of what they were trying to figure out was if it was really Hooker's fault they lost Chancellorsville.

From one of the interviews I read, I remember there was a commander (not sure who or what rank) who had said in an interview that someone rushed into his command very unprofessionally and told him that the 11th was running away and he needed to do something. And so that commander ignored them because they were unprofessional. And then a while later someone else came in looking more professional, and told him the same thing, and then he followed up on it.

Sorry I don't have the exact quote or the page it was on or the name of the reference. *sigh* I'll see if I can dig it up at home if anyone is interested.

But in any case, he did say flat out that there were both professional and unprofessional couriers running about on the battlefield at Chancellorsville.

Not sure if that helps?

I found my reference - though not the particular quote...
'Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War / at the second session, Thirty-eighth Congress'
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000454537
The first half of Volume 1 has lots of really detailed and incredible information on Chancellorsville

 

[Andy Cardinal]

Thanks @Wellwords. Welcome to the forum!

 

[Andy Cardinal]

Post battle, Hooker commended Warren for his actions at Chancellorsville so apparently Warren did something right during that battle but, in all reality, what you are discussing is a daughter's apology for a father that had to fight tooth and nail to redeem his reputation from, in my opinion, an unfair loss of command.
The book, seen in that context, should be allowed to stand as an example of how deeply the wound to reputation could become during that post Civil War period--even daughters shouldered the burden of redemption. I think that is commendable and footnotes aren't necessary--take the book for what it is, a testament to family loyalty.

Yes, I agree with you for the most part. The book has some value because it includes some of Warren's letters as well.

 

[Wellwords]

Check out page 131 of the 'Report of the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War / at the second session, Thirty-eighth Congress' volume 1
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000454537