D. H. Hill

[Elliot Crumblemuffin]

You're quite welcome. Here is what Lee had to say about Drayton:

"General Drayton's brigade has been a source of delay and embarrassment from the time the army left Richmond. At Manassas it could not be got into the battle. At South Mountain and Sharpsburg it broke to pieces. I do not mean to charge this as the fault of General Drayton ; but, in addition, he does not seem able to keep up the organization of his brigade. The colonels of his regiments are absent, and he cannot keep his staff together, so it is reported by General Longstreet. He is a gentleman, and in his own person a soldier, but seems to lack the capacity to command. His brigade has been changed from one division to another more than once. At one time he was under General D.R. Jones, from whom I received frequent complaints. Then I placed it under General McLaws, who says it cannot operate as at present organized. General Longstreet says the service of the brigade as it now stands is lost to the army. I am compelled, therefore, to make a change, and wish to do it in the manner least disagreeable to General Drayton, for whom I feel great friendship. The brigade is composed partly of Georgia and partly of South Carolina troops. I propose to assign the regiments to brigades composed of troops from the respective States of each, and give General Drayton leave of absence for thirty days, at the end of which I hope some duty may be found for him in the South or Southwest, which he may be able to perform with advantage to the service." R. E. Lee to Jefferson Davis, Nov. 25, 1862 in OR 21, 1030.

Wow, thank you for that! It sort of takes away the image I had of D.H. Hill of being a sort of heartless jerk

 

[Bruce Vail]

You're quite welcome. Here is what Lee had to say about Drayton:

"General Drayton's brigade has been a source of delay and embarrassment from the time the army left Richmond. At Manassas it could not be got into the battle. At South Mountain and Sharpsburg it broke to pieces. I do not mean to charge this as the fault of General Drayton ; but, in addition, he does not seem able to keep up the organization of his brigade. The colonels of his regiments are absent, and he cannot keep his staff together, so it is reported by General Longstreet. He is a gentleman, and in his own person a soldier, but seems to lack the capacity to command. His brigade has been changed from one division to another more than once. At one time he was under General D.R. Jones, from whom I received frequent complaints. Then I placed it under General McLaws, who says it cannot operate as at present organized. General Longstreet says the service of the brigade as it now stands is lost to the army. I am compelled, therefore, to make a change, and wish to do it in the manner least disagreeable to General Drayton, for whom I feel great friendship. The brigade is composed partly of Georgia and partly of South Carolina troops. I propose to assign the regiments to brigades composed of troops from the respective States of each, and give General Drayton leave of absence for thirty days, at the end of which I hope some duty may be found for him in the South or Southwest, which he may be able to perform with advantage to the service." R. E. Lee to Jefferson Davis, Nov. 25, 1862 in OR 21, 1030.

Lee is at his best here, politically. The blame is diffused -- but his own problem is solved.

 

[10th Michigan Infantry]

Hill was a solid commander, though he had trouble getting along with other generals. Which seems to be a common issue with certain Civil War generals.

 

[OpnCoronet]

D.H. Hill is my favorite Confederate general (along with Patrick Cleburne) and his flaws are parts of this interest : according to the opinion of Edward P. Alexander, his "fighting was like Jackson at his best". While he was almost unanimously admired on the battlefield for his tactical ability, he got lot more criticism from both his peers, superiors or subordinates for his impulsive nature, his sarcastic humor and his strict sense of honor. His administrative skills were mediocre at best because he lacked initiative and always referred to his hierarchy before acting on the strategic level. The best use of such a soldier would be a semi-independant role, commanding a small infantry corps (4-6 brigades) coupled with powerful artillery (2-3 battalions), either deployed early in the battle or lauched lastly as a back-up reserve force to break ennemy positions. He was also very capable in defensive warfare, with a keen eye for getting geographical advantage of the terrain.

Hill probably being one of those officers whose skills (and personality) could have been better displayed being in command than being commanded, is interesting. Not unlike Burnside for the Union.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Hill probably being one of those officers whose skills (and personality) could have been better displayed being in command than being commanded, is interesting. Not unlike Burnside for the Union.

Well, maybe not. Hill's 1863 attack on the Yankees in eastern NC did not go well.

 

[rpkennedy]

Lee is at his best here, politically. The blame is diffused -- but his own problem is solved.

Lee was also the only Confederate army commander who could do that. Just imagine if Bragg could have shuffled poorly performing officers out of his army.

Ryan

 

[OpnCoronet]

Well, maybe not. Hill's 1863 attack on the Yankees in eastern NC did not go well.

No argument here, but few are at their best every day, Lee certainly wasn't (for 3 days) at Gettysburg.

 

[MajorPengrove]

I've sometimes wondered if D.H. Hill made the march with the ANV in the Gettysburg Campaign if it would have made a difference or altered the outcome in any way. If he had been at the head of the Third Corps instead of A.P. Hill (whom he outranked), lead the Second Corps instead of Ewell, or even led a Division at one of the critical moments of the battle, would we be viewing the Gettysburg Campaign differently? I think ultimately Lee's invasion was doomed to fail, one of the many reasons being that the leadership gap between the Union and Confederates finally shrunk enough due to the Union replacement of political general duds from the first half of the war and attrition of talented Southern generals in heavy fighting from the Peninsula to Chancellorsville. I feel Lee could have certainly used D.H. Hill's extensive combat experience in PA.

 

[GwilymT]

I've sometimes wondered if D.H. Hill made the march with the ANV in the Gettysburg Campaign if it would have made a difference or altered the outcome in any way. If he had been at the head of the Third Corps instead of A.P. Hill (whom he outranked), lead the Second Corps instead of Ewell, or even led a Division at one of the critical moments of the battle, would we be viewing the Gettysburg Campaign differently? I think ultimately Lee's invasion was doomed to fail, one of the many reasons being that the leadership gap between the Union and Confederates finally shrunk enough due to the Union replacement of political general duds from the first half of the war and attrition of talented Southern generals in heavy fighting from the Peninsula to Chancellorsville. I feel Lee could have certainly used D.H. Hill's extensive combat experience in PA.

Likely not.

 

[jackt62]

I've sometimes wondered if D.H. Hill made the march with the ANV in the Gettysburg Campaign if it would have made a difference or altered the outcome in any way.

Overall no but there are specific actions that would have been done differently had D.H. Hill been in command instead of say A.P. Hill. Powell Hill's leadership of Lee's III Corps at Gettyburg was nothing less than below par, from his hasty decision that resulted in Heth's division sparking a wider engagement than Lee had initially ordered, to his almost AWOL like presence during the 2nd day of battle in which he failed to exercise sufficient control over Anderson's part in the echelon attacks on the Union line. But whether D.H. Hill would have been able to command the Corps in a way that would have made a significant difference is pure speculation.

 

[JerryD]

Overall no but there are specific actions that would have been done differently had D.H. Hill been in command instead of say A.P. Hill. Powell Hill's leadership of Lee's III Corps at Gettyburg was nothing less than below par, from his hasty decision that resulted in Heth's division sparking a wider engagement than Lee had initially ordered, to his almost AWOL like presence during the 2nd day of battle in which he failed to exercise sufficient control over Anderson's part in the echelon attacks on the Union line. But whether D.H. Hill would have been able to command the Corps in a way that would have made a significant difference is pure speculation.

Agree its speculation, but given AP Hill was mailing it in at Gettysburg, gotta believe D. H. Hill would have done a better job. Whether it would have made any difference, I doubt it. But old A.P. was basically absent.

 

[rpkennedy]

Agree its speculation, but given AP Hill was mailing it in at Gettysburg, gotta believe D. H. Hill would have done a better job. Whether it would have made any difference, I doubt it. But old A.P. was basically absent.

While I agree about A.P. Hill, old Harvey brought his own problems. His chronic inability to get along with pretty much anybody may very well have caused major problems within his corps (Richard Anderson could be a bit prickly himself and that's not getting into any of the headstrong brigade commanders in the corps).

Ryan

 

[Bruce Vail]

Hill probably being one of those officers whose skills (and personality) could have been better displayed being in command than being commanded, is interesting. Not unlike Burnside for the Union.

Lee thought otherwise. For Lee, DH Hill was a perfectly good commander at the regimental or divisional level, but lacked the right stuff to command a corps, or to manage an entirely independent command.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Lee thought otherwise. For Lee, DH Hill was a perfectly good commander at the regimental or divisional level, but lacked the right stuff to command a corps, or to manage an entirely independent command.

Is not Lee voicing the general opinion of most superiors of subordinates who tend to think for themselves?

 

[Bruce Vail]

Is not Lee voicing the general opinion of most superiors of subordinates who tend to think for themselves?

Yes, quite so. The difference in the Lee-DH Hill case is that Lee recommended Hill for an independent command in early 1863 but was disappointed in Hill's performance in that role. So, Lee's criticism was not prejudicial, but based on in-the-field performance.

I've always though that Lee's not-so-high opinion of Hill must have been influenced to some degree by Hill's quickness to criticize his superiors. But I am not aware that any contemporary observer ever shared my opinion.

 

[jackt62]

Lee thought otherwise. For Lee, DH Hill was a perfectly good commander at the regimental or divisional level, but lacked the right stuff to command a corps, or to manage an entirely independent command.

Perhaps. D.H. Hill's prickly personality could certainly offend a more reserved person as was Lee, and Lee's opinion of Hill may have been shaped more by that issue rather than Hill's command ability. For that matter, Lee chose a number of Corps commanders including Ewell, A.P.Hill, and Anderson who did not raise to the level of effectiveness required. So whether D.H. Hill would have been a good corps commander is an unresolved question.

 

[Cheef]

Another thread started discussing D. H. Hill, so to avoid a hijack I thought I would start a new one, asking for opinions on the "other" Hill. I have not studied him much at all, so my thoughts are most probably wrong, but I always thought he got a bit of a bad rap. My understanding is that his relationship with Lee went south over the Lost Order fiasco, but was otherwise a hard fighter. Someone in the other thread mentioned he bungled South Mountain, but I always thought that was a highpoint in his career and deserved credit for helping to save the ANV while Lee consolidated on the other side of the mountain. Perhaps a low point in his career was his actions under Bragg as a leader in the cabal against him, but to my thinking he and the other generals were just responding to the fact that Braggs generals had lost confidence in him, so Bragg had to go for the good of the cause. Its a recipe for disaster to have in place a general who does have the confidence of his leadership.

Would love to hear other's thoughts on Hill.

My understanding, such as it is, was that he was a pretty capable general at the divisional and [pseudo-]corps level (see Maryland and Chickamauga) but he didn't do himself any favors by seemingly going out of his way at every opportunity to ruin his relationships with everyone he had to work with.

Of course, his problems with Bragg were far more Bragg's fault than his, because Bragg was Bragg; but the fact that Lee more or less despised Hill really says something, since even if he didn't think highly of several of his subordinates' abilities, it's hard to really find anyone else in the Confederate army whom Lee genuinely disliked.

 

[Jamieva]

My understanding from some past readings is that Lee was disappointed in him for South Mountain. Specifically he picked Ripley to lead the counter attack and Lees reasoning was Hill didn't pick the best person for that role and the counter attack went off badly. Ripley was out of the army after Fredericksburg.

 

[OpnCoronet]

Yes, quite so. The difference in the Lee-DH Hill case is that Lee recommended Hill for an independent command in early 1863 but was disappointed in Hill's performance in that role. So, Lee's criticism was not prejudicial, but based on in-the-field performance.

I've always though that Lee's not-so-high opinion of Hill must have been influenced to some degree by Hill's quickness to criticize his superiors. But I am not aware that any contemporary observer ever shared my opinion.

I do not disagree with this, except to ask if we know whether Lee's dissatisfaction with Hill's performance was either accurate or fair?

After Shiloh Halleck was very critical of Grant's performance and found lacking in many qualities required of a good commander and yet found himself in almost complete agreement and was satisfied with Meade's conduct of the AoP pursuit of Lee after Gettysburg, except, of course, when he found it necessary to express Lincoln's dissatisfaction.

 

[JerryD]

My understanding from some past readings is that Lee was disappointed in him for South Mountain. Specifically he picked Ripley to lead the counter attack and Lees reasoning was Hill didn't pick the best person for that role and the counter attack went off badly. Ripley was out of the army after Fredericksburg.

I have heard this before, but not sure I believe it. Hill successfully fought a delaying action against overwhelming numbers, so dont know what Lee could be disappointed with. I always thought Lee blamed Hill for the Lost Order and this led to him being shown the door.