Daniel Harvey Hill

[Nytram01]

I have just gotten through the chapter on Daniel Harvey Hill in the book "Generals in Blue and Gray - Volume Two" and I was rather intreged with the man.

He seems to me to be very Montgomeryish in his personality. He made enemies easily, was outspoken in his criticism of other officers of equal or superior rank and never accepted that he was in the wrong over anything as regards military matters.

Nevertheless he appears to be one of the finest general of the Confederacy who could be relied upon to perform well in almost every situation he found himself in, which is again very Montgomeryish.

It seems to me to be so much of a waste of such a fine officer that he was left to rot in North Carloina for the a large, crucial period of the war just because Jeff Davis didn't like him anymore.

Of course, like Bernard Law Montgomery, he made his own problems but, similarly to that most outspoken of British Generals, his criticisms of others had merit and did not deserve to be dismissed just because he presented those criticisms in an insulting way.

I suppose General Hill was just unlucky not to have a supporter in high office who would defend him as Sir Alan Brooke defended Monty and so had no one to protect him from the political side of the military that it was so easy to fall foul of.

Was it really necessary to send Hill into forced retirement simply because he was a difficult man personally? Did Davis and his advisors really think that it was a good idea to leave such a good general doing nothing?

 

[M E Wolf]

Dear Nytram01;

Excellent questions and observations of General D. H. Hill.

Name HILL, Daniel Harvey
Born July 12 1821, York District SC
Died September 24 1889, Charlotte NC
Pre-War Profession Graduated West Point 1842, Mexican War, resigned 1849, college professor, superintendent of North Carolina Military Institute.
War Service May 1861 Col. of 1st North Carolina, Big Bethel, July 1861 Brig. Gen., commanded the Left Wing at Yorktown, Williamsburg, March 1862 Maj. Gen., commanded Hill's Divn in Longstreet's Command at Seven Pines, served under Jackson in the Seven Days, commanded Hill's Divn in Jackson's Command at South Mountain, Sharpsburg (where he was falsely accused of losing Special Order 191), commanded in North Carolina, Richmond defenses, July 1863 appointed Lt. Gen. (never confirmed), commanded Hill's Corps at Chickamauga, criticized Bragg who in turn unfairly accused Hill of delaying an attack, removed from command by President Davis, Petersburg, commanded Hill's Divn at Bentonville.
Post War Career Editor (The Land We Love, The Southern Home), college president.
Notes 15 members of his West Point class became Civil war generals. He was brave but abrasive, and could have been used much more effectively for the Confederate cause.
Further reading
Bridges, Hal Lee's maverick general, Daniel Harvey Hill Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press 1991

http://www.generalsandbrevets.com/sh/sh1.htm

Photos of him on the above website 'generalsandbrevets.com'--

I have to believe that General D. Hill was unfairly pigeon-holed and held back by President Davis' bias behavior and being close friends with General Bragg. It seems to me that Bragg, couldn't take observations and comments of Hill, a junior officer but; he did no different than Hood did with his superior yet--he wasn't treated poorly. It appears that President Davis out of spite, refused Hill's promotion to Lt. General. However, it is often more assumption rather than fact that we base things on; as so many documents destroyed by the CSA there are gaps. Maybe-maybe not, General D. H. Hill was qualified for the position--maybe not. But, certainly--he could have been used better. Perhaps under Longstreet or Lee he would have been more comfortable.

And, I think you are quite 'spot on' in the observations, that General Hill did not have an advocate in Richmond. If he had; perhaps he would have been with Lee or somewhere useful.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

 

[Scribe]

I have just gotten through the chapter on Daniel Harvey Hill in the book "Generals in Blue and Gray - Volume Two" and I was rather intreged with the man.

He seems to me to be very Montgomeryish in his personality. He made enemies easily, was outspoken in his criticism of other officers of equal or superior rank and never accepted that he was in the wrong over anything as regards military matters.

Nevertheless he appears to be one of the finest general of the Confederacy who could be relied upon to perform well in almost every situation he found himself in, which is again very Montgomeryish.

It seems to me to be so much of a waste of such a fine officer that he was left to rot in North Carloina for the a large, crucial period of the war just because Jeff Davis didn't like him anymore.

Was it Davis who didn't like D.H. Hill or was it Lee?

 

[Nytram01]

Was it Davis who didn't like D.H. Hill or was it Lee?

Well D.H. Hill criticised both Davis' favorite Generals, Lee and Bragg, for different thing.

The thing I know Hill criticised Lee for was launching what he saw as pointless frontal assaults against entrenched enemies in the Seven Days which despite being effective were not the only course of action and caused more bloodshed than was necessary in his opinion and he criticised Bragg for missmanagement of the Army of Tennessee in the Battle of Chickamauga and it aftermath in particular Braggs inability to take advantage of the victory.

Lee took Hill's criticism relatively well actually. When the Seven Days had finished Lee recognised Hill's contribution as being exceptional (Hill had arguably been the best performing of the Confederate generals) but did not endorse his promotion on the grounds that Hill's tactlessness didn't make him ideal for high command. By the time the Seven Days had finished Hill had made many enemies in the Army of Northern Virginia because of his tactless comments and while he had made many admirers in that army because of his perfomance his enemies were more numerous.

Braxton Bragg on the other hand singled Hill out for criticism in his report to Davis. While Hill was far from faultless during his time in the Army of Tennessee Bragg and Polk were more responsible for the mistake that occured there than Hill was. Bragg claimed that Hill's removal was only done on the grounds that it would contribute to the harmony and efficiency of the Army and that he did not believe he could rely on Hill to give him his full support or cooperation but when asked by Hill why he had been singled out when the majority of the officers in the Army had expressed lack of confidence Bragg did not respond.

When Davis went to try and sort the problems of the Army of Tennessee he refused to see Hill, he refused to find out his side of the arguement and ignored several letters of support for Hill from the other officers of the Army. He spoke to Bragg, reviewed the Army and subsequently agreed with Bragg on everything and sent Hill to forced retirement in North Carolina, effectively demoted him and flat out refused to consider assigning him to any theatre at all in any capacity.

I think it's more likely that Hill's untimely end to his Confederate career, but for a few moments of fighting later, was more down to Davis simply growing to hate the man that Lee not being fond on him.

 

[OpnDownfall]

It is a general truism, in the Military, that to rise to very high rank, a influential military mentor of high rank or powerful political connections is usually necessary.. (preferably both)

 

[ole]

Problem is, anyone who could or would have sponsored him didn't like him either. It is inadvisable to make an enemy of the CnC.

Ole

 

[Bruce Vail]

Hmm.

Hill was the Divisional commander of the 3rd NC Infantry in 1862 when my family ancestor Lt. George W. Ward served under him.

There isn't much that I have read about the 3rd NC at that time that reflects well on Hill:

1) At Mechanicsville, Va., at the start of the Seven Days, the 3rd NC, along with the other regiments of Ripley's Brigade, was mauled by the Yankees at Ellerson's Mill. The regiment had been ordered into a hopeless attack by a mistake at the high command level.

2) At Malvern Hill, at the end of the Seven Days, the 3rd NC took heavy casualties in a failed assault on the Union line. The attack by the Confederates seemed confused and ill-coordinated.

3) At Second Manassas, Ripley's Brigade was ordered into attack. Inattention and confusion delayed the arrival of the Brigade until after the battle was over. (In Hill's defense, the extra brigade wasn't really needed. The Rebs did just fine without Ripley's Brigade that day.)

...more to come...