Did Halleck have any redeeming qualities?

wausaubob

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Location
Denver, CO
When General Halleck was called to capital, both Grant and Rosecrans won major battles. Halleck contended the rail transfer of troops from the east to Bridgeport would take weeks. It took 12 days, with equipment following. If Halleck was playing devil's advocate, he should have clarified his remarks.
He was a great lawyer and effective politician. But as a general he was usually in the way.
 

Ole Miss

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Regtl. Staff Shiloh 2020
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Location
North Mississippi
Halleck is an acquired taste and I don't have it in my heart to be a fan. He was a glory stealing sycophant who would like the skin off someone who could advance his career. He removed Grant from command of the Army of the Tennessee a then took a month to advance 20 miles to capture Corinth. He was sad excuse as a military leader.
Regards
David
 

damYankee

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
Halleck would have been happy to allow the war to go on until hell froze up. His constant interference with Grants command, his backstabbing of Sherman, his pathetic advance on Corinth, hi interception of and changing of Grants orders to Meade and other generals was over the top, he may as well been on the enemies payroll.
His behavior speaks for itself,
 

rbasin

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Location
Tampa, Fl
Halleck would have been happy to allow the war to go on until hell froze up. His constant interference with Grants command, his backstabbing of Sherman, his pathetic advance on Corinth, hi interception of and changing of Grants orders to Meade and other generals was over the top, he may as well been on the enemies payroll.
His behavior speaks for itself,
None of that is right.
 

RedRover

Corporal
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Frank B. Morse's "Portrait Gallery of the War" (1865) looks rather at the bright side...

1631620537192.png

1631620558988.png


For his part, General McClellan was less kind in his narrative... "McClellan's own story..."

1631621079257.png

1631621119813.png

1631621180767.png


the Mine case between Stanton and Halleck was the Almaden quicksilver mine in California, which Halleck managed in the 1850s, besides his law firm.... Stanton represented claims that the land grant for the mine was fraudulent....
 

jackt62

Captain
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Location
New York City
Halleck's major failing was his refusal or inability to make command decisions when he served as General-in-Chief from July 1862 to March 1864 (when superceded by Grant). Halleck's belief was that individual field commanders on the spot were the only ones who could or should be responsible for deciding on military actions. While there may be a certain logic to that approach, the position of General-in-Chief was such as to require an overall leader to guide and judge the merits of field operations on a national basis. This is the task that Grant willingly took on and was an important factor in the Union's ultimate victory. Halleck, for all his theoretical knowledge or warfare, was incapable of rising to a level higher than that of chief administrator.
 

rbasin

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Location
Tampa, Fl
Halleck's major failing was his refusal or inability to make command decisions when he served as General-in-Chief from July 1862 to March 1864 (when superceded by Grant). Halleck's belief was that individual field commanders on the spot were the only ones who could or should be responsible for deciding on military actions. While there may be a certain logic to that approach, the position of General-in-Chief was such as to require an overall leader to guide and judge the merits of field operations on a national basis. This is the task that Grant willingly took on and was an important factor in the Union's ultimate victory. Halleck, for all his theoretical knowledge or warfare, was incapable of rising to a level higher than that of chief administrator.
A task that Grant failed at. He had no control over the far west, couldn't or wouldn't see what Thomas was working with, failed in the valley with Sigel and Fremont. Not to mention Butler.
 

jackt62

Captain
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Location
New York City
A task that Grant failed at. He had no control over the far west, couldn't or wouldn't see what Thomas was working with, failed in the valley with Sigel and Fremont. Not to mention Butler.
Must disagree. Grant's strategy of concentrating forces in space and time did lead to victory. Sherman was able to hold Johnston at bay and prevent any reinforcement of the ANV. It is true that Grant's subordinates such as Sigel and Butler failed in their particular roles to distract and hold down Confederate forces in their respective fronts, and even Meade's AotP did not succeed in destroying the ANV during the Overland Campaign. But military plans are sure to go awry at the first sound of gunfire, but Grant's ability to adapt to the changing situation on the ground and not throw in the towel, was evidence of his determination and the eventual success of his strategy.
 

RedRover

Corporal
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Halleck's major failing was his refusal or inability to make command decisions when he served as General-in-Chief from July 1862 to March 1864 (when superceded by Grant). Halleck's belief was that individual field commanders on the spot were the only ones who could or should be responsible for deciding on military actions. While there may be a certain logic to that approach, the position of General-in-Chief was such as to require an overall leader to guide and judge the merits of field operations on a national basis. This is the task that Grant willingly took on and was an important factor in the Union's ultimate victory. Halleck, for all his theoretical knowledge or warfare, was incapable of rising to a level higher than that of chief administrator.

Yours is not the universal conclusion. Others have claimed that Halleck was a direct and dynamic actor... In a work defending Fitz-John Porter, ("Stanton and Halleck in the Civil War"...) the author claims several times that Gen. Halleck was far more active with ordering field movements than generally acknowledged...

1631625741198.png

1631625794027.png


And regarding Halleck's handling of the Peninsula campaign, and 2nd Manassas...
1631625968439.png
1631625999982.png

1631626074340.png

1631626127757.png

1631626194284.png
 

damYankee

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 12, 2011
None of that is right.
What I said is not right or is what Halleck did not right?
What I described was taken from Grants Memoirs, and is backed up by letters and copies of the orders that Halleck had fiddled with, an activity which required Grant to stop routing ordered through Washington and rely solely on orders delivered directly to field commanders to avoid meddling from the brass hats ( Staton and Halleck, both useless gutter rats imo) .
 

rbasin

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Location
Tampa, Fl
Must disagree. Grant's strategy of concentrating forces in space and time did lead to victory. Sherman was able to hold Johnston at bay and prevent any reinforcement of the ANV. It is true that Grant's subordinates such as Sigel and Butler failed in their particular roles to distract and hold down Confederate forces in their respective fronts, and even Meade's AotP did not succeed in destroying the ANV during the Overland Campaign. But military plans are sure to go awry at the first sound of gunfire, but Grant's ability to adapt to the changing situation on the ground and not throw in the towel, was evidence of his determination and the eventual success of his strategy.

What I said is not right or is what Halleck did not right?
What I described was taken from Grants Memoirs, and is backed up by letters and copies of the orders that Halleck had fiddled with, an activity which required Grant to stop routing ordered through Washington and rely solely on orders delivered directly to field commanders to avoid meddling from the brass hats ( Staton and Halleck, both useless gutter rats imo) .
Gutter rats. Got it. I assume you mean the ones that halleck wrote to Sheridan in response to Sheridan's?
 
Top