Evaluating Major General Thomas Churchill.

[major bill]

With many Civil War buffs fixation on the Eastern Theater, Thomas James Churchill is not a name often mentioned. He is the type of Confederate general that gave decent service to the Confederacy, but is mostly overlooked except for people interested in the Trans Mississippi Theater.

He served in the Mexican American War, being captured and held by the Mexicans. When the Civil War started he volunteered to serve in the Confederate Army where his war expirence made him an officer. He was promoted to brigadier general fairly quickly. He seemed to perform reasonably well. He is possibly best known for surrendering Fort Hindman during the Battle of Arkansas Post.

I do not believe we should judge him too harshly for the Battle or Arkansas Post as he was greatly outnumbered and out gunned. Still it is a bit difficult to judge his military skills.

 

[NFB22]

He was crucial in the Battle of Richmond (KY). Fort Hindman isn't really on him, as you said he was vastly outnumbered and under-supplied compared to the Union forces. That said, if I remember correctly he had saw the writing on the wall beforehand and evacuated some of the troops and guns upriver.

 

[Pollaco]

He did make major general a week before Lee surrendered but you really can't judge some men by their rank. There were many on both sides who were incompetent and unqualified.

 

[Sheltowee]

As NFB22 pointed out- Churchill turned the Federal right flank at Richmond. Used the ravine pictured below to advance his division, undetected.

 

[ErnieMac]

Churchill seems to have fought creditably at Pleasant Hill and Jenkin's Ferry.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I do not believe we should judge him too harshly for the Battle or Arkansas Post as he was greatly outnumbered and out gunned. Still it is a bit difficult to judge his military skills.

Always regarded Thomas Churchill as an able commander and one of those Generals that flew under the radar.

Thought his notable performances as a Division commander were at Richmond (KY) and Fort Hindman (or Arkansas Post). At Richmond he led a successful flanking maneuver, resulting in one of the most complete Confederate victories of the war. At Fort Hindman, he headed an unsupported garrison of about 3,000 inadequately armed effectives against a combined Union infantry and naval assault force of 30,000, which included river gunboats, and ended with his small force being overwhelmed and surrendering in somewhat confusing circumstances. Following Churchill's capture and subsequent exchange three months later, he was moved around in roles within the Trans-Mississippi Department and had limited involvement in other small-scale actions, including leading a Division of Arkansans in the Confederate defeat at Jenkins' Ferry. He was not promoted to M-G until March 17, 1865.

Always thought Churchill was underutilized as a field commander. Wonder how he would have handled permanent field Division command in a larger size force, like the Army of Tennessee, if he had been given the opportunity.

 

[danny]

Here's what Dick Taylor had to say about him:

5/24/65 64 Taylor to K Smith-…The present Ark Div under Churchill could be left in that State to hold it, get up supplies, & organize recruits. Notwithstanding his recent promotion, Churchill is no soldier & will never succeed in the field. I regard the troops entrusted to his command as almost lost to the service. He will assuredly defeat any plan dependent on his generalship, even in carrying out details.

 

[Sheltowee]

Here's what Dick Taylor had to say about him:

5/24/65 Taylor to K Smith-…The present Ark Div under Churchill could be left in that State to hold it, get up supplies, & organize recruits. Notwithstanding his recent promotion, Churchill is no soldier & will never succeed in the field. I regard the troops entrusted to his command as almost lost to the service. He will assuredly defeat any plan dependent on his generalship, even in carrying out details.

To be fair- Churchill had more pre-CW military experience than Taylor.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Here's what Dick Taylor had to say about him:

5/24/65 Taylor to K Smith-…The present Ark Div under Churchill could be left in that State to hold it, get up supplies, & organize recruits. Notwithstanding his recent promotion, Churchill is no soldier & will never succeed in the field. I regard the troops entrusted to his command as almost lost to the service. He will assuredly defeat any plan dependent on his generalship, even in carrying out details.

That's certainly a scathing assessment by a credible senior commander, Richard Taylor, whose military abilities were rated highly by most of his contemporaries.

Think serious consideration and some credence must be accorded to any personal opinion from such a source.

 

[NedBaldwin]

To be fair- Churchill had more pre-CW military experience than Taylor.

Didnt he spend most of the Mexican war as a POW?

 

[Sheltowee]

Didnt he spend most of the Mexican war as a POW?

He was a POW until near the end. Not sure how long?

 

[Nathan Stuart]

On the surface, it appears that the criticisms of Churchill by Taylor, as shown in the extract displayed above, might have been fundamentally directed at the former's logistical abilities, rather than his command performances in the field.

Perhaps relevantly, in the postwar period, when Churchill was Governor of Arkansas (1880 to 1883), he was accused of previous financial mismanagement while serving as the State Treasurer between 1874 and 1880. An investigating State legislative committee reported that $233,616 was found to be missing from the State Treasury during the period he was State Treasurer. Churchill claimed these shortages were due to bookkeeping mistakes, but he eventually repaid $23,973 without admitting any guilt.

Seems like Churchill may not have been very competent at the administrative aspects of his leadership roles.

 

[ErnieMac]

Here's what Dick Taylor had to say about him:

5/24/65 Taylor to K Smith-…The present Ark Div under Churchill could be left in that State to hold it, get up supplies, & organize recruits. Notwithstanding his recent promotion, Churchill is no soldier & will never succeed in the field. I regard the troops entrusted to his command as almost lost to the service. He will assuredly defeat any plan dependent on his generalship, even in carrying out details.

Are you sure about the date of the letter? By 5/24/65 Taylor had surrendered in Alabama nearly three weeks before and Kirby Smith was only days away from doing the same.

 

[danny]

Are you sure about the date of the letter? By 5/24/65 Taylor had surrendered in Alabama nearly three weeks before and Kirby Smith was only days away from doing the same.

Good catch. Make that 5/24/64

 

[danny]

That's certainly a scathing assessment by a credible senior commander, Richard Taylor, whose military abilities were rated highly by most of his contemporaries.

Think serious consideration and some credence must be accorded to any personal opinion from such a source.

I agree.

 

[Nathan Towne]

Churchill served fairly competently in the Army of Tennessee, imo, as well, although he obviously wasn't there very long.

 

[danny]

Churchill served fairly competently in the Army of Tennessee, imo, as well, although he obviously wasn't there very long.

Link?

 

[Nathan Towne]

Link?

For what?

 

[NFB22]

I believe he had a brigade under Cleburne as a part of D.H. Hill's Corps while with the Army of Tennessee but didn't see any real action while with that command before he was transferred.

 

[danny]

For what?

@NFB22 answered for you