Ewell misjudged

[atlantis]

Elsewhere I commented that Ewell was as good as Longstreet and got some push back. So here is why I think Ewell is misjudged. Looking at Gettysburg and later the wilderness, Ewell gets a lot of flak which I think is undeserved because his orders from Lee are not exactly clear. Ewell appears to have had a more realistic view of what his men could achieve than Lee.
After 1st Manassas/bull run Ewell recommended the slaves be freed, no one seems to give him praise for that, yet later Lee calling for slaves to be conscripted is portrayed as some kind of Great emancipator. Was Ewell perfect, of course not but it arguable that he had a more realistic vision of what it would take the confederacy to win and a more realistic view of what the army could actually achieve.
While Lee did remove Ewell from command, he is also the one who appointed him to Corp command.
In conclusion I submit that Ewell was as good as any Corp commander in the Confederate army.
Interested in your opinions and hope everyone has a good new year ahead.

 

[fyrd]

2nd Winchester shows him in a very good light. I suspect if he'd had his own extended Valley campaign a la Jackson or Early, Ewell would be remembered differently.

 

[RedRover]

According to Dr. Dabney, General Jackson had a good deal of faith in Ewell's military ability.

 

[dlofting]

Ewell did do well at Winchester, but aside from that it's possible that he needed fairly clear and specific direction. He would have received that under Jackson but not so much under Lee, who generally allowed his subordinates a lot of latitude, particularly his corps commanders.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

Elsewhere I commented that Ewell was as good as Longstreet and got some push back. So here is why I think Ewell is misjudged. Looking at Gettysburg and later the wilderness, Ewell gets a lot of flak which I think is undeserved because his orders from Lee are not exactly clear. Ewell appears to have had a more realistic view of what his men could achieve than Lee.

Not sure there is much evidence to support him being anywhere close to Longstreet. While he's mostly been vindicated on the "if practicable order." He did not have a firm hand on his corps for the rst of the battle. Sears in his gettysburg book is quite hard on him. I'll find the quotes MOnday when I go back to school, where I have the book. At the Wilderness his corps fights solidly. But while I don't think he does anything to really knock him, it's not as if he shows some amazing tactical acument either. He then loses his nerve badly during Spotsylvania, and that along with his health issues, Lee removes him. I think you can say he's better than perceived, but I wouldn't go as far as saying he's better than Longstreet. Who BTW has mutliple massive attacks he leads that succeed (2nd Manassas, G'Burg Day 2, Chickamauga, Wilderness). Longstreet, who you compared him to, also showed tactical insights and flexbility in multiple battles, from executing a en echelong attack, to his 5 line, 8 brigade attack column at Chickamauga, to his heavy skirmish line attack at the Wilderness. I don't think Ewell ever did anything up to that. Obviously his 2nd Winchester is Ewell at his best, but he seems to get rpgressviley worse as the war goes, though he also has more and more health problems as the war goes too.

After 1st Manassas/bull run Ewell recommended the slaves be freed, no one seems to give him praise for that, yet later Lee calling for slaves to be conscripted is portrayed as some kind of Great emancipator. Was Ewell perfect, of course not but it arguable that he had a more realistic vision of what it would take the confederacy to win and a more realistic view of what the army could actually achieve.

Not sure any of this is the purview of a corps commander. I do think he had solid strategic insight in this case though.

While Lee did remove Ewell from command, he is also the one who appointed him to Corp command.
In conclusion I submit that Ewell was as good as any Corp commander in the Confederate army.
Interested in your opinions and hope everyone has a good new year ahead.

I think there is a case where you can argue he's better than Hill, Hill, Polk, S.D. Lee, Cheatham, Hood. I think A.P. HIll does put in a solid showing throughout Petersburg, but would agree he's better than those others. I wouldn't put him ahead of A.P. Stewart, Hardee, Jackson, Longstreet, or Richard Taylor.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Not sure there is much evidence to support him being anywhere close to Longstreet. While he's mostly been vindicated on the "if practicable order." He did not have a firm hand on his corps for the rst of the battle. Sears in his gettysburg book is quite hard on him. I'll find the quotes MOnday when I go back to school, where I have the book. At the Wilderness his corps fights solidly. But while I don't think he does anything to really knock him, it's not as if he shows some amazing tactical acument either. He then loses his nerve badly during Spotsylvania, and that along with his health issues, Lee removes him. I think you can say he's better than perceived, but I wouldn't go as far as saying he's better than Longstreet. Who BTW has mutliple massive attacks he leads that succeed (2nd Manassas, G'Burg Day 2, Chickamauga, Wilderness). Longstreet, who you compared him to, also showed tactical insights and flexbility in multiple battles, from executing a en echelong attack, to his 5 line, 8 brigade attack column at Chickamauga, to his heavy skirmish line attack at the Wilderness. I don't think Ewell ever did anything up to that. Obviously his 2nd Winchester is Ewell at his best, but he seems to get rpgressviley worse as the war goes, though he also has more and more health problems as the war goes too.


Not sure any of this is the purview of a corps commander. I do think he had solid strategic insight in this case though.

I think there is a case where you can argue he's better than Hill, Hill, Polk, S.D. Lee, Cheatham, Hood. I think A.P. HIll does put in a solid showing throughout Petersburg, but would agree he's better than those others. I wouldn't put him ahead of A.P. Stewart, Hardee, Jackson, Longstreet, or Richard Taylor.

Ewell was definitely better than Polk or Hood.

 

[rpkennedy]

Elsewhere I commented that Ewell was as good as Longstreet and got some push back. So here is why I think Ewell is misjudged. Looking at Gettysburg and later the wilderness, Ewell gets a lot of flak which I think is undeserved because his orders from Lee are not exactly clear. Ewell appears to have had a more realistic view of what his men could achieve than Lee.
After 1st Manassas/bull run Ewell recommended the slaves be freed, no one seems to give him praise for that, yet later Lee calling for slaves to be conscripted is portrayed as some kind of Great emancipator. Was Ewell perfect, of course not but it arguable that he had a more realistic vision of what it would take the confederacy to win and a more realistic view of what the army could actually achieve.
While Lee did remove Ewell from command, he is also the one who appointed him to Corp command.
In conclusion I submit that Ewell was as good as any Corp commander in the Confederate army.
Interested in your opinions and hope everyone has a good new year ahead.

Saying that Ewell was as good as Longstreet is giving Ewell a lot more credit than I would be willing to give and I'm one who tends to defend Ewell, especially during the Gettysburg Campaign.

That said, Ewell generally takes a lot of criticism for Gettysburg which, in my opinion, should be leveled at Lee which is why Ewell usually receives the fire. Ewell performed about as well as could be expected and did exceptionally well in the campaign leading up to the battle. He also does quite well in the latter stages of the campaign and in the autumn of 1863. Ewell is a better corps commander than he often gets credit for.

As for Ewell's removal from command, I think that it was warrented. His health was fragile in 1864 and he completely fell to pieces (in Lee's mind) at Spotsylvania. I understand why Lee wanted to shunt him aside at that point of the war.

Ryan

 

[rpkennedy]

Ewell was definitely better than Polk or Hood.

Being a better corps commander than Leonidas Polk is a REALLY low bar to clear.

Ryan

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Being a better corps commander than Leonidas Polk is a REALLY low bar to clear.

Ryan

Amen!

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

Ewell was definitely better than Polk or Hood.

Hood was quite active and good at Chickamauga, but after the leg injury he didn't have the energy ability to be as active and I think this stunted him during the Atlanta campagin, though Hood was solid at times. I think a Hood who was healthier would of been a very solid corps commander. Though not a Army Commander. But that doesn't happen and with Hood's overall record I'd put Ewell over him. Polk is the worst corps commander in the war IMO.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

Saying that Ewell was as good as Longstreet is giving Ewell a lot more credit than I would be willing to give and I'm one who tends to defend Ewell, especially during the Gettysburg Campaign.

That said, Ewell generally takes a lot of criticism for Gettysburg which, in my opinion, should be leveled at Lee which is why Ewell usually receives the fire. Ewell performed about as well as could be expected and did exceptionally well in the campaign leading up to the battle. He also does quite well in the latter stages of the campaign and in the autumn of 1863. Ewell is a better corps commander than he often gets credit for.

As for Ewell's removal from command, I think that it was warrented. His health was fragile in 1864 and he completely fell to pieces (in Lee's mind) at Spotsylvania. I understand why Lee wanted to shunt him aside at that point of the war.

Ryan

I wish I had my Sears book at hand, but Sears defends him on the "if practicable" stuff only to dock him for alot of other stuff.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Thought 'Dick' Ewell performed well as a division commander during Jackson's Valley Campaign and Northern VA Campaign (until wounded seriously) in '62, and also as a newly appointed corps commander at the outset of the Gettysburg Campaign.

But thereafter, as a corps commander over the remaining course of the war, thought Ewell displayed progressive indecision in this leadership role – firstly, on day one at Gettysburg, then at the Wilderness, then again at Sayler's Creek. It could be argued that in each of these major engagements, he either squandered an opportunity, or was otherwise slow to act. Also at Spotsylvania, he displayed some errors of military judgement, but it was in a field situation in which he was not entirely responsible and the command blame could be apportioned.

On top of this, Ewell was plagued by debilitating illnesses throughout his military career. Following (and prior to) Gettysburg, Ewell experienced a series of mishaps and suffered physical complications, due to his previous '62 leg wounding that resulted in the loss of the limb. Lee had expressed concern about Ewell's physical condition and felt that the latter was becoming enfeebled and fatigued, and thereby unable to withstand the strains of active field campaigning by continuing in his corps command role. It might be argued that Ewell's continuous physical suffering from his leg wound had adverse psychological effects on his mental powers (and cognitive processing) while he was holding senior command responsibilities during the stressful unrelenting combat period that was fought from late '63 onwards. (There were also claims made that his apparently domineering and highly influential wife, whom he married just prior to Gettysburg, may have also contributed to any confused/tentative command thinking by him in this period).

Whatever was the state of Ewell's mind in his period of corps command, thought his body condition was certainly deteriorating even though his fighting spirit/determination remained throughout the war.

Bottom line. Based on his historical performances as a corps commander, thought Ewell was not top-notch nor even solid at this higher level of field command, and would only rate him in this role as perhaps slightly above mediocre. Also thought that after Gettysburg, Ewell did not demonstrate the same capacity for decisive military judgement, as he did back in '62. But by '64, and especially after Longstreet's serious wounding at the Wilderness, Lee really had very few (if any) viable choices to make from a rapidly shrinking pool of senior commanders. So Dick Ewell retained his job.

 

[Stryker65]

I actually sympathize with OP here. But, that's only if we're talking about Pre-Second-Manassas Ewell. Pre-Second-Manassas Ewell was a beast (positive).

 

[nc native]

Thought 'Dick' Ewell performed well as a division commander during Jackson's Valley Campaign and Northern VA Campaign (until wounded seriously) in '62, and also as a newly appointed corps commander at the outset of the Gettysburg Campaign.

But thereafter, as a corps commander over the remaining course of the war, thought Ewell displayed progressive indecision in this leadership role – firstly, on day one at Gettysburg, then at the Wilderness, then again at Sayler's Creek. It could be argued that in each of these major engagements, he either squandered an opportunity, or was otherwise slow to act. Also at Spotsylvania, he displayed some errors of military judgement, but it was in a field situation in which he was not entirely responsible and the command blame could be apportioned.

On top of this, Ewell was plagued by debilitating illnesses throughout his military career. Following (and prior to) Gettysburg, Ewell experienced a series of mishaps and suffered physical complications, due to his previous '62 leg wounding that resulted in the loss of the limb. Lee had expressed concern about Ewell's physical condition and felt that the latter was becoming enfeebled and fatigued, and thereby unable to withstand the strains of active field campaigning by continuing in his corps command role. It might be argued that Ewell's continuous physical suffering from his leg wound had adverse psychological effects on his mental powers (and cognitive processing) while he was holding senior command responsibilities during the stressful unrelenting combat period that was fought from late '63 onwards. (There were also claims made that his apparently domineering and highly influential wife, whom he married just prior to Gettysburg, may have also contributed to any confused/tentative command thinking by him in this period).

Whatever was the state of Ewell's mind in his period of corps command, thought his body condition was certainly deteriorating even though his fighting spirit/determination remained throughout the war.

Bottom line. Based on his historical performances as a corps commander, thought Ewell was not top-notch nor even solid at this higher level of field command, and would only rate him in this role as perhaps slightly above mediocre. Also thought that after Gettysburg, Ewell did not demonstrate the same capacity for decisive military judgement, as he did back in '62. But by '64, and especially after Longstreet's serious wounding at the Wilderness, Lee really had very few (if any) viable choices to make from a rapidly shrinking pool of senior commanders. So Dick Ewell retained his job.

That leg wound you mention was Richard Ewell's third wound in combat, he was wounded fighting the Apache in 1860 and he was the first field grade officer to be wounded in the Civil War during a skirmish before First Manassas when he was shot in the shoulder. I think the leg wound did contribute to his downslide as a commander. That being said, Ewell worked well with Jackson during the Valley Campaign and he had mixed results as a corps commander under General Lee. I think his meltdown in the Wilderness and his deteriorating physical condition were the reasons he was removed from command. At Saylor's Creek he was captured in an ambulance which shows he was in no shape to be in the field.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I think there is a case where you can argue he's better than Hill, Hill, Polk, S.D. Lee, Cheatham, Hood. I think A.P. HIll does put in a solid showing throughout Petersburg, but would agree he's better than those others. I wouldn't put him ahead of A.P. Stewart, Hardee, Jackson, Longstreet, or Richard Taylor.

Agree with almost all of these rating comparisons with other corps commanders.

Saw parallels between Ewell and Hood in the sense that both were top-notch combat division commanders earlier in the war who could not make the successful step up to corps (and higher) command levels. Also, both these generals experienced serious combat wounds during the war which had a significant negative impact (I believe) on their performances in their later elevated command roles.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

That leg wound you mention was Richard Ewell's third wound in combat, he was wounded fighting the Apache in 1860 and he was the first field grade officer to be wounded in the Civil War during a skirmish before First Manassas when he was shot in the shoulder. I think the leg wound did contribute to his downslide as a commander. That being said, Ewell worked well with Jackson during the Valley Campaign and he had mixed results as a corps commander under General Lee. I think his meltdown in the Wilderness and his deteriorating physical condition were the reasons he was removed from command. At Saylor's Creek he was captured in an ambulance which shows he was in no shape to be in the field.

I think alot of what is said about Ewell here, can also be said about Hood. Dave Powell says this of Hood and his performance in corps command during the Chickamauga Campaign:

//John Bell Hood earned a permanent corps command based on his performance at Chickamauga. While he exerted little influence in the confused fighting of the 19th, his role on the 20th was significant. After the breakthrough, he and Bushrod Johnson shifted the axis of attack from the west to the north, and Hood was in the process of orchestrating a larger effort against Horseshoe Ridge when he fell severely wounded. Had he died, it is quite possible he would be remembered today as another Stonewall Jackson, struck down at the pinnacle of success, a blow that cost the South ultimate victory. About the only thing Bragg and Longstreet could agree upon was that Hood should be promoted to lieutenant general, a course of action both men urged.//

Not trying to derail this to something about Hood, but to show that Leg injuries especially can be mentally and physically exhausting on officers in a way that degrades their performances. I don't think the physical toll in the field with the leg injury sapped him mentally, just as it did Hood, who was a very active division commander, and was the same as a corps commander at Chickamauga, after the leg injury he wasn't able to ride whereever and judge scenery and topography for himself, which I think was limiting. Just my $.02.

 

[Rebforever]

Wasn't Ewell also in Love or something liken that?

 

[Jamieva]

Saying Lee picked him implies an endorsement that Lee didn't give personally at the time of promotion. Ewell got the corps command because #1 he had seniority and #2 he was Jackson's pick. Lee didn't know him that well at all.

If we're going to say 2nd Winchester is his high point we do have to point out he was fighting 2nd rate troops under Milroy. It's kinda like Ewell had the Harlem Globetrotters and Milroy had the Washington Generals. Ewell should have smashed him so yes he gets credit for not screwing it up, but don't make it out like he had some pinnacle achievement.

Also at the Wilderness remember that Gordon had to go over his head to Lee directly to get Ewell to allow Gordon to do his flank attack. They lost precious time going through this and I am sure Lee put this in the back of his mind that Ewell said no to that attack. Lee always wanted to be aggressive and emphasized subordinates that showed that aggression.

So no Ewell is nowhere near Longstreet's level. Not even close. I think comparing him to Hood as a corps commander would be very apt.

 

[Saruman]

Ewell fought well at Chaffin's Farm in September 1864. Don Pfanz wrote:

As odds against the South increased, Lee drew defenders from the Richmond front to defend Petersburg, setting the stage for the Union breakthrough at Fort Harrison on 29 September 1864. Ewell rose to the occasion. In what was perhaps the greatest feat of his career, he held back the Army of the James with a handful of mostly third-rate troops, saving Richmond from capture. Had Jackson been in charge rather than Ewell, historians would have touted the battle as a military masterpiece. But Ewell was in command, not Jackson, and in the rush of events the episode was forgotten. Historians have all but ignored it since.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Wasn't Ewell also in Love or something liken that?

Some claim he got too distracted and absorbed by his new wife, Lizinka Campbell Brown. (They got married on May 26, '63).

There is a Latin saying,
...'Duos qui sequitur lepores, neutrum capit.'...(He who chases two hares captures neither).

Maybe the question is: Did the distraction and influence of Ewell's wife materially diminish his attention to the details of military leadership in this period?