2nd Manassas General Hooker at Chantilly

[Andy Cardinal]

​

The battle at Chantilly was fought during a furious thunderstorm on the afternoon of September 1, 1862. It was an important, though small, battle that marked the end of the Second Manassas campaign and the beginning of the Maryland Campaign. The battle is best remembered as the place where Phil Kearny and Isaac Stevens were killed. In the end, Union defenders kept Stonewall Jackson's command from seriously interrupting the retreat toward Washington.

Prior to the beginning of the battle (around 1:00 p.m.), John Pope ordered Joseph Hooker to leave his division in command of all the forces near Fairfax Court House. Pope's orders directed Hooker to "at once proceed to Jermantown, assume command of the troops at Fairfax Court-House, together with the brigades now under the command of Colonels Torbert and Hinks." Meanwhile, Irvin McDowell was hurrying his corps toward the threatened sector.

One of the regiments in McDowell's corps had suffered greatly at Second Manassas. They were on the right of the brigade line on Chinn Ridge as the brigade tried to stop or at least slow down Longstreet's assault. Colonel Fletcher Webster was mortally wounded. The regiment lost heavy casualties as they were overwhelmed and forced to abandon their position.

In the aftermath of Bull Run, the men were dirty, exhausted, and angry. Their anger was directed primarily at Pope and McDowell, who were generally blamed by the men for the disaster.

Corporal George Kimball later wrote of his experience as the 12th Massachusetts went into position near Fairfax on September 1. The battle at Chantilly was then in progress.

"We came on the double-quick and formed in the edge of a wood, our right resting on the Fairfax Turnpike. The battle was raging furiously, but as we were placed in reserve we suffered no loss. We were lying behind a rail fence, waiting for the expected attack of the enemy. It was early in the evening, but as there were no indications of an immediate advance of the rebs, I obtained permission to leave the ranks for water."

Kimball took several canteens for men his regiment and went for water. Crossing the road, he found a stream a little further ahead and filled the canteens. "After filling the canteens I filled my dipper, now black with soot. While re-crossing the pike, an officer, a stranger to me, closely enveloped in a military cloak, asked, "Have you any good water, my man?"

Kimball replied, "Yes, sir, but my dipper is rather sooty." The officer took a drink from the dipper anyway, "and then laughingly remarked, "If we don't have any worse things than black dippers to put up with, we can consider ourselves lucky." Then he added, "We've got a good position here, and I feel sure that we can hold them this time."

Kimball continued:

"Something in his manner gave me confidence and I told him that I hoped so, too. I was disgusted with the way matters had been managed lately; I had no confidence in either Pope or McDowell and I railed pretty freely over the blundering at Bull Run. This he seemed greatly to enjoy and even assisted me in describing the battles and movements of the various corps, particularly the fight of the 30th of August, in which McDowell's corps was so badly worsted. After a while I turned to go and as I did so he inquired my name and regiment. I gave him both and then visions of the punishments laid down in the Articles of War for too freely criticizing commanding officers arose in my mind and I became just a little disconcerted, inasmuch as I did not know to whom I had been talking. I touched my cap and made a stammering apology, to which he replied with a laugh, "O, that's all right. I like to hear a man speak his mind once in a while." I ventured to remark, as a parting salutation, "I hope we will not have another Bull Run affair here." "I don't mean that we shall," said he. "We'll have no more such blunders as were made there. I have placed your division in the edge of this forest, so that they may have perfect command of this open ground. Then I have batteries in good positions and plenty of troops to call in if we need them." This emphatic use of the pronoun "I" did the business for me and I was sure then that I had "put my foot in it."

Kimball "summoned his courage" to ask, "May I ask with whom I have had the honor of conversing?"

The officer replied, "I am General Hooker." Writing years later, Kimball mistakenly recalled that Hooker said he had been appointed to command the corps in place of McDowell. This was an error of memory, but Hooker was appointed within a week. On that particular day, however, Hooker had been placed in command of the defenses near Fairfax.

Kimball went back to his regiment and told the men of his encounter. "The news I brought did more good than would have resulted had the water I brought been the drink of the gods and had every one of those weary, wet and hungry fellows partaken of it," he wrote.

Although Hooker has plenty of critics, this episode shows the opinion the men in the ranks had for him, and many men who served under him would continue to hold him in high regard even after his defeat at Chancellorsville.

Sources:

Welker, Tempest at Ox Hill
Patchan, Second Manassas
Kimball, A Corporal's Story

 

[Cavalier]

I love those kinds of stories. Thanks

John

 

[JOHN42768]

The humanity side of a General

 

[dlofting]

Thanks for posting. It's this type of account that gives a picture of a person like Hooker, quite apart from what he did or didn't do in battle.

 

[rpkennedy]

Hooker was a courageous, inspiring general who could get a lot out of his men and get them to rise up in times of crisis. The problem was that he was also arrogant, scheming, and just a generally sketchy individual on a personal level.

Ryan

 

[Belfoured]

Hooker was a courageous, inspiring general who could get a lot out of his men and get them to rise up in times of crisis. The problem was that he was also arrogant, scheming, and just a generally sketchy individual on a personal level.

Ryan

Hey - who's perfect?

 

[Mango Hill]

Good to see this type of post about General Hooker. He get's a deservedly bad rap for his failure in command at the Battle of Chancellorsville but he had some outstanding qualities as commander, the main one being that he took good care of the men under his command. Hooker was also an innovator when it came to uniting the cavalry into a powerful force, creating a reliable intelligence service, implemented corp badges on uniforms that identified individual regiments, brigades and divisions. This helped with organization of troops during battles and also improved unit morale.

 

[jackt62]

If not for Chancellorsville, Hooker's reputation would be that of one of the higher rated Division and Corps commanders.

 

[Mango Hill]

If not for Chancellorsville, Hooker's reputation would be that of one of the higher rated Division and Corps commanders.

That's also how I see Hooker. Aside from the debacle at Chancellorsville Hooker did show promise as an Army commander afterward when he recovered his equilibrium and moved the AoP across the Potomac much sooner than Lee expected, causing two things which ended up favoring Mead when he took over on the 28th; It forced Lee to cancel his foray across Pennsylvania and to unite his spread out forces, resulting in the Battle of Gettysburg; it lengthened J. E. B. Stuart's 3 day tour into a six day road trip that kept him out of the battle for two critical days. Stuart didn't help himself when he captured the large supply rain which slowed his progress.

Hooker was moving along nicely but when rebuffed by Halleck about releasing the Harpers Ferry garrison to join the AoP he tended his resignation, which was promptly accepted. The deal here is that Halleck then released the Harpers Ferry garrison to Mead. Halleck wanted Hooker out so bad that he was willing to place in jeopardy that which he was sworn to protect.

In the west, as XX Corp commander and senior in rank, Hooker was denied the command of the Army of Tennessee after McPherson's death. While Lincoln lobbied for Hooker to be given the command Sherman (and Grant) couldn't stand Hooker, and gave the command to O. O. Howard, junior in rank and ability to Hooker. Hooker would have not objected if Logan had been given McPherson's army command but then Thomas would have tendered his resignation because he didn't like Logan.

Sherman later said that Hooker was a fool for not keeping the command of the XX Corp and gained the glory of the victory of Atlanta, but I think Sherman was just itching to get rid of Hooker. Knowing Hooker's hyper-sensitive nature, Sherman belittled Hooker's performance during the Atlanta campaign, hoping Hooker would react as he eventually did when Howard was given command of the AotT.

 

[jackt62]

Hooker's rough personality did him no favors. As noted by @MangoHill, at various times Lincoln, Halleck, Sherman, and Grant stood in his way simply because they didn't like him. That's a lesson in how a good manager should act (or rather how not to act.)