General Staffs

[Dave Wilma]

I've always been interested in how executives extend their reach and effectiveness through the use of their staffs. Has anyone studied how the staffs of various Civil War leaders really worked and which leaders had good staffs and good staff organizations.

As I understand it military military organization of the time did not provide for staff so officers and soldiers were seconded from their regiments to work at headquarters. Without much in the way of battlefield communications it was these officers who rode back and forth with messages and information.

Leaders are judged by their successes and failures and the focus is on their tactical and strategic decisions. How about how these men implemented their decisions? Were there any evolutions at this level of command that took hold or proved most effective?

 

[M E Wolf]

Dwilma01,

The United States Military did have military organization as well as military staff. Mainly pattered by the French Army's way of doing things as well as English and German influences. The amount of staff though wasn't as large as today's however, they maintain the basics of what the first Military organization called for in Colonial times. The Army during the Civil War wasn't large at all. Thus, the staff was limited in numbers but, with the inflation of numbers, staff to handle the administration aspects had to grow also.

Staff is an umbrella term. Let me write from The 1862 Army Officer's Pocket Companion - A Manual for Staff Officers in the Field

Article 18
Staff of the United States Army

There is in this army no corps identical in function with the Staff Corps of the French Army, which have been pointed out above (Art. 17)(excerpt due to space)

Colonel Scott, in his Military Dictionary, remarks, that the staff of an army may be properly distinguised under three heads.

1. The general staff - consisting of adjutant-general and assistant adjutant-general, aides-de-camp, inspector general, and assistant inspector general. The functions of these officers consist not merely in distributing the orders of commanding generals, but also in regulating camps, directing the march of columns, and furnishing to the commanding general all the necessary details for the excercise of his authority. Their duties emprace the whole range of the service of the troops, and they are hence properly styled general staff officers.

2. Staff-corps - of staff departments. These are special corps departments, whose duties are confined to distinct branches of the service. The engineers corps and topographical engineers are such staff-corps. The ordnance, quarter-masters, subsistence, medical and pay departments are such staff departments.

3. Regimental staff embraces regimental officers and non-commissioned officers charged with functions, within their respective regiments, assimilated to the duties of adjutant-generals, quarter-masters, and commissaries. Each regiment should have a regimental adjutant and a regimental quarter-master.


The military 'regulations' have always provided for staff position in the Army.

What isn't often explained are what goes on past the officers in the position of 'staff corps.' There were many lower ranking officers who did clerical work and still had a musket handy if they were required but--as a last resort. Couriers or "orderlies"--to whom memorized the orders as well as carrying the copy of it.

As to the first paragraph, I think the two top picks for staff would be Grant's and Lee's staff officers. Regimental staff stayed with their regiment so, this really depended on how the general staff and staff corps worked with new as well as old regimental staffers. Even so, the decisions made still rested on the general / officer in command, in my opinion.

Not much focus on staff was made during the war--they were often in support of the general though. With post Civil War studies, those officers who surrounded the top leaders from both sides seemingly won the spotlight. However, it would be most unfair, in my opinion, to judge a general's staff corps based on his popularity and or placement in the levels of 'fame.' Such as James Longstreet, "Stonewall" Jackson, Robert E. Lee, U.S. Grant, Meade, Hancock, Chamberlain, Griffin, Miles, Warren, McPherson, Rosecrans, Jno Buford, Sherman, Sheridan and this isn't counting those battle theaters in the west and so forth.

Just some thoughts and opinions.

M. E. Wolf

 

[njwilliams]

I've always been interested in how executives extend their reach and effectiveness through the use of their staffs. Has anyone studied how the staffs of various Civil War leaders really worked and which leaders had good staffs and good staff organizations.

As I understand it military military organization of the time did not provide for staff so officers and soldiers were seconded from their regiments to work at headquarters. Without much in the way of battlefield communications it was these officers who rode back and forth with messages and information.

Leaders are judged by their successes and failures and the focus is on their tactical and strategic decisions. How about how these men implemented their decisions? Were there any evolutions at this level of command that took hold or proved most effective?

I have heard a bit about NB Forrest's staff they have been described as being like Vince Lombardi's coaching staff where under his guidance they did great without his they didn't fair as well. Moxley Sorrel wrote a biography so that may give you further incite into Longstreet's staff and I think I've seen a book written about Jackson's staff.

 

[nc native]

General staffs usually took the duties that the commanding officer was too busy to do
or the ones that he disliked doing, such as paperwork. They were also good sounding
boards for battle planning and their suggestions often helped the commanding officer
make very important decisions. On ocassion, staff officers would fill in for an fallen
officer in a battle situation. One of the criticisms of both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson
Davis was that they did not utilize their staffs enough, they were too hands on in
doing everything and this wore them down, distracting them from more important
matters on occassion.

 

[Dave Wilma]

One of the criticisms of both Robert E. Lee and Jefferson
Davis was that they did not utilize their staffs enough, they were too hands on in
doing everything and this wore them down, distracting them from more important
matters on occassion.

This was the kind of information I was after. Can you expand on this? Were other commanders particularly good with staffs (if that can be measured)?

I read that in Virginia Grant distinguished himself by being able to stay back from the battle and rely upon reports to make his decisions (he whittled), some he regretted, but mostly effectively. This was a departure from the traditional lead-from-the-front approach to a more managerial style. Did the need to control vast armies in new ways impact leaders in ways that showed up in capitalists and industrialists in the following decades? Another outgrowth of the war?