General Winfield Scott Hancock.

Indeed he was a pretty remarkable man. I think if he´d had emerged into the higher command earlier in 1862 the eastern theater might possibly have been a bit different and the ANV would have got a harder time. And still with his great service he was done no good - later as the army´s senior major general he was kept in a bookshelf assignement and kept away from promotion and the south were much work was still to be done. And lost his presidential campaign in 1880 with just few thousands of popular votes missing etc., one of the many elections not going as smooth as they should do.
His injury at G'burg kept him quite inactive. He'd come back to the ranks and have to go home again to recuperate. Do you know the nature of his wound?
 
His injury at G'burg kept him quite inactive. He'd come back to the ranks and have to go home again to recuperate. Do you know the nature of his wound?

Yes; if I remember correct he´s wounded in the hip or thight by a bullet together with a nail and fragments from his saddle. Pretty nasty and I think it originally was seen as a likely mortally wounding. Luckily for him it was not. Don´t remember who said this, but someone said that Hanock did change a lot after returning to command like many do.

His name and deeds aren´t acknowledged the way they should, a problem that´s with many who were stuck in corps command I fear. Luckily there are always people who still care and try to gain more knowledge; us all included. "He who knows the past controls the future" is says. I think this is not correct. But he who knows the past might appreciate the present and it´s way of creation; and can try to shape it into a worthy and better future. ... Ahm, going off topic, so enough. :wink:
 
Yes; if I remember correct he´s wounded in the hip or thight by a bullet together with a nail and fragments from his saddle. Pretty nasty and I think it originally was seen as a likely mortally wounding. Luckily for him it was not. Don´t remember who said this, but someone said that Hanock did change a lot after returning to command like many do. ... snip ...
From what I've read, the woulnd was between both hips. (Where is the pommel on a saddle?) He died with the wound still draining periodically. Is it any wonder that he changed a lot?
 
From what I've read, the woulnd was between both hips. (Where is the pommel on a saddle?) He died with the wound still draining periodically. Is it any wonder that he changed a lot?
I have seen a few people wounded in combat return...changed. My 1SG was grazed in the neck by a grenade fragment. Very close to his artery but didn't hit it. He and I wouldn't really talk at all but I remember seeing him again coming back with me when I came back from R&R to Kuwait and he was so happy to see someone from 1-503D that he hung out with me the whole time. Changed man after that so Hancocks story sound more than plausible.
 
Hancock's service record speaks to what kind of soldier he was, the troops under his command won every engagement they fought in except for one, Reams Station in 1864. He was inspirational, courageous and in my opinion one of the best corps commanders on either side during the Civil War. The wound he suffered at Gettysburg slowed him down quite a bit and the inactivity it caused may explain why he became quite obese in later life.
 
Last edited:
I agree that overall, Hancock was one of the finest Union corps commanders. However, I have understood that as a result of his Gettysburg injury, his performance at the Battle of Petersburg in June 1864, and as previously noted, at Reams Stations, was less than satisfactory. If anyone can provide, I would like to get more detailed information about those two engagements and Hancock's specific role.
 
Back
Top