★ ★  Halleck, Henry W.

Henry Wager “Old Brains” Halleck

Born: January 16, 1815
Halleck 1.jpg


Birthplace:
Westernville, Oneida County, New York

Father: Joseph Halleck 1784 – 1857
(Buried: Westernville Cemetery, Westernville, New York)​

Mother: Catherine Wager 1795 – 1868
(Buried: Westernville Cemetery, Westernville, New York)​

Wife: Elizabeth Hamilton 1831 – 1884
(Buried: Green – Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn, New York)​

Children:

Henry Wager “Harry” Halleck 1856 – 1882​
(Buried: Green – Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn, New York)​

Education:

1839: Graduated from West Point Military Academy – (3rd in class)​

Occupation before War:

1839 – 1845: 2nd Lt. United States Army Engineers​
1839 – 1840: Assistant Engineering Professor at West Point​
1840 – 1841: Assistant to the Board of Engineers in Washington, D.C.​
1841–1846: Assistant Engineer Repairing Fort Wood & Governors Island​
1841: Author of Bitumen: it’s varieties, properties and uses
1845 – 1853: 1st Lt. United States Army Engineers​
1846: Author of Elements of Military Art and Science
1847 – 1848: Aide to U.S. Navy Commodore W. B. Shubrick​
1847 – 1849: California Secretary of State​
1847: Brevetted Captain for Gallantry for His California Duty​
1848: Appointed and Declined Engineer Professor at Harvard Univ.​
1849: Member of California State Constitution Convention​
1850 – 1861: Director General of New Alamaden Quicksilver Mine​
1852 – 1854: Inspector and Engineer of Light Houses on Pacific Coast​
1853 – 1854: Captain of United States Army Engineers​
1853 – 1861: Attorney in San Francisco, California​
1854: Resigned from United States Army on August 1st
1855: President of Pacific and Atlantic Railroad Company​
1860 – 1861: Major General of California State Militia​
Halleck.jpg
Civil War Career:

1861 – 1872: Major General, United States Army​
1861 – 1862: Commander of U.S. Army Department of Missouri​
1861 – 1862: Major General, Missouri State Militia​
1862: Commander during the Corinth, Mississippi Campaign​
1862: Commander of U.S. Army Department of Mississippi​
1862: Sick in Saint Louis, Missouri with Camp Measles​
1862 – 1864: General – in – chief of United States Army​
1864 – 1865: Chief of Staff of the United States Army​
1864: Suffered from hay – cold that made it unable for him to see​
1865: Commander Military Division of the James​
1865 – 1866: Commander of Military Division of the Pacific​

Occupation after War:

1861 – 1872: Major General, United States Army​
1866 – 1869: Commander of U.S. Army Division of the Pacific​
1869 – 1872: Commander of U.S. Army Division of the South​

Died: January 9, 1872

Place of Death:
Louisville, Kentucky

Cause of Death: Softening of the brain superimposed on chronic disease of the heart and liver

Age at time of Death: 57 years old

Burial Place: Green – Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn, New York
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles once said of Halleck .."originates nothing,anticipates nothing. . . .takes no responsibility, plans nothing, suggests nothing, is good for nothing".
That harsh reaction to Halleck has unfortunately, set the tone for his historical consignment to the dustbin. While there is much to criticize about Halleck's refusal or inability to take leadership responsibility during his tenure as General-in-Chief, an objective assessment of Halleck would also give him credit for his administrative abilities and in shunting required forces back and forth to threatened areas. Furthermore, his original command in Missouri and the Mississippi Valley laid the strategic groundwork for the successful Union advance in those areas.
 
That harsh reaction to Halleck has unfortunately, set the tone for his historical consignment to the dustbin. While there is much to criticize about Halleck's refusal or inability to take leadership responsibility during his tenure as General-in-Chief, an objective assessment of Halleck would also give him credit for his administrative abilities and in shunting required forces back and forth to threatened areas. Furthermore, his original command in Missouri and the Mississippi Valley laid the strategic groundwork for the successful Union advance in those areas.
Halleck stuck to his belief that the general in the field is the best judge.
 
Halleck stuck to his belief that the general in the field is the best judge.
He did and I have no problem with that thinking. But as General-in-Chief, Halleck was uncomfortable with providing the sort of overall strategic guidance that Lincoln expected for one in that position. Contrast that with Grant, who upon assuming the post of General-in-Chief from Halleck in March 1864, conceived and put into place a major offensive movement that concentrated federal forces in time and space and that ultimately led to northern victory.
 
Halleck is someone I don't think quite highly of. He essentially served as Chief of Staff of the army (a needed role given the new scale of warfare the nation engaged in) and saw little participation in his department command out west (only the Siege of Corinth did he lead his troops in the field, as possibly the first Army Group commander in American Military history. Like many men with a new position of power and some existing friends and confidants, he seemed to favor western generals over easterners when he got his new command (while he hated Grant during his time on the Mississippi Front, he eventually would help prop up Grant once he's in the east).
His biggest issue though was lack of strategic oversight, as he never organized any coordinated offensives which could have severely hamstrung the Confederates.
 
In some respect I see Halleck as being between a rock and a hard place. He was subordinate to Lincoln and Stanton who were very hands on about what the generals were doing and how they were doing it, but on the other hand recognizing that the generals in the field had a much better handle on their situations than anyone in Washington did. I think quite a few of his messages to the army commands were intended to mean 'Just a heads up, this is the word on the street here in D.C.'
 
Halleck is someone I don't think quite highly of. He essentially served as Chief of Staff of the army (a needed role given the new scale of warfare the nation engaged in) and saw little participation in his department command out west (only the Siege of Corinth did he lead his troops in the field, as possibly the first Army Group commander in American Military history
I agree that Halleck's best role was serving as Chief-of-Staff. In that regard, his administrative skills were put to best use by acting as the point person between field commanders and the Washington military establishment. I might give him a bit more credit for his western departmental command. In that position, he was admired by Grant and Sherman (although Grant didn't find out until years later how Halleck had maneuvered against him), and he probably deserves some share of the credit for the strategic decisions that busted open the southern defensive line in Tennessee and Kentucky and began the opening of the Mississippi Valley.
 
Halleck hated Grant? Really? Ok.

Also, not sure how Halleck "maneuvered" against Grant, but whatever

Halleck to me is the single most interesting character of the war.
 
Back
Top