Hooker and Gettysburg

[JimN]

Hooker and Gettysburg

I've always been intrigued by what Hooker thought of the army and it's commanders shortly after being relieved and after the battle had been fought.

Hooker generally gets a lot of hate, mostly because of Chancellorsville but also because of his harsh personality. But he was a competent commander in an army where there were few. Reading soldiers letters about Hooker when he was a brigade and division commander and a corps commander there is evidence that in most cases he was liked and respected by his men.

As an aside, I live just south of Boston and Hooker has a statute at the state house in Boston. A state rep. from my city announced that she wanted to get rid of the "Hooker Entrance" at the state house because kids would giggle at the name. Can't make this stuff up.

Despite his faults Hooker was a courageous leader and his bravery was without question. Wounded at least five times during the war, he rode a conspicuous all-white horse.

My question is what did Hooker think of the battle of Gettysburg. Is there any contemporary accounts out there of what he said or thought of the Army of the Potomac and it's commanders at Gettysburg?

 

[bankerpapaw]

I've often wondered how Gettysburg would have turned out if Hooker had still been in command. Or would there have even been a battle of Gettysburg?

 

[infomanpa]

Hooker and Gettysburg

I've always been intrigued by what Hooker thought of the army and it's commanders shortly after being relieved and after the battle had been fought.

Hooker generally gets a lot of hate, mostly because of Chancellorsville but also because of his harsh personality. But he was a competent commander in an army where there were few. Reading soldiers letters about Hooker when he was a brigade and division commander and a corps commander there is evidence that in most cases he was liked and respected by his men.

As an aside, I live just south of Boston and Hooker has a statute at the state house in Boston. A state rep. from my city announced that she wanted to get rid of the "Hooker Entrance" at the state house because kids would giggle at the name. Can't make this stuff up.

Despite his faults Hooker was a courageous leader and his bravery was without question. Wounded at least five times during the war, he rode a conspicuous all-white horse.

My question is what did Hooker think of the battle of Gettysburg. Is there any contemporary accounts out there of what he said or thought of the Army of the Potomac and it's commanders at Gettysburg?

I never thought of Hooker as getting hate because of a "harsh personality." As you said, the men liked him and he was seen as a party dude.

 

[Cavalier]

Other than they way he politiced for promotion and his kissing up to Dan Sickles, I kinda like Hooker myself. In my opinion he made a lot of necessary changes that greatly improved the A.O.P. One of the more interesting "what ifs" of the Gettysburg campaign would be if he had remained in command and confronted Lee in the summer of 1863.

In that regard I think he would have been less hesitant in his pursuit of Lee if he had been fortunate enough to defeat him, but thats just another opinion of course.

I am not aware of any remarks made by "Fighting Joe" regarding the battle however. I would love to hear his opinions about it though.

John

 

[neyankee61]

In my research of the 2nd NJ Brigade, I have not come across one negative comment about Joe Hooker. The Brigade started out in his Division and were very proud of the fact. There is a kepi in a museum in Boston from a MA regiment. In the white III Corps diamond on top of it, it has the words "Hooker's Division" Since the patches were issued after Hooker had left the Division, I think it says a lot to what the average soldier thought of him.

 

[121st PA Vols]

I've often wondered how Gettysburg would have turned out if Hooker had still been in command. Or would there have even been a battle of Gettysburg?

I think that's the better question. Answering in brief, I'd say he gave Meade a good hand to work with.

 

[jackt62]

I've often wondered how Gettysburg would have turned out if Hooker had still been in command. Or would there have even been a battle of Gettysburg?

We know from his Chancellorsville experience that Hooker pivoted from a brilliant offensive plan to a defensive posture almost immediately after realizing that Lee and the ANV were not going to simply go with the program and withdraw from the field. That being said, Gettysburg offered the Union commander a classic case of fighting from a strong defensive position, in which case Hooker might just as effectively overseen the battle as did Meade. Unless there is a scenario in which a commander Hooker chooses to affirmatively place the AotP in a Pipe Creek or similar line position, the battle would likely have been fought out at Gettysburg. Despite his damaging performance at Chancellorsville, Hooker was a highly capable commander of large formations, and performed well as commander of XX Corps in the Atlanta campaign.

 

[121st PA Vols]

I enjoy much of what I read about Gen. Hooker. But we all know when he faced RE Lee he was cowed, whereas Meade sought Lee out!
There is no comparing Hooker's perceived 'brilliance' that he failed to develop (an unfinished painting by a master?) and Meade's willingness to get after Lee.

 

[eBrowne]

Why would one think that Hooker would have aggressively pursued Lee after Gettysburg? Hooker failed miserably at Chancellorsville. He hung Sedgwick out to dry, and failed to put any pressure on Lee. Where did Hooker counter-attack? Nowhere. Only Sedgwick was attacking. Hooker sat behind his lines. Hooker retreated across the river even though his army out-manned Lee's army. Contrast Hooker's performance with that of Grant's in the Wilderness. Grant counterpunched, moved on to Spotsylvania. Hooker's performance at Chancellorsville showed him to be a poor battlefield commander of the AOP. Hooker should have been removed immediately after the Chancellorsville battle.

 

[JimN]

Thanks for all the responses. I know it's a fun "what if" but that's really not what I'm interested in. Neither if his personality was or was not detrimental.
Looking for contemporary sources of what Hooker said about the outcome of Gettysburg. Interested to find, if there are any, any writings of his he made soon after the battle concerning the army's performance and its commanders at the battle.

 

[neyankee61]

Hooker got his bell rung at Chancellorsville. We see now every Sunday the effect it has and how it lingers. With this in mind the next few days afterwards at Chancellorsville could have seen a commander not at his best. His record up to Chancellorsville showed him to be a fine battlefield commander.
No excuse offered for his post battle blaming of Sedgwick.

 

[121st PA Vols]

Thanks for all the responses. I know it's a fun "what if" but that's really not what I'm interested in. Neither if his personality was or was not detrimental.
Looking for contemporary sources of what Hooker said about the outcome of Gettysburg. Interested to find, if there are any, any writings of his he made soon after the battle concerning the army's performance and its commanders at the battle.

Not to be a wise guy JimN, but I imagine there is not much of record on the topic as many (most?) could care less what Hooker thought about it, per stigma. Could be wrong but feel it would have come out by now. Of course, you never know what's tucked away in a dusty old box, the archives....placed in the wrong sleeve/envelop and so forth.

That's how I found my GG-Uncle (and photo) who was wounded at Gettysburg in Reynolds' 1st corps Day-1 on McPherson's Ridge in of course, the 121st PA.
Good luck with your journey. Be sure to check all the wrong nooks and crannies.

 

[JimN]

Not to be a wise guy JimN, but I imagine there is not much of record on the topic as many (most?) could care less what Hooker thought about it, per stigma. Could be wrong but feel it would have come out by now. Of course, you never know what's tucked away in a dusty old box, the archives....placed in the wrong sleeve/envelop and so forth.

That's how I found my GG-Uncle (and photo) who was wounded at Gettysburg in Reynolds' 1st corps Day-1 on McPherson's Ridge in of course, the 121st PA.
Good luck with your journey. Be sure to check all the wrong nooks and crannies.

You might be right. Most people wouldn't care. Guess I'm in the minority. Thought maybe someone has come across something. I find it an interesting topic. What Hooker thought of the results of the battle and how it was fought when he was relieved of its command just a week before I think would shed some light on Hooker the man and military officer.

To me, that is more interesting than the thousand what if? questions. What if Stonewall was there? What if Hooker was in command? What if the government accepted Sickles offer to resign when Hooker was sacked?

I think what actually happened, who was actually there and what actually people thought of the battle is much more interesting, not to mention more tangible and less prone to conjecture.

I'll try digging up some sources.

 

[Peter r]

Don't think any dought hooker would have been aggressive ( however Meade ,s caution may have won the day ( counter attack after picket could have been disastrous )

 

[John Hartwell]

I think what actually happened, who was actually there and what actually people thought of the battle is much more interesting, not to mention more tangible and less prone to conjecture.

I agree 110%

 

[Ct Yank]

You might be right. Most people wouldn't care. Guess I'm in the minority. Thought maybe someone has come across something. I find it an interesting topic. What Hooker thought of the results of the battle and how it was fought when he was relieved of its command just a week before I think would shed some light on Hooker the man and military officer.

To me, that is more interesting than the thousand what if? questions. What if Stonewall was there? What if Hooker was in command? What if the government accepted Sickles offer to resign when Hooker was sacked?

I think what actually happened, who was actually there and what actually people thought of the battle is much more interesting, not to mention more tangible and less prone to conjecture.

I'll try digging up some sources.

I am quite sure you would have heard from Hooker had the battle of Gettysburg gone wrong for the Union; but the actual result left little for Hooker to criticize.

Just as McClellan had strengths and weaknesses, so did Hooker. His plan at Chancellorsville worked brilliantly to flank Lee's position, but he gave away the initiative after he crossed the fords and settled into his lines rather than continue his aggressiveness. In reading Coddington's Gettysburg's book, he gives credit to Hooker for his prompt marching of the AoP up to the Frederick, Md area. Frankly, he had a right to request control of the Harpers Ferry troops to augment the army's infantry. His operational work was fine - it was when the armies closed on each other that his weakness showed.

 

[121st PA Vols]

Don't think any dought hooker would have been aggressive ( however Meade ,s caution may have won the day ( counter attack after picket could have been disastrous )

Actually Peter r, there were no troops for a counterattack. Everything in the center and right was used up (fought out), and the 6th corps that is too often wrongly said to be available for this, was spread from roughly the Wheatfield Road/Father Corby Monument/Trostle farmstead to the Round Tops and behind, with some units to the right of Culp's Hill!

Most historians agree the attack would have to have occurred within an hour of the repulse for any chance of success. In other words, they would have to have known with certainty, Longstreet/Lee were going to attack the center........and be repulsed. Even the best of generals lacked that kind of foreknowledge!

 

[rpkennedy]

Frankly, he had a right to request control of the Harpers Ferry troops to augment the army's infantry.

He did. But it was a way for Halleck to stick his finger in Hooker's eye which ultimately led to Hooker offering his resignation, something that Halleck accepted readily. He then turned around and gave Meade control of Harper's Ferry for good measure.

Ryan

 

[121st PA Vols]

He did. But it was a way for Halleck to stick his finger in Hooker's eye which ultimately led to Hooker offering his resignation, something that Halleck accepted readily. He then turned around and gave Meade control of Harper's Ferry for good measure.

Ryan

Challenging a senior officer comes with risks! I had CQ for a month for such folly. After Chancellorsville, Hooker may have wanted out by someone else's hand, rather than being perceived as a quitter, especially on the eve of battle.
He was almost killed there. But something was clearly wrong before this with his psyche/mental state (?) knowing how he backed away from a maneuver Hannibal, Napoleon, etc, etc would have been proud of. Makes no sense.

 

[rpkennedy]

Challenging a senior officer comes with risks! I had CQ for a month for such folly. After Chancellorsville, Hooker may have wanted out by someone else's hand, rather than being perceived as a quitter, especially on the eve of battle.
He was almost killed there. But something was clearly wrong before this with his psyche/mental state (?) knowing how he backed away from a maneuver Hannibal, Napoleon, etc, etc would have been proud of. Makes no sense.

As he said, he lost faith in Hooker. He stole a march on Lee, had him where he wanted him, but then sat back which gave Lee the initiative. That was his fatal mistake. You don't want to dance to Lee's tune; he was too much a master to not make Hooker pay for that error.

Ryan