Hooker and Gettysburg

[jackt62]

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.

I've not come across any such source about what Hooker thought about the outcome of Gettysburg. However, my educated guess would be that Hooker would have quietly claimed some degree of credit for the Union victory in the knowledge that he had commenced the movements of the AotP in the overall campaign that eventually led to the successful outcome. Moreover, Hooker was not relieved because of any particular egregious error he made during the lead-up to Gettysburg. Rather as @rpkennedy has noted, Hooker's legitimate request for the Harpers Ferry garrison was simply the Lincoln administration's pretext to move Hooker out of army command. But Hooker was a sly enough schemer to also realize that his best bet was to swallow his wounded feelings and root for the home team in the hopes that he would not be shelved, but be given a serious role. And that is in fact what happened: Hooker subsequently commanded the XX Corps in Tennessee, for which he had a respectable tenure.

 

[neyankee61]

One of Hooker's problems at Chancellorsville was he expected Lee to react in a certain way. Mentally he was prepared to pursue a retreating army. When Lee didn't retreat and acted aggressively, it knocked Hooker on to his back foot.
As a former basketball coach I've seen it happen. My team always ran a certain press during the season. For the playoffs I added a new one. After we won the first game, the other coach came up to me and said his team worked all week beating that other press. When his boys saw the new press, they folded up.
Much like Hooker.

 

[121st PA Vols]

I've not come across any such source about what Hooker thought about the outcome of Gettysburg. However, my educated guess would be that Hooker would have quietly claimed some degree of credit for the Union victory in the knowledge that he had commenced the movements of the AotP in the overall campaign that eventually led to the successful outcome. Moreover, Hooker was not relieved because of any particular egregious error he made during the lead-up to Gettysburg. Rather as @rpkennedy has noted, Hooker's legitimate request for the Harpers Ferry garrison was simply the Lincoln administration's pretext to move Hooker out of army command. But Hooker was a sly enough schemer to also realize that his best bet was to swallow his wounded feelings and root for the home team in the hopes that he would not be shelved, but be given a serious role. And that is in fact what happened: Hooker subsequently commanded the XX Corps in Tennessee, for which he had a respectable tenure.

He was also 'sly enough' (common 'military' sense) to know his behavior vis-a-vis Harpers Ferry would get him removed, especially with the request to do as much. He didn't want anything to do with RE Lee as evidenced at Chancellorsville and got exactly what he wanted with the removal. No one ever said the man lacked brains. Well done General.

 

[wausaubob]

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?

Hooker'a view doesn't matter. Halleck and Stanton got what they wanted. Lee was allowed to go north, and his opportunity to reinforce either Bragg or Johnston was lost. They administration did not want any battle until the time line on the surrender at Vicksburg looked inevitable. Removing Hooker prevented a sudden aggressive action by Hooker. It hurt the Army of the Potomac, but the corp commanders in that army pulled together and did there best management of the entire war. They may have been somewhat frightened that they might lose.

 

[wausaubob]

Joe Hooker was a star. He was also a locker room jerk.

 

[rpkennedy]

He was also 'sly enough' (common 'military' sense) to know his behavior vis-a-vis Harpers Ferry would get him removed, especially with the request to do as much. He didn't want anything to do with RE Lee as evidenced at Chancellorsville and got exactly what he wanted with the removal. No one ever said the man lacked brains. Well done General.

I think that Hooker felt that he had the administration where he wanted them. To his mind, there was no way that they would consider changing commanders on the eve of a battle and so would give in to his demands. But he underestimated Halleck's dislike of him.

Ryan

 

[jackt62]

He was also 'sly enough' (common 'military' sense) to know his behavior vis-a-vis Harpers Ferry would get him removed, especially with the request to do as much. He didn't want anything to do with RE Lee as evidenced at Chancellorsville and got exactly what he wanted with the removal. No one ever said the man lacked brains. Well done General.

But would Hooker have actually schemed to get himself removed from army command in order not to face Lee? Thought provoking but not quite plausible. In the run-up to the Gettysburg campaign, Hooker had proposed to the War Department his own offensive against lightly defended Richmond, a potential move that represented a worrisome downside for Lee and the Davis government's decision to invade Pennsylvania. But Lincoln and the War Department put the kibosh on that plan, and ordered Hooker to pursue Lee and interpose his army between the invader and Washington. So Hooker's request for reinforcements from the Harpers Ferry garrison was a logical next step for any reasonable commander in his situation, and not a calculated move for self-immolation. The fact that Halleck called Hooker's bluff on his resignation demand showed that in this case anyway, Halleck was a better chess player than Hooker.

 

[1SGDan]

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?

See the Franklin's Crossing debacle just before the movement to Gettysburg

 

[neyankee61]

Hooker was Lincoln's boy so to speak. Before and during the Chancellorsville campaign Lincoln allowed Hooker to bypass Halleck and communicate directly with the President. It was per Hooker's request. After Chancellorsville, Lincoln changed the rules and told Hooker to funnel everything through Halleck. The writing was on the wall but Hooker missed it.

 

[121st PA Vols]

But would Hooker have actually schemed to get himself removed from army command in order not to face Lee? Thought provoking but not quite plausible. In the run-up to the Gettysburg campaign, Hooker had proposed to the War Department his own offensive against lightly defended Richmond, a potential move that represented a worrisome downside for Lee and the Davis government's decision to invade Pennsylvania. But Lincoln and the War Department put the kibosh on that plan, and ordered Hooker to pursue Lee and interpose his army between the invader and Washington. So Hooker's request for reinforcements from the Harpers Ferry garrison was a logical next step for any reasonable commander in his situation, and not a calculated move for self-immolation. The fact that Halleck called Hooker's bluff on his resignation demand showed that in this case anyway, Halleck was a better chess player than Hooker.

Don't know, who can know, but he certainly went to seemingly embarrassing (career destroying to most) lengths to avoid Lee where a faceoff was eminent with well positioned chess pieces. Richmond seemed like the right move. I think Lee admitted he'd have pulled back if Hooker moved and the Harpers Ferry request was logical.
But for a bottom line; How unusual, change that to profound, is it for Hooker to come out of this smelling like a rose with his career well intact? I don't think this just happened without a few cigars (Willards?....just kidding) and some understanding between all parties. Everyone came away happy and that's really weird!

 

[OpnCoronet]

I too am unaware of any verifiable source for Hooker's thoughts on this particular subject.

Historically, Hooker's failure at Chancellorsville was so spectacular, that I think it obscures his very real talents as a military commander. After all he did have a successful career in the Union armies after his defeat at Chancellorsville.

Hooker was chosen to command the AoP reinforcements sent to reinforce Union forces at Chattanooga after Chickamauga. Even emerging a minor 'hero' in helping to open the supply lines to the besieged city, in his o called 'Battle Above the Clouds' .

Sherman commanded 3 armies in his invasion of Ga., Sherman's Army of the Tn, Thomas' Army of the Cumberland and Hooker's rump corps from the AoP, designated as an 'Army' as an army for administrative reasons. So in fact Hooker did successfully command an army after Chancellorsville. As far as I can see the Hooker in the West was the Hooker in the East. He was self important and self confident and seems to have been criticizing others and proclaiming himself as better. He was a very competent commander of large bodies of men and was adept at playing at 'Army Politics; as most senior commanders are, then and now.

His main problem seems to have been an inability to command troops 'by the Map
i.e., outside his line of sight.

Lincoln and Stanton seems to have thought well enough of him to keep him for other high commands, and IMO, he performed them well and competently. He was finall replaced because he could not keep his mouth shut, and his vain glory , attributes he had and retained from the very beginning to the end of his army career in the ACW

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Hooker'a view doesn't matter. Halleck and Stanton got what they wanted. Lee was allowed to go north, and his opportunity to reinforce either Bragg or Johnston was lost. They administration did not want any battle until the time line on the surrender at Vicksburg looked inevitable. Removing Hooker prevented a sudden aggressive action by Hooker. It hurt the Army of the Potomac, but the corp commanders in that army pulled together and did there best management of the entire war. They may have been somewhat frightened that they might lose.

I've been studying the Gettysburg Campaign for more than 50 years now, and I think my track record in researching and documenting it is half decent. I have never, in all of those years, ever seen a single source that suggests that what you say is true. What evidence do you have to support this claim? What's your source? Please enlighten me.

 

[rpkennedy]

I've been studying the Gettysburg Campaign for more than 50 years now, and I think my track record in researching and documenting it is half decent. I have never, in all of those years, ever seen a single source that suggests that what you say is true. What evidence do you have to support this claim? What's your source? Please enlighten me.

Considering how concerned the administration was about Lee's whereabouts and intentions, I find it hard to believe that they essentially encouraged the invasion.

Ryan

 

[wausaubob]

I've been studying the Gettysburg Campaign for more than 50 years now, and I think my track record in researching and documenting it is half decent. I have never, in all of those years, ever seen a single source that suggests that what you say is true. What evidence do you have to support this claim? What's your source? Please enlighten me.

The administration didn't give to Hooker's conditions. But the did instruct him to stay between the Confederate Army and Washington, D.C. Its obvious that everything was sent to Vicksburg as that was the No. 1 political priority.
I assume sources don't recognize that, but Grant's army and Sherman's army of observation had been reinforced from all available reserves.
Hooker was relieved, but oddly he was recycled quickly. He had done what they had sought.

 

[wausaubob]

Considering how concerned the administration was about Lee's whereabouts and intentions, I find it hard to believe that they essentially encouraged the invasion.

Ryan

Sure they were concerned. But they were also seeing that Vicksburg must fall, and Rosecrans had a great opportunity.

 

[wausaubob]

I've been studying the Gettysburg Campaign for more than 50 years now, and I think my track record in researching and documenting it is half decent. I have never, in all of those years, ever seen a single source that suggests that what you say is true. What evidence do you have to support this claim? What's your source? Please enlighten me.

Hooker's suggestion was probably the best move. If he had followed the Confederates with the main part of his army, but detached a component to replicate the water based invasion of eastern Virginia, that would have created even more pressure on General Lee.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Hooker's suggestion was probably the best move. If he had followed the Confederates with the main part of his army, but detached a component to replicate the water based invasion of eastern Virginia, that would have created even more pressure on General Lee.

So, the answer is that you have no source other than your own suppositions. That's what I thought. Thank you.

 

[rpkennedy]

Sure they were concerned. But they were also seeing that Vicksburg must fall, and Rosecrans had a great opportunity.

A victory at Vicksburg would have been meaningless if Lee was rampaging through Pennsylvania at will.

Ryan

 

[wausaubob]

So, the answer is that you have no source other than your own suppositions. That's what I thought. Thank you.

Lee wanted to cause panic and for troops, especially the US IX Corp to be withdrawn from the Vicksburg siege. He caused concern, but no panic.
The war was being won from the west to east. By July 10, 1863 the US had complete control of the far west, control of Missouri and Kansas, and control of Territorial Nebraska and Colorado. The US had at least military control of the entire Mississippi River and the throne of the cotton empire in Mississippi and Louisiana.
General Halleck and Sec'y Stanton knew that Lincoln wanted the Vicksburg campaign completed, and was willing to take risks to accomplish that.
The response to General Lee's invasion was significantly different than the response to defeat of the Cumberland Army in no. Georgia.

 

[wausaubob]

A victory at Vicksburg would have been meaningless if Lee was rampaging through Pennsylvania at will.

Ryan

I beg to disagree. The war was essentially won after Vicksburg and Port Hudson fell to the US. As for General Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, if the danger of the invasion was that large, why didn't he proceed to capture and occupy Harrisburg? And the answer probably is that getting to Harrisburg was probably possible, it was the getting back to Virginia that would have been dangerous.
Like Edmund Hillary stated about climbing Mount Everest, the getting down is pretty important.