Hooker quite capable at Brandy Station

[10th Michigan Infantry]

I believe your quote was made on the evening before the demise of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson who began his attack about an hour before sundown and conducted a foolish, hubris driven attack in the "mother of all jungles" in the dark. You forgot to add Hooker, before Chancellorsville, "May God have mercy on General Lee, for I will have none."
Got himself shot by his own men after Hooker's artillery spooked them. The great Stonewall caused the grievous suffering of his own troops by his self inflicted fratricide.
Just what does it do to the troops when there has been a death by fratricide. The 18th North Carolina went into a tailspin after Chancellorsville. I am working on the full consequence of the so-called "brilliant" flank attack of Jackson's. His hubris and lack of caution resulted in the death of some of his good staff. There are monuments to Jackson, in the battlefield and even his arm, but few for his staff that were killed with him on May 2, 1863. Jackson never asked about the battle or his men after his wounding. I particularly enjoy the comments made by Confederate based films about Jackson. In their zeal to praise and deify him they fall over each other with contradictions. I would probably not have investigated this if they just left well enough alone and only lionized Lee and Jackson. But the Lost Cause school of thought had to go on and demonize Grant and Sherman. From my experience in business, those kinds of lies perpetuate even more lies.

That evening attack I might add ended in the complete routing of the Hooker's Xl Corps. The next day Hooker's army would be battered even further and be forced to retreat. Hooker's Xl Corps would be completely ineffective at Gettysburg. Can you explain to me what the military mastermind Hooker was thinking marching into the "mother of all jungles" in the first place, assuming this was such a bad idea?

 

[10th Michigan Infantry]

OK instead of addressing my post we need to some "whataboutism" first. Instead let's take apart my comments one by one. Could we begin with the effect fratricide has on unit cohesion? The Lost Cause Mythmakers have had a 150 years head start on me, but if I persist I can get them to tell me why Jackson's arm gets a grave of its own, but there is no grave for members of his attacking party. I am also very curious why anyone thinks it is "brilliant" to march men all day and then launch an attack one hour before sundown in the Wilderness, of all places. There is no grave for these people just Jackson' arm. This is Jackson's "Butcher Bill " for May 2, 1863. It gets worse the next day because Jackson has left his army in the worst possible place with his "brilliant flank march".

I'm really confused now, I did find the graves for several of the men you listed online (findagrave is a handy resource, use it), the idea that Jackson was an excellent general doesn't originate only with the "lost cause", even Grant himself acknowledged it.

 

[neyankee61]

Hooker's idea was to march thru the "mother of all jungles" and he had. When Meade and Slocum reached clear ground and there met unexpected resistance, Hooker spit the bit so to say. In his defense the V and XII Corps as they advanced were unable to link up the flanks causing concern back at Army HQ. Again it comes down to Lee not doing what Hooker expected him to do.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Concerning "revisionist", I don't think I should question something reported by the actual participants 161 years ago.

This assumes the actual participants were not only honest, but not misinformed or otherwise mistaken.

The discrepancy/uncertainty here is not just whether Stuart's baggage was present to be captured or not, but also whether the regiment in question could have made the capture, if the baggage captured was indeed Stuart's, and the extent of the "baggage" captured.

Since you've been studying this very specific topic for so long why not write an article detailing the telegrams and their significance and try to get it published in a Civil War periodical?

 

[TLHS]

I appreciate your suggestion and will look into same with proper references noted. Thanks.

 

[Belfoured]

This assumes the actual participants were not only honest, but not misinformed or otherwise mistaken.

The discrepancy/uncertainty here is not just whether Stuart's baggage was present to be captured or not, but also whether the regiment in question could have made the capture, if the baggage captured was indeed Stuart's, and the extent of the "baggage" captured.

Since you've been studying this very specific topic for so long why not write an article detailing the telegrams and their significance and try to get it published in a Civil War periodical?

"Trust but verify". Primary sources are extremely important but they also vary widely in reliability. As you suggest, the author may not have actually witnessed everything he wrote about, may have been limited to the locus of his own involvement, may have had a motivation to omit information or even distort it, etc etc etc. Just for example, in how many reports by a CO do you find references to his unit breaking/fleeing, even though we know from thorough research that it did? And those reports were often prepared weeks or even months after the event. As we know, plenty of primary sources have been found to be highly unreliable.

 

[pmuskett]

Wow, looking for something on the Battle of Williamsburg, only to find out that Lee lost at Chancellorsville. Man, this world has gone completely crazy.

 

[CowCavalry]

Wow, looking for something on the Battle of Williamsburg, only to find out that Lee lost at Chancellorsville. Man, this world has gone completely crazy.

Has Washington received the news yet? What will they say??

 

[pmuskett]

Has Washington received the news yet? What will they say??

So, if Lee lost Chancellorsville. Then Sickles being moved back to Fairview Heights from Hazel Grove was not a bad decision, then.... (pause for effect) Sickles move to the Peach Orchard at Gettysburg was a bad decision?