Howard

[MikeyB]

How the heck was Howard not cashiered from service after Chancellorsville? Hooker doesn't strike me as the type to let bygones be bygones. Certainly there have been other corps commanders dismissed for less (Porter?)? Was Howard just too well connected politically? Did Joe try to get him kicked out? Not enough time? And I can't imagine Meade had any confidence in or love for Howard either.

mike

 

[Andy Cardinal]

To quote a book title on another subject, there was "plenty of blame to go around." In my opinion Hooker bears the primary blame for Chancellorsville, although that does not absolve Howard of all responsibility. In the aftermath of the defeat, Hooker cast blame on many others as an excuse for his defeat. Among those were Stoneman, Sedgwick, and Howard.

I think it's a myth of the battle that Chancellorsville was lost on May 2. Hooker actually lost the campaign as early as May 1. And, even after Stonewall Jackson's flank attack, the outcome of the battle was in doubt until Hooker ordered the army to fall back on May 3.

 

[dlofting]

Can you blame a corps commander because his brigade leaders didn't adequately picket an exposed flank....or was it Hooker's fault for putting him there in the first place...and who in the cavalry was responsible for screening that flank ?

I have mixed opinions about Howard, which is partly influenced by his performance against the Nez Perce after the war, but Sherman must have seen him as competent or he wouldn't have kept him in a senior command position in his march through Georgia and the Carolinas.

 

[MikeyB]

Sears seems to come down on Howard pretty hard, but I've been reading in other posts that he has as bit of a Hooker bias.

Whether Howard is 20% at fault or 50% or 90%, clearly deployment of the corps was his responsibility and this was a big screw up. If I'm Hooker (or Meade), I'm replacing him. Unlike Sigel he's not popular w/ the corps so not really that important for morale. There must have been other corps commanders scrapped for much less (i mentioned Porter earlier. Sykes? Warren?)

 

[jackt62]

There was much blame to go around for the defeat at Chancellorsville. Hooker shifted his own culpability to Stoneman and Howard, but still couldn't escape responsibility for command decisions that shifted the Union offensive into a defensive mode, thus angering and frustrating many of his corps commanders and setting the stage for a Union withdrawal. Nevertheless, Lincoln was not willing to embark on a wholesale cleansing of the AOTP, which would have been further demoralizing to the northern public. Which is probably why everyone, including Howard, retained their commands at least for the time being.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

Keep in mind that Howard was ordered to send all of his reserve to Sickles to help with the "pursuit" of Lee's army, believed to be retreating towards Gordonsville.

 

[MikeyB]

Can you blame a corps commander because his brigade leaders didn't adequately picket an exposed flank....or was it Hooker's fault for putting him there in the first place...and who in the cavalry was responsible for screening that flank ?

I have mixed opinions about Howard, which is partly influenced by his performance against the Nez Perce after the war, but Sherman must have seen him as competent or he wouldn't have kept him in a senior command position in his march through Georgia and the Carolinas.

So here's a question. Can you imagine any of the other corps commanders acting in the same manner had they been in Howard's place in that part of the line? Let's give Hooker and the cavalry their fair share of blame. But can you imagine Couch or Reynolds or Sedgwick being content with the preparations and disposition of the XI corps and having their flank in the air? Devens certainly didn't help the cause. But what if this was Gibbon and Couch? Probably very different outcome. That to me suggests Howard is the main culprit.

 

[dlofting]

So here's a question. Can you imagine any of the other corps commanders acting in the same manner had they been in Howard's place in that part of the line? Let's give Hooker and the cavalry their fair share of blame. But can you imagine Couch or Reynolds or Sedgwick being content with the preparations and disposition of the XI corps and having their flank in the air? Devens certainly didn't help the cause. But what if this was Gibbon and Couch? Probably very different outcome. That to me suggests Howard is the main culprit.

All good points and part of my mixed opinions on Howard.

 

[rpkennedy]

How the heck was Howard not cashiered from service after Chancellorsville? Hooker doesn't strike me as the type to let bygones be bygones. Certainly there have been other corps commanders dismissed for less (Porter?)? Was Howard just too well connected politically? Did Joe try to get him kicked out? Not enough time? And I can't imagine Meade had any confidence in or love for Howard either.

mike

Porter's mouth got him in trouble, as did his politics. Howard's did not.

There doesn't seem to have been any kind of effort to relieve Howard but that mostly had to do with the fact that Hooker did not have that responsibility. In addition, if Howard is relieved, who is going to replace him? Major General Carl Schurz is not an upgrade, Brigadier General Charles Devens, Jr. was put out of action, and Brigadier General Adolph von Steinwehr is an ok division commander but who would trust him with a corps? Howard was still the best of the bunch.

As for Meade's confidence in Howard, there's a reason that he sent Hancock to the front on July 1.

Ryan

 

[Saint Jude]

In the biography of Howard that I'm working on (very slowly, I'm afraid), I go into Chancellorsville in detail. I don't have the time or the space to deal with everything here, but I'd just like to throw out a question for everybody to think about. Hooker had very little to say publicly about the rout of the Eleventh Corp and nothing at all to say about Howard until after Sherman chose Howard instead of him to replace McPherson. (In fact, he wrote Howard a letter to congratulate him about his role in the Battle of Gettysburg!) Why do you think he was silent for so long?

 

[Saint Jude]

Did Joe try to get him kicked out?
No,he didn't.

And I can't imagine Meade had any confidence in or love for Howard either.
After the Battle of Gettysburg, Meade wanted Howard to lead the II Corps, which I think pretty much blows that theory.

 

[Saint Jude]

In my opinion Hooker bears the primary blame for Chancellorsville
Most objective historians think the same thing.

I think it's a myth of the battle that Chancellorsville was lost on May 2. Hooker actually lost the campaign as early as May 1.
Ditto.

 

[Jamieva]

Hooker had time to replace him if he wanted. Certainly Meade did not have time because he was fighting Gettysburg within 72 hours of taking command. The question is, who is the replacement? If it is the senior division commander in the XI corps...Carl Schurz? A political general who basically is in his post due to the XI corps being heavily German?

To use a sports term, Hooker's "bench" talent was not very deep

 

[Saint Jude]

Was it Hooker's fault for putting him there in the first place

Yes. Howard was rooted to that position by Hooker's orders. Howard did not (as one historian has recently claimed) have the discretionary power to change it. Hooker made plans to strengthen Howard's position (calling back some of Stoneman's cavalry and placing the I Corps between Howard's right and the Rapidan), but they were not carried out.

...and who in the cavalry was responsible for screening that flank ?
Hooker had sent practically all his cavalry to raid on Lee's communications--the first of several really bad decisions.

 

[Saint Jude]

Sears seems to come down on Howard pretty hard, but I've been reading in other posts that he has as bit of a Hooker bias.

IMO, Sears's book is a travesty. He's not a professional historian, and it shows!

 

[Saint Jude]

Lincoln was not willing to embark on a wholesale cleansing of the AOTP, which would have been further demoralizing to the northern public. Which is probably why everyone, including Howard, retained their commands at least for the time being.

When Howard visited Washington D.C. shortly after the Battle of Chancellorsville, Lincoln, Stanton, and Halleck all received him warmly. When people criticized Howard to Lincoln, the president said, "Give him time; he'll bring it right."

 

[Saint Jude]

So here's a question. Can you imagine any of the other corps commanders acting in the same manner had they been in Howard's place in that part of the line?

Hooker's insistence that Lee was retreating fooled all his corps commanders, not just Howard.

 

[Saint Jude]

There doesn't seem to have been any kind of effort to relieve Howard but that mostly had to do with the fact that Hooker did not have that responsibility.

Nobody with the power to remove Howard ever tried. Schurz tried because he wanted to command the Eleventh Corps, but no one paid any attention to him.

As for Meade's confidence in Howard, there's a reason that he sent Hancock to the front on July 1.

Meade sent Hancock because he was the only corps commander in the vicinity and the only one with whom he had personally discussed the Pipe Creek Line.

 

[Saint Jude]

Hooker had time to replace him if he wanted.
Hooker didn't even try.

Certainly Meade did not have time because he was fighting Gettysburg within 72 hours of taking command.
Meade knew who was responsible for the failure at Chancellorsville, and it wasn't Howard.

The question is, who is the replacement?
The question was why Hooker wasn't removed earlier.

To use a sports term, Hooker's "bench" talent was not very deep
To paraphrase a sports term, Hooker's talent was not very deep.

 

[jackt62]

In the biography of Howard that I'm working on (very slowly, I'm afraid), I go into Chancellorsville in detail. I don't have the time or the space to deal with everything here, but I'd just like to throw out a question for everybody to think about. Hooker had very little to say publicly about the rout of the Eleventh Corp and nothing at all to say about Howard until after Sherman chose Howard instead of him to replace McPherson. (In fact, he wrote Howard a letter to congratulate him about his role in the Battle of Gettysburg!) Why do you think he was silent for so long?

It seems to me that Hooker wanted to let "sleeping dogs lay." In comparison to other senior commanders on both sides, (and despite being blemished by the rout of the XI Corps at Chancellorsville), Howard's CW career must be overall deemed respectable. Hooker probably understood this about Howard and had no incentive to draw any further controversy about that rout, which would ultimately lead back to his own failures as army commander.