Joe Hooker, a victim of the Peter Principle?

CanadianCanuck

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Now I'm not the biggest fan of Joe Hooker, I'll say so right off the bat. I think that while he was an aggressive commander and a capable corps leader he was far too bombastic for his own good and bought into the public image of himself which he found he couldn't live up to.

Therefore I think that Fighting Joe was promoted beyond his abilities, which is what led to the very poor performance at Chancellorsville and the sluggish response to the Gettysburg campaign. I think this is well evidenced as when he got to the top commanding the AOP he was confident, cocky almost, and devised a meticulous, well reasoned plan which if implemented would probably have given Lee one hell of a bloody nose. As we all know he seems to have just up and lost his nerve when it really counted, and his lack of decisive action almost lead to debacle during the Gettysburg campaign.

However, the story of his actions after Chancellorsville and Gettysburg paint the picture of a man once again in his element, successfully leading XX Corps at Chattanooga and during the Atlanta campaign.

All in all I think this just shows that Hooker was a victim of the Peter Principle, and the debacle at Chancellorsville doesn't reflect poorly on his abilities overall, just on a sad fact of management.
 
Hooker was more a victim of the prowess of General Lee and Jackson than anything else. Grant in the same place a year later only had to deal with Lee, as Jackson was dead and Longstreet was wounded almost immediately upon arriving. What would we say of Grant had Jackson been alive and hit his right flank with an entire corps as Gordon's lone brigade did?
 
I think Hooker was right when he said he lost confidence in himself at Chancellorsville, which caused him to bring the army back into the Wilderness and entrench. Later, he suffered from a probable concussion, which I think should mitigate our judgment of his performance.
 
Hooker was more a victim of the prowess of General Lee and Jackson than anything else.
I think it's safer to say that Hooker was a victim of Lee and Jackson's prowess at exploiting their opponents' errors, which in Hooker's case were positively multitudinous. Frankly, I think Jackson would have had the same problem with Grant that Lee did; no matter how hard they hit him, Grant just absorbed the losses and kept stubbornly pushing forward. Indeed, Jackson's aggressive tactics - and, more importantly, the consequent increase in casualties - would have actually been a severe handicap against Grant, who could face the brutal arithmetic that his predecessors could not.
In my opinion, the above conclusion, which i hear all the time, has been too readily accepted. Sherman was not sorry to see Hooker quit.
I think that's less a reflection on Hooker's military talents than it is on his personality and ego.
 
I think it's safer to say that Hooker was a victim of Lee and Jackson's prowess at exploiting their opponents' errors, which in Hooker's case were positively multitudinous. Frankly, I think Jackson would have had the same problem with Grant that Lee did; no matter how hard they hit him, Grant just absorbed the losses and kept stubbornly pushing forward. Indeed, Jackson's aggressive tactics - and, more importantly, the consequent increase in casualties - would have actually been a severe handicap against Grant, who could face the brutal arithmetic that his predecessors could not.

I'm not saying Hooker didn't make mistakes, but I could also compile a list of Grant's as well. Grant crossed the river with an army that didn't really know him, many resented him(east/west rivalry?). He had to deal with the lack of unit cohesion due to the losses at Gettysburg as well. We don't know if Grant would've kept pluggin on if he'd suffered a severe defeat at the Wilderness.

Looking at the maps below, I see plenty possible problems for Grant. May 5th has Grant with his army on the offensive but divided, with all his flanks in the air. Had Longstreet been there.....



640px-Wilderness_May5.png




On the evening of May 6th, Longstreet had arrived and been wounded, his flank attack stalled. Gordon had been pitching a fit all day for a flank attack because Grant's right flank was still in the air as it had been all along. In hindsight we can see that those Union troops on that flank were inexperienced. Instead of Early and Ewell commanding that flank, suppose it was Jackson. Would Jackson brush off reports that an enemy's flank was in the air, a mistake inviting exploitation? How would Grant and Hooker be seen today had Grant been seriously defeated at the Wilderness? He gave up the battlefield as it was, could he have made that turn to the left or would he have been satisfied with getting his badly defeated and now demoralized army back across the river in one piece as Hooker did?

640px-Wilderness_May6_1400.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
I was previously of the opinion that Hooker was better at corps command than army command... but once I read of how thoroughly Cleburne out-generalled him at Ringgold Gap, I'm not so sure anymore. Of course, Cleburne on his best days was pretty much unbeatable.
 
Hooker was not a terrible commander. He was a hard fighter, inspirational, and a reasonably good administrator. He had a couple of bad days.

But unfortunately, those were some really bad days.

Hooker's biggest problem was his personality.

Think you hit the nail on the head. I think we sometimes forget how important personality can be to successful army commands.
 
Could that be more because of Hooker's personality than his performance?
I think that's less a reflection on Hooker's military talents than it is on his personality and ego.

I dont think a sharp line can be drawn between personality and talent. Being good as a commander is very much about personality. Successful organizational management requires skill at balancing being a leader, a subordinate and a colleague depending on whether the line of authority is up, down or sideways and this skill is personality driven. Plus some of Sherman's comments speak to issues he had with Hooker's performance - see for example his discussion of Hooker's command habits in Chapter 17 of his memoirs. Sherman never had much faith in Hooker's talents. In April 1863, when Hooker was commanding the Army of the Potomac, Sherman wrote to his wife "I know Hooker well, and tremble to think of his handling 100,000 men in the presence of Lee ... I fear the result".
 
I dont think a sharp line can be drawn between personality and talent. Being good as a commander is very much about personality. Successful organizational management requires skill at balancing being a leader, a subordinate and a colleague depending on whether the line of authority is up, down or sideways and this skill is personality driven. Plus some of Sherman's comments speak to issues he had with Hooker's performance - see for example his discussion of Hooker's command habits in Chapter 17 of his memoirs. Sherman never had much faith in Hooker's talents. In April 1863, when Hooker was commanding the Army of the Potomac, Sherman wrote to his wife "I know Hooker well, and tremble to think of his handling 100,000 men in the presence of Lee ... I fear the result".

I have to disagree. A sharp line can indeed be drawn between personality and talent. Hooker may not have been able to get along with Sherman or some other folks, but he was able to get the best from his soldiers. His tenure as commander of the Army of the Potomac saw a resurgence of morale.

As to Sherman's comments, it seems to me he had his mind made up about Hooker well beforehand, stemming to their shared days in California.
 
I know of Darius Couch, which was no great loss and actually led to improvement in the army.

If you say so. I think the improvement was getting rid of Hooker.


Who were the others?
Slocum and Couch were the ring leaders and were the ones that asked not to serve under him again.

There are indications of dissatisfaction from others as well. Sears ['Gettysburg'] wrote that Slocum "went among his fellow corps commanders proposing a coup". Wert ['Sword of Lincoln'] wrote that Sedgwick confronted Hooker resulting in a "stormy scene" and that "dissension between Hooker and his senior generals seethed for weeks".

Edit: Regarding Reynolds there is the statement that a "disgusted Reynolds joined a chorus of voices urging Hooker's removal" from 'Generals of Gettysburg' by Larry Tagg.
 
Last edited:
Neither Hooker or Couch strike me as having been a tragic loss to the Army of the Potomac when they left, personally.

Hooker had his good points, but as relates to personality, his bad relationship with Halleck really does not reflect the qualities to succeed with high command. Not that Halleck was a fun guy to work with, but Hooker's messages don't exactly make him a victim of someone else's flaws.
 
Back
Top