Joseph Hooker is...overrated?

[A. Roy]

It does seem as if Hooker reached his personal "high-water mark" at the lead-in to Chancellorsville. That's interesting about his possibly being incapacitated due to a head injury and "medicinal" alcohol.

I've been wondering whether part of Hooker's reputation is based on his "Fighting Joe Hooker" nickname, as much as any real grit exhibited in command. According to John Bigelow Jr, Hooker might have gotten this sobriquet by accident, because typesetters (including one at the New York Courier and Enquirer, quoted in Bigelow's book) collapsed an Associated Press headline from "Fighting -- Joe Hooker" to "Fighting Joe Hooker." (The campaign of Chancellorsville, a strategic and tactical study. Yale University Press, 1910. Page 6.)

Bigelow writes that Hooker didn't really like this designation and once said, "It sounds to me like Fighting Fool. People will think I am a highwayman or a bandit."

Roy B.

 

[Belfoured]

It does seem as if Hooker reached his personal "high-water mark" at the lead-in to Chancellorsville. That's interesting about his possibly being incapacitated due to a head injury and "medicinal" alcohol.

I've been wondering whether part of Hooker's reputation is based on his "Fighting Joe Hooker" nickname, as much as any real grit exhibited in command. According to John Bigelow Jr, Hooker might have gotten this sobriquet by accident, because typesetters (including one at the New York Courier and Enquirer, quoted in Bigelow's book) collapsed an Associated Press headline from "Fighting -- Joe Hooker" to "Fighting Joe Hooker." (The campaign of Chancellorsville, a strategic and tactical study. Yale University Press, 1910. Page 6.)

Bigelow writes that Hooker didn't really like this designation and once said, "It sounds to me like Fighting Fool. People will think I am a highwayman or a bandit."

Roy B.

There's little question today that he probably suffered a significant concussion at the Chancellor House. The stuff about drinking appears to be the product of reputation and rumor. I think it's similar to the urban legend that Hood ordered the attack at Franklin because he was hooked on laudanum. Both pretty clearly unsubstantiated by facts. Hooker's conduct after the injury is very consistent with concussion symptoms. Why he gave up the initiative on April 30 after clearly getting the jump on Lee is more of a mystery.

 

[Rebforever]

There's little question today that he probably suffered a significant concussion at the Chancellor House. The stuff about drinking appears to be the product of reputation and rumor. I think it's similar to the urban legend that Hood ordered the attack at Franklin because he was hooked on laudanum. Both pretty clearly unsubstantiated by facts. Hooker's conduct after the injury is very consistent with concussion symptoms. Why he gave up the initiative on April 30 after clearly getting the jump on Lee is more of a mystery.

I would like to clarify I never said Hooker was drinking, or was a drunk because I don't know that. What I do know according to the book I furnished above, the assistants had him loaded up with alcohol when they got him back to his headquarters trying to ease the pain. That's all.

 

[Belfoured]

I would like to clarify I never said Hooker was drinking, or was a drunk because I don't know that. What I do know according to the book I furnished above, the assistants had him loaded up with alcohol when they got him back to his headquarters trying to ease the pain. That's all.

No problem. I wasn't questioning you - I was questioning Furgurson. As I said, I think that Sears' research is better and Furgurson relies on accounts that don't appear to be backed up with facts. Unfortunately for Hooker, his (somewhat) justified reputation made it believable.

 

[jackt62]

There's little question today that he probably suffered a significant concussion at the Chancellor House. The stuff about drinking appears to be the product of reputation and rumor

I agree that Hooker's failures at Chancellorsville have very little or nothing to do with his alleged drinking or his real concussion. As already noted, Hooker stalled his offensive movement and misread Confederate movements before the cannon shot knocked him out. The big question has been why he withdrew the AOTP into a defensive position around the Wilderness; there have been various explanations (a popular but unconvincing one being that he "lost his nerve"). More likely is that he believed that he could succeed at that point by drawing Lee into a series of futile attacks against his entrenched forces. While this is similar to what did occur at Gettysburg (with the big difference being that Meade did not plan an offensive move to begin with), Hooker even gave up on the defensive strategy too quickly on May 3rd, and after withdrawing from Hazel Grove and Fairview.

 

[Belfoured]

I agree that Hooker's failures at Chancellorsville have very little or nothing to do with his alleged drinking or his real concussion. As already noted, Hooker stalled his offensive movement and misread Confederate movements before the cannon shot knocked him out. The big question has been why he withdrew the AOTP into a defensive position around the Wilderness; there have been various explanations (a popular but unconvincing one being that he "lost his nerve"). More likely is that he believed that he could succeed at that point by drawing Lee into a series of futile attacks against his entrenched forces. While this is similar to what did occur at Gettysburg (with the big difference being that Meade did not plan an offensive move to begin with), Hooker even gave up on the defensive strategy too quickly on May 3rd, and after withdrawing from Hazel Grove and Fairview.

Agree. I do think that his (in)actions after May 3 can be attributed at least in part to concussion. But the decisions starting April 30 to May 3 cannot. On May 1 the pullback can be pinned partly on feedback he was getting from the V Corps. But I've never figured out why the slowdown started the day before, on April 30.

 

[jackt62]

But I've never figured out why the slowdown started the day before, on April 30.

Possibly because once Hooker crossed the rivers in force, he expected Lee and the ANV to promptly withdraw towards Richmond, during which time the AOTP would be in a commanding position to pursue that enemy. But Lee had no intention of doing so, and that part of Hooker's strategy quickly fell apart as early as April 30.

 

[Belfoured]

Possibly because once Hooker crossed the rivers in force, he expected Lee and the ANV to promptly withdraw towards Richmond, during which time the AOTP would be in a commanding position to pursue that enemy. But Lee had no intention of doing so, and that part of Hooker's strategy quickly fell apart as early as April 30.

Maybe. But there was no real "data" on that until May 1.