LINCOLN & UNION COMMANDERS

[Elennsar]

I'm unfamiliar with the Gen. Crook story, could you please explain it?

http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/biography/crook.htm

Eric Wittenberg goes into more detail in Little Phil.

 

[Lincoln65]

Do you have anything that goes into more detail on the internet, because I can't get any books right now.

 

[Elennsar]

Do you have anything that goes into more detail on the internet, because I can't get any books right now.

Nothing is coming immediately to mind, but I can look.

 

[Lincoln65]

Nothing is coming immediately to mind, but I can look.

OK, thanks.

 

[Elennsar]

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefield...-history-articles/battle-of-fishers-hill.html

This talks about it to some extent - most of the other stuff appears to be in print.

 

[rbasin]

Wonder who the guy is at the right end seated next to Sheridan?

Hancock?

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Here's the Reader's Digest version of things:

The primary battle plan for Third Winchester was designed by Crook. Crook executed it, and Sheridan didn't give him the credit for it in his official report of the battle. The same thing happened at Fisher's Hill. Crook quite understandably and quite reasonably was incensed by this sort of harsh and undeserved treatment at the hands of a man who was supposed to be his best friend. Crook remained bitter about it for the rest of his life.

After learning of Sheridan's death, a still bitter Crook made a comment about Sheridan's bloated little body. It was quite clear that he never forgave or forgot.

 

[Lincoln65]

http://www.civilwar.org/battlefield...-history-articles/battle-of-fishers-hill.html

This talks about it to some extent - most of the other stuff appears to be in print.

Thanks for the link. Though now I have pretty much no respect for the man, I would still have to put him above Hooker and Halleck.This kind of reminds of me of Shields at Kernstown. He took credit for the victory even though he was sick in bed behind the lines.

 

[Elennsar]

Lincoln65: What is there to put him above them when he has neither command ability or integrity? Certainly not looks, both he and Halleck are unattractive and Hooker isn't a much of a pretty face either.

 

[tmh10]

In my opinion,Halleck was effective in his job later in the war, not in the battlefeild but in the administration. Hooker was good at getting morale of the troops up, where Sheridan did enjoy some success, though he may have been a bit of a backstabber in his personal dealings, I think he did contribute more on the battlefeild than the other two. Just my opinion.

 

[Lincoln65]

Lincoln65: What is there to put him above them when he has neither command ability or integrity? Certainly not looks, both he and Halleck are unattractive and Hooker isn't a much of a pretty face either.

Sheridan was a pretty dishonorable guy, but he still accomplished his objective of defeating Jubal Early and denying the Valley to the Confederacy, while Hooker was defeated by an army half his size. Sheridan, for all his dishonesty, did do some great things. Remember when he rallied his broken army at Cedar Creek and grabbed victory from the jaws of defeat.

 

[Elennsar]

Sheridan was a pretty dishonorable guy, but he still accomplished his objective of defeating Jubal Early and denying the Valley to the Confederacy, while Hooker was defeated by an army half his size. Sheridan, for all his dishonesty, did do some great things. Remember when he rallied his broken army at Cedar Creek and grabbed victory from the jaws of defeat.

Which would not have been in that state if he had been doing his job effectively, instead of leaving it readily caught off guard by Early.

Hell's bells, Early would not have been able to make that attack in the first place as opposed to having his army already broken to bits if Sheridan had been doing his job effectively.

Grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat when you've smeared it with honey and left it for Defeat to find is not worthy of being called great things".

I wouldn't say "just anyone" could have rallied the Union troops to make a successful counterattack, but a general deserving of Sheridan's reputation wouldn't have had to.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Which would not have been in that state if he had been doing his job effectively, instead of leaving it readily caught off guard by Early.

Hell's bells, Early would not have been able to make that attack in the first place as opposed to having his army already broken to bits if Sheridan had been doing his job effectively.

Grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat when you've smeared it with honey and left it for Defeat to find is not worthy of being called great things".

I wouldn't say "just anyone" could have rallied the Union troops to make a successful counterattack, but a general deserving of Sheridan's reputation wouldn't have had to.

Actually, in an exceedingly rare moment of candor, on the night of October 19, 1864, after the end of the Battle of Cedar Creek, Sheridan admitted that Wright had already gotten things in hand by the time he arrived and that the battle would have ended the way it did regardless of whether he was there. For once--perhaps the ONLY time in his life--Sheridan told the truth that night.

In the end, no matter how brilliant Early's battle plan was--and it was brilliant--a nearly 3-1 manpower advantage made the difference. It certainly wasn't brilliant generalship by Sheridan.

Jeff Wert had a great quote about Sheridan's conduct of the Valley Campaign that I just love, as it's completely accurate. He called the Valley Campaign a victorious campaign bereft of decision. Perfect. And completely accurate.

 

[Elennsar]

Actually, in an exceedingly rare moment of candor, on the night of October 19, 1864, after defeating Early's army, Sheridan admitted that Wright had already gotten things in hand by the time he arrived and that the battle would have ended the way it did regardless of whether he was there.

In the end, no matter how brilliant Early's battle plan was--and it was brilliant--a nearly 3-1 manpower advantage made the difference. It certainly wasn't brilliant generalship by Sheridan.

Jeff Wert had a great quote about Sheridan's conduct of the Valley Campaign that I just love, as it's completely accurate. He called the Valley Campaign a victorious campaign bereft of decision. Perfect. And completely accurate.

Indeed. And for a general with such a numerical advantage and especially such superior cavalry to have his campaign be "bereft of decision" is a strong sign of Sheridan's "ability to manage all three arms of the service" being well below the standards of "superb".

 

[NedBaldwin]

What is there to put him above them when he has neither command ability or integrity?

Are you referring to Halleck here?

 

[Elennsar]

Are you referring to Halleck here?

Sheridan. Halleck has 'being reasonably passable at a desk job" on his resume to compensate. Sheridan has . . . being on good terms with Grant and Rosecrans. Which is not any proof of anything other than personal relationship with those two men.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Sheridan. Halleck has 'being reasonably passable at a desk job" on his resume to compensate. Sheridan has . . . being on good terms with Grant and Rosecrans. Which is not any proof of anything other than personal relationship with those two men.

I was being somewhat facietious. To me, Halleck was lacking in integrity and ability.

 

[Elennsar]

I was being somewhat facietious. To me, Halleck was lacking in integrity and ability.

As far as command ability goes, I tend to agree (integrity I'll leave to those who have studied him more throughly).

But even if both of them were incompetent scoundrels in the field, Halleck still has something else to his credit - however limited. Sheridan has nothing except his field record as proof of military ability.

 

[ole]

As far as command ability goes, I tend to agree (integrity I'll leave to those who have studied him more throughly).

But even if both of them were incompetent scoundrels in the field, Halleck still has something else to his credit - however limited. Sheridan has nothing except his field record as proof of military ability.

Sheridan's field record was impressive beginning at Perryville.

Grant thought enough of him to bring him East with him. Whatever else is said about Little Phil, if Grant wanted him nearby, that is good enough for me.

 

[Elennsar]

Edited.

It's easy to impress the boss when you're not afraid to lie in your report and the boss doesn't look into it. And Sheridan's 1864 record seems to have relied on that so far as Grant's opinion of him went, whatever he may have managed in 1862 and 1863.