Is it fair to say that Fitz John Porter was McClellan's most capable corps commander?

MikeyB

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Good morning everyone.
After reading some more about the events of 1862, is it fair to say that Fitz John Porter was the most capable corps commander in the East during the McClellan era? Who else would even be an honorable mention? Maybe Hooker? And if so, did Pope and army politics deprive the AoP of a competent commander for the duration of the war?

mike
 
Here are the men who commanded the Corps of McClellan's army before McClellan was relieved of command after Antietam:

I Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Irwin McDowell
  2. James B. Ricketts
  3. Joseph Hooker
II Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Edwin V. Sumner
III Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Samuel P. Heintzelman
IV Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Erasmus D. Keyes
V Corps (March 13, 1862) => XII Corps (September 12, 1862)
  1. Nathaniel Banks
  2. Joseph K. Mansfield
  3. Henry W. Slocum
V Provisional Corps (May 18, 1862) => V Corps (September 12, 1862)
  1. Fitz John Porter
VI Provisional Corps (May 18, 1862) => VI Corps (September 12, 1862)
  1. William B. Franklin
  2. William F. "Baldy" Smith
 
Vote Here:
Here are the men who commanded the Corps of McClellan's army before McClellan was relieved of command after Antietam:

I Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Irwin McDowell
  2. James B. Ricketts
  3. Joseph Hooker
II Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Edwin V. Sumner
III Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Samuel P. Heintzelman
IV Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Erasmus D. Keyes
V Corps (March 13, 1862) => XII Corps (September 12, 1862)
  1. Nathaniel Banks
  2. Joseph K. Mansfield
  3. Henry W. Slocum
V Provisional Corps (May 18, 1862) => V Corps (September 12, 1862)
  1. Fitz John Porter
VI Provisional Corps (May 18, 1862) => VI Corps (September 12, 1862)
  1. William B. Franklin
  2. William F. "Baldy" Smith

Thanks for the full list. Seems to me Porter is not a bad pick!
 
Vote Here:
I think honorable mention should be given to General Edwin Vose Sumner, commander of the Second Army Corps. I think someone should do a biography on this man. David.

I've read mixed things about him. A tough old Regular, brave, a fighter, and someone you could count on to execute your orders, but I don't recall ever reading any overly favorable commentary about his command performances. When I first learned of Sumner (and Mansfield), a grizzled old Regular, seemed like an interesting story and I wanted to read more and learn that he was an underrated star, but was disappointed.
 
Vote Here:
Good morning everyone.
After reading some more about the events of 1862, is it fair to say that Fitz John Porter was the most capable corps commander in the East during the McClellan era? Who else would even be an honorable mention? Maybe Hooker? And if so, did Pope and army politics deprive the AoP of a competent commander for the duration of the war?

mike
I've read mixed things about him. A tough old Regular, brave, a fighter, and someone you could count on to execute your orders, but I don't recall ever reading any overly favorable commentary about his command performances. When I first learned of Sumner (and Mansfield), a grizzled old Regular, seemed like an interesting story and I wanted to read more and learn that he was an underrated star, but was disappointed.
It's worth mentioning and remembering that the original creation of the Army of the Potomac's corps system as well as their commanders had been inflicted upon McClellan by President Lincoln. Supposedly this had been Mac's intention all along, but Lincoln "jumped the gun" on him in another effort to prod him into action. Keyes and Heintzelman were notably poor choices who didn't last as long as the others. Another notable failure was Mansfield who had never commanded troops in the field despite his impending retirement - he had served on the staff throughout his career and wanted a field command which killed him at Antietam only days after finally getting it! Sumner, like Keyes and Mansfield, was really too old for field command any longer and left the army soon after Fredericksburg where Burnside had actually forbidden him to cross the Rappahannock and exercise command in person over his Grand Division of two corps. Probably only McDowell of Lincoln's original choices was both competent and physically able enough to command a corps, despite his ballooning 300-pound weight; but unfortunately for him his experiences at both battles at Bull Run sank whatever chance he might've had.
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
I've read mixed things about him. A tough old Regular, brave, a fighter, and someone you could count on to execute your orders, but I don't recall ever reading any overly favorable commentary about his command performances. When I first learned of Sumner (and Mansfield), a grizzled old Regular, seemed like an interesting story and I wanted to read more and learn that he was an underrated star, but was disappointed.
Thanks for sharing the information. David.
 
Vote Here:
I think honorable mention should be given to General Edwin Vose Sumner, commander of the Second Army Corps. I think someone should do a biography on this man. David.
Here is the only bio of Sumner I could find:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FDUV8BM/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

I have read it; it is favorable to Sumner. My own opinion is that he was not as bad as some critics depict him to be. He wasn't top of the line, either. But I think he generally was valuable & may have saved the Army of the Potomac at Seven Pines.

As for the best, I believe there were no all stars. Hooker gets high marks from most, but I do not know that his performance was a good as advertised at Antietam. He was, however, a master at self-promotion. Having said that, I believe Hooker & Porter were the best, with an edge to Porter because he was excellent in more than battle. No matter the case, however, Porter could not have survived McClellan's downfall even without 2nd Bull Run.
 
Vote Here:
From the list of corps commanders, it appears that a number of them were probably selected because they were regulars who were simply on the seniority list at the time. As the war quickly showed, those with true merit and ability (with of course the exception being some of the political generals), rose to the top.
 
Vote Here:
Here is the only bio of Sumner I could find:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FDUV8BM/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

I have read it; it is favorable to Sumner. My own opinion is that he was not as bad as some critics depict him to be. He wasn't top of the line, either. But I think he generally was valuable & may have saved the Army of the Potomac at Seven Pines.

As for the best, I believe there were no all stars. Hooker gets high marks from most, but I do not know that his performance was a good as advertised at Antietam. He was, however, a master at self-promotion. Having said that, I believe Hooker & Porter were the best, with an edge to Porter because he was excellent in more than battle. No matter the case, however, Porter could not have survived McClellan's downfall even without 2nd Bull Run.

Its a shame how often politics gets mixed in with optimal military decision making. In this case, surely if Porter's survival wasn't dependent on Mac and if he was allowed to continue to serve, the Union cause could have benefited. Impossible to know, but thinking of some of the other guys who ascended to corps command in the East (ie. Sickles and to a lesser degree Slocum and Howard), a fairly good chance the Union could have used the services of Porter.
 
Vote Here:
Its a shame how often politics gets mixed in with optimal military decision making. In this case, surely if Porter's survival wasn't dependent on Mac and if he was allowed to continue to serve, the Union cause could have benefited. Impossible to know, but thinking of some of the other guys who ascended to corps command in the East (ie. Sickles and to a lesser degree Slocum and Howard), a fairly good chance the Union could have used the services of Porter.
Porter was pretty good defensively (Gaines's Mill as an example). But he was not particularly aggressive in my opinion. I'm not sure how much that differentiates him from others who served as corps, commanders in the Army of the Potomac throughout the war. Of all the corps commander's, probably Reynolds, Meade, Sickles, Humphreys and Griffin were most aggressive (not counting Sheridan).
 
Vote Here:
Here is the only bio of Sumner I could find:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FDUV8BM/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

I have read it; it is favorable to Sumner. My own opinion is that he was not as bad as some critics depict him to be. He wasn't top of the line, either. But I think he generally was valuable & may have saved the Army of the Potomac at Seven Pines.

As for the best, I believe there were no all stars. Hooker gets high marks from most, but I do not know that his performance was a good as advertised at Antietam. He was, however, a master at self-promotion. Having said that, I believe Hooker & Porter were the best, with an edge to Porter because he was excellent in more than battle. No matter the case, however, Porter could not have survived McClellan's downfall even without 2nd Bull Run.
I agree with your excellent assessment. Thank You for the Sumner biography information. David.
 
Vote Here:
Here are the men who commanded the Corps of McClellan's army before McClellan was relieved of command after Antietam:

I Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Irwin McDowell
  2. James B. Ricketts
  3. Joseph Hooker
II Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Edwin V. Sumner
III Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Samuel P. Heintzelman
IV Corps (March 13, 1862)
  1. Erasmus D. Keyes
V Corps (March 13, 1862) => XII Corps (September 12, 1862)
  1. Nathaniel Banks
  2. Joseph K. Mansfield
  3. Henry W. Slocum
V Provisional Corps (May 18, 1862) => V Corps (September 12, 1862)
  1. Fitz John Porter
VI Provisional Corps (May 18, 1862) => VI Corps (September 12, 1862)
  1. William B. Franklin
  2. William F. "Baldy" Smith
  1. Joseph Hooker
    • strong record in Mexico
    • strong record in Civil War at division and corps level
    • record as an organizer/administrator to rival McClellan
    • disliked/not trusted by other commanders
  2. Henry W. Slocum
    • good tough soldier
    • solid battlefield performances 1861-65
    • Gettysburg July 1 command squabble a major negative for me.
    • post-Chickamauga command squabble a major negative for me.
  3. Fitz John Porter
    • good battlefield record 1861-62
    • career truncated by the 2nd Bull Run fiasco
    • booted from Army by court martial; cleared after the war
  4. Edwin V. Sumner
    • maybe promoted too high
    • a dedicated soldier who wanted to fight the enemy.
    • may have saved the AoP at Seven Pines
    • Gets a bit too much of of a bad rap for Antietam
  5. William F. "Baldy" Smith
    • good and bad history from 1862-65
    • squabbled with others too much
    • does not show well as a Corps commander in 1864; maybe combat fatigue or shock from the casualties
  6. James B. Ricketts
    • showed well though-out the war
    • shot 4 times and captured at 1st Bull Run
    • two horses shot out from under him at Antietam; severely injured
    • while recovering, placed on Fitz Porter court-martial; his honest service may have cost him command after.
    • reinstated to command when Grant came East in 1864 commanding a VI Corps division
    • held the left flank at Monocacy
    • disabling chest wound at Cedar Creek, but returned to command his division 2 days before Appomattox
  7. Irwin McDowell
    • I am never sure how to evaluate him
  8. William B. Franklin
    • Grant wanted him to command AoP cavalry; got Sheridan instead
  9. Nathaniel Banks
    1. (generally a bad field commander with 1 positive battle to his credit)
  10. Samuel P. Heintzelman
  11. Erasmus D. Keyes
  12. Joseph K. Mansfield (died too soon to evaluate)
 
Vote Here:
  1. Joseph Hooker
    • strong record in Mexico
    • strong record in Civil War at division and corps level
    • record as an organizer/administrator to rival McClellan
    • disliked/not trusted by other commanders
  2. Henry W. Slocum
    • good tough soldier
    • solid battlefield performances 1861-65
    • Gettysburg July 1 command squabble a major negative for me.
    • post-Chickamauga command squabble a major negative for me.
  3. Fitz John Porter
    • good battlefield record 1861-62
    • career truncated by the 2nd Bull Run fiasco
    • booted from Army by court martial; cleared after the war
  4. Edwin V. Sumner
    • maybe promoted too high
    • a dedicated soldier who wanted to fight the enemy.
    • may have saved the AoP at Seven Pines
    • Gets a bit too much of of a bad rap for Antietam
  5. William F. "Baldy" Smith
    • good and bad history from 1862-65
    • squabbled with others too much
    • does not show well as a Corps commander in 1864; maybe combat fatigue or shock from the casualties
  6. James B. Ricketts
    • showed well though-out the war
    • shot 4 times and captured at 1st Bull Run
    • two horses shot out from under him at Antietam; severely injured
    • while recovering, placed on Fitz Porter court-martial; his honest service may have cost him command after.
    • reinstated to command when Grant came East in 1864 commanding a VI Corps division
    • held the left flank at Monocacy
    • disabling chest wound at Cedar Creek, but returned to command his division 2 days before Appomattox
  7. Irwin McDowell
    • I am never sure how to evaluate him
  8. William B. Franklin
    • Grant wanted him to command AoP cavalry; got Sheridan instead
  9. Nathaniel Banks
    1. (generally a bad field commander with 1 positive battle to his credit)
  10. Samuel P. Heintzelman
  11. Erasmus D. Keyes
  12. Joseph K. Mansfield (died too soon to evaluate)

Wow. Thanks.
 
Vote Here:
I
  1. Joseph Hooker
    • strong record in Mexico
    • strong record in Civil War at division and corps level
    • record as an organizer/administrator to rival McClellan
    • disliked/not trusted by other commanders
  2. Henry W. Slocum
    • good tough soldier
    • solid battlefield performances 1861-65
    • Gettysburg July 1 command squabble a major negative for me.
    • post-Chickamauga command squabble a major negative for me.
  3. Fitz John Porter
    • good battlefield record 1861-62
    • career truncated by the 2nd Bull Run fiasco
    • booted from Army by court martial; cleared after the war
  4. Edwin V. Sumner
    • maybe promoted too high
    • a dedicated soldier who wanted to fight the enemy.
    • may have saved the AoP at Seven Pines
    • Gets a bit too much of of a bad rap for Antietam
  5. William F. "Baldy" Smith
    • good and bad history from 1862-65
    • squabbled with others too much
    • does not show well as a Corps commander in 1864; maybe combat fatigue or shock from the casualties
  6. James B. Ricketts
    • showed well though-out the war
    • shot 4 times and captured at 1st Bull Run
    • two horses shot out from under him at Antietam; severely injured
    • while recovering, placed on Fitz Porter court-martial; his honest service may have cost him command after.
    • reinstated to command when Grant came East in 1864 commanding a VI Corps division
    • held the left flank at Monocacy
    • disabling chest wound at Cedar Creek, but returned to command his division 2 days before Appomattox
  7. Irwin McDowell
    • I am never sure how to evaluate him
  8. William B. Franklin
    • Grant wanted him to command AoP cavalry; got Sheridan instead
  9. Nathaniel Banks
    1. (generally a bad field commander with 1 positive battle to his credit)
  10. Samuel P. Heintzelman
  11. Erasmus D. Keyes
  12. Joseph K. Mansfield (died too soon to evaluate)
Interestingly, McClellan wanted Sedgwick to take command of the 12th corps before Antietam. Sedgwick didn't want to leave his division and declined the promotion.
 
Vote Here:
  1. Joseph Hooker
    • strong record in Mexico
    • strong record in Civil War at division and corps level
    • record as an organizer/administrator to rival McClellan
    • disliked/not trusted by other commanders
  2. Henry W. Slocum
    • good tough soldier
    • solid battlefield performances 1861-65
    • Gettysburg July 1 command squabble a major negative for me.
    • post-Chickamauga command squabble a major negative for me.
  3. Fitz John Porter
    • good battlefield record 1861-62
    • career truncated by the 2nd Bull Run fiasco
    • booted from Army by court martial; cleared after the war
  4. Edwin V. Sumner
    • maybe promoted too high
    • a dedicated soldier who wanted to fight the enemy.
    • may have saved the AoP at Seven Pines
    • Gets a bit too much of of a bad rap for Antietam
  5. William F. "Baldy" Smith
    • good and bad history from 1862-65
    • squabbled with others too much
    • does not show well as a Corps commander in 1864; maybe combat fatigue or shock from the casualties
  6. James B. Ricketts
    • showed well though-out the war
    • shot 4 times and captured at 1st Bull Run
    • two horses shot out from under him at Antietam; severely injured
    • while recovering, placed on Fitz Porter court-martial; his honest service may have cost him command after.
    • reinstated to command when Grant came East in 1864 commanding a VI Corps division
    • held the left flank at Monocacy
    • disabling chest wound at Cedar Creek, but returned to command his division 2 days before Appomattox
  7. Irwin McDowell
    • I am never sure how to evaluate him
  8. William B. Franklin
    • Grant wanted him to command AoP cavalry; got Sheridan instead
  9. Nathaniel Banks
    1. (generally a bad field commander with 1 positive battle to his credit)
  10. Samuel P. Heintzelman
  11. Erasmus D. Keyes
  12. Joseph K. Mansfield (died too soon to evaluate)
I don't believe Ricketts was ever in command of the corps. When Hooker was wounded, both he and McClellan preferred Meade even though Ricketts outranked him.
 
Vote Here:
Others who technically commanded corps under McClellan (but little or no basis to judge):

Jesse Reno commanded the 9th Corps at South Mountain while Burnside commanded the wing. Reno was highly regarded and was killed at the end of the fighting at Fox's Gap.

Jacob Cox succeeded Reno and "commanded" the 9th Corps at Antietam while Burnside believed he still commanded the wing.

John F. Reynolds assumed command of the 1st Corps when he returned from Pennsylvania. Meade went back to division command and Reynolds would command the corps when McClellan finally crossed the Potomac into Virginia.

Darius Couch assumed command of the 2nd Corps after Antietam when Sumner went on leave.

Alpheus Williams commanded the 12th Corps after Mansfield was wounded. He directed the corps during most of the Battle. He had also been in temporary command during most of the march through Maryland. Mansfield did not arrive to assume command until September 15.

Henry Slocum became the permanent 12th corps commander after Antietam.
 
Vote Here:
I don't believe Ricketts was ever in command of the corps. When Hooker was wounded, both he and McClellan preferred Meade even though Ricketts outranked him.
Ricketts was only in command officially for a brief time in between McDowell departing and Hooker arriving.
I don't know if you're only counting while McClellan was command or not, but in October, 1864, when Sheridan went to meet Grant after Winchester and Fisher's Hill to discuss further plans for the Army of the Shenandoah, in his absence Horatio Wright commanded the force and Ricketts also temporarily commanded the Sixth Corps again; that was the arrangement when Early struck at Cedar Creek.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top