Most Underrated General

[Chattahooch33]

You forgot to mention New Market, his greatest achievement as a soldier. Also, his punitive expedition into East Tennessee in late 1864 was quite an achievement and is almost entirely unknown, even by Civil War aficionados.

Never head of this...

 

[KILLroy1978]

D.H. Hill? Anyone?

 

[Elennsar]

D.H. Hill? Anyone?

How would you say he's under-rated?

I have my copy of (the abridged version of) Lee's Lieutenants open to his description, and "He is in combat as capable as in camp he is critical." seems fair to me, even with the expression of less confidence in his ability with full responsibility or making "important decisions off the field".

I think he was a (very) good division commander, but I don't think he showed any signs of being more than that.

 

[KILLroy1978]

D.H. Hill would be considered more or less, under rated by HIS commanders. His ability on the field was successful. However, his personality helped plant him on the wrong side of powerful people.
Lee transfered him out of the ANV. The whole "Trying to replace Bragg" incident didnt help any either.
For the majority of 1864 and 65 he held no significant command. He was also denied promotion to Lt. General. All of this being Jeff Davis' fault.
so, under rated, yes.

 

[Elennsar]

D.H. Hill would be considered more or less, under rated by HIS commanders. His ability on the field was successful. However, his personality helped plant him on the wrong side of powerful people.
Lee transfered him out of the ANV. The whole "Trying to replace Bragg" incident didnt help any either.
For the majority of 1864 and 65 he held no significant command. He was also denied promotion to Lt. General. All of this being Jeff Davis' fault.
so, under rated, yes.

1) Lee transferred him out of the ANV into an area that needed a competent and skillful officer and which by convenient coincidence was Hill's native state. I'm not sure that's the best example of Lee getting rid of people he felt were inept - had Lee felt Hill as inept I think he would have expressed that in some other fashion.

2) I'm not sure Hill had merited promotion to lieutenant general. And Hill's refusal to accept anything that didn't either involve that rank or presidential acknowledgment of his ability or something like that is not the kind of fight one should get into. Not relevant to his military ability, but still.

So I don't really see where he's being underrated. What is he supposed to be assigned to between January of '63 and . . . whenever you want to declare the last point it matters?

 

[rpkennedy]

1) Lee transferred him out of the ANV into an area that needed a competent and skillful officer and which by convenient coincidence was Hill's native state. I'm not sure that's the best example of Lee getting rid of people he felt were inept - had Lee felt Hill as inept I think he would have expressed that in some other fashion.

2) I'm not sure Hill had merited promotion to lieutenant general. And Hill's refusal to accept anything that didn't either involve that rank or presidential acknowledgment of his ability or something like that is not the kind of fight one should get into. Not relevant to his military ability, but still.

So I don't really see where he's being underrated. What is he supposed to be assigned to between January of '63 and . . . whenever you want to declare the last point it matters?

I'm not sure Lee got rid of him because of incompetence (like he did with others just after the Seven Days Campaign concluded) but rather because of his abrasive personality interfering with Lee's well-oiled machine.

R

 

[Elennsar]

I'm not sure Lee got rid of him because of incompetence (like he did with others just after the Seven Days Campaign concluded) but rather because of his abrasive personality interfering with Lee's well-oiled machine.

R

That's how I've always understood it. Hill was throwing sand in the gears and this was a good opportunity to send him away from the ANV while not denying the Confederacy full use of his services. If Lee had just wanted Harvey to go, I'm sure he could have found a way like he did with - say - Colston post Chancellorsville. Hill even at this point has no defenders at Richmond, and Vance advocating for him contrary to Lee is not going to be persuasive to Davis.

 

[rpkennedy]

That's how I've always understood it. Hill was throwing sand in the gears and this was a good opportunity to send him away from the ANV while not denying the Confederacy full use of his services. If Lee had just wanted Harvey to go, I'm sure he could have found a way like he did with - say - Colston post Chancellorsville. Hill even at this point has no defenders at Richmond, and Vance advocating for him contrary to Lee is not going to be persuasive to Davis.

As you said, he was a hell of a division commander but a real SOB on a personal basis.

R

 

[Elennsar]

As you said, he was a hell of a division commander but a real SOB on a personal basis.

R

Yeah. And while I'm not sure Lee personally minded that - as in, Lee's relationship to Hill man to man - it was not something the ANV needed. It ran as smoothly as it did precisely because Lee didn't tolerate quarrels.

 

[rpkennedy]

Yeah. And while I'm not sure Lee personally minded that - as in, Lee's relationship to Hill man to man - it was not something the ANV needed. It ran as smoothly as it did precisely because Lee didn't tolerate quarrels.

I agree. I don't imagine that Hill rubbed Lee the wrong way but he certainly didn't get along with a lot of others in the army command. There's only so much friction that Lee would tolerate before someone hits the road and he can't get rid of everybody but Jackson and Hill.

R

 

[KILLroy1978]

In the state of affairs as they were from 64 to 65, it would be of the Confederacy's best interest to utilize every available asset they had to try and win the war. As we all know, by this time in the war, The casualties of Generals were pretty high. The loss of JEB Stuart, Stonewall Jackson, the wounding of Longstreet, not to mention the losses in the Army of Tennessee. You would think that D.H. Hill would be placed in a position where his skills would be used to their best potential. Instead, he pretty much sat out a good portion of the war.
Did he deserve Lt. General promotion? Maybe.
Fact remains, You can't win a war without soldiers, or Generals to lead them and with the losses the Confederacy was taking, promotions would come quickly.

I am also sure there are many here who could easily give examples of people who where promoted "beyond their ability."
D.H. Hill would not be one of them.

So, With this said, I still think Hill was under rated, (at least by the Confederate government.)

 

[Elennsar]

I am also sure there are many here who could easily give examples of people who where promoted "beyond their ability."
D.H. Hill would not be one of them.

And why do you think Hill was up to a lieutenant generalship and commanding 20,000 men? Repeating that you do makes it really clear what you think, but not why you think he was not one of the overpromoted.

And Hill sat out a year because he refused to accept not being given a position based on that rank. Perhaps some blame for that should rest on his head rather than just blaming Richmond for wasting his abilities.


I don't want to get into an argument if I don't have to. I admire Hill's record with a division. But we have to show him with a corps doesn't show me why he should have been given that rank.

 

[ole]

My understanding is that Hill got into it with Longstreet during 7 days. (I'd have liked to have been a fly on the wall to witness that.) Longstreet being the golden-haired boy, Hill had to go.

There's no doubt in my mind that he and his troops were real scrappers, but he just couldn't keep his mouth in check.

 

[rpkennedy]

My understanding is that Hill got into it with Longstreet during 7 days. (I'd have liked to have been a fly on the wall to witness that.) Longstreet being the golden-haired boy, Hill had to go.

There's no doubt in my mind that he and his troops were real scrappers, but he just couldn't keep his mouth in check.

Pretty much the only person who seems to have gotten along with Hill was Jackson. If you tick enough people off, especially people that the boss likes, your days are numbered.

R

 

[KILLroy1978]

I don't want to get into an argument if I don't have to. I admire Hill's record with a division. But we have to show him with a corps doesn't show me why he should have been given that rank.

Unfortunately I can not give a magic bullet answer. It is quit possible that you are correct and I am wrong.
He could have been a total waste of space as a Lt. General. We will never know.
I am merely going by his past record. He seemed to be a very capable division commander in the posts he held. Naturaly you promote up based on his performance in his current position. Unfortunately, we don't usually learn about a General's inability for command until that person is already in that position.

There's no doubt in my mind that he and his troops were real scrappers, but he just couldn't keep his mouth in check.

I agree

 

[KILLroy1978]

Hill and Jackson were related. Hill married the younger sister of Jackson's second wife.
Might be why they got along.

 

[rpkennedy]

Hill and Jackson were related. Hill married the younger sister of Jackson's second wife.
Might be why they got along.

Hill married the older sister.

R

 

[Elennsar]

Unfortunately I can not give a magic bullet answer. It is quit possible that you are correct and I am wrong.
He could have been a total waste of space as a Lt. General. We will never know.
I am merely going by his past record. He seemed to be a very capable division commander in the posts he held. Naturaly you promote up based on his performance in his current position. Unfortunately, we don't usually learn about a General's inability for command until that person is already in that position.

Well, we have him being a lieutenant general in the Chickamauga Campaign. Did he display in that time any qualities justifying pressing for his appointment to be confirmed by Congress?

I'm not expecting any magic bullets, just that if we're going to talk about him being "underrated", that would require something where his performance justified the rank of Lieutenant General. If just talking the need for generals, Hill's own unwillingness to accept serving as "merely" a Major General kept him from that level in 1864-1865.

It seems we're all in agreement on his ability at that rank (MG), and no one at the time seems to have felt that was a step too far, so that leaves the next step up.

It's not fair to say Davis's lack of confidence wasn't giving Harvey his due without weighing whether or not it was. Even Davis could make decent judgments now and then.

 

[ole]

Well, we have him being a lieutenant general in the Chickamauga Campaign. Did he display in that time any qualities justifying pressing for his appointment to be confirmed by Congress?

I'm not expecting any magic bullets, just that if we're going to talk about him being "underrated", that would require something where his performance justified the rank of Lieutenant General. If just talking the need for generals, Hill's own unwillingness to accept serving as "merely" a Major General kept him from that level in 1864-1865.

It seems we're all in agreement on his ability at that rank (MG), and no one at the time seems to have felt that was a step too far, so that leaves the next step up.

It's not fair to say Davis's lack of confidence wasn't giving Harvey his due without weighing whether or not it was. Even Davis could make decent judgments now and then.

Maybe it wasn't Davis, but Lee hanging on his ear because of Longstreet's grudge. Maybe it was just that there were already too many Lt. Generals and there was no need of another.

Sorry, I have a soft spot for Daniel Harvey Hill although, were I there at the time, I might very well have snuck up behind him and clocked him with something heavy and hard.

 

[Nytram01]

Well, we have him being a lieutenant general in the Chickamauga Campaign. Did he display in that time any qualities justifying pressing for his appointment to be confirmed by Congress?

I'm not expecting any magic bullets, just that if we're going to talk about him being "underrated", that would require something where his performance justified the rank of Lieutenant General. If just talking the need for generals, Hill's own unwillingness to accept serving as "merely" a Major General kept him from that level in 1864-1865.

It seems we're all in agreement on his ability at that rank (MG), and no one at the time seems to have felt that was a step too far, so that leaves the next step up.

It's not fair to say Davis's lack of confidence wasn't giving Harvey his due without weighing whether or not it was. Even Davis could make decent judgments now and then.

Well, the Chickamagua Campaign is hardly that good opportunity to see Hill's potential qualities as a corps commander. Bragg's whole command set-up was in chaos at the time. Orders he was issuing were not being followed, other orders weren't being relayed to the commanders they were intended for. More so, Bragg had out-stayed his usefullness by that time and his subordinates as a whole questioned his judgement.

An example. On the night of September 19th Bragg sent orders for Hill to prepare his Corps for a dawn attack, but these never reached Hill. The next morning orders arrived for Cleburne and Breckenridge to attack as soon as they were in position but the courier refused to let Hill see them and said he wouldn't because Hill had been issued his own order but nobody could find him.

Then too was McLermore's Cove where, despite offering a series of problems with the attack orders he recieve, Hill followed them and prepared to attack as soon as he heard Hindman's attack begin. While Hindman refused to attack Bragg badgered him to do so then came to Hill's position to watch. Still Hindman did not attack so Bragg sent in Cleburne only to call him back very quickly afterwards. When Hindman's attack did finally come Hill followed his orders to move immediately in support but it was too late and the Federals were gone.

Hill did an adequet job as a Corps commander in the circumstances he had to deal with, but the atmosphere within the AoT at the time was such that no one could perform to the fullest extent of their potential. I will add that when Hill was relieved of duty by Bragg and Davis all his division commander expressed their continued confidence in him and his ability, and said they regretted that he was being removed.