Opinions on Oliver Otis Howard,"Uh-Oh Howard" or Redeemed General?

Didn't he ask Seth Williams to be his chief-of staff as well? Meade certainly must have rued the day he decided to keep Butterfield on.

Not sure about the first point though I too have heard that suggestion. [Though Humphreys seems to have been Meade's first choice and indeed soon would become Chief of Staff of the AoP for Humphreys objections were more to the timing - he felt he was needed more in the 3rd Corps even though Sickles 'offended his sense of profesionalism' - a prescient comment but also possibly one derived from Humphreys being a West Pointer and Sickles being most assuredly... Not...]

As to the second. Definitely. Especially when immediately Butterfield traduces him to Congress. It should be noted though that someone who does not is the previously mentioned Seth Williams - the AoP's Assistant Adjutant General (who despite being 'a McClellan man' through and through) gave very pro Meade testimony...
 
Incidently, in the very near future an article will be written in the Gettysburg magazine clarifying the real facts regarding the so called Howard-Hancock Controversy. Thank You. David.

David, did you read this article after it came out?

I just read it, and it's so bad that I couldn’t finish reading it. The author does not know how to use his sources correctly and cannot distinguish between historical truth and wishful thinking. I started making a list of his factual errors but gave up because there were so many. He definitely does not “clarify the real facts.”

If you have read it and are interested in discussing the content, I’m in.
 
Howard certainly has some responsibility for the fiasco of his XI corps at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg. But he seems to have redeemed his reputation by his more effective commands during the Atlanta campaign and the March to the Sea.
 
David, did you read this article after it came out?

I just read it, and it's so bad that I couldn’t finish reading it. The author does not know how to use his sources correctly and cannot distinguish between historical truth and wishful thinking. I started making a list of his factual errors but gave up because there were so many. He definitely does not “clarify the real facts.”

If you have read it and are interested in discussing the content, I’m in.
I think you are referring to the Paul Bretzger article in Gettysburg Magazine. My article is going to correct the factual errors in his article. He wrote a book entitled: "Observing Hancock at Gettysburg" which is also awful. I have watched his you tube video and did list the factual errors which are numerous. You are correct his sourcing is terrible and heavily biased. David.
 
I also read that book and agree with that assessment. As far as Pickett's Mill is concerned, Howard was ordered by Sherman to attack the confederate's entrenchent position, so it's no wonder that the attack was a failure. One other main reason why Sherman did not select Logan is that Sherman believed that only West Point trained professional officers (like Howard and unlike Logan), should be in position of army command.
Reading the book “Black Jack John A Logan and Southern Illinois in the Civil War Era,” I will add Logan was upset with Sherman for Howard’s promotion over him. In a letter to his wife, Logan called Sherman a “brute,” adding that he was not receiving the deserved credit for his successes during the Atlanta campaign since he was not a West Point graduate.

Furthermore, Sherman was “particularly distressed” by the political generals who made trips north during the war for political purposes. Such was the case with Logan who requested an apparent secret leave of absence from Lincoln, and later signed by Stanton for the 1864 political campaign in which he left his Corps after Atlanta and returned at the onset of the March through the Carolinas, whereas Howard remained with the army.

When Howard was assigned to the Freedman’s Bureau and Logan the AOT at the close of the war, Sherman motivated Howard into allowing Logan to lead the AOT during the Grand Review.
 
I will say I respect Howard for being one of the few high ranking Union generals who was an ardent abolitionist, and for founding the Freedmen's Bureau postwar.
However, I think he was one of those Generals who was indeed mediocre at best. While it is true Hooker placed Howard in an exposed position, it seems Howard was personally negligent for not heeding the advice of his subordinates to form in a more defensible position, one which could have inflicted more damage on Jackson's attack. Also, he needlessly exposed the troops of Barlow and Schurz in the North flatlands of Gettysburg, leading to the near annihilation of his Corps.
It doesn't help that his personal devoteness was pressed upon his men, who mostly resented it, damaging morale and his reputation with his troops.
 
From years of researching General Howard, I would say in reply that 1) Howard did not "come out" as an abolitionist until after Fredericksburg, and even then, he was not a radical. 2) Howard did not "found" the Freedmen's Bureau. 3) Howard could not change his position at Chancellorsville without positive orders from Hooker 4) Howard did not make the dispositions of the 11th Corps at Gettysburg; Schurz did. 5)While Howard was open about his religious beliefs, he never forced them on his men or anyone else 6) Howard would not have risen to command of the Army of the Tennessee if he had been a mediocre general.
 
Back
Top