Pemberton and Loring, cont'd

[JohnG0609]

@tony_gunter to continue your post re: the schism between Pemberton and Loring, I don't think it was any one singular event. IIRC some authors have pointed to the break occurring at Fort Pemberton but I have not closely studied those operations. I have looked more closely at Confederate operations between the running of the batteries/Grierson's raid through the Battle of Port Gibson and I can identify two particular episodes that I think created much animus in Loring.

Without getting too wonky, it is important to understand command authorities and how they interrelate. WRT to DMEL there are 3 important ones (ADCON, OPCON, TACON).
Defined by Joint Publication 1 - Doctrine of the Armed Forces of the United States as:

- Administrative Control (ADCON) - Direction or exercise of authority over subordinate or other organizations in respect to administration and support.
- Operational Control (OPCON) - The authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission.
- Tactical Control (TACON) - The authority over forces that is limited to the detailed direction and control of movements or maneuvers within the operational area necessary to accomplish missions or tasks assigned.

Loring had been in command in the Grenada/Fort Pemberton area for whatever time and he possessed both OPCON and TACON of those forces. After Grierson's raid began, Pemberton ordered Loring to Jackson, to command the pursuit, while leaving him in command of the Fort Pemberton/Grenada operations:

So that leaves command authorities thusly:
Fort Pemberton: Featherston with TACON but Loring still possessing OPCON
Pursuit of Grierson: Loring with TACON and OPCON
Except that Pemberton never relinquished OPCON or TACON to Loring

Pemberton, who didn't possess OPCON or TACON, but hey, he's the Big Boss, orders Featherston to send Stocks to Chalmers, bypassing Loring (big foul). This is a theme throughout Pemberton's operations, there are multiple instances of his granting OPCON and TACON to subordinates and then issuing orders directly.

Loring, having OPCON and TACON for the pursuit of Grierson and OPCON over Fort Pemberton wants Stocks' cavalry ordered back. Except that Pemberton's AAJ Memminger sends a dispatch to Pemberton questioning Loring's authority to do so:

Pemberton, in an astonishingly lack of awareness, backs Memminger and peevishly replies:

To say Maj Gen Loring probably didn't take it well when some staff weenie went over his head while he's in the middle of combat operations would be an understatement. I suspect Memminger was not seen around Loring's HQ after this.

As infuriating as this episode probably was to Loring the worst thing was just prior to this, Pemberton had broken up Loring's division by ordering Tilghman to Tennessee. This would have left Loring with only Featherston's brigade and Moore's ad hoc command. Moreover, Pemberton tried to send away two of the three brigades that ultimately made up Loring's division (Tilghman and Buford). I doubt Loring was pleased by this.

 

[Trout and Apples]

@tony_gunter to continue your post re: the schism between Pemberton and Loring, I don't think it was any one singular event. IIRC some authors have pointed to the break occurring at Fort Pemberton but I have not closely studied those operations. I have looked more closely at Confederate operations between the running of the batteries/Grierson's raid through the Battle of Port Gibson and I can identify two particular episodes that I think created much animus in Loring.

Without getting too wonky, it is important to understand command authorities and how they interrelate. WRT to DMEL there are 3 important ones (ADCON, OPCON, TACON).
Defined by Joint Publication 1 - Doctrine of the Armed Forces of the United States as:

- Administrative Control (ADCON) - Direction or exercise of authority over subordinate or other organizations in respect to administration and support.
- Operational Control (OPCON) - The authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission.
- Tactical Control (TACON) - The authority over forces that is limited to the detailed direction and control of movements or maneuvers within the operational area necessary to accomplish missions or tasks assigned.

Loring had been in command in the Grenada/Fort Pemberton area for whatever time and he possessed both OPCON and TACON of those forces. After Grierson's raid began, Pemberton ordered Loring to Jackson, to command the pursuit, while leaving him in command of the Fort Pemberton/Grenada operations:
View attachment 551390


View attachment 551391

So that leaves command authorities thusly:
Fort Pemberton: Featherston with TACON but Loring still possessing OPCON
Pursuit of Grierson: Loring with TACON and OPCON
Except that Pemberton never relinquished OPCON or TACON to Loring

Pemberton, who didn't possess OPCON or TACON, but hey, he's the Big Boss, orders Featherston to send Stocks to Chalmers, bypassing Loring (big foul). This is a theme throughout Pemberton's operations, there are multiple instances of his granting OPCON and TACON to subordinates and then issuing orders directly.

View attachment 551394


Loring, having OPCON and TACON for the pursuit of Grierson and OPCON over Fort Pemberton wants Stocks' cavalry ordered back. Except that Pemberton's AAJ Memminger sends a dispatch to Pemberton questioning Loring's authority to do so:


View attachment 551395




Pemberton, in an astonishingly lack of awareness, backs Memminger and peevishly replies:

View attachment 551396

To say Maj Gen Loring probably didn't take it well when some staff weenie went over his head while he's in the middle of combat operations would be an understatement. I suspect Memminger was not seen around Loring's HQ after this.

As infuriating as this episode probably was to Loring the worst thing was just prior to this, Pemberton had broken up Loring's division by ordering Tilghman to Tennessee. This would have left Loring with only Featherston's brigade and Moore's ad hoc command. Moreover, Pemberton tried to send away two of the three brigades that ultimately made up Loring's division (Tilghman and Buford). I doubt Loring was pleased by this.

Examining Loring's pre Mississippi history would seem to indicate that his issues with superior officers was more of a regular behavior of his than a "one off" with Pemberton.
Do you think it possible that his transfer to the west was a result of a "clash" with a superior officer?
Gee, I wonder?

 

[tony_gunter]

@tony_gunter to continue your post re: the schism between Pemberton and Loring, I don't think it was any one singular event. IIRC some authors have pointed to the break occurring at Fort Pemberton but I have not closely studied those operations. I have looked more closely at Confederate operations between the running of the batteries/Grierson's raid through the Battle of Port Gibson and I can identify two particular episodes that I think created much animus in Loring.

Without getting too wonky, it is important to understand command authorities and how they interrelate. WRT to DMEL there are 3 important ones (ADCON, OPCON, TACON).
Defined by Joint Publication 1 - Doctrine of the Armed Forces of the United States as:

- Administrative Control (ADCON) - Direction or exercise of authority over subordinate or other organizations in respect to administration and support.
- Operational Control (OPCON) - The authority to perform those functions of command over subordinate forces involving organizing and employing commands and forces, assigning tasks, designating objectives, and giving authoritative direction necessary to accomplish the mission.
- Tactical Control (TACON) - The authority over forces that is limited to the detailed direction and control of movements or maneuvers within the operational area necessary to accomplish missions or tasks assigned.

Loring had been in command in the Grenada/Fort Pemberton area for whatever time and he possessed both OPCON and TACON of those forces. After Grierson's raid began, Pemberton ordered Loring to Jackson, to command the pursuit, while leaving him in command of the Fort Pemberton/Grenada operations:
View attachment 551390


View attachment 551391

So that leaves command authorities thusly:
Fort Pemberton: Featherston with TACON but Loring still possessing OPCON
Pursuit of Grierson: Loring with TACON and OPCON
Except that Pemberton never relinquished OPCON or TACON to Loring

Pemberton, who didn't possess OPCON or TACON, but hey, he's the Big Boss, orders Featherston to send Stocks to Chalmers, bypassing Loring (big foul). This is a theme throughout Pemberton's operations, there are multiple instances of his granting OPCON and TACON to subordinates and then issuing orders directly.

View attachment 551394


Loring, having OPCON and TACON for the pursuit of Grierson and OPCON over Fort Pemberton wants Stocks' cavalry ordered back. Except that Pemberton's AAJ Memminger sends a dispatch to Pemberton questioning Loring's authority to do so:


View attachment 551395




Pemberton, in an astonishingly lack of awareness, backs Memminger and peevishly replies:

View attachment 551396

To say Maj Gen Loring probably didn't take it well when some staff weenie went over his head while he's in the middle of combat operations would be an understatement. I suspect Memminger was not seen around Loring's HQ after this.

As infuriating as this episode probably was to Loring the worst thing was just prior to this, Pemberton had broken up Loring's division by ordering Tilghman to Tennessee. This would have left Loring with only Featherston's brigade and Moore's ad hoc command. Moreover, Pemberton tried to send away two of the three brigades that ultimately made up Loring's division (Tilghman and Buford). I doubt Loring was pleased by this.

Oh, absolutely Pemberton had gotten under Loring's skin prior to Chsmpion Hill. Not only what you mention, but Pemberton constantly marching Loring around on the map without explaining what he was doing instead of giving Loring general objectives and allowing him control of his own movements towards those ends. That had to be maddening and exhausting for Loring and his men. All while Pemberton is sitting comfortably in his HQ miles from the front.

But I don't see Loring doing anything prior to Champion Hill that would be worthy of him being relieved of command.

 

[tony_gunter]

Examining Loring's pre Mississippi history would seem to indicate that his issues with superior officers was more of a regular behavior of his than a "one off" with Pemberton.
Do you think it possible that his transfer to the west was a result of a "clash" with a superior officer?
Gee, I wonder?

Loring got sent west because he drew the ire of Stonewall Jackson by going over his head to Secretary of war Judah Benjamin on a matter that was clearly Jackson's to decide.

Loring was in command of cavalry in the valley, and had been ordered to hold his cavalry at Romney removed from Jackson's main body at Winchester. Loring felt he was too exposed and asked to join the main body. Jackson refused, and Loring took the matter to Benjamin who ordered Loring to join Jackson's main body. Jackson tendered his resignation, but Joseph Johnston held the resignation until he was able to resolve the matter.

He had also previously bristled at Robert E Lee when Lee was sent to advise / spy on Loring's independent command.

After Lee gained top command, Loring was eventually sent west.

 

[Ben Ford 987]

Loring got sent west because he drew the ire of Stonewall Jackson by going over his head to Secretary of war Judah Benjamin on a matter that was clearly Jackson's to decide.

Loring was in command of cavalry in the valley, and had been ordered to hold his cavalry at Romney removed from Jackson's main body at Winchester. Loring felt he was too exposed and asked to join the main body. Jackson refused, and Loring took the matter to Benjamin who ordered Loring to join Jackson's main body. Jackson tendered his resignation, but Joseph Johnston held the resignation until he was able to resolve the matter.

He had also previously bristled at Robert E Lee when Lee was sent to advise / spy on Loring's independent command.

After Lee gained top command, Loring was eventually sent west.

 

[JohnG0609]

To say Loring was a difficult subordinate would be an understatement. But that does not translate to any blunder or dereliction until Champion Hill, and that is the crux of the matter, whether he was derelict in his duties (or not) on 05/16/63.

Loring was technically competent, while Pemberton was not. Loring's personality doesn't relieve Pemberton of his mistakes, blunders, and dereliction.

The original question from the earlier post is whether Pemberton ought to have relieved Loring on or before 5/15/63. I disagree with the premise of the question to begin with. Pemberton used Loring as a crisis commander. Wherever the crisis contingency was, Loring got the call. Pemberton assigned him command of three different contingencies in a matter of 10 days. Fort Pemberton, Grierson's raid, and Port Gibson. To my mind it would be very hard to make a case for relief of Loring.

 

[alan polk]

Pemberton used Loring as a crisis commander. Wherever the crisis contingency was, Loring got the call. Pemberton assigned him command of three different contingencies in a matter of 10 days. Fort Pemberton, Grierson's raid, and Port Gibson. To my mind it would be very hard to make a case for relief of Loring.

I tend to agree with this. However, I do think one should take into sincere consideration the removal of Van Dorn's cavalry by Johnston earlier in 1863. The removal of this critical wing from Pemberton's direct command brought about sever and very sudden changes to Pemberton's strategic abilities, not to mention the political problems it caused. It inevitably created a huge vacuum. One could say that Van Dorn had operated as a "crisis command" under Pemberton— an obvious job of cavalry—but was yanked out from under him at a critical juncture. This move alone (removal of Van Dorn) is what brought about Grierson's Raid, allowing the Yankees to exploit the void left by Johnston's action.

Necessity, not contingency, then, fell upon Loring— an important thing to consider, at least in my mind.

 

[JohnG0609]

I tend to agree with this. However, I do think one should take into sincere consideration the removal of Van Dorn's cavalry by Johnston earlier in 1863. The removal of this critical wing from Pemberton's direct command brought about sever and very sudden changes to Pemberton's strategic abilities, not to mention the political problems it caused. It inevitably created a huge vacuum. One could say that Van Dorn had operated as a "crisis command" under Pemberton— an obvious job of cavalry—but was yanked out from under him at a critical juncture. This move alone (removal of Van Dorn) is what brought about Grierson's Raid, allowing the Yankees to exploit the void left by Johnston's action.

Necessity, not contingency, then, fell upon Loring— an important thing to consider, at least in my mind.

Pemberton deserves no special consideration for his lack of cavalry for a multitude of reasons.

Competition for resources in the military is as old as the military itself. Pemberton was #14 on the seniority list of all GO's of the Confederacy, he was a Lieutenant General and Department Commander. When the boss says "no" then you salute sharply and move out. He was expected to solve his own problems instead of complaining.

Having Van Dorn present presumes that Pemberton would have used the cavalry capably and efficiently. I don't think he would have. Van Dorn's Holly Springs raid wasn't even Pemberton's idea. That came from a Texas Cavalry Colonel. To drive that point even further, look at what he did with Adams' cavalry. His one cavalry force not otherwise tasked he parceled out along the Mississippi and along the Big Black on picket and messenger duty. Pemberton's use of cavalry never moved past picket, courier, and raiding. He never conceived or understood the role of cavalry in ISR or it's combat power capability.

These are just two of many reasons why I would grade Pemberton a solid low F grade for his understanding and application of the cavalry arm.