★ ★ Porter, Fitz John

Fitz John Porter​

Born: August 31, 1822

Birthplace: Portsmouth, New Hampshire

Father: Captain John Porter 1793 – 1831

Mother: Eliza Chauncy Clark

Wife: Harriet Pierson Cook 1835 – 1924

(Buried: Green – Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn, New York)​

Children:

Holbrook Fitz John Porter Unknown – 1939​

(Buried: Green – Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn, New York)​

​

Evelina Porter Doggett 1865 – 1952​

(Buried: Indian Hill Cemetery, Middletown, Connecticut)​

Education:

1845: Graduated from West Point Military Academy – (8th​ in class)​

Occupation before War:

​

1845 – 1846: Brevet 2nd​ Lt. United States Army, 4th​ Artillery​

​

1845 – 1846: Garrison Duty at Fort Monroe, Virginia​

​

1846 – 1847: 2nd​ Lt. United States Army, 4th​ Artillery​

​

1847: Served in the Siege of Vera Cruz, Mexico​

​

1847 – 1856: 1st​ Lt. United States Army, 4th​ Artillery​

​

1847: Brevetted Captain for Gallantry, Battle of Molino del Rey​

​

1847: Brevetted Major for Gallantry at Chapultepec, Mexico​

​

1847: Wounded at the Belen Gate in Mexico​

​

1848: Garrison Duty at Fort Monroe, Virginia​

​

1848 – 1849: Garrison Duty at Fort Pickens, Florida​

​

1849 – 1853: Assistant Artillery Instructor at West Point​

​

1853 – 1854: Adjutant at West Point Military Academy​

​

1854 – 1855: Artillery, and Cavalry Instructor, at West Point​

​

1855 – 1856: Garrison Duty at Fort Brady, Michigan​

​

1856 – 1861: Brevet Captain, U.S. Army, Assistant Adjutant General​

​

1856: Assistant Adjutant General at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas​

​

1856 – 1857: On Special Duty in Washington and New York​

​

1857 – 1860: Assistant Adjutant General of Utah Expedition​

​

1860 – 1861: Inspector of recruits in New York City, New York​

​

1861: Special Duty at the Gulf of Mexico​

Civil War Career:

1861: Chief of Staff for Department of Pennsylvania​

​

1861: Colonel of United States Army, 15th​ Infantry Regiment​

​

1861 – 1862: Brigadier General of Union Army, Volunteers​

​

1861 – 1862: Division Commander in Defenses of Washington, D.C.​

​

1862: Commander of 5th​ Army Corps, Army of the Potomac​

​

1862: Director of the Siege of Yorktown, Virginia​

​

1862: Brevet Brig. General, U.S. Army for Service at Chickahominy, Virginia​

​

1862 – 1863: Major General of Union Army Volunteers​

​

1862: While leading a Corps at the Second Battle of Bull Run, Virginia, Porter received conflicting orders and orders based on bad intelligence from Maj. Gen. John Pope whom he had been sent to reinforce. Porter followed the orders but openly challenged them, and was accused of insubordination by Pope, and later in September, relieved of command.​

​

1862: Served in the Defenses of Washington, D.C.​

​

1862: Served in the Battle of Antietam, Maryland​

​

1862: November 25, Porter was arrested and court-martialed for his actions at Second Bull Run​

​

1863: Convicted and found guilty of disobedience and misconduct on January 10th​​

​

1863: Cashiered by the United States Army on January 21st​​

Occupation after War:

1864 – 1865: Superintendent of Mining Operations in Colorado​

​

1865 – 1871: Merchant in New York City, New York​

​

1872 – 1875: Superintendent in Erection in New Jersey Asylum​

​

1875 – 1876: New York City, Commissioner of Public Works​

​

1877 – 1882: Assistant Receiver of Central Railroad of New Jersey​

​

1878: A special commission under General John Schofield exonerated Porter by finding that his reluctance to attack Longstreet probably saved Pope's Army of Virginia from an even greater defeat.​

​

1884 – 1888: New York City, New York, Police Commissioner​

​

1886: On August 5, Grover Cleveland commuted Porter's sentence and a special act of the U.S. Congress restored Porter's commission as an infantry colonel in the U.S. Army, backdated to May 14, 1861, but without any back pay due. Two days later, seeing vindication, Porter voluntarily retired from the Army.​

​

1888 – 1889: New York City, New York, Fire Commissioner​

​

1889 – 1893: Merchant in New York City, New York​

​

1893 – 1897: Cashier of New York City, New York, Post Office​

​

1894: On December 27, Porter, along with 18 others, founded the Military and Naval Order of the United States, which was soon renamed the Military Order of Foreign Wars.​

Died: May 21, 1901

Place of Death: Morristown, New Jersey

Cause of Death: Chronic Diabetes

Age at time of Death: 78 years old

Burial Place: Green – Wood Cemetery, Brooklyn, New York

 

[Belfoured]

The definition of "overrated" IMHO. And a guy who was justifiably cashiered but for all the wrong reasons. Despite his mediocre performance at 2BR, he was not guilty of the charges brought based on Pope's accusations. But that gets us to his nefarious correspondence with Manton Marble while on active duty, among other things. Looking forward to Marvel's biography due out from UNC Press next year. Surprisingly, we've never had one.

 

[Pollaco]

From what I've read about the matter, he was cashiered from the army for not following orders which would have been impossible to follow anyway. And he was recommissioned to infantry colonel but without back pay. Anyone got any details?

 

[Belfoured]

From what I've read about the matter, he was cashiered from the army for not following orders which would have been impossible to follow anyway. And he was recommissioned to infantry colonel but without back pay. Anyone got any details?

It's a long, complicated story involving two courts martial decades apart and the differing political issues that influenced both. Too much to go into right now but, as I indicated, he shouldn't have been cashiered based on the charges actually filed, in part for the reason you stated. IMHO he deserved to be cashiered for charges never brought involving his correspondence in 1862 with Manton Marble of the New York World, a vehemently anti-administration newspaper. I believe that if the correspondence didn't violate the Articles of War, it sure came close. His injudicious statements also earned him the reasonable suspicion that he intentionally failed to cooperate with Pope at 2BR. Somehow, there are authors who have confused (1) his innocence regarding Pope's charges with (2) the false notion that his performance at 2BR was something other than "mediocre" (the word used by none other than John Hennessy, the recognized expert on 2BR) or that he was some sort of "hero". There is no question that anti-McClellan/Radical Republicans played a role in his fate, but that has caused some to flock to the other extreme. He also has gotten overrated in my opinion based on: (1) holding off Rebel attacks at Gaines' Mill (ultimately he was routed from the field - not his fault necessarily, but also not reflecting any sort of brilliance, exacerbated by his falsely redirecting the finger of blame at the 5th US cavalry) and (2) the defensive victory at Malvern Hill - a West Point plebe in the bottom half of his class could have picked that superb piece of defensive ground and much of the outcome was due to Rebel stupidity in assaulting it, made worse by disjointed attacks. If you want to see Porter's talents in action, look to the May 27 Battle of Hanover Court House/Slash Church, which boiled down to whether Porter (with overwhelming superiority) or his opponent Branch put in the worst tactical performance.

 

[jackt62]

From what I've read about this case, the relief and court martial of Porter was politically inspired by the Radical Republicans who were looking for a way to attack McClellan, one of Porter's best friends and advocates. Pope, whose thinking aligned with those Republicans, probably used Porter as a scapegoat for Pope's misguided orders at 2BR. The issue being that Pope, unaware of the presence of Longstreet's Corps arriving on the field, directed Porter to flank Jackson's entrenched Corps, an action that would have led to Porter's V Corps being slammed by Longstreet. Porter didn't help his cause either, by vehemently criticizing Pope's leadership.

 

[Pollaco]

Isn't Porter the one who took the "wild balloon ride"?

 

[Belfoured]

From what I've read about this case, the relief and court martial of Porter was politically inspired by the Radical Republicans who were looking for a way to attack McClellan, one of Porter's best friends and advocates. Pope, whose thinking aligned with those Republicans, probably used Porter as a scapegoat for Pope's misguided orders at 2BR. The issue being that Pope, unaware of the presence of Longstreet's Corps arriving on the field, directed Porter to flank Jackson's entrenched Corps, an action that would have led to Porter's V Corps being slammed by Longstreet. Porter didn't help his cause either, by vehemently criticizing Pope's leadership.

Porter did more than criticize Pope's leadership. The statement he made to Kennedy got back to Lincoln and was consistent with the interpretation that he and McClellan wanted Pope to fail. McClellan was at least smart enough to confine his seditious remarks to Ellen. There's no question that the Radical Republicans targeted Porter but he provided ample fodder to suspect his motives in this campaign. While Porter's performance at 2BR did not involve the deliberate disobedience of the order from Pope (Pope was living in delusion at that point regarding the location of Longstreet, etc), he also failed to take aggressive steps earlier than 4:30 PM that could (and probably should) have been taken. As I said (quoting Hennessy), "mediocre".

 

[Belfoured]

Isn't Porter the one who took the "wild balloon ride"?

You are correct.

 

[jackt62]

The statement he made to Kennedy got back to Lincoln and was consistent with the interpretation that he and McClellan wanted Pope to fail

That certainly is more than mere criticism. I wonder to what extent they really meant for Pope to fail, or was it an expression of extreme distaste for Pope?

 

[rpkennedy]

Porter did more than criticize Pope's leadership. The statement he made to Kennedy got back to Lincoln and was consistent with the interpretation that he and McClellan wanted Pope to fail. McClellan was at least smart enough to confine his seditious remarks to Ellen. There's no question that the Radical Republicans targeted Porter but he provided ample fodder to suspect his motives in this campaign. While Porter's performance at 2BR did not involve the deliberate disobedience of the order from Pope (Pope was living in delusion at that point regarding the location of Longstreet, etc), he also failed to take aggressive steps earlier than 4:30 PM that could (and probably should) have been taken. As I said (quoting Hennessy), "mediocre".

Wasn't there also some rather damning correspondence between Porter and Burnside that Burnside relayed to a politician?

Ryan

 

[Belfoured]

Wasn't there also some rather ****ing correspondence between Porter and Burnside that Burnside relayed to a politician?

Ryan

Yes.

 

[Belfoured]

That certainly is more than mere criticism. I wonder to what extent they really meant for Pope to fail, or was it an expression of extreme distaste for Pope?

That's the question that nobody's ever been able to conclusively answer - at least IMHO. As may be clear from my posts, I find the sentiments of McClellan and Porter as stated in correspondence while on active campaign to be highly improper, to say the least. I have ended up deciding that they were simply going to do what unions call "work to rule" - do the minimum required to comply with orders and no more, while not being overly disappointed should Porter fail. Their duty was to go beyond that.

 

[jackt62]

That's the question that nobody's ever been able to conclusively answer - at least IMHO. As may be clear from my posts, I find the sentiments of McClellan and Porter as stated in correspondence while on active campaign to be highly improper, to say the least. I have ended up deciding that they were simply going to do what unions call "work to rule" - do the minimum required to comply with orders and no more, while not being overly disappointed should Porter fail. Their duty was to go beyond that.

Hard to believe that no matter what their personal opinions were, that Porter and McClellan, as commissioned officers in the United States army would truly hold what amounts to treasonous views regarding the success of Pope's command.

 

[Belfoured]

Hard to believe that no matter what their personal opinions were, that Porter and McClellan, as commissioned officers in the United States army would truly hold what amounts to treasonous views regarding the success of Pope's command.

I'd be interested in your impression if you read their various communications on the topic. It's pretty blunt and, in my view, simply raises suspicion. "Treasonous" might be a stretch, but my own conclusion - doing the minimum required - seems plausible. Still highly inappropriate but whether it rises to firing squad level is a different question.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Porter was definitely guilty -- of being a Democrat who supported McClellan's presidential ambitions.

 

[Belfoured]

Porter was definitely guilty -- of being a Democrat who supported McClellan's presidential ambitions.

He was guilty of more than that - but not guilty of the charges brought against him by Pope.

 

[jackt62]

I'd be interested in your impression if you read their various communications on the topic. It's pretty blunt and, in my view, simply raises suspicion. "Treasonous" might be a stretch, but my own conclusion - doing the minimum required - seems plausible. Still highly inappropriate but whether it rises to firing squad level is a different question.

Yes, I've looked at some of the Porter statements and would judge them to be generally espousing extreme dislike of John Pope, rather than openly fomenting disobedience to orders. General officers can certainly hold strong opinions about each other, but expressing them publicly in real time is inappropriate, but not rising to the level of "firing squad" or treason. Come to think of it, McClellan was accused or at least suspected by the Radical Republicans of holding treasonous thoughts, but McClellan's actions in butting heads with civilian authority never rose anywhere near that level.

 

[Saruman]

The definition of "overrated" IMHO. And a guy who was justifiably cashiered but for all the wrong reasons. Despite his mediocre performance at 2BR, he was not guilty of the charges brought based on Pope's accusations. But that gets us to his nefarious correspondence with Manton Marble while on active duty, among other things. Looking forward to Marvel's biography due out from UNC Press next year. Surprisingly, we've never had one.

This is what Marvel says about Porter: "My interest in the case involves a biography I'm writing just now. Fitz John Porter, one of the better generals in the Union Army, was court-martialed on false allegations and dismissed in disgrace because of his sympathy with a political faction disliked by the Lincoln administration. He was sacrificed to save lesser generals who were popular with the dominant political faction in Washington, D.C., whose own transgressions were forgiven because they were favorites."

 

[Belfoured]

This is what Marvel says about Porter: "My interest in the case involves a biography I'm writing just now. Fitz John Porter, one of the better generals in the Union Army, was court-martialed on false allegations and dismissed in disgrace because of his sympathy with a political faction disliked by the Lincoln administration. He was sacrificed to save lesser generals who were popular with the dominant political faction in Washington, D.C., whose own transgressions were forgiven because they were favorites."

Marvel loves to be a contrarian, so we'll see. In an endnote in his Stanton biography, he (correctly, IMHO) criticizes Eisenschiml's book on the court martial that is highly favorable to Porter as "hagiography". If he intends to posture Porter as "one of the better generals in the Union Army", I eagerly await his case regarding (1) the only combat in which Porter actually commanded on the offensive - Hanover CH; (2) the steps Porter could have taken but did not take at 2BR following his (leisurely) approach to the battlefield; (3) Porter's absurd overestimates of the opposition in June-July 1861 as Patterson's chief staff officer which played a role in allowing Johnston to link up with Beauregard at 1BR; and (4) Porter's 1862 correspondence with Marble. As I've indicated, if Marvel's case is built on Beaver Dam Creek/Gaines's Mill/Malvern Hill, it's got a pretty weak foundation and will suggest to me that he has fallen into the trap of conflating (1) Porter's innocence of the Pope charges and the Radical Republicans' dislike of Porter/McClellan with (2) an analysis of Porter's competence/actual achievements. I hope he doesn't fall into that trap because we need an objective biography which looks at Porter fully without being blinded by the Pope/Stanton/Ben Wade pinata.

 

[Belfoured]

Yes, I've looked at some of the Porter statements and would judge them to be generally espousing extreme dislike of John Pope, rather than openly fomenting disobedience to orders. General officers can certainly hold strong opinions about each other, but expressing them publicly in real time is inappropriate, but not rising to the level of "firing squad" or treason. Come to think of it, McClellan was accused or at least suspected by the Radical Republicans of holding treasonous thoughts, but McClellan's actions in butting heads with civilian authority never rose anywhere near that level.

I agree that McClellan's expression of his views was different in that he pretty much limited it to Ellen. Porter stating those things to an anti-administration newspaper publisher or in situations that were likely to circulate in the army and/or to the civilian government, for example, is categorically worse. It was not simply stupid, either - although it was that.