★ ★ 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

 

[jackt62]

McClellan had a big mouth, whether or not it was mostly complaining to Ellen, but at least he knew where to draw the line when he came to acknowledging the supremacy of the civilian government.

 

[Belfoured]

McClellan had a big mouth, whether or not it was mostly complaining to Ellen, but at least he knew where to draw the line when he came to acknowledging the supremacy of the civilian government.

For what it's worth, there will always be a lot of room for skepticism about whether McClellan's conduct in the 2BR Campaign was "all that he could be". His efforts at supporting Pope had the appearance of 'reluctant cooperation" and "by the book" execution. We know that he vigorously opposed the recall from the Peninsula. And he clearly detested Pope and - human nature being what it is - was almost certainly not overly unhappy about the result. But, as noted, he at least kept his most questionable statements to communications with his wife.

 

[gentlemanrob]

Happy Birthday Major General Fitz John Porter! Salutes Remembering General Porter on his birthday.

 

[Pollaco]

Whatever became of the accusation made by John Logan that Porter was the one who persuaded Robert Patterson to let Joseph Johnston's troops escape out of the Shenandoah Valley to reinforce Beauregard at 1st Manassas? I was not aware of Logan's accusations until reading a little about it. Just who did Logan complain to? Was it as a congressman, colonel , or general?

 

[rbasin]

Whatever became of the accusation made by John Logan that Porter was the one who persuaded Robert Patterson to let Joseph Johnston's troops escape out of the Shenandoah Valley to reinforce Beauregard at 1st Manassas? I was not aware of Logan's accusations until reading a little about it. Just who did Logan complain to? Was it as a congressman, colonel , or general?

He wrote it in a book. Look on Google books.

 

[rbasin]

I actually have changed my opinion of Porter. He was the scapegoat for 2nd Bull Run

 

[Belfoured]

Whatever became of the accusation made by John Logan that Porter was the one who persuaded Robert Patterson to let Joseph Johnston's troops escape out of the Shenandoah Valley to reinforce Beauregard at 1st Manassas? I was not aware of Logan's accusations until reading a little about it. Just who did Logan complain to? Was it as a congressman, colonel , or general?

He was Patterson's chief of staff and Patterson was given inflated estimates of Johnston's strength that effectively doubled it. Whether this was the cause of Patterson's inaction and Porter's role in that are not proven but both are certainly plausible.

 

[Belfoured]

I actually have changed my opinion of Porter. He was the scapegoat for 2nd Bull Run

I would respectfully submit that Porter actually deserved to be cashiered but not for the reasons Pope invented.

 

[rbasin]

I would respectfully submit that Porter actually deserved to be cashiered but not for the reasons Pope invented.

Well, that was why he was tossed. Thomas sent Porter a letter of support. They had an interesting history with Schofield

 

[Belfoured]

Well, that was why he was tossed. Thomas sent Porter a letter of support. They had an interesting history with Schofield

I know that's why he was tossed. I'm simply making the point that he deserved to be cashiered for other reasons. At least one author has made him out to be some sort of sainted martyr. He wasn't. And for the record, he should not have been cashiered based on the specific charges Pope brought.

 

[Jamieva]

Has anyone read the biography that Marvel did about Porter that came out earlier this year?

 

[John Wolf Smith]

Happy Birthday.

 

[Belfoured]

Has anyone read the biography that Marvel did about Porter that came out earlier this year?

Yes. It's pretty good overall, although I think he minimizes some of Porter's deficiencies and the problem of the Marble correspondence. There's a good amount of coverage of Porter's non-military life that isn't well-known.

 

[67th Tigers]

The attempts to place the blame on Porter for Patterson's overestimates is a bit of a reach.

Firstly, Patterson's overestimates were post-facto justification. The exaggerated reports were received by Patterson after Bull Run (and given to the JCCW to justify himself). Before Bull Run the information coming in was relatively accurate. Most notably, Newton had conducted a scout in late June and gave Patterson an estimate of 15,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry with 24 guns; uncannily accurate. This matches another scouts information, Strother's, quite closely. This meant Patterson was outnumbered (and indeed, he was). Hence he increased his concentration by calling in Stone, and Scott agreed to send six more regiments.

On 6th July Patterson received (false) intelligence than Beauregard had sent forces to reinforce Johnston, and if this was true the enemy may be as much as 26,000. By the 9th the reinforcements (Stone's bde, Sandford's bde and 2 Wisconsin regts) had arrived or would arrive the next morning, and Patterson held a council-of-war, which did not include Porter. The participants were Patterson, two division commanders (MG's Cadwalader and Keim), four brigadiers (BG Negley, Col George Thomas, Col Abercrombie, Col Stone), and four staffers (Col Crossman, QMG, Capt Beckwith, Commissary, Capt Simpson, Topo Engrs and Capt Newton, Engrs). The minutes are in the OR.

It is quite clear that Patterson et al. understood the problem was Johnston and Beauregard could rapidly reinforce each other, and that from Martinsburg he posed little threat to Johnston (being two days march away). If he moved to Charles Town, as he planned (only one days march from Johnston), he feared it would cause Johnston to move to Beauregard rather than risk being attacked.

In reality, there was literally nothing Patterson could have done to stop Johnston joining Beauregard, and irregardless, Porter had nothing to do with the failure. In reality, the blame really should be placed on Scott, whose movements of "pins on a map" was unrealistic.

 

[Belfoured]

The attempts to place the blame on Porter for Patterson's overestimates is a bit of a reach.

Firstly, Patterson's overestimates were post-facto justification. The exaggerated reports were received by Patterson after Bull Run (and given to the JCCW to justify himself). Before Bull Run the information coming in was relatively accurate. Most notably, Newton had conducted a scout in late June and gave Patterson an estimate of 15,000 infantry and 1,000 cavalry with 24 guns; uncannily accurate. This matches another scouts information, Strother's, quite closely. This meant Patterson was outnumbered (and indeed, he was). Hence he increased his concentration by calling in Stone, and Scott agreed to send six more regiments.

On 6th July Patterson received (false) intelligence than Beauregard had sent forces to reinforce Johnston, and if this was true the enemy may be as much as 26,000. By the 9th the reinforcements (Stone's bde, Sandford's bde and 2 Wisconsin regts) had arrived or would arrive the next morning, and Patterson held a council-of-war, which did not include Porter. The participants were Patterson, two division commanders (MG's Cadwalader and Keim), four brigadiers (BG Negley, Col George Thomas, Col Abercrombie, Col Stone), and four staffers (Col Crossman, QMG, Capt Beckwith, Commissary, Capt Simpson, Topo Engrs and Capt Newton, Engrs). The minutes are in the OR.

It is quite clear that Patterson et al. understood the problem was Johnston and Beauregard could rapidly reinforce each other, and that from Martinsburg he posed little threat to Johnston (being two days march away). If he moved to Charles Town, as he planned (only one days march from Johnston), he feared it would cause Johnston to move to Beauregard rather than risk being attacked.

In reality, there was literally nothing Patterson could have done to stop Johnston joining Beauregard, and irregardless, Porter had nothing to do with the failure. In reality, the blame really should be placed on Scott, whose movements of "pins on a map" was unrealistic.

Apparently, "Old Fitz", like McClellan, never, ever fell short at anything. Nobody is placing all the blame on Porter - the buck stopped with Patterson, and Scott played his role. But any attempt to completely exonerate Porter is nonsense. He - acting in his role as chief of staff - rejected Strother's more accurate estimates of Johnston's force in favor of the inflated numbers. There is zero evidence that this played absolutely no role in what happened.

 

[67th Tigers]

Apparently, "Old Fitz", like McClellan, never, ever fell short at anything. Nobody is placing all the blame on Porter - the buck stopped with Patterson, and Scott played his role. But any attempt to completely exonerate Porter is nonsense. He - acting in his role as chief of staff - rejected Strother's more accurate estimates of Johnston's force in favor of the inflated numbers. There is zero evidence that this played absolutely no role in what happened.

That's an extremely specious line of argument.

However, Strother's 1865 claims bear a degree of skepticism, as Marvel notes. He had become radicalised against Porter by the time he made said claim, and his numbers were consistent with the staff's own estimate which had been generated by a more recent scout by Capt. Newton (the future 1st Corps commander). Marvel's characterisation of Strother's "patently imprecise memory" with regards to Porter is apt.

Essentially, Patterson did not overestimate Johnston's strength *at the time*. Exaggerated information came to him after the events, which led to him revising the enemy numbers upwards. However, Patterson had no crystal ball, and made his decisions based upon the intelligence available at the time, which was very accurate.

 

[Belfoured]

That's an extremely specious line of argument.

However, Strother's 1865 claims bear a degree of skepticism, as Marvel notes. He had become radicalised against Porter by the time he made said claim, and his numbers were consistent with the staff's own estimate which had been generated by a more recent scout by Capt. Newton (the future 1st Corps commander). Marvel's characterisation of Strother's "patently imprecise memory" with regards to Porter is apt.

Essentially, Patterson did not overestimate Johnston's strength *at the time*. Exaggerated information came to him after the events, which led to him revising the enemy numbers upwards. However, Patterson had no crystal ball, and made his decisions based upon the intelligence available at the time, which was very accurate.

The "extremely specious argument" is that a career military professional in the position of chief of staff had no role in decision-making by his CO that proved wrong. Fantasy World continues. The following may come as shocking news, by the way, so grab a seat - Marvel doesn't bat 1.000, any more than anybody else does. He missed a few things in the book. But that's for another thread.

 

[67th Tigers]

The "extremely specious argument" is that a career military professional in the position of chief of staff had no role in decision-making by his CO that proved wrong. Fantasy World continues. The following may come as shocking news, by the way, so grab a seat - Marvel doesn't bat 1.000, any more than anybody else does. He missed a few things in the book. But that's for another thread.

I didn't continue my argument about Porter not being "Chief-of-Staff", but since you've explicitly brought it up, no, he wasn't COS. Sears said so, and fooled me in the past, but he wasn't. Porter was AAG to Patterson. The AAG is the officer responsible for all the administration of the army.

The decision in question was made at a council-of-war whose minutes are in the OR. Porter wasn't present. It seems, to me at least, rather phantasmagorical that Porter persuaded Patterson not to do something at a meeting he wasn't present at. I would regard the argument you appear to be making as extremely specious.

With regards to estimates, the numbers Porter and Newton gave Patterson were extremely accurate. Strother is an unreliable witness, but his numbers were in line with Porter's and Newton's. A later report given directly to Patterson by Mr. Lackland of observations on 20th July (i.e. nearly a fortnight after the events in question) which stated had had Johnston 35,200 and taken 30,000 with him on the 18th July, leaving 5,200 militia. This is what is used to suggest Patterson overestimated, and then to attempt to **** Porter by association. Of course, neither of these work given the evidence.

 

[Belfoured]

I didn't continue my argument about Porter not being "Chief-of-Staff", but since you've explicitly brought it up, no, he wasn't COS. Sears said so, and fooled me in the past, but he wasn't. Porter was AAG to Patterson. The AAG is the officer responsible for all the administration of the army.

The decision in question was made at a council-of-war whose minutes are in the OR. Porter wasn't present. It seems, to me at least, rather phantasmagorical that Porter persuaded Patterson not to do something at a meeting he wasn't present at. I would regard the argument you appear to be making as extremely specious.

With regards to estimates, the numbers Porter and Newton gave Patterson were extremely accurate. Strother is an unreliable witness, but his numbers were in line with Porter's and Newton's. A later report given directly to Patterson by Mr. Lackland of observations on 20th July (i.e. nearly a fortnight after the events in question) which stated had had Johnston 35,200 and taken 30,000 with him on the 18th July, leaving 5,200 militia. This is what is used to suggest Patterson overestimated, and then to attempt to **** Porter by association. Of course, neither of these work given the evidence.

Porter held both in the Department of Pennsylvania. Now do yourself a very big favor and read the analysis by someone who did more thorough and better research than you have. Russel Beaty addressed Porter's role on Patterson's staff and the results in vol. 1 of his Army of the Potomac series. (By the way, and as usual, even your summary of Marvel embellishes what he actually wrote.)