Chancellorsville Sedgwick and Chancellorsville

milhistbuff1

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Location
NY
nbforrest,
That may be, but since this thread deals with Chancellorville, I have focused my comments on the actions of commanders at that time, regardless of how sucessful they ultimately became.
respectfully,
Matt
 

nbforrest

Cadet
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
VA
milhistbuff1 said:
nbforrest,
That may be, but since this thread deals with Chancellorville, I have focused my comments on the actions of commanders at that time, regardless of how sucessful they ultimately became.
respectfully,
Matt

Then there's not a lot good that can be said about the Union command in this thread. Few bright spots on the corps level, or the division level for that matter.

Respectfully
 

milhistbuff1

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Location
NY
nbforrest,

Thats all the more reason to violate protocol and put your best, not those with the most seniority, in responsible positions. But as ole pointed out, 'it simply wasnt done' to the detriment of the union and continuation of that bloody war.
Respectfully,
Matt
 

nbforrest

Cadet
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
VA
milhistbuff1 said:
nbforrest,

Thats all the more reason to violate protocol and put your best, not those with the most seniority, in responsible positions. But as ole pointed out, 'it simply wasnt done' to the detriment of the union and continuation of that bloody war.
Respectfully,
Matt

But it seems to me that the AOP did have some solid leadership there: Hooker, Howard, Sedgewick, Reynolds, Hancock, etc. I think a couple of those are overrated, but those are all very competent officers. Yet it falls to Dan Sickles to do the brightest thing at the battle. Everything just sort of came apart at Chancellorsville

Respectfully
 

milhistbuff1

Sergeant
Joined
Nov 19, 2005
Location
NY
nbforrest,

I agree with your assessment of Sickles' actions. that being said, I feel the fault was ultimately Hooker's for not having forced Stoneman to leave sufficient cavalry to cover the flanks of the AOP. However, Hancock was only a division commander at the time and since his C.O. general Couch refused to countermand Hooker's order made while incapacitated, the retreated from an army that was 99% ready to throw itself against the entrenchments of the federal army.
Respectfully,
Matt
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Hooker and Sickles were buddies.

Kinda like how Sherman always gave McPherson the job of performing flanking movements regardless of his caution.
 

Jamieva

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Location
Midlothian, VA
Sedgwick's problem was a case of the slows. From what I recall in the Sears book he didn't fully believe it was only Early in front of him, and he feared that Longstreet would magically show up with the Hood and Pickett's division at any moment.

If Sedgwick moves at a better pace and gets in behind McLaws and Anderson, they could've squashed those 2 divisions like a bug.

As for Hooker putting his least capable corps on his flank with no help, that is beyond hope of understanding. If he puts the I or V out there they probably get pushed back by Jackson as well but I doubt you would get the full fledged XI corps marathon that it became.
 

nbforrest

Cadet
Joined
Oct 16, 2005
Location
VA
I don't think Sedgwick was terrible at Marye's Heights, but he certainly did not make good time. I'm sure that stories of the first battle haunted the men of the VI Corps. It's commendable that Sedgwick wanted to dislodge Early with as little loss possible, but under the circumstances that may not have been the best alternative in the general plan.

Respectfully
 
Top