wt_jimbos
Cadet
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Victoria, Australia
It seems Hooker blamed Sedgwick for the failure of his plans that resulted in the disaster at Chancellorsville.
Dairy of Col. Charles S. Wainwright, USA, Cheif of Artillery, First Army Corps, Army of the Potomac.
"May 31..The General sat with us for an hour, and spent that time in an attempt to justify himself as to the result of chancellorsville... He based his defense for not attacking Lee on monday [May 4] first that he expected Lee would attack his own right...The second excuse...was worse than the first, being an attempt to throw the whole blame on General Sedgwick. He was very bitter against "Uncle John", accusing him of being slow and afraid; also of disobeying orders directly. Now for a general to make such charges against an absent subordinate, in defending himself before a lot of young officers, while he takes no official notice of it, is-well, i hope Hooker was drunk while here, for his own sake....My feelings are divided between shame for my commanding general, and indignation at the attack on so true, brave, and modest a man as Sedgwick ...That Sedgwick did not do what Hooker wanted him there is no doubt...but this was more from Hooker's fault than his, owing as it was to the indistinct, even non-sencical wording of the orders recieved, and the fact that they were delivered from twelve to twenty-four hours later than they should have been...I got my information on both sides as direct as possible"
In a chapter of <u>The U.S. Army War College Guides to Civil War Battles: Guide to the Battles of Chancellorsvile & Fredericksburg. </u>
Intelligence in the Chancellorsville Campaign.
When he suspended his own attack Hooker instructed Sedgwick, who commanded 40,000 men at Fredericksburg, "to keep a sharp lookout, and attack if you can succeed." But Segdwick, who received a steady flow of reports from "balloons in the air" to the effect that the Confederates had withdrawn many troops from their lines at Fredericksburg to meet Hooker's advance from the west, decided not to attack. Major General John F. Reynolds, who commanded I Corps, Cautioned against making an attack and speculated that the Confederates "have been...showing weakness, with a view of delaying Hooker, in tempting us to make an attack on their fortified position, and hoping to destroy us and strike for our depot over our bridges."
My question is how much was Sedgwick to blame for the events of the Chancellorsville campaign.
Dairy of Col. Charles S. Wainwright, USA, Cheif of Artillery, First Army Corps, Army of the Potomac.
"May 31..The General sat with us for an hour, and spent that time in an attempt to justify himself as to the result of chancellorsville... He based his defense for not attacking Lee on monday [May 4] first that he expected Lee would attack his own right...The second excuse...was worse than the first, being an attempt to throw the whole blame on General Sedgwick. He was very bitter against "Uncle John", accusing him of being slow and afraid; also of disobeying orders directly. Now for a general to make such charges against an absent subordinate, in defending himself before a lot of young officers, while he takes no official notice of it, is-well, i hope Hooker was drunk while here, for his own sake....My feelings are divided between shame for my commanding general, and indignation at the attack on so true, brave, and modest a man as Sedgwick ...That Sedgwick did not do what Hooker wanted him there is no doubt...but this was more from Hooker's fault than his, owing as it was to the indistinct, even non-sencical wording of the orders recieved, and the fact that they were delivered from twelve to twenty-four hours later than they should have been...I got my information on both sides as direct as possible"
In a chapter of <u>The U.S. Army War College Guides to Civil War Battles: Guide to the Battles of Chancellorsvile & Fredericksburg. </u>
Intelligence in the Chancellorsville Campaign.
When he suspended his own attack Hooker instructed Sedgwick, who commanded 40,000 men at Fredericksburg, "to keep a sharp lookout, and attack if you can succeed." But Segdwick, who received a steady flow of reports from "balloons in the air" to the effect that the Confederates had withdrawn many troops from their lines at Fredericksburg to meet Hooker's advance from the west, decided not to attack. Major General John F. Reynolds, who commanded I Corps, Cautioned against making an attack and speculated that the Confederates "have been...showing weakness, with a view of delaying Hooker, in tempting us to make an attack on their fortified position, and hoping to destroy us and strike for our depot over our bridges."
My question is how much was Sedgwick to blame for the events of the Chancellorsville campaign.