- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
This a quote about Bragg, but it probably could apply to a few more Civil War officers on both sides. Who would be the most likely Union officer who this could apply?
I nominate General Banks, who ordered his troops to retreat from a battlefield after they ran off the Confederates, leaving his dead and wounded on the ground for the surprised Confederates to take care of when they returned. From an anonymous letter dated May 19, 1864, and published in the Burlington (Iowa) Weekly Hawk-Eye—
Gen. Banks, as a military genius, is not very highly appreciated by the officers and men of this department, and especially the men of this [Red River] expedition, who say they believe that if he had had twice as large an army as he had, lie would have gotten them all “gobbled” [captured]. And their eyes fairly flash with indignation when they tell of being compelled by orders to retreat from a retreating foe, which they say was the case at Pleasant Hill.
Oddly enough, Mr. F. J. Hooker (as Lee called him) seems to have done well when he wasn't in command! As a subordinate - especially one angling for higher command - he performed as well as anyone else in similar circumstances such as on the Peninsula and at Antietam. It's true he received a bloody nose from Pat Cleburne at Ringgold Gap, but Pat retreated anyway (he was only fighting a holding action) leaving Hooker in possession of the field. Neither Grant nor Sherman liked or trusted Hooker - fair enough! - but he performed well under both at Chattanooga and in the Atlanta Campaign.Fighting Joe Hooker
I nominate General Banks, who ordered his troops to retreat from a battlefield after they ran off the Confederates, leaving his dead and wounded on the ground for the surprised Confederates to take care of when they returned. From an anonymous letter dated May 19, 1864, and published in the Burlington (Iowa) Weekly Hawk-Eye—
Gen. Banks, as a military genius, is not very highly appreciated by the officers and men of this department, and especially the men of this [Red River] expedition, who say they believe that if he had had twice as large an army as he had, lie would have gotten them all “gobbled” [captured]. And their eyes fairly flash with indignation when they tell of being compelled by orders to retreat from a retreating foe, which they say was the case at Pleasant Hill.
]
Granted F. J. Hooker had some good moments, but he was a disaster at Chancellorsville and, IMO, pretty bad at Williamsburg, too.
Umm... he did ask for UNION generals.No one has nominated Lee? Had he not gone North in the summer of 63, perhaps he beats Hooker again in VA. Perhaps Hooker’s replacement has Washington on his back and has to attack Lee, leading to another Union defeat. Shortly put, Lee doesn’t go on the offensive and lose while maybe winning one or two more battles in VA instead, does Lincoln get re-elected? If the summer of 63 doesn’t come with a decisive Union victory, but rather a string of Union defeats, does the war end?
Umm... he did ask for UNION generals.
Burnside was lousy but couldn't say he 'snatched defeat from the jaws of victory'.
Which passed down to his Army.I'd second the McClellan nomination. He could have succeeded on the Peninsula if he'd shown the least amount of boldness. As it was, he was defeated mentally by Lee during the Seven Days, and believed himself soundly defeated even as he enjoyed near parity in numbers with the confederates.
Not really, the Army was angry because they felt they could have accomplished more than a retreat. The didn't understand why their fearless leader was so scared. (Goodwin: Team of Rivals)Which passed down to his Army.