The "Peter Principle"

[Severon]

How much do you know about the "Peter Principle" and how it relates to the Civil War. Does it pertain to Generals such as McClellan, Hill, Jackson, and Hooker?

 

[Elennsar]

McClellan does not appear to have been cut out for field command. He was simply not capable of putting forth a full hearted, aggressive effort into bloody battle.

Hill - by which I presume you mean A.P. Hill - was suffering from weakening health when he was promoted to corps command, but a case can be made that he was not quite able to handle it.

Jackson is hard to rate.

Hooker...I believe something else went wrong.

I'm sure this will spark more elaborate discussion, but as a basis, until conflicting facts are presented, those are my positions on the subject.

 

[captainrlm]

Richard Ewell and John B Hood are 2 generals for whom that principle - you reach a level above your competence- seems suited, at least off the top of my head. Both seemed to perform better before their final promotions.

 

[Severon]

It seems as if the "Peter Principle" happens all the time.

 

[ole]

Nearly all rising stars get whacked eventually by the "Peter Principle." We might agree that Hood got promoted out of his element. Actually, most got promoted out of their element.

Some didn't and I'm not prepared to name names of those who did and those who didn't -- it'll just start a fight. But it remains that there is a level at which most will find beyond their competency.

Ole

 

[the54thmass]

How much do you know about the "Peter Principle" and how it relates to the Civil War. Does it pertain to Generals such as McClellan, Hill, Jackson, and Hooker?

The Peter Principle has always been a puzzlement to me. Of course everyone starts out at a level of incompetence.

A soldier goes into the army; he's a soldier, and then goes to boot camp. But he had the uniform, and the job paying him before he learned the role...

You get promoted 'to' something, and then you learn that rank...

A cop or a fireman, the same... you get the gun, badge, and paycheck...and then you go to rookie school learn what to do with the firehoses and the fire axes and the
pistols and the badges...

They call them probationary employees, but at the moment of their hire or promotion, they were incompetent. All of them.

Now, you send a man into the field to be a supervisor...

Gee, we've never had one of these kind of wars before...
they look and sound and smell like... us!

...so a McClellan is hoping it will all go away before we get all bloodied...

...while a Grant will be at the rear working the sausage grinder... and racking up untold losses...

Now, a Jackson... he seemed to get the idea early...
but it was too late to warn him that the blue coat needed
to go!


54th

 

[K Hale]

How much do you know about the "Peter Principle" and how it relates to the Civil War. Does it pertain to Generals such as McClellan, Hill, Jackson, and Hooker?

Not Jackson. The others, yeah.

 

[Leah's Choice]

James McPherson may have been one who never reached his full potential, due to his untimely death. At least General Sherman seemed to think so.

 

[dvrmte]

Lee's army was full of those in 1864. Longstreet would be sorely missed after his wounding. R.H. Anderson, Hill and Ewell had just been put in over their heads. It would show at Spotsylvania, North Anna and Cold Harbor.

Sincerely,
dvrmte

 

[Elennsar]

It can be argued that Albert Sidney Johnston is an example of the Peter Principle - able to handle something roughly around division level.

That seems to be where he was instinctively (for want of a better word) comfortable, judging by Shiloh.

I suppose the question is, speaking in general:

What makes someone qualify as an example?

I'm sure we'll never reach perfect agreement, but for purposes of this thread, we need a workable, common definition - after all, presumably there's a difference between someone who did fine at lower ranks because they weren't asked to make any decisions and so their incompetence never showed up and someone who did well at lower ranks but who was unable to make it across the responsibility gap - it is harder and trickier to handle an army than a corps, a corps than a division, a division than a brigade, a brigade than a regiment.

Burnside for instance seems to just not have been a very bright (militarily) guy.

 

[The Iron Duke]

I think if Hooker had gone up against someone other than Lee he would have done well as an army commander. Chancellorsville is the one bad spot on an otherwise laudable record. Definitely underrated, IMO.

McClellan, Hill, Hood, Sidney Johnston? Yes. Jackson? No.

 

[Elennsar]

The trouble is - and not to dispute what you said because I don't have evidence to go that far - is that he stumbled prior to Lee doing something to his army.

So I'm not sure what he would have done versus a lesser but presumably still competent opponent - beating up say, Beauregard is not much of a feat.

 

[The Iron Duke]

Replace Lee with any of the other army commanders the Confederacy has to offer and I think Hooker does fine. He just wasn't better than Lee.

 

[Elennsar]

Accepted. Though given the dubious ability of the two Johnstons, Beauregard, Bragg, and Hood - it may not indicate much ability to be better than them.

Hooker seems to have been fine with handling the out of battle responsibilities, for the most part (see his demanding Halleck give him more men later - but that's a completely seperate discussion).

A (relatively) little known example: http://aotw.org/officers.php?officer_id=126

Sadly not much information on him there, but I'm sure it can be uncovered readily.

 

[K Hale]

I agree that Hooker is pretty underrated due to his spectacular failure at Chancellorsville. I think his reforms with regards to army management saved lives, increased morale, and was in some way responsible for the victory at Gettysburg. He was also a hard fighter and pretty darned smart, if a rather unsavory man personally (IMO).

That said, we can only judge these guys as they actually performed, and not on how well they might have done if they'd performed in a different situation. In that regard I have to say Hooker does indeed meet the Peter Principle. He was promoted to the level of facing Robert E. Lee, and that turned out to be his level of incompetence. In this he is hardly alone, of course.

 

[ole]

Hooker was, basically, a good general. What he did for the AotP was fine work. That Lee turned him every which way but loose at Chancellorsville ought not have been damaging. But then he got on a high horse and snubbed the boss. Not a good idea. He was moving to counter Lee's invasion with considerable expertise.

He was a very competent general who just couldn't get past his opinion of himself. That doesn't exactly translate into a Peter Principle moment, but it is close.

Ole

 

[larry_cockerham]

It can be argued that Albert Sidney Johnston is an example of the Peter Principle - able to handle something roughly around division level.

That seems to be where he was instinctively (for want of a better word) comfortable, judging by Shiloh.

I suppose the question is, speaking in general:

What makes someone qualify as an example?

I'm sure we'll never reach perfect agreement, but for purposes of this thread, we need a workable, common definition - after all, presumably there's a difference between someone who did fine at lower ranks because they weren't asked to make any decisions and so their incompetence never showed up and someone who did well at lower ranks but who was unable to make it across the responsibility gap - it is harder and trickier to handle an army than a corps, a corps than a division, a division than a brigade, a brigade than a regiment.

Burnside for instance seems to just not have been a very bright (militarily) guy.

It's a bit tough to place Albert Sidney Johnston on your list. He was killed at Shiloh, a tad early for an evaluation.

 

[ole]

Is true that the Peter Principle caught up what might have been a good general. Commanding generals simply do not lead the charge of a brigade. He is there to direct the actions of divisions and brigades. So we don't get to evaluate Sid Johnston, but he was enough of a fool to let Beau run his show and get himself killed in an admittedly desperate situation.

There's much to be admired in the man, but the Principle got him. Maybe this is more a "what was he thinking" moment than a Peter Principle moment? Naah.

Ole

 

[K Hale]

I thought of someone this morning who exhibited the Peter Principle in reverse: Halleck. He got "demoted" down to his level of competency (a fine clerk, as Lincoln put it).

 

[captainrlm]

Maybe this will be a bit harsh, but what about Jefferson Davis? He was a fine Secretary of War, and experienced success as a solder in Mexico and in the Senate, but was the Presidential level one step too far for him? (Not that the Confederacy necessarily had any better choices?)

I'm not sure it's fair to say that about Davis as he may have been in an impossible situation, but I thought I'd throw it out there, after the wonderfull suggestion of Halleck as an example.

I thought of someone this morning who exhibited the Peter Principle in reverse: Halleck. He got "demoted" down to his level of competency (a fine clerk, as Lincoln put it).