Underappreciated......Wade Hampton

Is Wade Hampton underappreciated?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 77.5%
  • No

    Votes: 9 22.5%

  • Total voters
    40
Hampton took over for Stuart, who was arguably the best cavalry commander that the war produced. He performed excellently but will always be compared to Stuart. In that sense, I think that it can be argued that Hampton doesn't get his due.

Good point!
 
Wasn't underappreciated by everybody that's for sure. My GG Grandfather thought enough of em, he named his son, Wade Hampton (surname). Who then named his son, Wade Hampton (surname)jr, who then named his son, who is my current living uncle, Wade Hampton (surname) III.

Seemed to be a popular theme in my family, naming sons after Confederate Generals. ... on both sides actually. My father is named: Robert Edward (surname). There was also a Stonewall Jackson (surname).
Here on the South Carolina border, if his first name is Wade it isn't necessary to ask his middle name.
 
Last edited:
I voted 'no' because he seems to be widely credited as an able military commander, at least in the places where I have seen his career assessed. I don't detect any lack of appreciation.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, he does not seem to be the least bit unappreciated in his native South Carolina. After the War, he was elected Governor and U.S. Senator. Of course a cynic may argue that his popularity there was due to his willingness to kill civilian black men who wanted to vote, rather than his skill in fighting well-armed Yankees.
 
Last edited:
I voted 'no' because he seems to be widely credited as an able military commander, at least in the places where I have seen his career assessed. I don't detect any lack of appreciation.

As noted elsewhere in this thread, he does not seem to be the least bit unappreciated in his native South Carolina. After the War, he was elected Governor and U.S. Senator. Of course a cynic may argue that his popularity there was due to his willingness to kill civilian black man who wanted to vote, rather than his skill in killing well-armed Yankees.

Being the richest man in the state helps too.

Ryan
 
It would be interesting to know if the actual contemporaneous records are available, but it is said that Hampton money outfitted Hampton's Legion in 1861.

Six companies of infantry, four companies of cavalry and one battery of artillery -- the bill must have been substantial!
I don't have sources for such claims but, have seen similar claims attributed to WH III
 
millwood-plantation-400.jpg


Gen. Sherman appreciated Hampton in own special way. Millwood Plantation was torched by Sherman's soldiers as the Union army left the city of Columbia, S.C., in 1865.
 
Need to be careful about historical fact. Although Hampton effectively turned back Sheridan's raid on the Virginia Central Railroad at Trevilian Station, history seems to slight Hampton while Sheridan's outspokenness and his defenders managed to paint the results of that battle as a clear Union victory.
 
It would be interesting to know if the actual contemporaneous records are available, but it is said that Hampton money outfitted Hampton's Legion in 1861.

Six companies of infantry, four companies of cavalry and one battery of artillery -- the bill must have been substantial!

He enlisted first as a private and when a commission was given he outfitted the above.
 
Eric Wittenberg in his Glory Enough for All: Sheridan's Second Raid and the Battle of Trevillian Station praises Hampton's ability as a cavalry commander. Unfortunately Sheridan claimed the outcome as a victory (Wittenberg states that the outcome actually prolonged the war for another year) and was on the winning side at the end.
 
He enlisted first as a private and when a commission was given he outfitted the above.

Yes, I have seen that asserted by a number of writers.

I'm curious if there is any actual documentation, or any serious historical investigation of the claim?

Hampton is so caught up in the rhetoric of the Lost Cause that is natural to wonder whether it is true, or just part of the folklore of the era.
 
Lee apparently did not under appreciate Hampton--promoting him to the rank of Lt. General (out ranking Stuart), one of three non West Point general officers to reach that rank in the Confederate Army.
Further, if a reason for his not being appreciated is true, Glenn Tucker would suggest that it was because he wasn't a Virginian.
 
This is so funny. Because I've read cavalry books extolling Hampton, or really, giving accounts on his war, it never occurred to me he was under rated. Thought he was up there with everyone else, already.

I think Hampton is appreciated in CW circles, but mostly forgotten (especially outside of SC) by most people. Even George Thomas is better know to the average American.

promoting him to the rank of Lt. General (out ranking Stuart), one of three non West Point general officers to reach that rank in the Confederate Army.

Who were the other two?
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top