Van Dorn, bold or impulsive?

[major bill]

I just finished reading Pea Ridge 'Civil War Campaign in the West' by William C. Shea and Earl J Hess. The book was critical of General Earl Van Dorn and I was wondering if Van Dorn was as bad of commander as the book seems to state. Van Dorn seems to have been a bold leader who was willing to take risks to win. We all know he lost the Battle of Pea Ridge to General Curtis, but there has always been a question of if it was Van Dorns' fault or the fault of his subordinate commanders. Van Dorn's plan seems fairly good, but it was not particularly well executed. Did the lack of proper execution of the plan result from Van Dorn's poor leadership or the poor leadership of his subordinate officers? Would a victory at Pea Ridge made people believe Van Dorn was a "Great General'?

 

[hanna260]

I'm sure someone else can give you the details far better than I can but Earl Van Dorn has always struck me very much as someone who was very impulsive, very reckless, and rather immature- I'm sure we all remember the cause of his death in 1863, which honestly doesn't give much confidence to his judgement. But you're right in noting that sometimes in a leader-if you squint- recklessness and impulsiveness can start to look like bravery and decision.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Van Dorn's an interesting individual. I won't pretend to be an expert on him, but when he's cropped up in my reading, things tend to start happening... he definitely had energy and enthusiasm, and an undeniable measure of talent. Not many people can say they threw the sort of wrench into Grant's plans like Van Dorn did at Holly Springs, for instance.

 

[hanna260]

Van Dorn's an interesting individual. I won't pretend to be an expert on him, but when he's cropped up in my reading, things tend to start happening... he definitely had energy and enthusiasm, and an undeniable measure of talent. Not many people can say they threw the sort of wrench into Grant's plans like Van Dorn did at Holly Springs, for instance.

You're very right. There are certain people-love them, loathe them, or love to loathe them- that whenever they show up, things just start happening. Grant and Sherman, That Guy naturally, Jackson, everyone's favorite drunk, fire-breathing senator from Texas, and yes Van Dorn.

 

[gunny]

The more I study the actions between Nashville and Columbia in the first half of 1863, the more I get the impression that Van Dorn was impulsive - while Forrest was bold. All the successes that came during that time frame were a result of Forrest's boldness and the failures usually through Van Dorn's impulses. Even at Thompson's Station, the result of the fight was in the air until Forrest flanked Coburn.

Forrest's failures during that time appear to have resulted by actions ordered by Van Dorn based on faulty intelligence. Does that make him bad? Nope, but the two successes - Thompson's Station and Forrest's raid in Brentwood - were later made up for by severe handling of Rebel forces in the months of April through June.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Too, the ultimate cause of the CSS Arkansas' demise can be shown to be due to Van Dorn's impulsiveness. Van Dorn overrode (under circumstances that are at least questionable if not highly irregular) the orders of the Arkansas' commander, Lt. Isaac N. Brown, to his executive officer (Lt. Henry K. Stevens) not to move the Arkansas before her repairs were complete and he (Brown) had returned-- he had gone on four days of what was essentially sick leave-- Brown appears to have been suffering from malaria at the time, not to mention injuries sustained during the ironclad's passage of the combined Union fleets above Vicksburg. As a result of leaving in less-than-great shape and without her commander, the Arkansas was lost. It's quite probable that, in proper repair and under Brown, the Arkansas would have given a better account of herself in her last actions. (She would have been lost eventually-- she was utterly outnumbered, after all-- but she would have been a far bigger headache for the Union, I'm certain.)

 

[hanna260]

Too, the ultimate cause of the CSS Arkansas' demise can be shown to be due to Van Dorn's impulsiveness. Van Dorn overrode (under circumstances that are at least questionable if not highly irregular) the orders of the Arkansas' commander, Lt. Isaac N. Brown, to his executive officer (Lt. Henry K. Stevens) not to move the Arkansas before her repairs were complete and he (Brown) had returned-- he had gone on four days of what was essentially sick leave-- Brown appears to have been suffering from malaria at the time, not to mention injuries sustained during the ironclad's passage of the combined Union fleets above Vicksburg. As a result of leaving in less-than-great shape and without her commander, the Arkansas was lost. It's quite probable that, in proper repair and under Brown, the Arkansas would have given a better account of herself in her last actions. (She would have been lost eventually-- she was utterly outnumbered, after all-- but she would have been a far bigger headache for the Union, I'm certain.)

That's a fascinating story. How do you get to know this much?

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

Add one compulsive researcher to library resources and let bake for a few decades... season with spousal forbearance and serve.

 

[Elennsar]

I'm not really as familiar as I'd like to be, so this is largely drawn from reading this http://www.amazon.com/The-Darkest-Days-War-Battles/dp/0807857831

I can't say if Pea Ridge is the same, but I'd say impulsive. His campaigning seems to be "And if it succeeds it will be despite his carelessness rather than because of his carefulness." Having a good plan on paper but poor execution is like having good blueprints but building something lousy.

 

[major bill]

Jefferson Davis seemed to have had high opinions of Van Dorn. Some historian (John C. Fredriksen for one) see Van Dorn as one of the leading cavalry commanders of the Confedercy. Most historians seem to think although Van Dorn was bold and willing to take risks, a trait most people stress in successful Confederate commanders. Still van Dorn seemed a bit lacking in administrative duties, and not the most lucky of army commanders. Both the Battle of Pea Ridge and the Second Battle of Corinth seemed to fall apart on the edge of success. Had Van Dorn survived would have he taken over for Bragg instead if Johnston? If so the War in the Western Theater have seen a more aggressive leader.

 

[Borderruffian]

Van Dorn was by all accounts a fair but rash Captain of Cavalry in the pre-war Old Army. As a General Officer in the CS servive he was a walking , talking, cluster ****.

 

[Lubliner]

I need to consider General Price, mainly when working with Van Dorn, or Hindman, or Shelby, and the newly deceased McCullough. I have not studied this area era as much as is needed, but I know Price was political and hard to work under, and I think Van Dorn had reason to relocate east of the Mississippi, more than guarding Corinth. I may just be blithering in the dark here. If so I apologize, and I desire a bit of guidance. Can anyone help me on this?
Lubliner.
[Edit] corrected; had Foote for Shelby....know that one?

 

[Vicksburger]

I just finished reading Pea Ridge 'Civil War Campaign in the West' by William C. Shea and Earl J Hess. The book was critical of General Earl Van Dorn and I was wondering if Van Dorn was as bad of commander as the book seems to state. Van Dorn seems to have been a bold leader who was willing to take risks to win. We all know he lost the Battle of Pea Ridge to General Curtis, but there has always been a question of if it was Van Dorns' fault or the fault of his subordinate commanders. Van Dorn's plan seems fairly good, but it was not particularly well executed. Did the lack of proper execution of the plan result from Van Dorn's poor leadership or the poor leadership of his subordinate officers? Would a victory at Pea Ridge made people believe Van Dorn was a "Great General'?

I am not an expert on VanDorn but having had ancestors that fought for him (dad's) and against him (mom's) (and actually were captured by him at Holly Springs) he has fascinated me because I think he gets a bad rap. Everyone, especially civil war authors like Cozzens, bad mouth him about his sins but there never has been much evidence that I can see. Everyone assumes that he was having an affair but who actually has the proof, etc. Dr. Peters got his land in Arkansas back from the U.S. after he assassinated Van Dorn, coincidence? But as far as his military talents are, he was aggressive and active, very devoted to the cause, admired by Maury and Davis. He was unlucky at Corinth, he almost pulled it off. Napoleon said he preferred a lucky general to a good one, and VanDorn was unlucky, not a bad general. And of course, the western Confederate armies were always the poor stepchild never given the men or materiel that really was needed to win. If he had been given the opportunity to be a cavalry raider, he could have built on his achievements at Holly Springs.

 

[Vicksburger]

Oh and I forgot to mention, he was the last Confederate General to take the Offensive in Mississippi.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

Leading a brigade of cavalry, or even a division, Van Dorn was a decent General, with his attribute capable of being mostly a positive influence at those levels of command. At the head of an Army he was an imbecile, being way too impulsive, acting on intelligence without confirming it, or even taking into account his supply, with his habits of blaming his own mistakes on others and his apparent "chasing skirts" also speaking badly of his character, but highly suggesting he was naturally such a recklessly impulsive man. His complete abandonment of Arkansas, was not only a foolish military decision that no one prepared for that level of command would do, much less as eagerly as he did. Plus he did it after just being asked to support Beauregard, and he up and abandoned his post with his Army and left an entire State to the enemy, for an attempt at reinforcing Beauregard, which he never did, acting independently, committing an unforgivable action in a military situation.

Van Dorn was a glory hound who didn't like bad raps, and let the chip on his shoulder lead him into taking absurd levels of risk in almost every aspect of his life, (the title "terror of ugly husbands" he is attributed speaks for this as well, especially since he was married), heck in a lot of ways he reminds me of Custer, but the sad part is Custer was probably a more capable officer, and was apparently more honest. I'd say he was recklessly impulsive, in the performance of his duties, and his lifestyle. In his lifetime his service, and death was best summarized by an Atlanta newspaper:

"If he had led a virtuous life, he would not have died unwept, unhonored, and unsung. Think of the universal respect paid to the lamented Jackson. The whole country is filled with mourning and tears at his death, while no man expresses even a regret at the fate of Van Dorn."

Newspapers ain't the best of historical accounts, but a Confederate newspaper in Atlanta speaking that way of a murdered Confederate General speaks volumes.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Van Dorn may have come close to winning at Corinth, but it would have been a pyrrhic victory.

Pea Ridge he was unlucky with his top two generals in his left wing dying early in the battle. Yet this also suggests he was trying to do too much with inexperienced troops.

Holly Springs: did Van Dorn know Holly Springs was practically unguarded? If so, riding around Grant's flank to attack his supplies is somewhat bold, but also the obvious correct decision.