- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
Early in the Civil War Henry Halleck, "know as Old Brains", was the fourth highest ranking general in the Union Army. Much of his raise to high rank was that General Scott seemed to have great confidence in him. Scott thought Halleck was very intelligent but other than that exactly why Scott held such high confidence is Halleck is uncertain. Halleck had not had a particularly great military career and had not seen much if any combat. At the start of the War Halleck was a democrat and rather sympathetic towards the South. As commander in the Western Theater Halleck only exercised field command during the Siege of Corinth Campaign. Halleck mostly relayed on Grant and Buell to fight the the battles. Was Halleck afraid that in field command might make a mistake? Still whatever Halleck did accomplish it was enough for President Lincoln to make Halleck general-in-chief to replace General McClellan. A position Halleck served in until Grant was made general-in-chief in March of 1864.
Both McClellan and Grant served in the field as General-in-chief but Halleck seemed to want to stay in Washington and did not seek field command. Halleck seemed to excel in administration and logistics while general-in-chief but was not great at grand strategy. Halleck also did not seem to have a great talent for commanding his subordinate generals and seemed to let army commanders do what they wanted to do. In fact it appears that army commanders often ignored the orders Halleck sent them. Halleck did not seem to get along well with many of his subordinates. The general view is that Halleck was cold and not well liked by many.
In the end it is hard to be sure if Halleck was a great general-in-chief. Would it have been better for the Union war effort if some one else with superior strategic skills would have been general-in-chief instead? Should Halleck taken field command himself? I think the most that can be said is that Halleck did nothing to lose the war but did not have a real plan to win the war. Historian seem to believe that Halleck was a master of logistics but too cautious and too rigid.
Both McClellan and Grant served in the field as General-in-chief but Halleck seemed to want to stay in Washington and did not seek field command. Halleck seemed to excel in administration and logistics while general-in-chief but was not great at grand strategy. Halleck also did not seem to have a great talent for commanding his subordinate generals and seemed to let army commanders do what they wanted to do. In fact it appears that army commanders often ignored the orders Halleck sent them. Halleck did not seem to get along well with many of his subordinates. The general view is that Halleck was cold and not well liked by many.
In the end it is hard to be sure if Halleck was a great general-in-chief. Would it have been better for the Union war effort if some one else with superior strategic skills would have been general-in-chief instead? Should Halleck taken field command himself? I think the most that can be said is that Halleck did nothing to lose the war but did not have a real plan to win the war. Historian seem to believe that Halleck was a master of logistics but too cautious and too rigid.