Which Removal From Army Command Was The Least Deserving?

[JeffBrooks]

Removing the commander of an army during the American Civil War was always a controversial move, whether it was done by Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln. Which removal, in your opinion, was the least deserving? Buell's? Rosecrans's? Hooker's? Or Bragg's? Or Johnston's?

I think I might vote for Beauregard's removal from command of the Army of the Mississippi (what would be the Army of Tennessee). Seriously, all he did was take a bit of time off because he was sick. I think Davis did it just because he had it in for Beauregard.

 

[cash]

I think Hooker's was least deserving of those. It was a case of Halleck being a jerk and Lincoln allowing it.

 

[UCVRelics]

That's a tough one, as the majority of the removals were Northern and they were ALL deserved, I will have to think on this one.

 

[Jamieva]

Removing the commander of an army during the American Civil War was always a controversial move, whether it was done by Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln. Which removal, in your opinion, was the least deserving? Buell's? Rosecrans's? Hooker's? Or Bragg's? Or Johnston's?

I think I might vote for Beauregard's removal from command of the Army of the Mississippi (what would be the Army of Tennessee). Seriously, all he did was take a bit of time off because he was sick. I think Davis did it just because he had it in for Beauregard.

You cannot take sick leave and go awol without telling the commander in chief. If Beauregard had merely told Davis what he was doing he would not have been relieved. I don't fault Davis at all for that. You cannot have a MIA army commander.

My vote would probably be Hooker. The timing of it was so poor Lincoln and Halleck really lucked out because if Meade loses that 1st battle the second guessing by the Committee on the conduct of the war would've been epic.

 

[rpkennedy]

To be fair, Hooker did offer his resignation, not believing Lincoln would accept it.

R

 

[Jackson Hornets]

Beauregard, Johnston, or Hooker to me.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I think Hooker's was least deserving of those. It was a case of Halleck being a jerk and Lincoln allowing it.

Since Hooker resigned, was he really removed?

 

[cash]

Since Hooker resigned, was he really removed?

Yes. He was basically maneuvered into it.

 

[Stony]

Ohmmm. Why is Bragg even mentioned?

 

[Georgia Sixth]

Removing the commander of an army during the American Civil War was always a controversial move, whether it was done by Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln. Which removal, in your opinion, was the least deserving? Buell's? Rosecrans's? Hooker's? Or Bragg's? Or Johnston's?

I think I might vote for Beauregard's removal from command of the Army of the Mississippi (what would be the Army of Tennessee). Seriously, all he did was take a bit of time off because he was sick. I think Davis did it just because he had it in for Beauregard.

Great idea for a thread! Ole Bory isn't my pick but I have to admit, I've often wondered how well he would have done had he remained in command in the West. I know he gets knocked for the initial troop dispositions at Shiloh but I believe he was very instrumental in pulling all the disparate units together to make the attack possible in the first place. I've also wondered if he and Sidney Johnston might have proved a formidable duo. I suspect so.

My pick, though, is Joe Hooker. He actually fooled Lee in the lead up to Chancellorsville and had planned a great campaign. Compared to his predecessors, I think he was the best of the lot. He also performed well at Chattanooga and in the Atlanta campaign.

 

[Bee]

Halleck again! Removing Grant from command in March 1862:

Union General Henry Halleck, commander of the Department of Missouri and General Ulysses S. Grant's superior, was in an especially foul mood. Soon after the Federals took Nashville, Grant had visited the city without orders to do so. While he was merely meeting with the senior General in the field, Don Carlos Buell, Halleck blew it out of proportion. http://civilwardailygazette.com/general-grant-removed-from-command-for-insubordination/

 

[Acbernsen]

No question in my mind: Beauregard. Look at how energetically and skillfully he employed himself at Charleston during a time when this was nonetheless a side show. Why was he not in command out west somewhere during these absolutely crucial months? Would he have been better than Bragg or Johnston? It's a no-brainier to me.

 

[cash]

To be fair, Hooker did offer his resignation, not believing Lincoln would accept it.

R

And Lincoln really shouldn't have accepted it. But he did.

 

[Drew]

When all was said and done, Joe Hooker presided over perhaps the most smashing Confederate victory of the war. Lincoln had no choice but to remove him, deserve it or not. George Meade did just fine as his replacement.

 

[huskerblitz]

McClernand? I thought the reason Grant dismissed (writing a congratulatory letter praising his men) was a little week. But that's politics I suppose.

 

[cash]

When all was said and done, Joe Hooker presided over perhaps the most smashing Confederate victory of the war. Lincoln had no choice but to remove him, deserve it or not. George Meade did just fine as his replacement.

Chancellorsville was early May. Hooker gone at the end of June. If Chancellorsville is the reason, then it should have been at least mid-May. Chancellorsville and Hooker's getting a concussion there was not the reason.

Basically, Halleck hated Hooker from before the war and intrigued against him. He denied Hooker the resources [troops] to effectively respond to Lee's invasion. Lincoln played along, and when Meade was ordered to command the AotP, Halleck released all the troops Hooker had wanted to Meade, showing he realized they were needed.

 

[cash]

McClernand? I thought the reason Grant dismissed (writing a congratulatory letter praising his men) was a little week. But that's politics I suppose.

The letter was the last straw.

 

[novushomus]

Removing the commander of an army during the American Civil War was always a controversial move, whether it was done by Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln. Which removal, in your opinion, was the least deserving? Buell's? Rosecrans's? Hooker's? Or Bragg's? Or Johnston's?

I think I might vote for Beauregard's removal from command of the Army of the Mississippi (what would be the Army of Tennessee). Seriously, all he did was take a bit of time off because he was sick. I think Davis did it just because he had it in for Beauregard.

Well, Beauregard literally went AWOL. And before that, he had overstepped the bounds of his appointment by assigning Thomas C. Hindman as commander of Confederate forces in Arkansas following Van Dorn's withdrawal from the state. The latter in particular stepped on Davis's toes, as Hindman's zealous prosecution of the war caused such an uproar in Arkansas's political elite that they blamed Davis for his appointment when Davis did not even know about until after the fact. Adding this to the Beauregard's running to the press after Bull Run and the Anti-Davis faction in Richmond who had considered nominating Beauregard as an anti-Davis candidate, and its not hard to see why Davis thought Beauregard was more trouble than he was worth.

To answer your question, I'd have to say Rosecrans. While he was ultimately responsible for being sacked, as he left the field at Chickamauga and did not return when he found out that Thomas's wing of the army was still on the field and still being engaged, he was still a very able administrator and operations planner who deserved better than being sidelined to Missouri. Hooker, though he may have been maneuvered into resigning, was more bluff than actual military talent (his organizational skills aside). Even when returned to a corps command in the Western Theater, he still held a mixed record , and his mix of braggadocio and pompousness rubbed Sherman the wrong way. He ultimately had not redeemed himself through his actions when the opportunity came to become an army commander again opened.

 

[Sbc]

Johnston at Atlanta in July of 64.

 

[Rebel_Giratina]

Rosecrans, Hooker, and Joe Johnston never got the love they deserved.