Who Should Have Been Promoted But Wasn't?

JeffBrooks

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Location
Hutto, TX
Here's a question I would be interested in hearing opinions on. . . which officers, Union and/or Confederate, do you think deserved promotion but didn't receive it? Why?

I, for one, think Jubal Early should have been promoted to command of the Second Corps after his performance in the Chancellorsville Campaign.
 
Last edited:
Here's a question I would be interested in hearing opinions on. . . which officers, Union and/or Confederate, do you think deserved promotion but didn't receive it? Why?
A tricky thing here is the question of absolute versus relative rank. At least for the Union there was a real reluctance to promote people to what people from a larger military would consider appropriate ranks - typically a brigadier general would command a brigade, a major general (or "general de division" in French) would command a division, and a corps size unit would be for a lieutenant general or three-star general ("general de corps d'armee" in French). Full armies would go to full generals.

So there are situations I can think of where two people are of equivalent rank when I think one should rank the other by a grade, but it's not really sensible to say that the one should have been promoted because it'd then make them the highest ranking general in the entire Union. And I don't think they're that good.
 
Vote Here:
Here's a question I would be interested in hearing opinions on. . . which officers, Union and/or Confederate, do you think deserved promotion but didn't receive it? Why?

I, for one, think Jubal Early should have been promoted to command of the Second Corps after his performance in the Chancellorsville Campaign.
Eugene Carr. He was directly responsible for the success of the XIII Corps during the Vicksburg Campaign and was acting in temporary command at Battle of Big Black River Bridge.

It’s a moot point, though. Illness sidelined him for the rest of the war.
 
Vote Here:
You mean the same Jubal Early who squandered the last gasp opportunity to attack and take DC, along with Lincoln and most of his Cabinet and the Congress because he stopped not just once but TWICE to collect ransoms from towns along his route of march as revenge for burning of towns in the South. The stopping for petty revenge that prevented a total Confederate victory? Stonewall would probably just burned the towns and Lee would have just marched through them, both of them keeping their eyes on the goal--DC.

No, not that one. I was talking about the Jubal Early who drove Union forces out of the Shenandoah Valley, invaded Maryland, defeated Union forces at the Battle of Monocacy, and then presented such a threat to Washington City that it forced Grant to send two corps worth of troops away from the Petersburg front and thereby greatly reduced the pressure on Robert E. Lee. This particular Early then retired back into the Valley, bringing in vast amount of critically-needed animals and forage, before going on to inflict yet further defeats on the Union at the Battle of Cool Spring and the Second Battle of Kernstown, and then raiding into Pennsylvania and burning the town of Chambersburg. These actions, incidentally, humiliated the Lincoln administration precisely when Northern political will to continue the war was nearing collapse.

The Early that I'm talking about then faced an enemy army of 40,000 men with a mere 14,000 troops or thereabouts, but nearly defeated Sheridan at the Third Battle of Winchester and still retained enough strength to mount a surprise offensive at Cedar Creek as late as October. That he lost these battles doesn't reflect badly upon him, since he came closer to victory than anyone had any reason to expect, given the enormous disparity in strength vis-a-vis the enemy.

That's the Jubal Early I am referring to.

(And just for the record, while I admire his skill as a soldier, I still think he was a total jerk personally.)
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
Eugene Carr. He was directly responsible for the success of the XIII Corps during the Vicksburg Campaign and was acting in temporary command at Battle of Big Black River Bridge.

It’s a moot point, though. Illness sidelined him for the rest of the war.
Not so. His sick leave was only a few months. In the fall of 1863 he command the post of Corinth and later he was transferred to Arkansas and commanded Steeles cavalry during the Arkansas portion of the Red River campaign and then commanded an infantry division in the Mobile campaign
 
Vote Here:
Not so. His sick leave was only a few months. In the fall of 1863 he command the post of Corinth and later he was transferred to Arkansas and commanded Steeles cavalry during the Arkansas portion of the Red River campaign and then commanded an infantry division in the Mobile campaign
Yeah, I suppose I consider those to be sidelined commands 😂

Kinda sad to see him play a major role in the greatest campaign of the war, then be relegated to minor roles in backwater campaigns.
 
Vote Here:
With members mentioning Cleburne previously, about some of the lesser and better battle elements he fought, I was curious how much of this up and down grading can be attributed to the Generals he was under command of at each time. My proposition was highlighted when the conjecture of Cleburne under General Lee was being discussed. Could Cleburne's performances be based at all on higher leadership? Thanks,
Lubliner.
 
Vote Here:
No way in hell Early could have take DC, even without Sixth Corps. DC, even without all the troops stripped from its defenses, was still quite formidable. Attacking head on a massive fortress CITY with an army of just 16000 men would have been too costly. The fact his army could get to the gates of DC was enough to frighten northerners into wanting to divert men to the Valley to deal with the threat, just as Jackson did in the Valley in 1862. In the end, the Union managed to concentrate their forces under Sheridan and defeat Early, but Early definitely gave Sheridan a run for his money, despite being outnumbered two to one at Winchester and Cedar Creek.
As many faults as I have with Early, I cannot fault him for not taking DC with his tiny army.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Early's assignment was not to attack DC but to panic the DC military leadership and cause them to divert troops away from Richmond.
 
Vote Here:
It was David Hunter who saved Washington. When he turned and ran from the out numbered II Corps and deep into Western Virginia. It cost Early 3 days chasing Hunter and 3 days back to Lynchburg, and another day to rest.
I mean...him retreating into West Virginia, leaving the Capital technically exposed with no force available to counter it is the farthest I'd go from supporting him being the "savior" of Washington.
 
Vote Here:
Had Hunter stayed and fought Early would have smashed him, and would be right back on the road again shortly, moving fast. Wallace may not have had time to put troops at the Monocacy. Early arrives at Washington several days earlier while it's still poorly defended.
 
Vote Here:
I suspect the option for Hunter being implied would be (absent any knowledge of the details, I confess) to fall back in such a way as to cover Washington; that is, to retreat towards the capitol and contest the fords and bridges by which the Potomac could be crossed, then contest the passes through the Catoctins etc.

While this would probably have had an inferior outcome given that it would not have delayed Early by as long, I rather doubt Hunter was intending to delay Early by a week so much as to just avoid engagement (as Hunter could not have known Early would be so delayed).
 
Vote Here:
I suspect the option for Hunter being implied would be (absent any knowledge of the details, I confess) to fall back in such a way as to cover Washington; that is, to retreat towards the capitol and contest the fords and bridges by which the Potomac could be crossed, then contest the passes through the Catoctins etc.

While this would probably have had an inferior outcome given that it would not have delayed Early by as long, I rather doubt Hunter was intending to delay Early by a week so much as to just avoid engagement (as Hunter could not have known Early would be so delayed).
Admittantly, the positioning of Hunter's force probably didn't allow for him to fall back "down" the valley (north).
That said, Early did manage to pretty much replicate Jackson and defeat several armies in detail, drawing Union reinforcements to the Valley. He makes some tactical mistakes (though I disagree with the idea that he could take Washington), but I don't see any real blunders until 3rd Winchester, when he makes the assumption that Sheridan wasn't going to move, and so sends about half his force to raid north before Sheridan makes his move, forcing him to double back to Winchester to reinforce Ramseur and Wharton. That left Gordon's and Rodes' Divisions exhausted, and his lack of concentration and being out of position allowed for Early to be flanked and routed by Torbert's Cavalry. Then at Cedar Creek, he gives his infamous halt order before Gordon can finish off 6th Corps, which would have completed the victory and given Sheridan little chance of reforming his troops for a counter attack that day. And Early decided to blame that fiasco on the troops looting the camps, which is rather despicable (I presume it was for this reason Lee had Early sidelined after the battle).
 
Vote Here:
Admittantly, the positioning of Hunter's force probably didn't allow for him to fall back "down" the valley (north).
That said, Early did manage to pretty much replicate Jackson and defeat several armies in detail, drawing Union reinforcements to the Valley. He makes some tactical mistakes (though I disagree with the idea that he could take Washington), but I don't see any real blunders until 3rd Winchester, when he makes the assumption that Sheridan wasn't going to move, and so sends about half his force to raid north before Sheridan makes his move, forcing him to double back to Winchester to reinforce Ramseur and Wharton. That left Gordon's and Rodes' Divisions exhausted, and his lack of concentration and being out of position allowed for Early to be flanked and routed by Torbert's Cavalry. Then at Cedar Creek, he gives his infamous halt order before Gordon can finish off 6th Corps, which would have completed the victory and given Sheridan little chance of reforming his troops for a counter attack that day. And Early decided to blame that fiasco on the troops looting the camps, which is rather despicable (I presume it was for this reason Lee had Early sidelined after the battle).

I think what got in Lee's bonnet about Early is that the supposed looting showed that Early had lost control of his troops. That was something Lee could not abide.

Ryan
 
Vote Here:
I think Rich Mountain exposes Rosecrans' weaknesses. He did not efficiently communicate his route to McClellan, took a very long time to reach the Hart House, was repulsed in his first attempt to seize it, and after he seized it (defeating a force he outnumbered around 7:1) he went passive and didn't push onto his objective (Camp Garnett). Worse, he never communicated events to McClellan, and didn't even try.

If anyone showed themselves worthy of promotion at Rich Mountain, it was Robert McCook.
West Virginia Campaign - a pretty consequential campaign - was more than Rich Mountain. Rosecrans was replaced by Radical favorite Fremont. Politics affected promotion - and demotion.
 
Vote Here:
No, not that one. I was talking about the Jubal Early who drove Union forces out of the Shenandoah Valley, invaded Maryland, defeated Union forces at the Battle of Monocacy, and then presented such a threat to Washington City that it forced Grant to send two corps worth of troops away from the Petersburg front and thereby greatly reduced the pressure on Robert E. Lee. This particular Early then retired back into the Valley, bringing in vast amount of critically-needed animals and forage, before going on to inflict yet further defeats on the Union at the Battle of Cool Spring and the Second Battle of Kernstown, and then raiding into Pennsylvania and burning the town of Chambersburg. These actions, incidentally, humiliated the Lincoln administration precisely when Northern political will to continue the war was nearing collapse.

The Early that I'm talking about then faced an enemy army of 40,000 men with a mere 14,000 troops or thereabouts, but nearly defeated Sheridan at the Third Battle of Winchester and still retained enough strength to mount a surprise offensive at Cedar Creek as late as October. That he lost these battles doesn't reflect badly upon him, since he came closer to victory than anyone had any reason to expect, given the enormous disparity in strength vis-a-vis the enemy.

That's the Jubal Early I am referring to.

(And just for the record, while I admire his skill as a soldier, I still think he was a total jerk personally.)
From Ft Sumpter until Appomattox (or whichever surrender you want to point to) the only 2 times the Confederacy had a legitimate opportunity to win the Civil War was following 1st Bull Run where if anyone had had the determination to rally just a regiment or two to closely pursue the fleeing Yanks, take DC and essentially end the CW immediately, and in 1864 when Early could have waltzed through the literally undefended defenses of DC, taking Lincoln, most of the Cabinet and the Congress, effectively ending the war. So YES i do mean that Early.

Nothing he did before or after had any ANY influence on the outcome of the war. NOTHING.
 
Vote Here:
No way in hell Early could have take DC, even without Sixth Corps. DC, even without all the troops stripped from its defenses, was still quite formidable. Attacking head on a massive fortress CITY with an army of just 16000 men would have been too costly. The fact his army could get to the gates of DC was enough to frighten northerners into wanting to divert men to the Valley to deal with the threat, just as Jackson did in the Valley in 1862. In the end, the Union managed to concentrate their forces under Sheridan and defeat Early, but Early definitely gave Sheridan a run for his money, despite being outnumbered two to one at Winchester and Cedar Creek.
As many faults as I have with Early, I cannot fault him for not taking DC with his tiny army.
Just before the covid lockdown, the August Civil War Roundtable had a presenter who had just written a book about the defenses surrounding DC. According to him, NOT ME, he specifically said that the defenses to DC when Early approached were for all practical purposes inoperable. Luckily the reinforcements Grant dispatched arrived with mere minutes to spare. Had Early arrived not days or hours but minutes DC could have easily fallen with all the concomitant repercussions.
 
Vote Here:
From Ft Sumpter until Appomattox (or whichever surrender you want to point to) the only 2 times the Confederacy had a legitimate opportunity to win the Civil War was following 1st Bull Run where if anyone had had the determination to rally just a regiment or two to closely pursue the fleeing Yanks, take DC and essentially end the CW immediately, and in 1864 when Early could have waltzed through the literally undefended defenses of DC, taking Lincoln, most of the Cabinet and the Congress, effectively ending the war. So YES i do mean that Early.
DC wasn't literally undefended. There were men in the forts and men able to go into them (as of the end of June), though not quite enough to form a full garrison and of widely variable quality.

I'll also point out that there's a couple of other places where the opportunity presents itself for a "big win". Gettysburg Day Two could have been a smashing Confederate victory, for example, and another one would be things going differently at 2BR.
 
Vote Here:
From Ft Sumpter until Appomattox (or whichever surrender you want to point to) the only 2 times the Confederacy had a legitimate opportunity to win the Civil War was following 1st Bull Run where if anyone had had the determination to rally just a regiment or two to closely pursue the fleeing Yanks, take DC and essentially end the CW immediately, and in 1864 when Early could have waltzed through the literally undefended defenses of DC, taking Lincoln, most of the Cabinet and the Congress, effectively ending the war. So YES i do mean that Early.

Nothing he did before or after had any ANY influence on the outcome of the war. NOTHING.
Early COULD NOT have waltzed into DC. Yes, there were mostly second rate troops guarding it when he arrived, but they were behind some of the most thoroughly built fortifications in North America at the time, and soon would have the remaining parts of 6th Corps arriving. Even off Early takes the forts, hell lose most of his men, only to be repulsed the next day by the arrived 6th Corps.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top