Who were the best Corps Commanders in the Army of the Potomac?

Andy Cardinal

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 27, 2017
Location
Ohio
Here is a list of all (most) of the corps commanders in the Army of the Potomac between the organization of corps in March 1862 and the end of 1864. I deliberately did not include commanders from 1865, when the end was near, nor those like Mansfield or Doubleday who commanded temporarily or for less than a few days.

My first observation is, wow, what a mediocre lot. There a few good ones, but the majority are essentially historical nonentities at best.

My second observation is, there are a lot of them. In contrast to Lee's army, or even the Army of the Tennessee or the Army of the Cumberland, there was a lot of turnover, which makes it extremely hard to develop top command cohesion. We all.know about the frequent turnover in the top command, but the turnover at the corps level might have been an even greater factor in the army's lack of battlefield success.

Banks (12th Corps)
Couch (2nd Corps)
Burnside (9th Corps)
Butterfield (5th Corps)
Franklin (6th Corps)
French (3rd Corps)
Hancock (2nd Corps)
Heintzelman (3rd Corps)
Hooker (1st Corps)
Howard (11th Corps)
Keyes (4th Corps)
Meade (5th Corps)
McDowell (1st Corps)
Newton (1st Corps)
Porter (5th Corps)
Reynolds (1st Corps)
Sedgwick (6th Corps)
Sickles (3rd Corps)
Sigel (11th Corps)
Slocum (12th Corps)
Smith (6th Corps)
Stoneman (3rd Corps)
Sumner (2nd Corps)
Sykes (5th Corps)
Warren (2nd & 5th Corps)
Wilcox (9th Corps)
Wright (6th Corps)

Who would you rank in the top 5 from this list. For me the top three is fairly easy, but beyond 3 I have a somewhat difficult time.

I realize this is a wide-ranging question. I am trying to limit it to each individual's performance as a corps commander in the Army of the Potomac and not consider performances in any other capacities. I am considering Pope's army & Sheridan's army as part of the Army of the Potomac.

My own top 5:
1. Hancock
2. Reynolds
3. Meade
4. Sedgwick
5. Sumner
 
Should Alpheus Williams be included? I recall him commanding the 12th Corps on at least 2 significant occasions: Antietam after Mansfield went down and Gettysburg when Slocum was an acting wing commander. That being said my top 5 would be Hancock, Reynolds, Booker, Sedgwick, and Warren.

I think Williams was very competent but he never had permanent command of a corps. If included on.the list, he wouldn't be in my top 5 but he would be in the top half.
 
Vote Here:
Kearny never commanded a corps although if he hadn't been killed I'm sure he was in line for corps command. I think Fighting Dick Richardson. And Isaac Stevens are in the same boat.

I should probably have included Jesse Reno in my original post.

Though all deaths are tragic in my opinion Richardson's death at Antietam was the biggest loss for the AoP in terms of future talent.

Should Alpheus Williams be included? I recall him commanding the 12th Corps on at least 2 significant occasions: Antietam after Mansfield went down and Gettysburg when Slocum was an acting wing commander. That being said my top 5 would be Hancock, Reynolds, Booker, Sedgwick, and Warren.

A Wing that was mostly comprised of his own 12th Corps! (At times he gained temporary command of a couple of 6th Corps brigades and yet Slocum completely gave up his Corps command so that he could carry out his 'new' and superior role...)
 
Vote Here:
Should Alpheus Williams be included? I recall him commanding the 12th Corps on at least 2 significant occasions: Antietam after Mansfield went down and Gettysburg when Slocum was an acting wing commander. That being said my top 5 would be Hancock, Reynolds, Booker, Sedgwick, and Warren.

Also... That's a typo for Hooker, right?
 
Vote Here:
Don't mean to nitpick but should we include Cavalry Corps Commanders too? I believe that would be Pleasonton, Sheridan, Torbert, and Merritt.
I didn't not include the cavalry commanders on purpose, although maybe I should have, mainly because the cavalry wasn't organized into a corps until halfway through the war.
 
Vote Here:
Oh and didn't Andrew A. Humphreys and Charles Griffin hold corps commands?
Yes. I only included commanders through the end of 1864. Humphreys probably could be included. Many agreed he was among the best soldiers in the Army of the Potomac but he never really had the chance to show what he could do as a corps commander, although he did well during the Appomattox pursuit. Same for Griffin, with even less time. He only rose to corps command when Warren was relieved by Sheridan at Five Forks.
 
Vote Here:
Who would you rank in the top 5 from this list.
In terms of...? We need criteria to measure "ranking" or we merely fumble around in a "yes, but!" world where every selection can be answered with a solid rebuttal. Take Howard for instance--fine corps commander in the west but checkered AoP. Hooker is another example.
Lay down a template for "rate" and we can get that top two and argue about the rest.
 
Vote Here:
In terms of...? We need criteria to measure "ranking" or we merely fumble around in a "yes, but!" world where every selection can be answered with a solid rebuttal. Take Howard for instance--fine corps commander in the west but checkered AoP. Hooker is another example.
Lay down a template for "rate" and we can get that top two and argue about the rest.
The only criteria I laid out originally was performance with the Army of the Potomac and not with other armies or campaigns (I included Pope's army & Sheridan's army with the AoP).

Beyond that, I'm not really sure how to set criteria. Here is what I think, but I am open to other views....

1. Ability to tactically control the number of men in a corps, or ability to command men beyond his eyesight.

2. Ability to obey orders, but also

3. Ability to act independently and make independent decisions apart from the army commander but within the army commander's general directions.

4. Ability to look after/care for the men under his command.

5. Ability to give good advice to the army commander when necessary/when solicited.

6. Ability to work in conjunction with his fellow corps commanders.

7. Not to intrigue against fellow corps commanders or the army commander.
 
Vote Here:
Beyond that, I'm not really sure how to set criteria. Here is what I think, but I am open to other views....

1. Ability to tactically control the number of men in a corps, or ability to command men beyond his eyesight.

2. Ability to obey orders, but also

3. Ability to act independently and make independent decisions apart from the army commander but within the army commander's general directions.

4. Ability to look after/care for the men under his command.

5. Ability to give good advice to the army commander when necessary/when solicited.

6. Ability to work in conjunction with his fellow corps commanders.

7. Not to intrigue against fellow corps commanders or the army commander.

I think that's an excellent set of criteria though it would be incredibly long winded to try and do that for every commander. However as an example we could take General Slocum who I mentioned earlier and examine him against this.

Therefore my (probably biased) opinion would be:

1. Reasonable. Certainly he appears to have been viewed as dependable enough by his commanders.

2. Pretty good when given a direct order. (but see 3)

3. Variable but poor on occasion - for exmple in the run up to Gettysburg and his refusal to 'march to the sound of the guns' probably due to reasons of seniority and lack of clear orders.

4. Apparently adequate enough

5. No real complaints here for example during the various Gettysburg councils of war.

6. Varies. Usually adequate but can be prickly over issues of Seniority

7. On this one he fails... then again many (most?) of the AOP corps commanders also do...

So, not the greatest... but far from the worst...
 
Vote Here:
Nice analysis, and why he is not in my top 5. The same for Hooker, who could easily be top 5:

1. Yes, I think, although his performance at Antietam could have been better here I also think.

2. Pretty good when commanding a corps.

3. Pretty good here too.

4. Yes, although the evidence is greater from his time as army commander. His men certainly appreciated him, though.

5. Ok, although it's unclear how much he was consulted until Fredricksburg. At Fredricksburg it's hard to separate his opposition to his commander from his opposition to his commander's poor plan.

6. Debatable

7. Fails

I think that's an excellent set of criteria though it would be incredibly long winded to try and do that for every commander. However as an example we could take General Slocum who I mentioned earlier and examine him against this.

Therefore my (probably biased) opinion would be:

1. Reasonable. Certainly he appears to have been viewed as dependable enough by his commanders.

2. Pretty good when given a direct order. (but see 3)

3. Variable but poor on occasion - for exmple in the run up to Gettysburg and his refusal to 'march to the sound of the guns' probably due to reasons of seniority and lack of clear orders.

4. Apparently adequate enough

5. No real complaints here for example during the various Gettysburg councils of war.

6. Varies. Usually adequate but can be prickly over issues of Seniority

7. On this one he fails... then again many (most?) of the AOP corps commanders also do...

So, not the greatest... but far from the worst...
 
Vote Here:
I would think the best Corps Commanders are: Hancock, Reynolds, Meade, Warren, Williams, Sumner, Hooker and Wright. I know Williams was only a temporary Corps Commander, but he knew how to fight a Corps. There are many others one could choose, but these are the ones I like.
 
Vote Here:
I have zero argument with your top five, Andy, except I might replace Sumner with Hooker,
.
Hooker was an ace time and again as a corp commander. People can and often do say he lost his nerve at Chancelorville, yet, many people are also saying he encountered bad luck and poor and/or disloyal corp commanders. The shell that caught the post was not a minor issue. He was concussed and he was incoherent for most of that day. After a concussion people are often not right for weeks or months. Prior to the shell, he still had a solid plan. His plan was as thoroughly thought out as anything Mac had presented.

Subsequently, his problems involved the loss of his Generals more than poor command decisions. I dont think Lincoln wanted to let him go, he was dragged down that road by his advisors.

Lincoln to this point was acting like an armchair or monday morning quarterback. He was very intelligent and a quick study but he thought he knew way more than he did - you are not going to learn in a year the knowledge other intelligent men have dedicated their lives to for 30 years...

Lincoln goading Meade to attack after Gettysburg is illustrative. If Meade had attacked on the Rappahanick. Lee was entrench and would have beat him to a pulp....But Lincoln insisted this would have ended the war.
 
Vote Here:
From March 1862 to April 1864, here is the list of permanent infantry corps commanders

1st Corps : McDowell / Hooker / Reynolds / Newton (dissolved)
2nd Corps : Sumner / Couch / Hancock / Warren / Hancock
3rd Corps : Heintzelman / Stoneman / Sickles / French (dissolved)
4th Corps : Keyes (dissolved)
5th Corps : Porter / Butterfield / Meade / Sykes / Warren
6th Corps : Franklin / W. F. Smith / Sedgwick
9th Corps : Burnside / Reno / Burnside
11th Corps : Sigel / Howard (sent West)
12th Corps : Banks / Mansfield / Slocum (sent West)

*For me, corps commanders can be listed into four or five "generations" :
- 1st = beginning in the Peninsula Campaign and the Seven Days Battles
- 2nd = beginning in the Northern Virginia Campaign and Maryland Campaign
- 3rd = beginning in Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville and Gettysburg
- 4th = beginning in the Bristoe Campaign, Mine Run Campaign and Overland Campaign
- 5th (if needed) = beginning in the Siege of Petersburg and Appomattox Campaign


1) BEST OF ALL

Hancock
(Gettysburg / Overland Campaign / Siege of Petersburg) :
By far the best among all, he can handle large formations of troops. At Gettysburg, he achieved his best performance when assuming wing command.

2) SKILLED COMMANDERS (TAKING INITIATIVE)

Hooker
(Maryland Campaign) :
He had his flaws but was nevertheless a good tactician. Prone to intrigue, he appears as a competent subordinate during the battle of
South Mountain but acted quite independently at Antietam, runining some opportunities for McClellan's battleplan.

Sedgwick (Chancellorsville / Gettysburg / Bristoe Campaign / Mine Run Campaign / Overland Campaign) :
Uncle John was a trusty commander, perhaps slow in action but he possessed the needed determination to challenge any ennemy without fear. He also acted quite well as a semi-independant commander at 2nd Fredericksburg.

Warren (Bristoe Campaign / Mine Run Campaign / Overland Campaign / Siege of Petersburg) :
When acting as newly promoted corps commander, he was a great subordinate under Meade during the Fall campaigns of Bristoe Station and Mine Run, acting quickly but also cautiously to prevent any opportunity for Lee. He appears as the best officer of what I've called the "fourth generation" of corps commanders*.

3) COMPETENT COMMANDERS

Couch
(Fredericksburg / Chancellorsville) :
He seemed to possess amazing tactical skills but unfortunately he didn't had the opportunity to show them. Proud, often sick because of his frail health, Couch was an reliable division commander and proved as trusty as a corps commander at Fredericksburg.

Meade (Chancellorsville) :
Considered a trusty commander by his peers, Meade is a skilled tactician, respected by his men. I chose to put him in this category because of his realistic views about the missed opportunities of the Chancellorsville Campaign while he didn't really fought as a corps commander during the battle (even at Antietam, his role was minor because the action was nearly over for the 1st Corps). His performance at division level is unquestioned (he was the only succesfull division commander at Fredericksburg).

Porter (Seven Days Battles / Second Manassas / Maryland Campaign) :
An outstanding defensive fighter, Porter was a good subordinate under McClellan (his friend) but his animosity against Pope ruined his career, even when he acted diligently and competently during the Northern Virginia Campaign, preventing a complete disaster for Pope's Army of Virginia. He could have been useful at Fredericksburg and he wasn't as cautious as everybody seems to think (and yes, he is one of my favorite commanders of the whole war).

Reno (Northern Virginia Campaign / Maryland Campaign) :
Another example of promising officer killed too soon, Reno was a very good subordinate at 2nd Manassas and South Mountain, rallying his men on the front line. His effectiveness could be debated but for me, his skills at corps level are unquestioned.

Reynolds (Fredericksburg / Chancellorsville / Gettysburg) :
He never was in full command of his corps in action, acting elsewhere at Fredericksburg and not reinforcing Meade at the crucial moment (although Franklin was half-responsible). At Gettysburg, he was the determining factor for launching a great scale battle while his corps wasn't totally on the battlefield.
So Reynolds appears as a guy with good tactical abilities but not able to manage his full command in battle, quite independent and perhaps hothead in action, beloved by his men, by his peers and by his superiors. He performed well at the division level but I don't understand that everybody seems to admire him for the skills he never really showed.
Nevertheless, according to me, he still a good commander and he was charismatic.

Slocum (Fredericksburg / Chancellorsville / Gettysburg) :
Also one of my favorites, Slocum can handle capably large formations including several corps, as he did at Gettysburg the 1st and 3rd days. An excellent division commander, his corps command record is more mixed but he still be a competent leader, such as Sedgwick, but he was at his best in the Western Theater, during the battle of Bentonville for example.

Sumner (Peninsula Campaign / Seven Days Battles / Maryland Campaign) :
Old Bull Sumner had some qualities as a corps commander but wasn't a good tactician, he acted promptly and effectively when asked but may fail to see an opportunity in action. At Seven Pines, he saved the Army but at Antietam, he performed quite poorly because of his inability to take tactical initiative. Nevertheless, he still a well-respected commander and trusty subordinate for almost every army commander.

4) AVERAGE COMMANDERS (AT LEAST, ONE QUALITY)

Butterfield
(Fredericksburg) :
Not enough field service to allow skills rating.

Banks (Valley Campaign / Northern Virginia Campaign) :
A bold commander, Banks had several opportnities to show his abilities in action. Twice he confronted Jackson and twice he had numerical inferiority. No need to develop. Even if he performed badly in the Red River Campaign, I think he could have been a competent corps commander in the East (perhaps staying in reserve).

Burnside (Maryland Campaign / Overland Campaign / Siege of Petersburg) :
He made fatal blows but achieved incredible success in minor operations. While Burnside seems the perfect scapegoat for military disaster at the Crater, let's not forget he shared the responsability with Grant and Meade. And he was able to defeat Longstreet, one of the best confederate commanders of the war, at Knoxville ! Unfortunately, he wasn't very good as a subordinate on direct offensive actions but he performed well in defensive actions and in independent commands (his skills could have been used more cleverly by his superiors).

McDowell (Valley Campaign / Northern Virginia Campaign) :
One of the most unlucky commanders of the war, McDowell seemed to have possessed some tactical qualities but wasn't well respected by his men and wasn't used efficiently by his superiors to allow his skills rating.

Mansfield (Maryland Campaign) :
His first field action was also his last, he appeared as a bold commander with a lack of tactical skills.

Sickles (Chancellorsville / Gettysburg) :
A very bold commander, Dan Sickles fortunately ruined Lee's plan at Gettysburg, 2nd Day, when he deliberately disobeyed an order from Meade and marched his 3rd Corps to the Peach Orchard. At Chancellorsville, he was among the first to discover Jackson's flank attack but misunderstood the move. Sickles was perhaps the contrary of Sumner, his superiors could not trust him but he was able to take promising initiative, creating opportunities for the rest of the army or cancelling actions for the ennemy troops.

Sigel (Northern Virginia Campaign / Fredericksburg) :
He was a very bad tactician, everybody agrees about this statement. But he was beloved by his men, seemed to have be a competent artillerist and managed quite well logistic problems for the troops he commanded. Not as bad as others, and very useful commander to keep morale for the troops.

W. F. Smith (Fredericksburg) :
An overcautious commander, Smith was unable to achieve a decisive attack against ennemy position but seemed to have some skills in defense and mostly on logistical issues (see the Cracker Line at Chattanooga).

Sykes (Gettysburg / Bristoe Campaign / Mine Run) :
One of my favorite officers, Sykes commanded the regular regiments as a division commander, and he appeared to be a very reliable commander in defense, counter-attack and retreating actions. At the corps level, his role was overshadowed by other of his peers, such as Hancock, Sickles, Sedgwick or Slocum. He wasn't bold enough and couldn't take any initiative in battle, except obeying to orders with great competence.

5) POOR COMMANDERS (NO QUALITY)

Franklin
(Seven Days Battles / Maryland Campaign) :
One of McClellan's favorites, Franklin was a bad corps commander, unable to follow direct orders in battle. As a subordinate, he was slow, overcautious and prone to intrigue against his superiors. He could have been useful as a staff officer but not in a field command.

Heintzelman (Peninsula Campaign / Seven Days Battles / Northern Days Battles) :
An old army officer, Heintzelman had no quality as a corps commander. His reputation was overshadowed by his subordinates (Hooker and Kearny), and he didn't achieved any decisive success (nor any blunder) during his service. As a garrison officer, he could have been of better use at Harper's Ferry than Dixon Miles.

Howard (Chancellorsville / Gettysburg) :
While he was a competent corps commander in the West, Howard failed twice in the East at the head of the 11th Corps, dissimulating his own flaws by accusing his peers and his subordinates (Doubleday at Gettysburg). He should have stayed at the division level longer than he actually did, to improve and perform better.

Keyes (Peninsula Campaign / Seven Days Battles) :
Same as Franklin, except that nobody seems to like him, Keyes had no military quality at that level. He could have been a good garrison commander such as Heintzelman at the head of the 22nd Corps.
 
Vote Here:
I've forgot Newton and French.

Newton seems an excellent defensive division commander but his corps performance is quite inexistant for he was little involved in battle during Bristoe Campaign or Mine Run Campaign (put him in Average Commanders)

French could be put in the Poor Commanders category, Meade wasn't satisfied by his performance and, such as Newton, he was little involved in battles before being put away.
 
Vote Here:
I would argue the real problem is slightly before this during the formation of the Army of the Potomac in the aftemath of 1st Bull Run. While perfectly happy to assign divisional commands McClellan seemed unwilling to create Corps, this a major cause of friction with Stanton and Lincoln (as per Swinton and others). Supposedly McClellan claimed this was because he didnt yet know enough about his various divisional commanders, he therefore unable to say who would be best in such a roll.

Choosing corps commanders was a concern, but there was no question at that point that corps needed to be established and commanders assigned. The AofP had ten, maybe twelve divisions, too many for an army commander to control directly along with his other responsibilities - even one like McClellan who thought "I can do it all". Sometimes you just have to make your best choice based on what you know at the time.
 
Vote Here:
Here are my opinions:

FIRST CORPS
1.Joseph Hooker: Did very well at South Mountain and Antietam.
2. John Reynolds: I would argue that Reynolds and Hooker are 1 and 1a. Reynolds was average at best at Fredericksburg (although no one came out of that disaster looking good except Meade) but acted decisively and creditably at Gettysburg and died at the apex of his career.
3. John Newton: Took command from Abner Doubleday at Gettysburg but did very little after that. The epitome of "meh".
4. Irvin McDowell: Probably should not have been in field command.

SECOND CORPS
1. Winfield S. Hancock: The cream of the crop. Did extraordinarily at Gettysburg and did well in 1864 but his Gettysburg wound took a lot out of him and he simply wasn't the same after July 1863.
2. Darius N. Couch: Did ok at Fredericksburg (about as well as could be expected) and did very well at Chancellorsville.
3. Gouverneur K. Warren: Performed admirably in the autumn of 1863.
4. Andrew A. Humphreys: Did well at the end of the war.
5. Edwin V. Sumner: He probably gave the corps its characteristic tenacity, bravery, and aggressiveness. That said, he was not a very good field officer unless one wants to slam heads.
6. William Hays: There's a reason that Meade relieved him for an engineer.

THIRD CORPS
1. Daniel E. Sickles: If nothing else, he was aggressive and his men loved him. He and Heintzelman are 1 and 1a.
2. Samuel P. Heintzelman: Competent. He was lucky to have division commanders such as Fitz John Porter, Joseph Hooker, and Philip Kearny.
3. George Stoneman: Was average at best.
4. William H. French: Was a poor corps commander at best.

FOURTH CORPS
1. Erasmus Keyes: He wins by default.

FIFTH CORPS
1. Fitz John Porter: Outside of Meade, clearly the best of the lot.
2. George G. Meade: The only knock against Meade is that he never really led the corps into battle since the Fifth Corps was not engaged at Chancellorsville.
3. George Sykes: The definition of average. No real highs, no real lows.
4. Gouverneur K. Warren: He was competent but had some real issues in the Overland Campaign.
5. Daniel Butterfield: Commanded at Fredericksburg but didn't do much

SIXTH CORPS
1. John Sedgwick: Beloved by everyone and did well just about everywhere.
2. Horatio G. Wright: A very good commander in 1864-65.
3. William F. Smith: Ably commanded the corps in late 1862-early 1863.
4. William Franklin: Did well in the summer of 1862 but much less well as the year wore on. Very poorly at Crampton's Gap and Fredericksburg.

ELEVENTH CORPS
1. Oliver O. Howard: A better than average commander but had some lows.
2. Franz Sigel: Not a competent commander.

TWELTH CORPS
1. Henry W. Slocum: Capable but not great.
2. Nathaniel P. Banks: Competent at best.
3. Joseph Mansfield: He commanded the corps for about 5 minutes under fire before he was shot and mortally wounded. We'll give him an incomplete.

CAVALRY CORPS
1. Philip H. Sheridan: Very capable but too aggressive for his own good and couldn't get along with Meade.
2. Alfred Pleasonton: A political general who was competent at best.
3. George Stoneman: Not particularly capable in early 1863.

Ryan
 
Last edited:
Vote Here:
FIRST CORPS
1.Joseph Hooker: Did very well at South Mountain and Antietam.
2. John Reynolds: I would argue that Reynolds and Hooker are 1 and 1a. Reynolds was average at best at Fredericksburg (although no one came out of that disaster looking good except Meade) but acted decisively and creditably at Gettysburg and died at the apex of his career.
3. John Newton: Took command from Abner Doubleday at Gettysburg but did very little after that. The epitome of "meh".
4. Irvin McDowell: Probably should not have been in field command.

1. Joseph Hooker : the most capable commander of this corps. He should have stayed longer at that command level but should have been placed in command of the 3rd Corps instead of the 1st (my opinion).

2. John F. Reynolds : very charismatic officer, perhaps not as good as everybody thinks, but still a competent commander. I prefer having him in command rather than McDowell.

3a. Abner Doubleday : if Doubleday could be put on the list, I'll will chose him immediately before Newton.

3b. John Newton : good entrencher, few occasions to show his skills.

4. Irvin McDowell : a competetnt tactician but an unlucky and not well-loved commander.

The next will follow.
 
Vote Here:
Back
Top