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.