You’re Fired

[Sheltowee]

We've all read them. The ol' ball coach gets fired after three dismal seasons. The college issues the obligatory statement- reads like a form letter. Contains all the mandatory phrases- "we thank Coach for his inspired dedication to the program"….."we feel now is the time to take our program in a new direction"…… "we wish Coach all success in his future endeavors". Blah blah blah.

I guess the objective is to part ways in the speediest and most civilized manner.

Relieving a general of command is likely very different. The army is often not too concerned with someone's ego, or future career aspirations. Especially after a bungled job costed many lives.

But I'm sure there are notable exceptions. Are there some examples where an army commander offered up some high praise and encouragement for the guy he was booting? What's the softest firing of the ACW?

 

[C. Cash]

Maybe Wade Hampton replacing Joe Wheeler at the final stages of the War? Wheeler just seems to have pulled up his big boy pants and asked what his orders were. I like Wheeler despite his faults so I am biased....ha!

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Interesting question.

Have not personally come across any records of specific dialogues between an Army commander and a subordinate commander during the Civil War, where the subject was dismissal (booting).

In my view, the mode of any such termination procedure would depend on factors like:-

. personalities of both the commanders involved;

. background setting where it occurred; &

. perceived reasons for making the decision.

Reckon a praiseworthy gentle approach might have likely been adopted by Lee, if he dealt directly with a subordinate to dismiss or transfer him.

 

[Sheltowee]

Interesting question.

Have not personally come across any records of specific dialogues between an Army commander and a subordinate commander during the Civil War, where the subject was dismissal (booting).

In my view, the mode of any such termination procedure would depend on factors like:-

. personalities of both the commanders involved;

. background setting where it occurred; &

. perceived reasons for making the decision.

Reckon a praiseworthy gentle approach might have likely been adopted by Lee, if he directly spoke or wrote to a subordinate to dismiss or transfer him.

I guess if he wasn't a complete disaster, the War Department may offer an alternative command. Seems I've seen some instances?

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I guess if he wasn't a complete disaster, the War Department may offer an alternative command. Seems I've seen some instances?

Yes. Such transfers were more likely for the politically connected Generals (and Colonels) relieved of command. Examples that readily come to mind are Alfred Iverson, Edward O'Neal and Theophilus Holmes.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Mansfield Lovell was a notable exceptional case. He was criticized (justifiably, in my view) for inaction at New Orleans and Second Corinth and relieved of command. Lovell was cleared of incompetence by a Court of Inquiry midway through the war, but was never again given a command assignment.

 

[A. Roy]

Yes. Such transfers were more likely for the politically connected Generals relieved of command. Examples that readily come to mind are Edward O'Neill, Alfred Iverson and Theophilus Holmes.

I had thought about the example of Iverson and how he was dealt with after his brigade's purported debacle at Gettysburg. In the Official Records, Lee's orders are pretty neutral and succinct. Special Orders No. 175 and 178 both appear in OR, Chapter 27, Part 3.

In No. 175 (page 1016), Lee writes on 16 July 1863 (via his Asst Adjutant-General W.H. Taylor):

"Brig. Gen. Alfred Iverson, Provisional Army, C. S., is relieved from duty with this army, and will report to the Adjutant and Inspector General, C. S. Army, Richmond, Va., for orders."

However, only three days later, Lee revoked that order in No. 178 (page 1027):

"Paragraph IV, Special Orders, No. 175, current series, from these headquarters, is hereby revoked, and Brig. Gen. Iverson will report to Lieut. Gen. R . S. Ewell, commanding Second Corps, for assignment to the temporary command of Nicholls' brigade, Johnson's division."

Later Iverson was transferred out of the ANV and over to home guard forces in Georgia, then to the Army of Tennessee.

I guess these OR excerpts don't really say much about Lee's thinking, but Ewell's staff officer Campbell Brown implied that Iverson got off easy because of political connections. In his journal, he referred to "the well-known cowardly behavior of Iverson, for which he was relieved at once & sent back to await trial -- but being forwarded to Richmond, got off scot-free & had a brigade of reserves given him in Georgia." ("Campbell Brown's Civil War," page 207)

I think many researchers have concluded that Lee let Iverson off the hook, but definitely didn't want him around anymore.

Roy B.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Thanks for the detailed information. Knew that Lee was not impressed with either Iverson or O'Neal, after Gettysburg. Thought he did want anything to do with them. Apparently, Colonel O'Neal's appointment to B-G was held up by Lee, and the promotion was actually canceled by Davis.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

I had thought about the example of Iverson and how he was dealt with after his brigade's purported debacle at Gettysburg. In the Official Records, Lee's orders are pretty neutral and succinct. Special Orders No. 175 and 178 both appear in OR, Chapter 27, Part 3.

In No. 175 (page 1016), Lee writes on 16 July 1863 (via his Asst Adjutant-General W.H. Taylor):

"Brig. Gen. Alfred Iverson, Provisional Army, C. S., is relieved from duty with this army, and will report to the Adjutant and Inspector General, C. S. Army, Richmond, Va., for orders."

However, only three days later, Lee revoked that order in No. 178 (page 1027):

"Paragraph IV, Special Orders, No. 175, current series, from these headquarters, is hereby revoked, and Brig. Gen. Iverson will report to Lieut. Gen. R . S. Ewell, commanding Second Corps, for assignment to the temporary command of Nicholls' brigade, Johnson's division."

Later Iverson was transferred out of the ANV and over to home guard forces in Georgia, then to the Army of Tennessee.

I guess these OR excerpts don't really say much about Lee's thinking, but Ewell's staff officer Campbell Brown implied that Iverson got off easy because of political connections. In his journal, he referred to "the well-known cowardly behavior of Iverson, for which he was relieved at once & sent back to await trial -- but being forwarded to Richmond, got off scot-free & had a brigade of reserves given him in Georgia." ("Campbell Brown's Civil War," page 207)

I think many researchers have concluded that Lee let Iverson off the hook, but definitely didn't want him around anymore.

Roy B.

Think one can read between the lines to determine what Lee's attitude to both Iverson and O'Neal might have been post Gettysburg.

Iverson's lack of leadership and the destruction of his North Carolina Brigade at Gettysburg was the low point in his military career. This disastrous result earned for him the disdain of the men that survived. Apparently, Lee wanted nothing more to do with him after Gettysburg. He was immediately removed from combat command and later that same year (1863) he was transferred from the Army of Northern Virginia to Georgia to organize local troops there. During the Atlanta Campaign in the following year (1864), he commanded a cavalry Brigade under Wheeler. At the end of the war(1865), he was supposedly stationed as a local garrison commander in North Carolina.

O'Neal too, displayed a lack of leadership of his Alabama Brigade at Gettysburg which resulted in his attack being repulsed with fairly high losses. His reputation as a Brigade commander was permanently damaged at Gettysburg. It caused Lee to make some firm decisions about O'Neal. O'Neal's appointment to Brigadier-General on June 6, 1863, was held up by Lee and subsequently canceled by Davis (probably on Lee's recommendation). He was transferred initially to regimental (and later Brigade) command in the Army of Tennessee during the Atlanta Campaign, from early June, 1864 to September, 1864. Afterwards, he was relieved of command and undertook detached recruiting duties for the Army of Tennessee until the end of the war.

Think it's reasonable to conclude from the course of these events that following Gettysburg, Lee's interventions and influences might have changed the career directions for the worst, of both these underperforming Brigade commanders.

 

[Sheltowee]

I had thought about the example of Iverson and how he was dealt with after his brigade's purported debacle at Gettysburg. In the Official Records, Lee's orders are pretty neutral and succinct. Special Orders No. 175 and 178 both appear in OR, Chapter 27, Part 3.

In No. 175 (page 1016), Lee writes on 16 July 1863 (via his Asst Adjutant-General W.H. Taylor):

"Brig. Gen. Alfred Iverson, Provisional Army, C. S., is relieved from duty with this army, and will report to the Adjutant and Inspector General, C. S. Army, Richmond, Va., for orders."

However, only three days later, Lee revoked that order in No. 178 (page 1027):

"Paragraph IV, Special Orders, No. 175, current series, from these headquarters, is hereby revoked, and Brig. Gen. Iverson will report to Lieut. Gen. R . S. Ewell, commanding Second Corps, for assignment to the temporary command of Nicholls' brigade, Johnson's division."

Later Iverson was transferred out of the ANV and over to home guard forces in Georgia, then to the Army of Tennessee.

I guess these OR excerpts don't really say much about Lee's thinking, but Ewell's staff officer Campbell Brown implied that Iverson got off easy because of political connections. In his journal, he referred to "the well-known cowardly behavior of Iverson, for which he was relieved at once & sent back to await trial -- but being forwarded to Richmond, got off scot-free & had a brigade of reserves given him in Georgia." ("Campbell Brown's Civil War," page 207)

I think many researchers have concluded that Lee let Iverson off the hook, but definitely didn't want him around anymore.

Roy B.

Thanks A. Roy and Nathan Stuart.

Don't know how many removals Lee conducted in the war. Very business- like approach…. Fitting of Lee's demeanor.

The reversal- besides political considerations, is it possible that Iverson was briefly retained due to urgent need?

Is there any history that he met with Iverson personally? Or did Lee make such recommendations based on feedback from division/ corps commanders?

 

[A. Roy]

Is there any history that he met with Iverson personally? Or did Lee make such recommendations based on feedback from division/ corps commanders?

I'm not aware that Lee had any personal contact with Iverson after Gettysburg, but there are folks who know a lot more about Iverson than I do. It would be interesting to know whether in fact the two ever did meet face-to-face after that, and what transpired. I think received wisdom is that Lee was disgusted and just didn't want to have anything to do with Iverson, who hung back and failed to advance with his brigade, letting them walk into a trap.
Roy B.