Can We Have A Civil Discussion About The War Between The States ?

[SlowwHand]

"Hooker himself was stunned by an artillery shell which struck a column that he was leaning against on the porch of the his headquarters at the Chancellor house. He and his army were bundled back across the Rappahannock River, and Lee had won one his most brilliant but costly victories.

Hooker remained in command of the army, but was relieved while leading the army northwards to counter Lee’s offensive in the early stages of the Gettysburg Campaign. General Meade replaced him and commanded the army on the field at Gettysburg.

Following the Union defeat at Chickamauga he was sent with the 11th and 12th Corps to reinforce the Army of the Cumberland at Chattanooga. Units under his command assaulted and took Lookout Mountain, and contributed significantly to the overall Union success at Missionary Ridge.

Hooker commanded the 20th Corps capably with Sherman during the Atlanta Campaign, but again made himself personally unpopular with his peers and superiors. After McPherson was killed and Howard was given command of the Army of the Tennessee, a position that Hooker felt he should have received, he asked for be relieved. His request was promptly granted, and Sherman was glad to be rid of him.

He finished out the war in the quiet command of the Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois sector. He was mustered out of the volunteers in September of 1866.

Always popular with his men, he lost the confidence of his subordinate officers and was invariably quarrelsome with his superiors. Many Army of the Potomac's officers came to resent Hooker, Dan Butterfield, and Dan Sickles turning the headquarters of the army into a bordello after Hooker assumed command of the army. The term “hooker” was coined to describe the prostitutes that reputably followed the army when he was in command."

[SlowwHand]

I hate Sherman.

The South had the best leadership, hands down.
I'll always maintain, manpower and manufacturing.
That beats agriculture and pride any day.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Lincoln had to contend with politics that Davis did not. Naming a head commander for the entire army isn't simply a matter of choosing--one has to consider seniority and political standing. He couldn't afford to be riling his own generals.

His choice of McClellan was very smart from an organizational standpoint. Who was to know the man wouldn't fight? Then Lincoln was stuck with him until after the elections, because to remove him would have seemed like an attempt to undermine McClellan's presidential campaign. So once the Great Northern Turtle was no longer a political threat, his butt was on the curb.

Both Lincoln and Davis had political issues and I can't really say which was the most limited in what they could do. But you err slightly on McClellan who had his troops removed once and was sacked permanently prior to becoming a presidential candidate.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Both Lincoln and Davis had political issues and I can't really say which was the most limited in what they could do. But you err slightly on McClellan who had his troops removed once and was sacked permanently prior to becoming a presidential candidate.

Yes, it was the congressional midterm elections of 1862. Lincoln had to wait until he could be sure of the Republicans keeping control of Congress. Pissing off the loyal Democrats, who might then gain control of Congress, wouldn't have been prudent, either.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hate Sherman.

Just because he kicked your asses is no reason to hate someone .

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
"Hooker himself was stunned by an artillery shell which struck a column that he was leaning against on the porch of the his headquarters at the Chancellor house. He and his army were bundled back across the Rappahannock River, and Lee had won one his most brilliant but costly victories.

Hooker remained in command of the army, but was relieved while leading the army northwards to counter Lee’s offensive in the early stages of the Gettysburg Campaign. General Meade replaced him and commanded the army on the field at Gettysburg.

Following the Union defeat at Chickamauga he was sent with the 11th and 12th Corps to reinforce the Army of the Cumberland at Chattanooga. Units under his command assaulted and took Lookout Mountain, and contributed significantly to the overall Union success at Missionary Ridge.

Hooker commanded the 20th Corps capably with Sherman during the Atlanta Campaign, but again made himself personally unpopular with his peers and superiors. After McPherson was killed and Howard was given command of the Army of the Tennessee, a position that Hooker felt he should have received, he asked for be relieved. His request was promptly granted, and Sherman was glad to be rid of him.

He finished out the war in the quiet command of the Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois sector. He was mustered out of the volunteers in September of 1866.

Always popular with his men, he lost the confidence of his subordinate officers and was invariably quarrelsome with his superiors. Many Army of the Potomac's officers came to resent Hooker, Dan Butterfield, and Dan Sickles turning the headquarters of the army into a bordello after Hooker assumed command of the army. The term “hooker” was coined to describe the prostitutes that reputably followed the army when he was in command."

I hate to continue to disagree but I think Hooker's moves to counter Lee's march into Pennslyvania were deft and had placed the ANV in great danger. I believe Hooker would have done better at Gettysburg than Meade. Very few Federal commanders had every stolen a march on Lee, and with Stuart's difficulties Hooker had done just that.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hooker would have been more aggressive in Gettysburg than Meade, who was an excellant divisional and corp commander but too cautious to command the field.

In my opinion.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I hate Sherman.

Just because he kicked your asses is no reason to hate someone .

I'd rather have Sherman on my side than Nathan Bedford Forrest...

[Arrian]

From the standpoint of capability or political views, Boris?

NBF, if memory serves, was damn good at what he did during the war.

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

Why oh why. In any sort of even fight Forrest would have had Sherman's head on a pike.

To follow up on my post above, Meade, in the grand tradition of Federal commanders, failed to attack counterattack Lee despite the fact that he had two fresh and unbloodied corps, the 5th and the 6th, 20,000 men strong.

Sherman however was a true leader and a most dangerous foe. I am convinced that if we researched his background we would find some good southern blood mixed in with the toxic Yankee swill.

I don't know if Sherman's actions landed him in heaven or hell, but perchance I'll end up in the same plane of existance and will get a chance to take a poke at the bloke.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Arrian
From the standpoint of capability or political views, Boris?

NBF, if memory serves, was damn good at what he did during the war.

-Arrian

So was Sherman. Which one committed the most horrific atrocity, though?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I hate Sherman.

Just because he kicked your asses is no reason to hate someone .

Not exactly.
Grant took Vicksburg, and distributed food.
Sherman took Atlanta and others, and burned them.
Some difference there.

You get a lot less resistance when you "let them up easy".



And Boris , Forrest was an excellent general.

There were several Southern generals better than the Union had after Grant, and several better than Grant.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


I hate to continue to disagree but I think Hooker's moves to counter Lee's march into Pennslyvania were deft and had placed the ANV in great danger. I believe Hooker would have done better at Gettysburg than Meade. Very few Federal commanders had every stolen a march on Lee, and with Stuart's difficulties Hooker had done just that.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hooker would have been more aggressive in Gettysburg than Meade, who was an excellant divisional and corp commander but too cautious to command the field.

In my opinion.

I disagree, that I disagree.
I said I thought Hooker was decent.
When I went to look about the head thing, this is what I found.
The "hooker" part in particular I found interesting.
Trivia hound that I am.

[H Tower]

Grant didn't know much beyond keep fighting. His strategy, if you could call it that was to grab the enemy by the jacket and not let go.

[Arrian]

Grant took a look at the situation and realized that the South would lose a war of attrition. And then he set about fighting one.

-Arrian

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


I disagree, that I disagree.
I said I thought Hooker was decent.
When I went to look about the head thing, this is what I found.
The "hooker" part in particular I found interesting.
Trivia hound that I am.

I find it impossible to resist coming to the defense of a man that brought such fame to a profession that has provided mankind with so much comfort and cheer. Hooker proved that even a Yankee can have some redeeming qualities.