 |
|  |
 |
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999 time: 23:25
|
|
"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."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote: 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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote: 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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick
My dad, who is 82 and in the next room singing hymns... and I would gleefully kill as many Yankees as I could. I will go to my grave hating. And for an eternity spit north in Hell, if I can summon any spittle.
|
Wow! That is so cool! Surely even you must concede that that is the place you are most likely bound for. If your Dad is just like you you can tell him to stop singing as it isn't going to do him one bit of good.
I'd give you your precious Confederacy back if I could, minus the slaves of course. You should bear in mind that most likely it would be a pariah nation, cut off from the world, with a resultant economy roughly on a par with North Korea's.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999 time: 23:25
|
|
The Union generals, I think are vastly underrated. They didn't have anyone that could match match Lee, Jackson, Stuart, or Longstreet tactically, but many of them were exceptionally talented, particularly Sherman who probably was the most brilliant general, in strategic terms, in the whole war.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SlowwHand
Yes, that's constructive and informing.
Thank you for that input, Sawbones. |
Well what did you expect as a response to that little diatribe of hate speech?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999 time: 21:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov
While that's nice conjecture, you'll have to produce some statistics for me to believe them and then explain why they contradict the official records of the states, and why I should believe one over the other. |
I referred you to the source, you can look 'em up. I've got work to do.
quote: And excuse me, MtG, but AFAIK, it is southern apologists who favor the "monolithic south" argument by asserting none of the Southern states fought over slavery. All these documents show is that, yes, many of them did. It is in no way indicative of a universal mindset. |
I've heard many pro-southern speakers and writers say that slavery wasn't the exclusive reason, or the main reason, but I've yet to hear any of them say it was not a reason at all for any southerners. And the monolithic south crap has been spouted in Yankee history textbooks for years, because (one would assume) they don't like to look at the notion that more moderate states had significant enough concerns about the expansion of Federal power assumed by Lincoln.
quote: It seems to me folks like you |
"Those people" seems a little more to the point. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|