|
Post by rebcav on May 15, 2017 1:44:36 GMT
I believe it was in Sears' book "Chancellorsville" that after the wounding of Jackson, and then A.P. Hill getting hit, that Briadier General Robert Emmit Rodes was considered for command of Jackson's Corps, but A) he was a Brigadier and B) He wasn't well known to the troops. And MAYBE C) Not a West Point Grad. Stuart was put in command and handled himself and the Corps brilliantly. Kind of makes one wonder the "what if" had J.E.B. Stuart still been running said Corps those 3 Days in July, 1863. But alas, who would have commanded the Cavalry of THE Army of Northern Virginia? And how would a different commander (if one could be found) have changed the performance of the Cavalry of THE Army of Northern Virginia, and thus the course of the Gettysburg Campaign. Some crazy stuff to ponder on a Sunday Night. One thing is for sure, Jackson's wounding at Chancellorsville and subsequent death created a hole in THE Army of Northern Virginia that could not be filled. I believe it was Lee who said- "Any victory which costs Us the services of General Jackson; if eben for a short while, is a costly victory indeed." Marse Robert knew of which he spoke.
Headed offshore tomorrow, Hope this finds everyone well, Duane
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 15, 2017 14:46:27 GMT
I sort of disagree in that the loss of any one man, no matter how good, makes him irreplaceable. That is both speculative and subjective. Nevertheless Jackson's loss was a heavy blow.
What difference would Stuart in command of II Corps have made on Gettysburg. That is interesting speculation. I will offer only two thoughts on the matter for your post dive perusal Duane:
1) There probably would not have been a Brandy Station in that these brigades would have been off guarding the Rappahannock fords in strength instead of getting gussied up for a parade. Thus the Union cavalry would not be afforded the opportunity to take a peek at Lee's campaign preparations.
2) The decision to ride around the Union Army when Stuart's raiding brigades were confronted with them at Salem (now Marshall), Virginia would not be, I speculate, the same decision that a Hampton or Fitz Lee would have made. I think that both of these officers would have backtracked and returned, rejoining the screen line in the eastern mountain passes, probably then crossing the Potomac at White's or Point of Rocks and maintained the screen all the way into Pennsylvania.
I am also not that sure if the raiding enterprise would not have been stillborn had either Fitz Lee or Hampton objected. The job was to screen, not raid or even conduct a recon in force. Mosby had informed Stuart, as he also would have informed Fitz Lee or Hampton, of what the Union Army was doing. Everyone under the sun knew they were moving north parallel to Lee. What possible purpose could a raid or recon in force accomplish?
Rodes was an outstanding officer, but he was very junior, and jumping him up to corps command would have been unthinkable in the ANV. I do believe though he was an excellent candidate. Keep in mind though that it would have been greeted in the same manner as the police chief of Doodyville, being nominated for director of the FBI.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 15, 2017 15:42:08 GMT
QC I agree with your post to Reb Cav regarding the possible actions of Hampton and Lee if they had replaced Stuart. One thing I thought I would mention is the similarities between Hampton and Forrest who I know you care little for.
Both were: 1) Former slave owners who had no military training; 2) Natural leaders of men 3) Sound military strategists 4) Natural fighters 5) Promoted to LT Generals*
I am fully aware that you do not consider Forrest a cavalryman but rather a mounted infantryman but both men were very effective in fighting the Federals. Each of these men were involved in post war white supremacy organizations. Forrest was the Grand Wizard of the KKK and Hampton was part of the Red Shirts who ensured his election as Governor of South Carolina. I make no excuses for either man but they must be judged on the mores of the times not ours today. Regards Dave * The third man promoted to LT General without formal military was Richard Taylor
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 15, 2017 15:53:58 GMT
On a personal basis I like neither Hampton or Forrest. I have no use for either. On a professional basis though I think both were both outstanding officers and inspirational leaders.
Yes, you are correct I do not consider Forrest a cavalryman. I don't think of him as a mounted Infantryman either. I think of him as an early practitioner of combined arms, that integrated horse, foot, and guns into a completely functional combined arms team, and as such gave us a vision of the armored division that would come eighty years later. Wilson was another.
I am also convinced that Fitz Lee should have commanded the Cavalry Corps, ANV after Stuart's death, and the reason he did not and Hampton did was that he was also that Fitz was Robert's kinfolk
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2017 16:47:29 GMT
Forrest was a scoundrel. A dedicated white supremacist, he was a slaver who committed many war crimes. After the war he was a major leader in a terrorist group, responsible for hundreds of crimes.
But he was a decent officer in ACW, had better than average tactical skills, and decent operational skills. We can, and do, admire decent generals who are war criminals in Germany, so let's do the same in ACW.
The CSA had a mix of evil men in an evil cause, and decent men in an evil cause. As did the Germans in WW2. Some great books about WW2 involve how men like Lee, committed hundreds of crimes but convinced themselves it was other peoples fault. I assume all here know that during ACW Lee kidnapped and enslaved thousands of free blacks, on his own initiative. Germany was run by evil folks 1936-1945, the USA was run by their fellow travelers from 1776-1964.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 15, 2017 17:23:34 GMT
I agree about the CSA, and Germany 33-45. Good men sometimes do get caught up in and absorbed into what is at its core evil.
The Rights of the States are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. That in itself is not evil, but if one reads the statements made by the majority of the States that attempted to leave the Union, the only states right they were concerned with was the institution of human bondage, chattel slavery, which is itself evil. The statement made by Texas is particularly appalling in this regard. There was no Simon-Peter in the confederacy, and the church of the confederacy was built upon sand, not rock.
I do not agree with the statement about the USA as a whole.
I think it would be better said that the USA has been embroiled in a struggle between basic good, and what is basically evil starting with the Second Continental Congress and continuing to this very day. The course of that struggle has been very gradually one that favors the good, but that general course is very fragile and could change by noon time today. The only weapon to guard against evil is the vigilance of good men. When you stop watching, it is game, set, match and evil wins every time.
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on May 15, 2017 20:45:39 GMT
QC I agree with your post to Reb Cav regarding the possible actions of Hampton and Lee if they had replaced Stuart. One thing I thought I would mention is the similarities between Hampton and Forrest who I know you care little for. Both were: 1) Former slave owners who had no military training; 2) Natural leaders of men 3) Sound military strategists 4) Natural fighters 5) Promoted to LT Generals* I am fully aware that you do not consider Forrest a cavalryman but rather a mounted infantryman but both men were very effective in fighting the Federals. Each of these men were involved in post war white supremacy organizations. Forrest was the Grand Wizard of the KKK and Hampton was part of the Red Shirts who ensured his election as Governor of South Carolina. I make no excuses for either man but they must be judged on the mores of the times not ours today. Regards Dave * The third man promoted to LT General without formal military was Richard Taylor Sir: You forgot the Confederate Answer to Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain- Lieutenant General John Brown Gordon(CSA) Promoted to Lieutenant General in 1865. "We will hold this position until the sun goes down or Victory is won" Then Brigadier General John Brown Gordon(CSA) to Major General D.H. Hill(CSA) regarding the former's position at the Sunken Lane during the Battle of Sharpsburg. General Gordon was wounded 5 times that day. And held his position. Pretty dang good soldiering. I think. The Sea was angry this morning, doing cocktails instead. Respectfully Submitted, Duane
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 15, 2017 21:05:34 GMT
Duane I am not purposely slighting John Brown Gordon but I am unaware of any documents that confirm his promotion to LT General. I am certainly not an expert in this matter and willing to be corrected. Stay safe with the angry waves! Regards Dave
PS Upon his death, Theodore Roosevelt said this about Brown
"A more gallant, generous, and fearless gentleman and soldier has not been seen by our country."
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on May 15, 2017 21:07:15 GMT
As I am married I have no access to any cash and would be befuddled if I did have any. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on May 15, 2017 21:42:09 GMT
Duane I am not purposely slighting John Brown Gordon but I am unaware of any documents that confirm his promotion to LT General. I am certainly not an expert in this matter and willing to be corrected. Stay safe with the angry waves! Regards Dave PS Upon his death, Theodore Roosevelt said this about Brown "A more gallant, generous, and fearless gentleman and soldier has not been seen by our country." Dave: I just did a quick search on General Gordon. According to Brittanica.com General Gordon was promoted to Lieutenant General sometime in early 1865. No offense was ever taken or considered, Brah. Have yourself a GREAT American Day and keep on Rockin'. Aloha, Duane
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 15, 2017 21:52:15 GMT
Gordon was never confirmed in any higher rank than Major General. His date of rank for that grade is 14 May 1864.
Like in the U S Army, general officers may be selected for promotion but if not confirmed by the Senate, the promotion itself is invalid.
In the U S Army Senate confirmation is required for Lieutenant Colonel and above. I had to wait nine months between selection and confirmation as an LTC, but the date of rank reverted to the date of selection. I think that may be slightly different for RA officers, but not all that much.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on May 15, 2017 23:09:45 GMT
According to Mark Mayo Boatner General Gordon never achieved Lt. General, his last rank was Maj. General, date of rank was 14 May '64, "The Civil War Dictionary."
|
|
|
Post by rebcav on May 16, 2017 0:14:47 GMT
Then please accept my apologies for the inaccurate post. I just did a quick check on Britannica.com. Should have looked further.
Gonna try it again tomorrow, hope the Sea co-operates. Aloha, Duane
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 16, 2017 2:23:44 GMT
Fair winds and following seas.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on May 16, 2017 10:54:36 GMT
Interesting stuff! One thing that I wonder about the Civil War is just how many guys actually had military training or experience. It seems to me that if you mobilise lots of guys but do not have lots of experienced leaders and other ranks, then there are going to be lots of ordinary decisions made. Is that a factor, particularly early on?
|
|