Joe Hooker's flip out.

[ThehosGendar]

Note to self - Don't tick off Joe Hooker. Do I sense some anger management issues?

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC
Camp near Falmouth, Va., April 23, 1863.

Hon. E.M. STANTON,
Secretary of War:

I see that Burnside’s stupid order, No. 8, has at last found its way into the newspapers. It causes me no regret, and would no one else if the character of the author was as well understood by them as myself. His moral degradation is unfathomable. My attention was first called to it by his statement under oath that I had expressed to him my approval of his refusal to let me cross the river on the march down from Warrenton in the transfer of our line of operations.

I had previously been informed of his cowardice at the first Bull Run, had witnessed his follies at South Mountain, heard of his blundering sacrifice of life at the bridge at Antietam, and felt the madness of the slaughter at Fredericksburg, but during all the time had given him credit for possessing common integrity.

Up to the hour of his departure from this army, he uniformly professed the warmest friendship for me – never uttered a word of complaint of my not having zealously supported him in all of his operations, myself, and my command.

In his order relinquishing command of this army, three days after the date of General Orders, No. 8, he speaks of me in terms of unusual praise, as will be remembered by all, and yet behind my back, assassin-like, is trying to stab.

It has, and still grieves me to reflect that my surroundings at this time are such that I cannot call him to account for his atrocities, swallow his words or face the music, before going into another fight. I like to feel easy at such times, with a same and character unclouded, and cannot bear to go into battle with the slanders of this wretch uncontradicted and the author of them unchastisted. He must swallow his words as soon as I am in a condition to address him, or I will hunt him to the ends of the earth.

His conduct toward others named in the order appears to have been no less treacherous and cowardly, for several of them were counting with a good deal of certainty on being made major-generals, on his assurance that he would use his influence to that end – this subsequent to the date of that order.

By his false swearing he has hitherto escaped the doom which awaits him. He has misled the investigating committee, and at no distant time the reverse and slaughter of Fredericksburg will be divided between him and no one else. The attack and mode of it were his, despite the advice, opinions, counsels, and protests of his grand division commanders. Where I went there was not one chance in twenty of succeeding. He alone is responsible.

I am now satisfied in my command was taken from me at the battle of Fredericksburg for the reason that the newspapers had connected my name with the command of the army, and that was also the reason he would not let me cross the river and march here on the south side of the Rappahannock.

To-day, from his own evidence, he cannot tell within 5 miles of where he intended to make his main attack on Fredericksburg, and has no other idea of the organization and government of an army than that of arranging it in a way that the commanding general will have nothing to do. The nearer the army reaches that point, the greater excellence in his estimation. In his opinion, this army had become tolerably good during his exercise of its command, and yet it was on the verge of dissolution; he did nothing and knew nothing of it.

We have had another severe storm to-day, and it is not over yet. I am thankful that the army is not on the road, for in no direction could I advance 3 miles a day in the present condition of the country.

Very respectfully, &c.,
JOSEPH HOOKER,
Major-General, Commanding.

(ORs, Series 1 - Volume 25 (Part II), pgs 855-856.)

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Don't hold back, Joe, tell us how you really feel!

[Dignann]

That's right, Joe. In just a few days time, you set your army in motion and vowed to show everyone how to fight a battle. How'd that work out for you?


GENERAL ORDERS No. 47.
HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC,
Camp near Falmouth, Va., April 30, 1863.

It is with heartfelt satisfaction the commanding general announces to the army that the operations of the last three days have determined that our enemy must either ingloriously fly, or come out from behind his defenses and give us battle on our own ground, where certain destruction awaits him.

The operations of the Fifth, Eleventh, and Twelfth Corps have been a succession of splendid achievements.

By command of Major-General Hooker
S. WILLIAMS,
Assistant Adjutant General.

(ORs, Series 1 - Volume 25 (Part I), page 171)


Eric

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Needless to say, most of us are aware that Fighting Joe and Ol' Burn never had a very good relationship. Remember that Burn accepted command of the Army of the Potomac in November 1862 only after the War Department courier told him that if he did not accept command it would go to Hooker, and so Burn took command--despite his doubts about his own ability to effectively command--simply because he loathed Hooker and desired to deny him command of the army.

Fightin' Joe picked fights with a lot of folks in the Civil War (meaning, from his own side), and must not have been a good person to be around. Another example is his feud with Henry Slocum (the topic of an article in a recent issue of Civil War Historian magazine). That said, despite his occasional blunders, he was, when you stack it up, a much more effective general overall than Burnside the Bumbler.

[billwatson]

Hooker was a pretty frustrated guy. He'd energetically done what he was asked to do, and watched good men die when his own superiors blundered. There is some reason to believe he jump started the fight at Williamsburg, impatient with McClellan's inertia. He personally supervised the rear guard action from Second Manassas, picking out regimental defensive positions himself. He was brave; he was effective; he had a fine plan for what we call the Chancellorsville campaign; he in fact won the campaign, still had unfought divisions and numerical superiority even after the 11th Corps debacle, just didn't know it. Had he simply stayed put, what would have happened? The post-11th Corps debacle assaults by the Confederates saw a great many ruined Confederate regiments, as fighting at the tactical level reverted to the usual defensive advantage after the reversal caused by Jackson's attack the previous day. I think he was one of the better Union generals.
It's amazing to me the amount of energy they put into their various scheming for advancement. In this particular letter he sounds almost obsessed by Burnside. Part of his frustration; we have all, probably, had to work for people we thought were doing the job worse than we could do it ourselves. Only nobody was dying from the mistakes, and there wasn't a free-floating finger of blame hovering nearby to find a culprit for those deaths. That might tend to make me a bit overwrought, an incompetent superior and the possibility I'd be held accountable for his shortcomings. On the other hand I've also suspected the Union generals as a group should have stayed away from tinned foods; sometimes you see the kinds of irrationality that only something like chronic lead poisoning could explain....

[DougCooper]

The larger issue is loyalty, and Hooker lacked this essential quality which undermined both his and the Army's effectiveness. You argue up the chain of command, never down, and you don't jump your superior unless you have exhausted every effort. Hooker could not work with his superiors if their opinions differed from his own. When he was in command, his brother officers did not forget his lack of loyalty, and I believe had very little respect for him as a whole. You reap what you sow.

It has always been astonshing to me how much slack Stanton and Lincoln gave Hooker after his shabby treatment of Burnside, whether Ambrose deserved it or not.

[Dale Beasley]

Jason,
Great thread, enjoyed the read....It's funny how much this thread applies today.

[lhsnj]

Needless to say, most of us are aware that Fighting Joe and Ol' Burn never had a very good relationship. Remember that Burn accepted command of the Army of the Potomac in November 1862 only after the War Department courier told him that if he did not accept command it would go to Hooker, and so Burn took command--despite his doubts about his own ability to effectively command--simply because he loathed Hooker and desired to deny him command of the army.

Fightin' Joe picked fights with a lot of folks in the Civil War (meaning, from his own side), and must not have been a good person to be around. Another example is his feud with Henry Slocum (the topic of an article in a recent issue of Civil War Historian magazine). That said, despite his occasional blunders, he was, when you stack it up, a much more effective general overall than Burnside the Bumbler.

Kevin

There was also an article in a past Civil War Times Illustrated that mentioned Hooker's issues while he was in Sherman's army during the Atlanta Campaign. I will try to find it again and post the article date and stuff.

Edit to include article information: CWTI April 1996. "Sherman's Feuding Generals" by Greg Forster starting on page 40.
In the article it seems to focus on Hooker's issues with Howard who he felt was quite incompetent.

[Tom Ezell]

The larger issue is loyalty, and Hooker lacked this essential quality which undermined both his and the Army's effectiveness.

Loyalty is one of the Army Values that we seek to instill in our young soldiers (and our forgetful old ones) today, and Joe Hooker makes a good case study here.

[Union Navy]

From the Navy's point of view, Burnside was not so bad a guy. His cooperation with the Navy in the Carolina Sounds campaigns was effective and rewarding. His defense of Knoxville was effective, if not particularly inspired. His containment of Morgan in Ohio bagged the bunch, once again in cooperation with the Navy. He knew he was not up to overall command. If only folks like Butler and Banks and Pope had thought the same of themselves...

[Dignann]

I see that Burnside’s stupid order, No. 8, has at last found its way into the newspapers. It's interesting to note that Hooker is the one who leaked G.O. #8 to the press, after having come across a copy when he assumed control of army headquarters.

There was, obviously, no love lost between the two generals. After the war, Hooker maintained a steady correspondence with Samuel P. Bates, Pennsylvania State Historian and author of The Battle of Chancellorsville (1882). Hooker's letters are part of the Bates Collection at the Pennsylvania State Archives in Harrisburg. They are truly a wonderful read. Here are some exceprts in which old Joe justified his wartime backbiting and demostrated his utter distaste for Burnside.

This first one, is a masterful piece of B.S.:


"I had been pronounced in my opinions on the subject in which the War was being prosecuted, for the sake of the cause, and the country, cherishing no ill-feeling towards the persons, or parties implicated, or in any way reflecting on their merits, or de-merits, but simply to have the attention of the authorities called to the subject in order that mistakes might be remedied."
- Hooker to Bates, April 2, 1877


Hooker on Burnside, and Sumner:

"...the less you say about Burnside's soldiership the better it will be for you in the present, and the future. He ought never to have been commissioned in the Army as he was absolutely destitute of that character. Though at the same time, I may safely say that I considered him loyal, but simply an ass.

I have no wish to disturb Burnside's repute in any way, but he did humbug President Lincoln, and many other notables among our people. His brain was not larger than a hickory nut, and entirely unfitted for command.

I cannot conceive of any War in which Burnisde could make himself useful.

I have no objection to your mention of my name with Genl. Sumner's, although I am free to confess I do not feel much complimented by the association. Sumner was as destitute of brains as Burnside, and should never have appeared in battle without a guardian."
- Hooker to Bates, January 3, 1878


Personally, I find Joe Hooker to be one of the most self-serving individuals to have attained rank in either army. That said, I also find him to be one of the most fascinating and amusing individuals.

Eric

[UnionMan]

Put yourself in Hooker's shoes. It's easy for us, as armchair generals, to criticize his loyalty and demenour. Joe, however, had to witness the slaughter and blood that resulted from the continual mismangement of Federal Eastern forces first hand. I doubt that I would have much time for manners after Fredericksburg. I would be bitter, blunt, and would say anything, regardless of social norms, if I thought it would help keep my countrymen alive and put down the rebellion.

I say he is one of the finest partriots that ever wore blue.

-Tad

[Dignann]

Tad,

I don't deny that Hooker was loyal, but I also believe that he applied tremendous energy to further his own cause. His politicking, backbiting, verbal assaults on fellow officers, did not do much to speed the war to a quicker end. Instead, it caused division within the army and headaches for the administration. The mere fact that Hooker leaked a copy of G.O. #8 to the press, with the intent purpose of it reaching the public's eyes, was done primarily to disparage Burnside, who was no longer at the head of the army and therefore of very little threat to him. The airing of the army's dirty laundry in a public forum I find to be reprehensible. Anyway, these are just my opinions.

143 years later, the debate continues.

Eric

[Jubilo]

Dear Fellers ,
Wasn't it Toombs who said that the cause of the Confederacy's fall would be "Died of West Point ." ? Compared to the West Point "gentlemen," Forrest , Hampton ,Mosby ,Chamberlain ,Logan , et.al. , are looking better and better . The citizen soldier !
all for the old flag,
David Corbett

[billwatson]

"I don't deny that Hooker was loyal, but I also believe that he applied tremendous energy to further his own cause."

If you're pretty sure you can do a better job than the folks in charge, do you hold back lest you be accused of ambition?

[DougCooper]

Go watch the Caine Mutiny everybody - an outstanding lesson on loyalty and teamwork. If you have a problem with the boss, you have the guts to go directly to him, speak your mind and try to work with him. That is how you support the troops, not by undermining the commander by jumping the chain immediately. If that does not work, you have the guts to resign and then speak your piece. Burnside was not a criminal, and there was no reason to tattle to Lincoln and the papers. War is tough enough without unit of command.

Hooker was an ego-maniac, something not always necessarily bad in a general. But he lacked the essential qualities of leadership and teamwork absolutely vital at his level, or any level for that matter. Like McClellan, he was a great organizer and planner. He failed when it mattered most, and can be said to have failed worse than Burnside - because Hooker appeared to have the talent, but failed to use it.

Witness what happened at C'ville. Couch, Meade and others appealed directly to him to save the situation and exploit his advantage in numbers and position even after the 11th Corps debacle. The soldiers could see it, the generals could see it. He would have none of it, and could not win because he would not dare to lose. I suspect his generals had little respect for him as an officer before the battle, and lost all respect for him as a commander afterward.

His post battle circular must go down as one of the most laughable disaster spin control documents in military history. The rank and file were not fooled. In fact they don't miss much.

When he was sacked and sent home, the AoP never looked back until Appomattox.

Hooker was a good division commander, and maybe a good independent Corps commander. Too his credit, he performed well out west...but shamed himself post war. Slocum did it right when he disgreed with serving under Hooker - he removed himself from the situation.

[LWhite64]

In many ways Hooker was indeed Hooker's worst enemy, no denying that he had talent and the ability to lead, but his ego was extreme to say the least. As Doug said though he does perform very well in the west, particularly in the Chattanooga campaign, he took Lookout Mtn on Nov 24, his men out flanked and routed the southern portion of the CS lines on Missionary Ridge on Nov 25, indeed it was fortunate for the Confederates that the center collapsed or he might have made it possible to capture the majority of the AoT, he did well on the pursuit on Nov 26. His streak only ended when he clashed with Cleburne's defense of Ringgold Gap on Nov 27.

Lee