DOCSLIB.ORG

Brief Statement of the Case of Fitz John Porter. [N. P. 1871?]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Brief Statement of the Case of Fitz John Porter. [N. P. 1871?] Brief statement of the case of Fitz John Porter. [n. p. 1871?]. BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE CASE OF FITZ JOHN PORTER. by Gen. Pope In order that we may arrive at a clear understanding of the conduct for which Fitz John Porter was tried, convicted and cashiered, I shall proceed to give a brief statement of the facts, stripped of the clouds of witnesses and words in which such cases are always enveloped when tried by military or civil courts The only testimony I shall refer to as to Porter's guilt in this brief review, is his own; the only testimony as to the consequences of that guilt to the Union Army and to the country will be the written testimony of the three rebel officers highest in rank and command in front of us on the day of that battle. If Porter's guilt and its consequences cannot be made clear to any impartial mind by this testimony, I am perfectly willing that he shall have the benefit of all the doubts that he or his friends may be able to keep alive in the public mind. To begin then. On the 29th of August, 1862, a severe battle was fought on the old field of Bull Run, known as the first day of the second battle of that name. In order that sufficient acquaintance with the localities may be had, I append a rough sketch of the roads in the vicinity of the field of battle. About two-thirds of the Army under my immediate eye, were drawn up in line of battle perpendicular to and on both sides of the Warrenton Turnpike, the road from Bethlehem Church to Sudley Springs intersecting our line of battle diagonally near its centre. At about nine o' on the morning of the 29th of August 1862, Porter then at Manassas Junction, received an order from me to move forward to Gainsville on the direct road. In compliance with that order he reached the forks of the road at Bethlehem Church, between eleven and twelve o'clock in the day, and moved forward on the direct road to Gainsville, until the rear of his column rested near the forks of the road. His Corps was the Fifth Corps of the Army, and having been reinforced by Piatt's Brigade of Sturgis' Division numbered quite twelve thousand men, very nearly a third of the whole Army within the field of battle. It contained the entire Regular Army of the United States, with the exception of the few regiments serving in the West, and was provided with eight batteries of light artillery, many of them batteries of the Regular Army. It was the most efficient and best disciplined Corps of the entire Army, and having marched but three or four miles that day, and not much farther the day previous, was by very far the freshest Corps on Brief statement of the case of Fitz John Porter. [n. p. 1871?]. http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.23700600 the ground. McDowell had marched in Porter's rear from Manassas Junction with his Corps, but hearing, on reaching the forks of the road at Bethelem Church, the sounds of a severe battle being fought at Groveton, passed the rear of Porter's Corps, and following the road to Sudley Springs, brought his Corps in upon the left of our line and immediately pushed forward into action. This brief statement of facts which can be verified by reference to any of the official reports, or to the testimony in Porter's case, is necessary to a clear understanding of the situation when Porter's crime was committed. Between three and four o'clock in the day, when the battle had been raging not less than four hours in his hearing, (his Corps remaining with stacked arms where McDowell left it) he wrote the following letter to General McDowell, addressed to McDowell and King who, as before stated, had some hours before, urged by the sounds of the battle, marched up the Sudley Springs road to take part in the engagement. 2 “ Generals McDowell and King : “I found it impossible to communicate by crossing the roads to Groveton. The enemy are in strong force on this road, and as they appear to have driven our forces back, the firing of the enemy having advanced, and ours retired, I have determined to withdraw to Manassas. I have attempted to communicate with McDowell and Sigel, but my messengers have run into the enemy. They have gathered artillery, and cavalry, and infantry, and the advancing masses of dust show the enemy coming in force. Had you not better send your train back. (Signed,) F. J. PORTER, Major General.” In other words, Porter writes deliberately that believing our army on his right, and within less than four miles of him, was being defeated by the enemy and driven from the field, he intends to do what?—attack the enemy in his front so as to aid and relieve that portion of the army he pretended to think was being defeated? or, if he deemed that impracticable, march with his Corps on the road previously taken by McDowell, (and which was open all day, orderlies and messengers passing up and down constantly,) and reinforce and strivet o preserve from defeat the army which he pretended to believe was being driven from the field! Was there, in the mind of any honest man, citizen or soldier, any honorable course open to him except one of these two? Not so thought Porter, With his efficient Corps, equal in numbers to nearly one-third of the whole army—superior in freshness and in efficiency to any Corps in the field—he deliberately states that he intends to march off under these appalling circumstances to Manassas Junction, precisely in the opposite direction from the army, and to abandon them to the disaster which he says he believes they were suffering. Can any words add force to this simple statement? Brief statement of the case of Fitz John Porter. [n. p. 1871?]. http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.23700600 Meantime, hearing nothing from Porter, the sound of whose guns on the enemy's right I had been anxiously listening for since twelve o'clock in the day, I sent him, at 4.30 p. m., the following order: Headquarters in the Field, August 29 th, 1862—4.30 P. M. “ Major General Porter : “Your line of march brings you in on the enemy's right flank. I desire you to push forward into action at once on the enemy's flank, and if possible on his rear, keeping your right in communication with General Reynolds. The enemy is massed in the woods in front of us, but can be shelled out as soon as you engage his flank. Keep heavy reserves and use your batteries, keeping well closed to your right all the time. In case you are obliged to fall back do so to your right and rear, so as to keep you in close communication with the right wing. (Signed,) JOHN POPE, Major General Commanding.” The delivery of this order to Porter at five o'clock, at least one-and-a-half hours before sunset, and full two hours before the battle closed for the night, was proved on his trial; but the order was in no respect obeyed, and seems to have produced no effect upon Porter, except that instead of retreating to Manassas according to his first intention he only retreated part of the way; far enough to be out of sight of the enemy and out of danger. What now is the charge upon which Porter was tried and cashiered? Leaving out of consideration the first charge and specification, which related to transactions of two days previous, the truth of which he admitted before the Court, and which, although grave enough and criminal enough, are by far the least serious—these are the charges and specifications which contain the infamous conduct for which he was dismissed. “ Charge 2.—Violation of the Fifty-Second Article of War. “ Specification 1.—In this; that the said Major General Fitz John Porter, during the battle of Manassas, on Friday the 29th of “August, 1862, while within sight of the field and in full hearing of its artillery, did recieve from Major General John Pope, his “superior and commanding officer, a lawful order to attack the enemy in the following figures and letters, to wit: “ Headquarters in the Field, August 29 th, 1862—4.30 P. M. “ Major General Porter : Brief statement of the case of Fitz John Porter. [n. p. 1871?]. http://www.loc.gov/resource/rbpe.23700600 “Your line of march brings you in on the enemy's right flank. I desire you to push forward into action at once on the enemy's flank, and if possible “on his rear, keeping your right in communication with General Reynolds. The enemy is massed in the woods in front of us, but can be shelled out “as soon as you engage his flank. Keep heavy reserves and use your batters, keeping well closed to your right all the time. In case you are obliged to “fall back to do so to your right and rear so as to keep you in close communication with the right wing. (Signed,) JOHN POPE, Major General Commanding.” “Which said order the said Major General Porter did then and there shamefully disobey, and did retreat from advancing “forces of the enemy without any attempt to engage them, or to aid the troops that were already fighting greatly superior numbers “and were relying on the flank attack he was thus ordered to make to secure a decisive victory, and to capture the enemy's army, “a result which must have followed from said flank attack, had it been made by the said General Porter, in compliance with the “said order which he so shamefully disobeyed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • James Longstreet and the Retreat from Gettysburg
    “Such a night is seldom experienced…” James Longstreet and the Retreat from Gettysburg Karlton Smith, Gettysburg NMP After the repulse of Lt. Gen. James Longstreet’s Assault on July 3, 1863, Gen. Robert E. Lee, commanding the Army of Northern Virginia, knew that the only option left for him at Gettysburg was to try to disengage from his lines and return with his army to Virginia. Longstreet, commander of the army’s First Corps and Lee’s chief lieutenant, would play a significant role in this retrograde movement. As a preliminary to the general withdrawal, Longstreet decided to pull his troops back from the forward positions gained during the fighting on July 2. Lt. Col. G. Moxley Sorrel, Longstreet’s adjutant general, delivered the necessary orders to Maj. Gen. Lafayette McLaws, commanding one of Longstreet’s divisions. Sorrel offered to carry the order to Brig. Gen. Evander M. Law, commanding John B. Hood’s division, on McLaws’s right. McLaws raised objections to this order. He felt that his advanced position was important and “had been won after a deadly struggle; that the order was given no doubt because of [George] Pickett’s repulse, but as there was no pursuit there was no necessity of it.” Sorrel interrupted saying: “General, there is no discretion allowed, the order is for you to retire at once.” Gen. James Longstreet, C.S.A. (LOC) As McLaws’s forward line was withdrawing to Warfield and Seminary ridges, the Federal batteries on Little Round Top opened fire, “but by quickening the pace the aim was so disturbed that no damage was done.” McLaws’s line was followed by “clouds of skirmishers” from the Federal Army of the Potomac; however, after reinforcing his own skirmish line they were driven back from the Peach Orchard area.
    [Show full text]
  • Using the 5Ps Leadership Analysis to Examine the Battle of Antietam: an Explanation and Case Study
    Journal of Leadership Education Volume 11, Issue 1 – Winter 2012 Using the 5Ps Leadership Analysis to Examine the Battle of Antietam: An Explanation and Case Study Bradley Z. Hull, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Logistics Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics John Carroll University University Heights, OH [email protected] Scott J. Allen, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Management Department of Management, Marketing, and Logistics John Carroll University University Heights, OH [email protected] Abstract The authors describe an exploratory analytical tool called The 5Ps Leadership Analysis (Personal Attributes, Position, Purpose, Practices/Processes, and Product) as a heuristic for better understanding the complexities of leadership. Using The 5Ps Leadership Analysis , the authors explore the leadership of General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and General George B. McClellan of the Union Army of the Potomac—more specifically, the leadership of the two generals on September 17, 1862 during the Battle of Antietam. The paper concludes with suggestions for application in the classroom. Introduction This case study examines how two organizations compete and how two leaders can influence change and success given their resources. One organization is small and underfinanced with antiquated equipment. The other is large, well financed, and organized along traditional lines where each part of the organization operates autonomously and is coordinated by top levels of management. This type of confrontation between a small organization and a large competitor occurs often in American business. Two relevant examples might be Dell (in its early days) versus Compaq and Amazon.com (in its early days) versus Barnes and Noble or the now bankrupt Borders.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Republican Army: the Army of Virginia and the Radicalization of the Civil War
    Civil War Book Review Fall 2017 Article 14 The First Republican Army: The Army Of Virginia And The Radicalization Of The Civil War Zachery Fry Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr Recommended Citation Fry, Zachery (2017) "The First Republican Army: The Army Of Virginia And The Radicalization Of The Civil War," Civil War Book Review: Vol. 19 : Iss. 4 . DOI: 10.31390/cwbr.19.4.19 Available at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cwbr/vol19/iss4/14 Fry: The First Republican Army: The Army Of Virginia And The Radicaliz Review Fry, Zachery Fall 2017 Matsui, John H. The First Republican Army: The Army of Virginia and the Radicalization of the Civil War. University of Virginia Press, $39.50 ISBN 9780813939278 John Pope, the Army of Virginia, and the Road to Hard War Civil War historians find the political motives behind Union squabbles in the Eastern Theater fascinating. Scholars and lay readers alike can count on a constant barrage of books on the high command of the Army of the Potomac, for instance, replete with well-worn accounts of backstabbing by George McClellan, Fitz John Porter, and Joseph Hooker. Over the past several years, however, a critical mass of innovative literature by young scholars such as Timothy Orr and Jonathan White has emerged to investigate the rich intersections of soldier ideology and command politics, adding to earlier pioneering work by historians such as John Hennessy. Instead of debating how many Union soldiers embraced emancipation, as scholars of the 1990s and early 2000s did, historians now want to know what that undeniable ideological divide meant for command and control.
    [Show full text]
  • Hanover Courthouse: the Nionu 'S Tactical Victory and Strategic Failure Jerry Joseph Coggeshall Old Dominion University
    Old Dominion University ODU Digital Commons History Theses & Dissertations History Winter 1999 Hanover Courthouse: The nionU 's Tactical Victory and Strategic Failure Jerry Joseph Coggeshall Old Dominion University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/history_etds Part of the Military History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Coggeshall, Jerry J.. "Hanover Courthouse: The nionU 's Tactical Victory and Strategic Failure" (1999). Master of Arts (MA), thesis, History, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/f9k9-0564 https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/history_etds/15 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the History at ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in History Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HANOVER COURTHOUSE: THE UNION'S TACTICAL VICTORY AND STRATEGIC FAILURE by Jerry Joseph Coggeshail B.A. May 1997, Old Dominion University A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS HISTORY OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY December 1999 Harold S. Wilson (Director) Annecce nnie Sweeneys Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number 1398157 Copyright 2000 by Coggeshall, Jerry Joseph All rights reserved. UMI__ ® UMI Microform 1398157 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Union Generals Ambrose Everett Burnside (1824-1881) Poore, Benjamin
    Union Generals Ambrose Everett Burnside (1824-1881) Poore, Benjamin. The Life and Public Services of Ambrose E. Burnside. Providence, Rhode Island: J.A. & R.A. Reid, 1882. E B967p Woodbury, Augustus. Major General Ambrose E. Burnside and the Ninth Army Corps. Providence: S.S. Rider & Brother, 1867. F834 P86.9 W884 David Glasgow Farragut (1801-1870) Duffy, James P. Lincoln’s Admiral: The Civil War Campaigns of David Farragut. New York: Wiley, 1997. E F2393d Farragut, Loyall. The Life of David Glasgow Farragut, First Admiral of the United States Navy, Embodying his Journal and Letters. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1879. E F2393f Hill, Jim Dan. Sea Dogs of the Sixties: Farragut and Seven Contemporaries. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1935. F8347 H646s Lewis, Charles Lee. David Glasgow Farragut. Annapolis: United States Naval Institute, 1941- 43. E F2393L Mahan, A.T. Admiral Farragut. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1897. E F2393m Andrew Hull Foote (1806-1863) Hoppins, J. M. Life of Andrew Hull Foote, Rear-Admiral United States Navy. New York: Harper & Bros., 1874. E F688h Ulysses Simpson Grant (1822-1885) Catton, Bruce. Grant Moves South. Boston: Little, Brown, 1988, c1960. F896.3 G76cat2 1988 Catton, Bruce. Grant Takes Command. Boston: Little, Brown, 1969. F896.3 G76cat3 1990 Grant, Ulysses S. Memoirs and Selected Letters: Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant, Selected Letters 1839-1865. New York: Library of America, 1990. F896.3 G759p 1990 Lewis, Lloyd. Captain Sam Grant. Boston: Little, Brown, 1950. F896.3 G76Le McFeely, William S. Grant: A Biography. New York: Norton, 1981.
    [Show full text]
  • 629.L332 2097 3 CHIVA *' -Liliilffiilflfiililililififliie L BRARY
    629.L332 2097 3 CHIVA *' -liliilffiilflfiililililIfifliiE L BRARY 24065 U.S. Infantry troops break camp June 30' 1898'for the attack on El Caney, Cuba Note the balloon Santiago above the tree line. Courtesy of the National Archives. In the 1780s Benjarnin Franklin was the United States'minister to France. At one of the Montgolfier brothers first balloon laurchings a cynical observer rernarked, "Of what possible use is it?" Said Franklin, who foresaw many possibilities for aeronautics, "Of what use is a newborn babe?" THE HISTORY OF The United States Air Force taces its origins EARLY to the establishment of the Aeronautical Dvision, created on August l, 1907 by the ENLISTED Chief Signal Officer of the Army However, the U.S. Army frst used "aerial devices" for AERONAUTICS military purposes during the American Civil War. when it created an unofficial balloon section. An offrcial balloon section was established in 1891. Consequently, enlisted 1862 TO 1907 support for U.S. military aviation began with Civil War balloon operations. Interest in the military applications of ballooning in the United States can be linked by to one of our nation's forefathers, Benjamin William I. Chivalette Franklin. After witnessing the flight of the and Montgolfiers (famous balloonists), Franklin W. Parker Hayes,Jr. predicted that the military would soon find uses for the balloon. But it was not until Airmen Memorial Museum 1840, during the Second Seminole War, that his prediction almost proved true. The Seminoles, intimate with the without being apprized of the balloonist's tangled swamps of their Florida homeland, scheme. persistently evaded capture by the army sent to During the Civil War, balloons were force their "removal" to the Indian Territory in used by both sides, but mostly by the North, the West.
    [Show full text]
  • \U25a0jßfciw If
    tp \u25a0jßfciw if VOL. VIII. ST. PAUL, SATURDAY MORNING, JUNE 20, 1886 -TWELVE PAGES. N"O. 17 7 By Wilson, this time Eeno had began to unfortunate soldiers. Ifgentlemen thought j Evans, . Logan, v^.f- (la.) the men proved 1 : clinched. Trussell himself* ON A BLOODY FIELD. retreat to the hill several hundred AFTER LONG WAITING. they were making 'creditable,'' history . let Fryc, \ Manderson, CARDIFF THE VICTOR. good go himself, referee ana jumped between yards in his rear and, as Gall said, "We them on. For while he lived thorn -with spirit. Tho Minneapolitan he would appeal to the nonorof Macountry, (Recapitulation: Yeas, Republican 7 [in- good knew we had him safe. We moved olf ; 23; b~t in work again and sent Sail, the Great Sioux Chief, Tells the The Senate Yesterday Passed the House to the integrity of its people and to the cluding It.ddlebergcr.clnd.;] Democrats The Long-Anticipatod couple down where the other soldiers were, in- 1 Match Wilson to lean on the rope a JUSTICE BIS CAUSE nays, .-Republican The Democrats are Between for of tending or • IT. seconds. They passed a few exchanges, Story of the Pall of Ouster's to settle them and then come Billfor Gen. Pitz John Porter's pleaded poor \u25a0 marked with *.) Heavy- Weights and while ho for the Union men a tho Rival of Cardiff clinched again Afoul was claimed, back after him." He said, however, that Reinstatement, against of our own side who proved number of pairs announced. Mr. Command. enough already those A were the Northwest.
    [Show full text]
  • The Maine Bugle 1894
    r THE MAINE BUGLE. Entered at the Po$t Office, Rockland, Me., at Second-Ctati Matter. Campaign I. January, 1894. Call i Its echoing notes your memories shall renew From sixty-one until the grant! review. UBLISHED QUARTERLY, JANUARY, APRIL, JULY AND OCTOBER, AND WILL BE THE ORGAN OF THE " MEN OF MAINE " WHO SERVED IN THE WAR OF THE REBELLION. NO OTHER STATE HAS A PROUDER RECORD. IT WILL CONTAIN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THEIR YEARLY REUNIONS, MATTERS OF HISTORIC VALUE TO EACH REGI- MENT, AND ITEMS OF PERSONAL INTEREST TO ALL ITS MEMBERS. IT IS ALSO THE ORGAN OF THE CAVALRY SOCIETY OF THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES AND WILL PUBLISH THE ANNUAL PROCEEDINGS OF THAT SOCIETY AND CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE VARIOUS REGIMENTS NORTH AND SOUTH WHICH PARTICIPATED IN THE WAR OF THE REBELUON. PRICE ONE DOLLAR A YEAR, OR TWENTY-FIVE CENTS A CALL Editors, Committees from the Maine Regiments. Published by the Maine Association. Address, J. P. Cuxey, Treasurer, RoCKlAND, Mainb. L rs^^ A . A. 41228 Save Money. — Regular Subscribers and those not regular subscribers to the Bugle may, by ordering through us the periodicals for which they arc subscrib- ers, add Bf r.i.E at a greatly reduced price if not without cost. Thus if you wish, let us say, Cosmopolitan and Harper^s Monthly, send the money through this ofTice and we will add Bugle to the list without extra cost. Regular With Price Bugle Arena, *5-oo Army and Navy Journal, Atlantic Monthly, Blue and CIray, Canadian Sportsman, Cassel's Family Magazine, Century, Cosmopolitan, Current Literature, Decorator and Furnisher, Demorest's Family Magazine Fancier, Godey's Ladies' Book, Harper's Bazar or Weekly, Harper's Magazine, Harper's Young People, Home Journal, Horseman, Illustrated American, Journal of Military Service and Institution, Judge, Life, Lippincott's Magazine, Littell's Living Age, North American Review, New England Magazine, Outing, Popular Science Monthly, Public Opinion, Review of Reviews, Scicntiiic American, Supplement, Both, same address.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record-Senate. 1353
    1880. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE. 1353 By Mr. MILES: The petition of merchants, manufacturers, and con­ By Mr. AMOS TOWNSEND : The petitions of the publishers of the. sumers, that chrome iron ore and bichromate of potash be allowed to Ohio Farmer, Cleveland, Ohio, and of publishers of four other papers~ enter free of duty-to the Committee of Ways and Means. for the abolition of the duty on type-to the Committee of Ways and By Mr. MITCHELL: The petition of 43 late Union soldiers and Means. others, citizens of Arnot, Charleston, and vicinity, Tioga County, · By Mr. TYLER: The petitions of Lewis B. Hubbard, publisher of Pennsylvania., for the early passage of a law providing for the pay­ the Vermont Tribune, Ludlow, and of A. Chandler, publisher of the ment of the difference between the value of greenbacks, in which sol­ Vermont Record and Farmer, Brattleborough, Vermont, of similar diers were paid for their services, and the value of gold· at the time import-to the same committee. of payment-to the Committee on Military AffaiJ:s. By Mr. V ANOE : A paper relating to the claim of A. 1\f. Gudger By Mr. MONROE: The petitions of W.W. Woodruff, publisher of for pay for property ta.ken by the United States Army during the late the Gazette, Oberlin, and of Charles M. Brown, publisher of the Trib­ war-to the Committee on War Claims. une, Sandusky, Ohio, for the abolition of the duty on type-to the By Mr. WASHBURN: ThepetitionofC. Bridgman, L.A. Evans, and Committee of Ways and Means.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK· VIRGINIA National Battlefield Park
    .NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK· VIRGINIA National Battlefield Park UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR • ]. A. Krug, Secretary National Park Service • Newton B. Drury, Director Capital of the Conj ederacy, Richmond became for 4 years the objective of the Federal Armies in the East RICHMOND THE PENINSULA CAMPAIGN SYMBOL OF THE SOUTH GEN. GEORGE B. McCLELLAN'S ill-starred cam­ paign in the spring and summer of 1862 brought RICHMOND, VA., as capital of the Confederate battles to the very gates of Richmond, which in States of America during the Civil War, 1861--65, the aggregate surpassed in magnitude any pre­ was regarded as the symbol of the Southern Gov­ viously fought in the Western Hemisphere. The ernment. In consequence, throughout the con­ Federal plan of attack involved a giant pincer flict, Federal Armies made repeated attempts to movement against the Confederate Capital. capture this important city. Seven "on to Rich­ McClellan, with the Army of the Potomac, mond" drives, in the Eastern Theater of War, was expected to effect a landing on the penin­ were aimed at the Confederate Capital. Five of sula between the James and the York Rivers these were turned back some distance away, two and to advance from the east, while Gen. Irvin at Manassas and three in the vicinity of Fred­ McDowell, with a second Federal Army, ericksburg, while two act\lally brought the fight­ marched overland from Washington to join ing dangerously close to the Capital. From a McClellan's troops as they approached Rich­ strategic point of view the selection of Rich­ mond. McClellan brought his forces to the pen­ mond, near the head of the navigable James insula by water, and, after compelling the River and within 110 miles of the Federal Cap­ Southern forces to withdraw from their forti­ ital at Washington, D.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Robert E. Lee and His Corps Commanders in the Civil War
    CHAIN OF COMMAND: AN ANALYSIS OF ROBERT E. LEE AND HIS CORPS COMMANDERS IN THE CIVIL WAR Aaron D. Lewis A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS May 2016 Committee: Benjamin Greene, Advisor A. Dwayne Beggs Michael E. Brooks © 2016 Aaron Lewis All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Benjamin Greene, Advisor Robert E. Lee remains a mythical figure within the culture of the southern United States. Proponents of the Southern “Lost Cause of the Confederacy” argued that he embodied the idea of Southern morality and toughness. Lee’s accomplishments on the battlefield are what brought him such admiration in the south. The Confederate cause of “freedom,” Southerners believed, was still attainable as long as Marse Robert commanded the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee frequently led his undersized and under-equipped army to victory over the Union armies of the Eastern Theatre during the first half of the Civil War. Using a wide variety of primary sources, from the Official Records to the personal letters and memoirs of Civil War commanders, I argue that Lee directly benefitted from the abilities of Stonewall Jackson, and once he died, Lee’s ability to win on the battlefield greatly diminished. Victories at Antietam and Chancellorsville were the product of Lee’s quick-thinking, boldness, and a clear explanation of what he expected of his commanders, as well as the incompetence of the Union commanders he faced. Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg, however, is the product of poor clarification by Lee as to what he expected of his commanders, and his inability to consider the input of his subordinates.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Living Off the Wasteland: the Environment and the Union Army Of
    Living Off the Wasteland: The Environment and the Union Army of Virginia during the Second Bull Run Campaign Mike Burns Dissertation Prospectus Department of History Texas Christian University 1 Shortly after taking command of the newly created Union Army of Virginia in July 1862, Major General John Pope issued a number of general orders to his soldiers implementing a new policy of supplying the army through regional production, primarily environmental production. In General Orders, nos. 5 and 6, Pope ordered, “the troops of this command will subsist upon the country in which their operations are carried on.” He added, “no supply or baggage trains of any description will be used unless so stated specifically in the order for the movement.” The army would rely almost exclusively on local food sources for both the men and horses.1 When marching through Northern Virginia with the 122nd New York Infantry, however, Sanford Truesdell described the destruction of the region to his sister. He found “the surrounding countryside to be ‘almost completely deserted’ and ‘ruined.’” As the unit approached Culpepper, Virginia, almost thirty miles southeast of Washington, D.C., he noted that he “had not seen ‘a field of grain of any kind.’”2 Pope’s orders and Truesdell’s description of Northern Virginia invokes an interesting question about the Army of Virginia’s experience in the region: with a completely desolated countryside, how was the army to live off the land as Pope had ordered? Prior to the U.S. Civil War, Americans had rarely seen the level of destruction they witnessed during the years between April 1861 and April 1865.
    [Show full text]