General A.P. Hill, Good commander or bad commander

[Hancock the Superb]

I could believe that DH Hill would have made for a better commander than Hill at a Corps level at Gettysburg, however, DH wanted to do everything his own way, and he was unwilling to listen to comments from others when he was stuck onto something. AP Hill aquired a great knowledge in Corps fighting by the end of the war, but his terrible health and unsure ways in command plague Lee at Gettysburg.

[Armchair General]

D.H. Hill was certainly a good commander and a very good asset to the Confederacy, but to say that he bore the brunt of the fighting at Antietam is an overstatement. I know he fought at the Bloody Lane but the majority of Jackson's corps fought like crazy in and around the corn field, then the Dunker Church, and then destroyed Sedgwick's Division. Then comes in the man for this discussion's topic, A.P Hill arrived just in time as Burnside's corps was knocking up at the borders of Sharpsburg where Lee had nearly no reserves left.

[Kerflumoxed]

Armchair General wrote:

D.H. Hill was certainly a good commander and a very good asset to the Confederacy, but to say that he bore the brunt of the fighting at Antietam is an overstatement. I know he fought at the Bloody Lane but the majority of Jackson's corps fought like crazy in and around the corn field, then the Dunker Church, and then destroyed Sedgwick's Division. Then comes in the man for this discussion's topic, A.P Hill arrived just in time as Burnside's corps was knocking up at the borders of Sharpsburg where Lee had nearly no reserves left.

Here is a website that briefly describes D.H.Hill's involvement in the Bloody Lane and the impact/role he played. Find it somewhat interesting.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/BattleView.cfm?BID=34

I apologize if I have unintentionally violated "...this discussion's topic." I have apparently incorrectly surmised that a comparison of contemporaries leadership abilities would aid in formulating opinion on a "good or bad" commander. Please excuse my unwitting intrusion on the sanctity of the topic. I stand corrected! :ohmy:

[Armchair General]

Kerflumoxed wrote:


I apologize if I have unintentionally violated "...this discussion's topic." I have apparently incorrectly surmised that a comparison of contemporaries leadership abilities would aid in formulating opinion on a "good or bad" commander. Please excuse my unwitting intrusion on the sanctity of the topic. I stand corrected! :ohmy:[/quote]

That's not what I was getting at. The point is to compare leaders, but to say that one person did the majority of fighting in a complex and long battle is a little far-fetched, or the word I previously used, and over-statement.

[Kerflumoxed]

Armchair General wrote:

Kerflumoxed wrote:


I apologize if I have unintentionally violated "...this discussion's topic." I have apparently incorrectly surmised that a comparison of contemporaries leadership abilities would aid in formulating opinion on a "good or bad" commander. Please excuse my unwitting intrusion on the sanctity of the topic. I stand corrected! :ohmy:

That's not what I was getting at. The point is to compare leaders, but to say that one person did the majority of fighting in a complex and long battle is a little far-fetched, or the word I previously used, and over-statement.[/quote]

Thanks AG for the clarification...MY mis-understanding and my apology for any offense!

As to over-stating, you will need to take that up with General James Longstreet as I was only quoting his unequivocal opinion on both the issue of superior commander and D. H. Hill's performance at Sharpsburg, as I noted in the original post. Of course, as I also noted, we will never know which Hill would have made a better ANV corps commander.

By the way, did you know that D. H. Hill is credited with coining the phrase, Who ever saw a dead cavalryman?" He also criticized Lee after Malvern Hill by stating, "It wasn't War; it was Murder."

Now, A. P. Hill trivia: Hill's West Point roommate....George B. McClellan! Also, Hill's Division suffered disasterous losses at Mechanicsville by impetously attacking the Federals without awaiting Jackson's scheduled arrival that day...which never happened. The next day, Jackson arrives...only to discover that a combined attack by Hill and Longstreet ended in another Confederate defeat known as Gaines Mill.

Three days later, Jackson fails to attack in conjunction with Hill and Longstreet at Frazier's Farm with Hill's troops suffering another costly defeat. Easy to see why there was no love lost between Hill and Jackson (and that doesn't even consider the feud between Hill and Longstreet after the Seven Days campaign).

[Joshua l.Chamberlain]

Kerflumoxed wrote:
Hill's Division suffered disasterous losses at Mechanicsville by impetously attacking the Federals without awaiting Jackson's scheduled arrival that day

General Hill took initiative to take the ground if he would have waited for Jackson the federals would have surely marched in reenforcements so attacking with Jackson would have caused just as many casualties.

[Armchair General]

Joshua l.Chamberlain wrote:

Kerflumoxed wrote:
Hill's Division suffered disasterous losses at Mechanicsville by impetously attacking the Federals without awaiting Jackson's scheduled arrival that day

General Hill took initiative to take the ground if he would have waited for Jackson the federals would have surely marched in reenforcements so attacking with Jackson would have caused just as many casualties.

The Battle of Mechanicsville (or Beaver Dam Creek) was a rear-guard action by the Federals, mainly Reynolds and Meade's units of Pennsylvania Reserve while the rest of the Army of the Potomac retreated away from Richmond. Hill was supposed to link up with Jackson, and he waited far longer than the rendezvous time. If Jackson had linked up with Hill, those are huge numbers against a division of Penn Reserves. I think the Confederate losses would have been much lower had Jackson kept going. However, he and his Army of the Shenandoah were exhausted beyond all imagination.

And Kerflumoxed I tried to find the source of the D.H. Hill creating the cavalry quote. The first two sites I clicked on brought me to A) Claiming Hooker coined it and B ) Claiming Lincoln coined it! Guess we'll never know.

[Kerflumoxed]

AG, my source of the "dead cavalryman" is Gary Gallagher in his Struggle for the Shenandoah: Essays on the 1864 Valley Campaign, page 77. (Sorry, should have included that in the original posting.) The essay was penned by Robert Krick and was titled [i]The Cause of all my Disasters: Jubal A. Early Undisciplined Valley Cavalry [/b[/i]].

I also seem to recall that Hill stated he would pay anyone $5.00 in gold if they could show him a dead man with spurs.

I have seen this quote attributed to Hooker, as you said, but don't recall Lincoln being the author. Hooker does seem to the "favorite" of many authors and upped the ante to $25.00 for a dead cavalryman.

I suspect there is no one definitive source of this quote and that it may/probably predates the Civil War.

[dale]

Just a little sticky note regarding Gaines Mill. For much of the day it was a Union victory but the final coordinated assault at the end of the day routed the front line of Federal troops at the bottom of the plateau. This resulted in them routing back through the secondary lines who were then unable to fire upon the hotly persuing Rebels.
The whole scene turned into a massive disorderly withdrawl by the Feds depite heroic cavalry counter charges. Lots of prisoners were taken as well as artillery captured.

And I agree, AP Hill felt that he had to attack even if he was unsupported by Jackson.

It was important to note that once the initiative was seized at Mechanicsville, it was not relinquished. McClellan went into a self preservation mode. The attacks throughout the Seven Days campaign were uncoordinated by the Confederates but the overall effect was salutory--driving McClellan into a defensive state of mind.

So in the days when Confederate manpower was more plentiful bold aggression was more valued than caution. A P Hill and Hood would be lauded for their parts while some of the older generals like Holmes would be found wanting.

[Kerflumoxed]

More food for thought/discussion: Quoting Douglas Southall Freeman in Volume III of his R. E. Lee biography, page 181:

"...Lee was greated with heavy outbursts of firing on the left, infantry and artillery - Hill evidently engaged hotly with the enemy. (Upon arriving at the battlefield - Bristoe Station - Lee) learned the grim details of as badly managed a battle as had ever been fought under the flag of the Army of Northern Virginia."

On page 183, after describing A. P. Hill's attack on the Federals, Southall describes the ANV as being indignant. " 'There was no earthly excuse for it,' Colonel Walter Taylor protested, 'as all our troops were well in hand, and much stronger than the enemy.' Said (John A.)Sloan, ' A worse managed affair than this fight . . . did not take place during the war/ When the reports reached President Davis, he endorsed on (A. P.) Hill's, 'There was a want of vigilance.' Lee said little, but on the next morning, when he went over the ground, and listened as Hill sorrowfully told his story and manfully took all the blame upon himself, his look was glum and disappointed, and silenced Hill with words that were, for him, the worst of rebukes: 'Well, well, General, bury these poor men and let us say no more about it.'"