Tweet
Re: Joe Hooker's flip out.
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.
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.
Comment