View single post by Kentucky_Orphan
 Posted: Thu Aug 16th, 2007 09:37 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Wed Dec 20th, 2006
Posts: 125

  back to top


Just becuase Burnside and Hooker failed and/or were poor  Army commanders does not mean they were inferior corps commanders. Burnside certainly was not great, but neither was he the bumbling fool many historians have made him out to be (as a corps commander), and Hooker was a superb corps commander, I believe every bit as good as some of the names so revered by many today

Sumner also was very solid, proving to be a capable corps commander in the seven days, and handled a corps ably at  Antietam and his wing  at Fredricksburg well (though in all instances fortune and luck were not with the federals-poor army commanders were)

Mansfield was never really tried- though his corps fought reasonably well, his replacement did all he could do in a bad situation after his commander fell and made no serious errors. Porter was solid (though a Little Mac lackey-that didn't earn him any awards when Mac was sacked).

Remember, the only reason we remember most corps commanders is because they were part of a winning army-if Johnston had not been shot in the seven days, would we remember Longsteet as a great corps commander? How about Hardee? Who talks about him, though he handled a corps well?

 Close Window