ole wrote: Winging it again, but Couch refused, after Chancellorsville, to ever serve again under Hooker. So he was given the plum assignment of watching over the Pennsylvania district.
Seems he did some good service in the Penninsula Campaign, and in the Maryland Campaign. Other than those, I don't recollect where, other than seniority, he demonstrated any particular ability to run the Army of the Potomac.
I think Chancellorsville was where the falling out occured between Hooker and Couch. But according to Furgurson's book, Couch was offered the Union Army but refused because of his health problems. He did make a recommendation to Washington suggesting General Meade, which did happen. So goes history.
For me, I guess it depends what time period we're looking at. Certainly Grant wouldn't have been the commander in '62 that he was in '64. I'm always curious how far Kearny might have gone if he'd lived. He might not have been a really skillful general (minus several points for riding right into enemy troops), but he was aggressive.
Hindsight is always 20/20. Lincolin would not have known anything about most of these suggestions in 1861. I probably would have done what he did--Hallack. Solid and well respected soldier with a good record. Probably the best choice for the job given what the president knew at the time.
Grant would still be my choice. He was as stubborn as a mule. Never gave up. And from what I've read about him he hated defeat. If I was to pick some one off the beaten path. An underdog leader......Pap Green.......old yes, but after what he did on Culps Hill, why not.
Last edited on Wed Apr 28th, 2010 08:14 pm by Old Sorrel