Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Most Mistreated/Unfairly Treated General - General Civil War Talk - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1 Page:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rate Topic 
AuthorPost
 Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2014 12:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
Barlow
Member


Joined: Fri Jul 10th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 75
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Of the below, whom do you believe to be the most unfairly treated General, "mistreated" being defined as loss of command, embarrassed, sent west/home, disgraced unnecessarily:

1. Gouverneur Warren by Little Phil
2. Lew Wallace by Grant/Rawlins/Halleck
3. Pemberton by Davis post Vicksburg
4. Horace Porter after 7 Days War
5. Abner Doubleday by Meade being replaced by Newton
6. Other: _______________________________________



 Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2014 01:28 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 549
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Interesting question.....I am not as well versed as I should be to answer your question, but I'd pick Pemberton....



 Posted: Thu Apr 17th, 2014 03:30 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Thats some choice, but I'd go for Warren. He gave good service, with a couple of exceptions, throughout the war but getting on the wrong side of Meade and Sheridan was not a good career move. He was a victim of Sheridans temper, and of Sheridans own insecurities as Warren was acting on info given him by Sheridan when things went awry at Five Forks. I see his removal from command of the 5th Corps as unneccessary, embarrassing and humiliating for him, especially at that late stage in the war and this was born out by the Court of Enquiry which reported in 1882 shortly after Warrens death.



 Posted: Fri Apr 18th, 2014 03:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
wondering
Member


Joined: Tue Dec 31st, 2013
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 98
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Braxton Bragg got the shaft too. ;)



 Posted: Thu May 8th, 2014 03:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
RebelRouser
Member


Joined: Tue Mar 18th, 2014
Location:  
Posts: 6
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   Braxton Bragg probably deserved it. My vote is for Fitz John Porter.

The Spectacular Rise and Fall of Fitz John Porter - NYTimes.com

 



 Posted: Thu May 15th, 2014 06:04 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Charles P. Stone, by Congress and Stanton. Scapegoated by Congress for Ball's Bluff, accused of secretly being a Confederate agent. He spent six months in prison for something one of Congress's own had done and after he got out, with his career in ruins, he continued to try to clear his name o the accusations leveled by Congress. McClellan did want Stone for the Maryland Campaign but Stanton refused to allow it. Hooker wanted Stone as his chief of staff when he took over for Burnside as commander of the Army of the Potomac. Again Stanton refused the request. He was finally able to hear the accusations against him in February 1863 and with McClellan's assistance was able to clear his name. But it wasn't until May that he was given an assignment, shipped off to the Department of the Gulf and would serve under Nathaniel Banks as his chief of Staff during the Red River campaign. Yet it didn't end there. Stanton had him mustered out as Brigadier General of Volunteers in April, 1864, returning him to his regular army rank of Colonel. Though he would briefly serve as a brigade commander during the Siege of Petersburg, he resigned just over five months after Stanton's order to have him mustered out.



 Posted: Fri May 16th, 2014 12:21 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 327
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

That sure does sound like a rotten deal to me.
Politics.Hellcat wrote: Charles P. Stone, by Congress and Stanton. Scapegoated by Congress for Ball's Bluff, accused of secretly being a Confederate agent. He spent six months in prison for something one of Congress's own had done and after he got out, with his career in ruins, he continued to try to clear his name o the accusations leveled by Congress. McClellan did want Stone for the Maryland Campaign but Stanton refused to allow it. Hooker wanted Stone as his chief of staff when he took over for Burnside as commander of the Army of the Potomac. Again Stanton refused the request. He was finally able to hear the accusations against him in February 1863 and with McClellan's assistance was able to clear his name. But it wasn't until May that he was given an assignment, shipped off to the Department of the Gulf and would serve under Nathaniel Banks as his chief of Staff during the Red River campaign. Yet it didn't end there. Stanton had him mustered out as Brigadier General of Volunteers in April, 1864, returning him to his regular army rank of Colonel. Though he would briefly serve as a brigade commander during the Siege of Petersburg, he resigned just over five months after Stanton's order to have him mustered out.



 Posted: Sun Jun 8th, 2014 07:35 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
Decian
Member
 

Joined: Fri Jun 6th, 2014
Location:  
Posts: 12
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

George Thomas -- by a hard-pressed Gen. Grant, threatening, from afar,to remove him for not engaging in battle fast enough during wintry weather conditions unsuited to movement of large bodies of men.



 Posted: Mon Jun 23rd, 2014 12:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 327
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

General Rosecrans.



You have chosen to ignore yellowman. click Here to view this post


 Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2014 11:42 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
Barlow
Member


Joined: Fri Jul 10th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 75
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Alot of great input.  As we get into 1865 150th next year, we will be hearing alot more about what Phil Sheridan did to Gov. Warren right before the surrender.  I was sort of leaning that way in my list...but am open to hearing other's theories.



 Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2014 05:46 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 327
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Barlow wrote: Alot of great input.  As we get into 1865 150th next year, we will be hearing alot more about what Phil Sheridan did to Gov. Warren right before the surrender.  I was sort of leaning that way in my list...but am open to hearing other's theories.
I would be more interested why Grant let him do it.



 Posted: Sat Jun 28th, 2014 10:14 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I was so much dissatisfied with Warren’s dilatory movements in the battle of White Oak Road and in his failure to reach Sheridan in time, that I was very much afraid that at the last moment he would fail Sheridan. He was a man of fine intelligence, great earnestness, quick perception, and could make his dispositions as quickly as any officer, under difficulties where he was forced to act. But I had before discovered a defect which was beyond his control, that was very prejudicial to his usefulness in emergencies like the one just before us. He could see every danger at a glance before he had encountered it. He would not only make preparations to meet the danger which might occur, but he would inform his commanding officer what others should do while he was executing his move.

I had sent had sent a staff officer to General Sheridan to call his attention to these defects, and to say that as much as I liked General Warren, now was not a time when we could let our personal feeling for any one stand in the way of success; and if his removal was necessary to success, not to hesitate. It was upon that authorization that Sheridan removed Warren. I was very sorry that it had been done, and regretted still more hat I had not long before taken occasion to assign him to another field of duty.


That's from Grant's memoirs concerning Warren's removal by Sheridan (pages 603 and 604 of the Konecky & Konecky published version which has both volumes in one). Might be your answer, Old Blu.

Last edited on Sat Jun 28th, 2014 10:17 pm by Hellcat



 Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2014 01:36 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 327
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hellcat wrote: I was so much dissatisfied with Warren’s dilatory movements in the battle of White Oak Road and in his failure to reach Sheridan in time, that I was very much afraid that at the last moment he would fail Sheridan. He was a man of fine intelligence, great earnestness, quick perception, and could make his dispositions as quickly as any officer, under difficulties where he was forced to act. But I had before discovered a defect which was beyond his control, that was very prejudicial to his usefulness in emergencies like the one just before us. He could see every danger at a glance before he had encountered it. He would not only make preparations to meet the danger which might occur, but he would inform his commanding officer what others should do while he was executing his move.

I had sent had sent a staff officer to General Sheridan to call his attention to these defects, and to say that as much as I liked General Warren, now was not a time when we could let our personal feeling for any one stand in the way of success; and if his removal was necessary to success, not to hesitate. It was upon that authorization that Sheridan removed Warren. I was very sorry that it had been done, and regretted still more hat I had not long before taken occasion to assign him to another field of duty.


That's from Grant's memoirs concerning Warren's removal by Sheridan (pages 603 and 604 of the Konecky & Konecky published version which has both volumes in one). Might be your answer, Old Blu.

Thanks for your response.  The problem with this the facts are a little skewed with
what Grant is telling.  Sheridan was jumping Warrens bones at the wilderness for
slowing down his cavalry while moving to Spotsylvania.
 I think it was done to shut Sheridan's mouth up.
Sheridan would start his letter writting and Grant of course would take up for one of his favorite pets.
Of course, now.  This is just my opinion.



 Posted: Sun Jun 29th, 2014 06:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

It may have been a bit more than that. I hit some of my Catton before going to bed last night, in particular Terrible Swift Sword and Never Call Retreat. On the subject of Warren, he writes in Never Call Retreat that Lincoln was at Grant's headquarters at the time and that Grant was also chomping at the bit to end things quickly. So those two factors may have been a big part in Grant letting Sheridan get away with what he did to Warren.

I was also looking at Ball's Bluff, more looking to see what he said about Stone. I'd have to go back over and read it all, but it looks like Stone wasn't the only one that battle got. Looks like there were a trio of senators that wanted to get rid of someone else, someone higher up on the chain. And much older. Winfield Scott.



 Posted: Mon Jun 30th, 2014 11:20 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
Old Blu
Member
 

Joined: Tue Sep 16th, 2008
Location: Waynesboro., Virginia USA
Posts: 327
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Hmmm, Warren tells his side of Wilderness story.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/warrenwilderness.html



 Posted: Tue Jul 1st, 2014 01:21 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 869
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think I may have found Warren's report from the Appomattox campaign. And it's a long one. Starts on page 796 and ends page 827. It looks like he begins dealing with his removal on page 828.



 Posted: Sun Jul 6th, 2014 05:18 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
Texas Defender
Member


Joined: Sat Jan 27th, 2007
Location: Texas USA
Posts: 920
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

   I have waited for some time to see if my choice for the: "Most mistreated" general would appear. It has not, so I will advance it.

   To me, the most mistreated general was Major General William "Bull" Nelson, because he was murdered by Brigadier General Jefferson Columbus Davis.

William "Bull" Nelson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  General Nelson's behavior toward General Davis might be judged to have been harsh (Depending on what accounts you believe), but it did not justify murder. General Davis could have sought relief through the system, but in the end he provoked the confrontation that led to the shooting of General Nelson.

  Its amazing to me that while some major figures expected General Davis to be court martialed, he never was. There was never any disciplinary action whatever taken against General Davis, who continued to regard himself as the victim in the whole affair.



 Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2014 10:50 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
GeorgeM
GeorgeM
 

Joined: Sun Mar 16th, 2008
Location: Gilmanton, New Hampshire USA
Posts: 21
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

That's an interesting list. Of the generals mentioned, I would go with Horace Porter.



 Posted: Mon Jul 7th, 2014 11:46 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
Barlow
Member


Joined: Fri Jul 10th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 75
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Texas Def:   That is the ultimate definition of "mistreated".  The killing occurred at the Galt Hotel in Louisville, Ky.  I went there and asked the manager if he could show me the exact spot Nelson was shot.  He could not, but knew of the matter.  I guess Nelson used the ultimate 19th Century slander on Davis, calling him either a "puppy" or a "dog".  When you used those terms, "thems fightin words".  If you think Sickles had a new defense of temporary insanity, Davis tried an old defense, "slander to honor".



 Current time is 11:25 pmPage:    1  2  Next Page Last Page  
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.4317 seconds (11% database + 89% PHP). 30 queries executed.