Posted on 05/05/2023 4:55:02 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
The military operations which have been in progress on the line of the Rappahannock for a week past, have to-day culminated in what, if not precisely a great battle, only escapes that designation because we all feel that greater, by far, remains behind.
Gen. HOOKER, by a series of brilliantly audacious manoeuvres and movements, of a celerity wholly unmatched in this war, has succeeded in crossing the Rappahannock River, and gaining for his army a position ten miles west by south, and in the rear of Fredericksburgh.
Gen. LEE, at first completely surprised by this move, and utterly puzzled as to his antagonist's intentions, has, however, had time to recover himself, and with a hand almost equally bold in the grand game of strategy -- abandoning his position in Fredericksburgh, and the line of twenty miles down the Rappahannock which he has held for months -- has changed his front, and stands opposite us in the horrid gage of battle.
We have secured a strong position, completely turning the line of rebel defensive heights in the rear of Fredericksburgh, against which our army on the 13th of last December madly dashed itself. This, as Gen. HOOKER expresses it in his inspiriting order of Thursday, gives us the advantage of compelling the enemy to fight us on ground of our own choosing.
Figure to yourself a huge triangle or redan, one leg of three miles long, resting on the south side of the Rappahannock, above Fredericksburgh, and between Banks and United States Ford, and the other on Hunting Creek, an affluent of the Rappahannock, with the apex at Chancellorsville, and you have, in epitome, the situation as it now stands. This position, naturally strong, has been rendered doubly stronger by breastworks and abattis thrown up in front to cover the troops.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First session: November 21, 2015. Last date to add: May 2025.
Reading: Self-assigned. Recommendations made and welcomed.
Posting history, in reverse order
https://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:homerjsimpson/index?tab=articles
To add this class to or drop it from your schedule notify Admissions and Records (Attn: Homer_J_Simpson) by reply or freepmail.
Link to previous New York Times thread
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4150627/posts
From the Army of the Potomac: Terrible Battles Fought on Saturday and Sunday at Chancellorsville – 2-9
Arrival of Prisoners in Washington – 9
Important from the Southwest: Gen. Dodge Said to be Fighting East of Tuscumbia, Alabama – 9
A Fight at Warrenton Junction: Total Rout of the Black Horse Cavalry and Mosby’s Guerrillas by a Portion of Stahl’s Cavalry – 9
Editorial: The Battles on the Rappahannock – Hooker’s Position – 9
The Rebels and Gen. McClellan – 9
Newspaper Army Correspondents – 9-10
Capture of the Rebel Pirate Retribution – 10
France – 10
Latest News via Queenstown – 10
I see the New York Times was just as good at propaganda back then as they are today. Chancellorsville was a humiliating Union defeat and Hooker spent most of the battle walking around in a daze from a Confederate artillery shell landing nearby.
I agree that it was customary of whomever commander abandoned the battlefield is the one who admitted defeat. However, the battle was over by “this morning”. He would later state that he, “just lost confidence in Joe Hooker”,but he most likely suffered a concussion and was mentally unfit to make command decisions. General Meade begged him on May 3rd & 4th to send in the Union 1st and 5th Corps, 37,000 fresh troops, but Hooker wouldn’t allow it and instead ordered a retreat.
One of the great “what if’s” is if Stonewall Jackson had not been wounded at Chancellorsville. But what if Joe Hooker had not been rendered ineffective by that artillery shell?
They were at least trying to get the facts reported correctly. The report on Chancellorsville took up the entire front page and most of the back page (Page 8) in the original. I reproduced it on pages 2-9 above - one of the longest I have posted.
“But what if Joe Hooker had not been rendered ineffective by that artillery shell?”
No one can say, just speculate.
I will say this: getting a concussion was probably the worst thing that could have happened from the Union view.
If Hooker had been killed, a replacement commander would have been appointed. He probably could have done no worse; maybe better given the overwhelming Union advantage.
Grant (if he had been there; he wasn’t) would not have hesitated to take another 20,000 Union casualties in order to inflict another 2,000 Confederate casualties.
After reading the entire article, I do agree. They were reporting on the facts at the time, but there are Union slants to the story to make it seem like it was not the disaster it really was for the Army of the Potomac. I’m sure the same could be said about Confederate newspapers at the time. By the way, I lurk here daily and rather enjoy your updates on the Civil War. I really do appreciate it.
It’s fascinating studying all of the Generals in the East before Grant took command of all Union forces. They had overwhelming numbers and equipment, but were overly cautious, outmaneuvered, and outsmarted by Confederate Generals for the most part until Meade at Gettysburg. You are 100% correct that Grant would have thrown everything he had at Chancellorsville. Mary Lincoln called him a butcher, but he did what others before him refused to do to ultimately win the war.
Grant and his pro-union generals would forever - at least until the middle of the 20th Century - change the nature of war with their extermination strategies against Confederates and later native Americans.
Which brings up an interesting point, often overlooked.
At Chancellorsville itself, Lee's force was less than half the size of Hooker's, and yet Lee suffered more casualties and deaths than Hooker's forces.
22% of Lee's 60,000 troops were casualties = 12,764 including 1,665 killed in action.
9% of Hooker's troops were casualties = 12,145 including 1,082 killed in action.
Numbers & percents change somewhat if you consider the whole Chancellorsville campaign.
By my count, Lee lost two generals killed and nine wounded.
Hooker also lost two generals killed, plus three wounded.
Here is one description:
But he paid a terrible price for it, taking more casualties than he had lost in any previous battle, including the Confederate defeat at the Battle of Antietam.
With only 60,000 men engaged, he suffered 13,303 casualties (1,665 killed, 9,081 wounded, 2,018 missing),[11] losing some 22% of his force in the campaign—men that the Confederacy, with its limited manpower, could not replace.
Just as seriously, he lost his most aggressive field commander, Stonewall Jackson.
Brig. Gen. Elisha F. Paxton was the other Confederate general killed during the battle.
After Longstreet rejoined the main army, he was highly critical of Lee's strategy, saying that battles like Chancellorsville cost the Confederacy more men than it could afford to lose.[75]"
Bottom line: in Civil War battles, attacking forces often suffered disproportionately more casualties and that certainly included Lee:
“At Chancellorsville we gained another victory; our people were wild with delight — I, on the contrary, was more depressed than after Fredericksburg; our loss was severe, and again we gained not an inch of ground and the enemy could not be pursued.”
But he bought time for the South, and under any number of circumstances, the extra years could have resulted in both victory for the South and saving the Union.
As we read the headlines today, we know both were lost.
Victory for the Confederacy, as of May 1863, is still possible, indeed likely, if more battlefield victories lead to the election victory of a "peace candidate" like Democrat George McClellan in November 1864.
As of "today" neither Lee nor Davis have decided what they want to do next.
On the one hand, there is the matter of strategically vital Vicksburg, Mississippi, and that drunk of a Union general, might he just stagger into victory there?
Naw... Pemberton & Joe Johnson have that under control, right?
OK, we'll reinforce Johnson, send him the Confederate divisions of Loring & Walker, plus WH Jackson's cavalry, then Breckenridge & French's divisions.
That gives old Joe 36,000 plus Pemberton's 30,000 at Vicksburg, should be plenty enough to defeat yet another drunken Union general, right?
So, there's no need to send Lee to Vicksburg, or even, say, Longstreet, to add his corps and take command, is there?
Old Joe Johnson can handle it, so let's keep Lee in the Virginia and plan something that will really strike fear in the hearts of Union voters -- let's invade the Union!
Notice here, if the railroads are in good condition, in a matter of days, a week at most, Longstreet's corps could be transfered to the Vicksburg theater.
As for whether a Confederate victory would save the United States, here's one vision of what that might look like:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.