GDG- RE: Leader Losses

[Smith, David [USA]]

Rick--

Great posts all, Rick.  Sometimes folks aren't aware of what a difficult
battle Chancellorsville was for the ANV - the Union resistance the day
after Jackson's flank march was stubborn and tenacious.  Ernest
Ferguson, in his 1993 book (Chancellorsville 1863, The Souls of the
Brave), basically accuses J.E.B. Stuart of butchering the Confederate
corps he commanded (Jackson's corps) through repetitive frontal
assaults.  Since a Union regiment that my great-grandfather was in
fought on that part of the field (near Hazel Grove), I've looked into it
a little.  It was a very dogged fight, kind of like the Wheatfield, in
which Confederate forces would sweep forward and then be swept back.  I
believe this happened at least five or six times.  Losses of officers
leading the attacks were heavy, colors were captured and recaptured, log
breastworks were tenaciously fought over.  For a period, some of the
regiments (my great-grandfather's included) had a flanking position on
the Confederates advancing down the plank road and poured in fires.  The
Union claims they only lost this position because they ran out of ammo,
ammunition resupply being screwed up at this point in the battle.

At least on this part of the Chancellorsville battlefield, Confederate
losses were high, and I imagine they included officer losses as well.

David G. Smith

Here's a quote from Ferguson (p. 229) "Colonel Garnett, bringing his
brigade up in support of Paxton, also [like Paxton] was mortally
wounded.  It was a devastating morning for the leadership of the Army of
Northern Virginia, as brigadiers and field officers all across Stuart's
line exhorted their charges from the front like platoon leaders."

>Surely the loss of middle-grade officers cut both ways, affecting the
ANV
and the AoP equally.  If you want to make the argument that Gettysburg
occurred too soon after Chancellorsville for the ANV to recover from its
C'Ville losses, don't you also have to recognize that the ranks of the
AoP
were similarly decimated at C'Ville, and the whole impact thing ends up
being a wash? - Regards, Tim

I don't think so - on the one hand, it brought (by Couch's resignation,
to be sure) Hancock into Corps Command, which had a huge effect at
Gettysburg; and I think that quite a few other good officers finally
made their way into the command structure. And on the other, about half
the AOP never pulled a trigger at Chancellorsville, and most of the
heavy losses in manpower and officers was confined to the III and XI
Corps.

In Lee's army, virtually every unit in the army saw major combat, and
was on the attack most of the time, which is where the loss of frontline
officers is (and was) the most severe.  I don't have any exact figure at
hand, but the proportion of Regiments and Brigades that were under new
leaders at Gettysburg was huge, and certainly much greater than in the
AOP.

Rick Barber