Hullo there,
I've noticed that several Union Generals who commanded Corps at the end of the Civil War can never be promoted above division command, including A. Humphreys and C. Griffin, who replaced Winfield Hancock and G. K. Warren as corps commanders in the Army of the Potomac in 1864 and 1865. Will they be made promoteable at a later date?
-
EmoryUpton
- Civilian
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:26 pm
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
-
EmoryUpton
- Civilian
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:26 pm
Thanks for the quick answer! The other Union officer who caught my eye was H. Wright, who I seem to recall is also not promotable.
If I may been indulged one further impertinence, I think all three generals (Wright, Griffin, and Humphreys) are rated too low. Certainly none of them were better than the officers they replaced (Hancock was incapacitated, Sedgwick was killed in action, and Warren was removed by Sheridan in a fit of pique at Five Forks), but I think the 3-1-1 ratings for them do not accurately reflect their capabilities. According to Generals in Blue, for instance, Griffin had a "reputation as an idol of his men and a 'hard case' as well", and was for a time an artillery instructor prewar.
A. Humphreys was the chief topographical engineer of the Army of the Potomac during the peninsular campaign in 1862 and fought well at Gettysburg as a division commander in Sickles' III corps. Meade selected him as chief of staff after the battle, and Grant picked him to replace Hancock after the latter was incapacitated by his old wounds. After the war he became Chief Engineer of the US Army.
Wright is the least distinguished of the three, but he still seems to have been a solid engineer (he was chief engineer for Heintzelman's division at First Bull Run), and his men were the first to breach the Petersburg works. Based on his war record, the 3-1-1 seems okay for him, but perhaps with the addition of Engineer and Siege Expert at ** rank or something, it might be more accurate.
Hopefully none of that wastes your time or anything. I'm sure you guys know more than me about the period.
If I may been indulged one further impertinence, I think all three generals (Wright, Griffin, and Humphreys) are rated too low. Certainly none of them were better than the officers they replaced (Hancock was incapacitated, Sedgwick was killed in action, and Warren was removed by Sheridan in a fit of pique at Five Forks), but I think the 3-1-1 ratings for them do not accurately reflect their capabilities. According to Generals in Blue, for instance, Griffin had a "reputation as an idol of his men and a 'hard case' as well", and was for a time an artillery instructor prewar.
A. Humphreys was the chief topographical engineer of the Army of the Potomac during the peninsular campaign in 1862 and fought well at Gettysburg as a division commander in Sickles' III corps. Meade selected him as chief of staff after the battle, and Grant picked him to replace Hancock after the latter was incapacitated by his old wounds. After the war he became Chief Engineer of the US Army.
Wright is the least distinguished of the three, but he still seems to have been a solid engineer (he was chief engineer for Heintzelman's division at First Bull Run), and his men were the first to breach the Petersburg works. Based on his war record, the 3-1-1 seems okay for him, but perhaps with the addition of Engineer and Siege Expert at ** rank or something, it might be more accurate.
Hopefully none of that wastes your time or anything. I'm sure you guys know more than me about the period.
"I will carry those works. If I don't, I will not come back."
---Colonel Emory Upton, May 10, 1864
---Colonel Emory Upton, May 10, 1864
-
Gray_Lensman
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 4:04 am
- Location: Who is John Galt?
Return to “AGEod's American Civil War”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 138 guests