Henry Halleck - General or Meddler? (1 Viewer)

[Peter Reuss]

As I once again wade back into reading about the Civil War (I'm again reading Gettysburg - A Testing of Courage by Trudeau), I'm constantly struck by the role that Henry Halleck played in 'running the war.'

On the battlefield, he didn't exactly impress (or make an impression).

From his office in Washington, he exerted significant influence over the running of the war. Reading about his ongoing tiff with Hooker (leading to Meade coming to take command) showed just how much power he had.

Much is made about the ability of field generals. Where does Halleck rate in terms of the military minds of the Union? Did he just muck things up, or did he assist a non-military president in running the war?

 

[Peter Reuss]

A random quote from Wikipedia..."Alongside Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan, Henry Halleck may be regarded as one of the fathers of modern warfare." That praise seems a bit excessive!

 

[Deitz]

His delay in getting the pontoons to Burnside at Fredericksburg, may have contributed to the Unions defeat. However, Burnside's failure to adapt his battleplan to the battlefield situation was the main cause of the defeat.

 

[UKReb]

When Meade failed to follow-up his drubbing of Lee at Gettysburg allowing the Confederates to slip back into Virginia-Halleck the Union general-in-chief received most of the criticism. Lincoln was not the only Northern official who was exasperated that the Rebs had got away but he was one of the few who blamed Meade rather than Halleck.

In a post Gettysburg discussion with Gideon Welles-Secretary of the Navy-Lincoln stated "Hallecks knows better than I what to do.......therefore it is better that I, who am not a military man, should defer to him, rather than he to me". Welles who nearly always respected Lincoln's judgement, was less kind in his evaluation of Halleck replying "I have been unable to see, hear or obtain evidence of power, or will, or talent, or originality on the part of General Halleck. He originates nothing, anticipates nothing to assist others, takes no responsibility, plans nothing, suggests nothing, is good for nothing". Most of Lincoln's administration and Washington officials were dissatisfied with Halleck's leadership and soon after Gettysburg rumours were rife that he was to be transferred to a field position prompting one Congressman to state "Put Halleck in command of 20,000 men, and he will not scare three setting geese from their nests".

Halleck did not attempt to answer his critics assuming correctly that most of them knew little about the complex logistics of war he wrote to Grant "I sincerely wish I was with you again in the west. I am utterly sick of this political hell". Probably no man in the US was better prepared for the civil war than Henry Halleck. Grant said of him "He is a man of gigantic intellect and well studied in the profession of arms I trust him implicitly". Grant was definitely not a man who suffered fools gladly and to his dismay watched as Halleck became one of the most vilified Union generals of the Civil War.

Halleck's personality did not win him any friends, his antagonistic attitude immediately raised the hackles of whoever he was discussing the topic with. However, it was his suggestion to Lincoln that the president appoint Grant as general-in-chief whilst he willingly accepted the demotion of chief-of-staff for he knew only too well that for the first time he had a commander in the field who was intent on winning the war instead of continually retreating or displaying timidity. The change in roles actually meant little real change in Halleck's responsibilities because Grant stopped in Washington only long enough to shake Lincoln's hand before leaving for the field and Meade's army where he stayed until the end of the war. Halleck continued advising Lincoln and Stanton, distributed reinforcements for Grant and Sherman, coached new field generals, directed the flow of supplies and raised the professional level of the army.

Henry Halleck was not a great field general like Sherman or Grant. He did not win the admiration and respect of either the army he served or the politicians in Washington. But a nation waging a total war required a businessman-soldier to properly manage the army. "Old Brains" Halleck did this well, serving his nation in it's time of need.

Reb

 

[Peter Reuss]

One thing I constantly hear about is how he continually 'prodded' generals to 'get going' and fight the war. That always sounded so noble, but as I read Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas (Bobrock), Halleck is portrayed as a meddler from far away who didn't understand local logistics. The argument is that if generals had rushed to the field (as Halleck wanted), they would have been unprepared and faced disaster.

I suspect some of that angst was directed at Halleck to make Thomas look better (which appeared to be the point of the entire book - make Thomas look like a genius and Halleck, Sherman, and Grant like complete morons). The argument is that careful planning often meant victory without much loss of life. Rash action (i.e. Sherman & Grant) sometimes meant victory, but with huge loss of life. Halleck obviously preferred action.

The assumption has always been that Union generals were timid and afraid to attack. That was Halleck's view, and for the most part I've always agreed with it. Bobrick did get me thinking though...is it possible that the generals in the field knew their local situation of supply and acted prudently in waiting? If that's true, Halleck becomes a nincompoop in Washington who sounded good but didn't know what he was doing.

Either way, I doubt we'll see a Henry Halleck toy soldier anytime soon!

 

[UKReb]

One thing I constantly hear about is how he continually 'prodded' generals to 'get going' and fight the war. That always sounded so noble, but as I read Master of War: The Life of General George H. Thomas (Bobrock), Halleck is portrayed as a meddler from far away who didn't understand local logistics. The argument is that if generals had rushed to the field (as Halleck wanted), they would have been unprepared and faced disaster.

I suspect some of that angst was directed at Halleck to make Thomas look better (which appeared to be the point of the entire book - make Thomas look like a genius and Halleck, Sherman, and Grant like complete morons). The argument is that careful planning often meant victory without much loss of life. Rash action (i.e. Sherman & Grant) sometimes meant victory, but with huge loss of life. Halleck obviously preferred action.

The assumption has always been that Union generals were timid and afraid to attack. That was Halleck's view, and for the most part I've always agreed with it. Bobrick did get me thinking though...is it possible that the generals in the field knew their local situation of supply and acted prudently in waiting? If that's true, Halleck becomes a nincompoop in Washington who sounded good but didn't know what he was doing.

Either way, I doubt we'll see a Henry Halleck toy soldier anytime soon!

Appears you had already made up your mind whether Halleck was an idiot or not before your original post

I had assumed you were asking for views so I gave you mine based on what I had read and deciphered. As far as Benson Bobrick's intepretation of Thomas-well he simply won the war single handed and would have even done so without Grant or Sherman's input. IMO that author is far short of being amongst the best of the civil war biographers- but heck what do I know I wasn't there either

Reb

 

[Peter Reuss]

Actually....no. My mind wasn't made up, and I do value input.

I'd always had the impression that Halleck properly goaded incompetant and slow generals to the field. Bobrick (while obviously unbelievably biased - do you think he's a relation to Thomas??) got me pondering whether Halleck may have pushed a little too hard for action. Knowing that the author had a bias (to make Thomas look good), I take that with a grain of salt, but it does at least raise the question of Halleck's abilities.

A healthy dose of Halleck in Trudeau's Gettysburg and viola...I wonder what actual role he held in history. So your input is very helpful.