Tried to get ahead by diminishing those around him. This is part of pamplin historical part symposium called looking at generals we love to hate looking at Controversial Military leaders of the skwar civil war. Today is the 100th anniversary, to the day, that the first u. S. Troops went into line in france. During world war i. [ applause ] i am happy to introduce our next speaker. John j. Hennessey is a public historian and author, currently serving as the chief historian and chief of interpretation at fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National military park. John has worked for the nps for 25 years starting at manassas. He authored a great book, the first battle of manassas, july 18th through the 21st, as well as the probably the definitive book on second manassas return to bull run. Lets welcome john hennessey. [ applause ] so i have to start with this. This is not a gratuitous praising of my team that i have loved since i was 12. Pittsburgh penguins. They play hockey, you know. You might recall that they won the stanley cup in the spring, and this is a stanley cup hat. I offer this as context for some of what you have heard this week. Does anybody recall who the penguins defeated in the finals . Do you remember . Nashville. Nashville is in the state of tennessee. And who lives in the state of tennessee . Will green lives in the state of tennessee. [ laughter ] and and so after the stanley cup finals he called me or i called him, i cant remember which and he started telling me what a great series it was and how much fun it was. And i said, you know the penguins won. And he said, well, but the werent the predators just a fun team to watch. Werent the fans just totally engaged and fun to watch. And it occurred to me as i was sitting here yesterday or last night listening to will talk about Ambrose Bernstein that he has something of a thing for loveable losers, apparently. [ laughter ] now, unlike will, i am talking about joe hooker. Unlike will, i will not i have been determined for decades not to assume the characteristics of my subject, as will has. Will is exceedingly loveable, as you know. But its good to be here. And i really did bring the hat just to wear it if i went running, but it proved to be a fortuitous moment. Joseph hooker. A man we love to hate. At the time, during the american civil war, the hate of Joseph Hooker, if you will, or the dislike of him, was not as universal as it seems to be today. Our emotions about historical figures are often shaped by the historians who write about them or, more often, the work and the writings of the historical figures themselves after the deed is done. George mcclellan is a perfect example where we know vastly more about mcclellan and his personality than any of his soldiers ever did. And certainly that is true for Joseph Hooker as well. He was a man of many accomplishments, occasional brilliance. But he was not a man who could solely be judged based on his visible deeds and acts. Ulysses grant spoke of hooker probably as harshly or more so than anyone else that he spoke of. He said, i regarded him as a dangerous man. He was not subordinate to his superiors. He was ambitious to the extent of caring nothing for the rights of others. Now, we tend to flinch in the presence of an ambitious person. We tend to forget, however, that ambition is the main spring for a striving society. Hooker was by no means alone in being ambitious. He sought to distinguish himself from his peers in ways that would appeal to those in power above him. In matters like politics, where his core beliefs during the war, he knew, would do him little or no good, he sought to blend with those around him. Most importantly for hooker, as a subordinate, he adopted the persona of an aggressor. And i think its safe to say when you look at the history of the army of the potomac, there are few if any subordinate commanders in the army, especially Division Commanders in the army, who had a more unblemished, unbroken, spectacular record of aggression than did Joseph Hooker. And this, in an army that was by its nature and culture not an aggressive being. Grant, again, said of him, his disposition was, when engaged in battle, to get detached from the main body of the army and exercise a separate command. Speaking of hooker as a subordinate. Gathering to his standard all he could of his juniors. And of course, what he meant by that by all he could of his juniors was their accomplishments and taking credit. As you can see, grant was not a fan of Joseph Hooker. Many people, those we admire the most, rise by virtue of their own accomplishments. But we have all known Joseph Hooker in our lives. Just as weve known a George Mcclellan and maybe, if we are lucky, a u. S. Grant or robert e. Lee. These are people who live among us today in their personality and methods. Others, in addition to their own accomplishments, rise by virtue of their efforts to tear down those around them. Joseph hooker could muster little good to say about peers or superiors. And if any figure of the war was successful in rising by diminishing the accomplishments of those around him, it was Joseph Hooker. And in fact, that success in context, in retrospect, almost seems remarkable to us today. Now, in the army of the potomac, steven engel talked about the changing war. I would suggest to you that understanding the war requires an understanding that it changed dramatically from at the beginning in 1861 to its end. And it is an arc of change that affects military practice. We see that here with the earth works here but also military policy. Because the armies would become a dominant tool for implementing policy as it affected social institutions, the institution of slavery and, of course, southern civilians. And those policies would become the major point of debate within the Union War Effort during 1861, 62, into 1863. And within the armies themselves. And so, because the army was such an important tool and because its early commander George Britton mcclellan was so avid and persistent in participating in debates over what those policies should be, the politics of officers within the army of the potomac came to matter a great deal. And hooker realized this early on. And although he was a conservative democrat who generally opposed using the army as a tool for emancipation, for example, although he doesnt seem to have been quite as solicitous of southern civilians as mcclellan. He opted out of the public debates. To this day, many people who write about Joseph Hooker really dont have a clear view of what his politics were. And that was intentional on his part. He made himself disappear on those subjects that could do him the most harm and perhaps inhibit his advancement through the army. So i want to read to you a quote by hooker. Now, after the war he would embark on a pr campaign that would last until his death. Not so much through newspapers, although he granted an uncommon number of newspaper interviews. But through correspondence, especially to samuel bates who would right a history of one of the battles. And he offered his opinions on everything. I want to give you a sense of hooker generally as he undertook this effort. Lee, speaking of lee, he said, excelled almost every man i knew in character but as a soldier i do not wish to speak of him, which, of course, is in fact elsewhere he said rather negative things. His orders to his army in invading the north, gettysburg, are almost sublime. Hooker is saying that his orders, hands off civilians, were precisely right as far as hooker was concerned. And then he reveals himself, hooker does, as a thoughtful man. War has many evils at best. But in the hands of a truly great commander it burdens its burdens and terrors may be greatly ameliorated. War has its morality. In no instance has our government a Higher Mission than to perform than in her wars. What a contrast lees character presents to that of general shermans. Whose orders to his army were to receipt for nothing and whose dispatches to his government were unworthy of a guerilla. He meant with gu, not go. This speaks to his core beliefs of a conservative view of war. His commitment to morality in war, something that mcclellan certainly shared. His readiness to examine the character of others. Which he did constantly. His unwillingness to praise. Or at least to praise without a counterbalancing criticism. And so, hooker engaged in damning almost anyone who impeded his progress to success. Now, i suspect if Joseph Hooker took his seat with us this weekend, first i would put him next to will green so will could cheer him up a little bit. [ laughter ] but we would in all likelihood have enjoyed having him here. He was, and famous for, being a fun guy. He was unabashed. He could be entertaining. Sometimes injudicious which in a format like that is sometimes a welcome injection of fun. But always in a usually in an amusing sort of way. But we, as historians and as students, have come to know more his inner thinking. His calculated machinations. And if he had stayed with us any amount of time and if he had aspired for jerrys job as director of this place, we would have learned pretty quickly the underbelly of fighting joe hooker. Now, before the civil war, before the civil war, his reputation in the army was shaped less by his perfectly capable service in mexico and far more the perception was shaped by his raucous behavior in california after the mexican war. He was a west point graduate, served well in mexico. Enjoyed his time in the immediate postwar period in mexico city as he was wanted to. He would not marry until 1865, by the way, so he was a bachelor. Not lifelong but almost. But in california, where he was posted until 1853 and then resigned from the army in 1853, he gained a reputation. He gambled. He drank. He accumulated debts. Mcclellan say the of hooker later, in the mexican war he was looked upon as a good soldier but an unreliable man. That his course in california had been such as to forfeit the respect of his comrades. He was a common drunkard and gambler. Hooker did have a warranted or not, i think its almost impossible to tell but a certain reputation among his colleagues in the army. Somebody once described hookers time to me as a beach bum in california. Kind of living the life of a beach bum without a beach. I think thats probably pretty accurate. Staff officer in the army of the potomac later referred to hooker as a decayed california gambler. Now, importantly for Joseph Hooker, his time in california coincided precisely with that period of command by henry hallock. Who, of course, would be his immediate superior officer during his tenure as commander of the army of the potomac. Hallock came to believe that his knowledge, hallocks knowledge, of hookers behavior while in california deeply affected their relationship the rest of their careers. This is hallock writingment. He is aware i know some things about his character and conduct in california. And fearing that i may use the information against him he seeks to ward off its effects by making it appear that i am his personal enemy and jealous of him. In fact, hallock would be a constant enemy and thorn in hookers side. We dont know if hallock is right, but certainly hallock thought that his knowledge of hookers antics in california, both during his service in the military and his Peacetime Service there, shaped or revised the relationship that the two of them had. As a civilian hooker received contracts this is, by the way, hookers house in sonoma, which i havent heard since the fires whether it is still standing. I presume it still is. It is preserved in sonoma. Now, as a civilian, after his resignation in 1853 hooker received a number of contracts to help build railroads, military railroad and several roads in oregon. And so he while he never left california, he certainly had a strong presence in oregon. And it was there that he developed something of a political base. Including the eventual support of this man. Well, he is there. This is not working. A man named James Nesmith who had become a United States senator from oregon. He was a doug also democrat. There he is. Yeah. All jerry has to do is rise and everything [ laughter ] didnt work that way when will was here, though, i dont think. Nesmith would be, after statehood in 1860, would become a senator and would be one of hookers many boosters and perhaps his most vocal booster on capitol hill. In his papers, which are out in the Oregon Historical society, are full of letters from fighting joe hooker. And they offer us by far the best and most cohesive look at hookers methods of rising in the army. With the onset of war in 1861, Joseph Hooker had to borrow 700 to retire the debts that he still labored under in california and presumably oregon. And so that he could travel east to assist the Union War Effort. Not long after first manassas he received a commission as a bringi brigadier general, at that time 32nd ranked officer in the United States army, two slots ahead of grant, something that he would never quite get over, of course. He took command first of a brigade and then a division in what would become the third corps of the army of the potomac. He and phil carney commanded the two divisions in the third corps. As the army moved to the peninsula in 1862. Hooker was kind and accessible to his subalterns and peers and largely beloved by his men who were proud of the energy he brought to his endeavors. His first trip in the limelight oops. Happened without you standing that time. First trip into the limelight came on the Peninsula Campaign on may 5, 1862, when his division led the advance of the union army in pursuit of the confederates towards williamberg. This is not going to be a tactical talk but suffice to say it was the first evidence of one of hookers most important qualities on the battlefield. And that was his aggression. His was the lead of the army as it approached williamsburg. And rather than waiting for support, waiting to become part of a well organized advance, he decided that he needed to forge ahead and make contact as rapidly as possible. He was bloodied, his division was, and driven back and was, to some degree, rescued by the arrival of phil carneys division. Carney quickly concluded and would never lose the opinion that hooker was reckless. Carney was probably the greatest Division Commander in the history of the army of the potomac, extremely aggressive but not careless. Hooker, carney thought, was aggressive to the point of carelessness. Charles wainwright, who commanded the artillery of hookers division on the peninsula, wrote of him this. I must say he did not impress me at all favorably as to his powers as a general, hooker didnt. His great idea was to go ahead quick until you run against the enemy and then fight them. Not to let sumner, the second corps, get into williamsburg first, seemed to be his main rule of action. And so, on the one hand, hooker establishes first, for the first time something he will repeat over again, a reputation for aggression. But within the circles of the army there was a caveat that perhaps he was also reckless. After the battle, mcclellan praised not hooker but hancock. Who had delivered the final blow at williamsburg and said he was superb. While hocker received little or no notice. That sleight prompted hooker to embark on an Aggressive Campaign to inform those who mattered of what he had accomplished. And within two or three weeks after the battle of williamsburg he has written to at least six senators, asserting his decisive role in the battle and its success, and not just boasting of himself but also, of course, every time he spoke of one of his own accomplishments, he almost always spoke of someone elses failings. In writing to a new york congressman he said of mcclellan, i am amazed at his inhumanity, but he has none of the instincts or sympa pathies of a truly great man. To other correspondent offer williamsburg, again, praising himself and criticizing mcclellan who had slighted him. Our commander general either does not know what soldiership is or, if he does, is indisposed to acknowledge it except in some of his pet troops. Next to mcdowell i think mcclellan is the most trifling soldier yet. So, as you can see, hookers internal feelings were changing, were intensifying, and he was not one of the legions of mcclellan loyalists in the army. Hooker continually bucked for promotion. As i mentioned, he wrote continually to senators and congressmen. We have a letter from him written to senator nesmith of oregon. And if this is typical of the others, we can assume that not only did he promote his own accomplishments but also d denigrated others. Speaking of commanders that surrounded him in the army of potomac he told nesmith. I will sooner dig potatoes or cut down trees than belong to an army in which these officers exercise command. He would continue on. There are lots of threats like this from officers within the army about this and other things. But he would continue on. Well see. Jerry, you want to stand up again . See if we can get it to change. See. [ laughter ] very good. Very good. He has got the real controller. Apparently. I am just were just kind of awed by the whole thing, are we not . By the battle of antietam hooker had risen to the command of the first corps of the army of the potomac. A time of tremendous turmoil and change. He took what we now know as the first corps onto the battlefield at antietam. A reporter saw him at antietam, with his side whiskers, heavy countenance and transparent cheeks by revealed the blood like those of a blushing girl, he hardly looked all my fancy had painted him and the blushing cheeks are a constant part of his visage mentioned by almost everyone. Anyone who saw him, the flushed cheeks which contributed to the perception that he was under the influence of alcohol on a regular basis which i can find really no evidence that is true. In antietam he again exhibited aggression. On a night of the 16th of september, he was ordered to cross antietam creek, one of the upper crossings, and move toward what we now know as the north woods. He did so energetically. He did it so energetically that he entangled his men almost among the confederates. To the point where, when the sun rose the next morning, the lines were so close together that hooker had no choice but to simply go forth. He removed any flexibility from the equation by being overly aggressive that night. His bravery is unquestioned, wrote one of his officers who admired him. But he has not so far shown himself anything of a tactician. Now, of course, he would be wounded at antietam, but i am not sure that historians have quite recognized how limiting his act of aggression on the night of september 16th, putting his men almost amidst the confederate lines, how limiting that was for the union army when the sun rose on the morning of the 17th. Some of his fellow officers in the army certainly recognized it. Mead would later write a few months later, i should fear his judgment and prudence as he is apt to think the only thing to be done is to pitch in and fight. Now, remember those words when you and i are standing figuratively at the chance loresville intersection on may 1st, 1863. After being wounded in antietam he spent weeks in washington recovering. It was at this time, with full access to power brokers, that he laid the foundation politically for his future rise to commander of the army of the potomac. He did not engage, as far as we know, in any conversations or discussions about philosophy and policy. He confined himself to topics of military topics as he saw them and, quite naturally, the quality of the peers and commanders with whom he served. Once back in the field in november, he continued his ways under burnside. An november 19th as the campaign was rumbling toward and arrived at the rappa hannic river he writes a letter not to burnside suggesting a different policy but to edwin stanton, suggesting a different policy. Doesnt denigrate burnside directly. Other than to imply as anyone who suggests a different route does, that the one you are on is wrong. Ultimately, he is unsuccessful in altering the union plans, but, of course, he would spend the next two months engineering not only his own rise but burnsides fall. The enemy, he wrote at this time, seems to have counted on the mcclellan delays, underlining that. Speaking derisively of mcclellan. For a long while, they have never failed in calculations predicting by implication that burnside would fail similarly again. So, those of you who manage organizations, you have conversations about the people you work with and manage. We all do. And sometimes we speak uncharitably of them, perhaps. One of the things i think we all learned early is that, if you are in a position of authority, while you may have those conversations and they may be necessary to your organization, to have those kind of frank conversations, you do not have them with people below you in the organization. Because you discredit yourself as a leader as soon as that happens. One who served in the court and knew him well said he was an easy talker and accustomed to criticize freely even in the presence of inferiors, the conducts and acts of his superiors. When it concerned himself, he indulged in boasting. One cannot reckon modesty among his virtues. Baldy smith, who would become an enemy of hookers, called him a man of difficult character and more dangerous. He was thoroughly unprincipled and began at once in any position to pull down the men above him. Now, one of the characteristics of hooker is that most of the boasting that we have about him, or that he engaged in, was forward looking boasting. Ambitious people, people of accomplishment, i think we expect them to find subtle ways, if not explicit ways, to boast of their accomplishments. But the most dangerous kind of boasting is prospective boasting, this is what i will do. And proclaim what your success will look like. And that was hookers favorite kind of boasting. When henry benham talked to him about confronting robert e. Lee hooker responded, i dont intend to defeat him, i intend to bag him entirely. And throughout his command as army of command in the army of the potomac he would engage in retrospective criticism of his peers and superiors and forwardthinking boasting as to his own intentions and accomplishments. His criticism i am just going to sprinkle some of these through because they are so wonderful. He wrote voluminously after the war especially to bates. Most of the people who came under his fire were those who he perceived had either failed or crossed him in some significant way. Maybe his favorite target, Oliver Otis Howard. He said in 1872. He was always a woman among troops. If he wasnt born in petty coats he ought to have been and he ought to wear them every day. On burnside, support will while were going on here, he is going to burst into tears. He ought never to have been commissioned into the army. I may safely say i considered him loyal but simply an ass. I have no wish to disturb burnsides repute in any way but his brain was not larger than an hickory nut and entirely unfitted for command. What i love about that quote is not the hickory nut part, which is amusing and fun, but his preface to it that i have no wish to disturb burnsides repute in any way. And he often did this. Now, why did he do this . Well, i think i think as all of us are suntudents of human behavior, he believed there was some gain in it for him. And certainly it turns out probably there was. He probably was the most successful intriguer in the United States military during the american civil war. His efforts got him a command. But thats not the way hooker would have explained what he did and why he denigrated so freely. He said later, again, in a letter to samuel bates, he said, i was pronounced in my opinions for the sake of the cause and the country. Cherishing no ill feeling toward the persons or parties implicated or in any way reflecting on their merits. But simply to have the attention of the authorities called on the subject in order to mistakes might be remedied. I was too earnestly in the war to look upon blunders approvingly or silently. He did all this, he said, utterly regardless on any influence it might have on myself. Which conjures a few phrases, one one of which begins with b and ends with s. Of course, defeat and failure on the battlefields, more so or as much as hookers machinations doom burnside, and when burnside was relieved after the mud march in january of 1863, hooker was appointed to command. One of his first tasks was to humiliate ambrose evert burnside. Burnside had written and presented calling for the dismissal of hooker and others in the army. Or else burnside would resign. The order had never been issued but hooker found it in the headquarters papers after he took command. And so, as he described it later, in a week or two following i availed myself of an opportunity of sending it to the new York City Press for publication. Which, of course, soon made its author, burnside, more conspicuous than he had ever been before. Subsequently president lincoln inquired of me how the order got out. When i assured him that it was through my own agency, and i and that i considered it a great wrong to its author in withholding it to the public. [ laughter ] lincoln, of course, knew of hookers ways and appointed him to command despite his ways. Youre familiar with the famous letter, the very fatherly letter that lincoln writes in which he says, i ask you for military success, i risk the dictatorship. This is Something Else he wrote in that. I believe you to be a brave and skill follow soldier which i like. Lincoln writes with hooker. I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession. A welcome respite after mcclellan and something that was important to lincoln for sure. You have confidence in yourself which is valuable. You are ambitious, which within reasonable bounds does good rather than harm. And so lincoln, who was, you know, in my view, if you ever want a primer in how to manage difficult people, read lincolns papers. He is he ought to be topping number one in every Business School in america. Se magical in dealing with difficult people. Now, the challenge that faced Joseph Hooker in january of 1863 was not simply one of winning a military success but of rehabilitating an army that was, without question, in crisis after the mud march, after the relief of mcclellan, after the relief of burnside, after the defeat of fredericksburg. I would argue, and i think that the evidence suggests this, that is probably the case, that hooker walked into an army that was probably as grumbly as any to ever serve under the post revolutionary flag. For the first time soldiers felt widely that their efforts had been wasted in the field. One soldier wrote, i am yet alive in this wicked war, a war of ambition in negros. A war carried out in thousands after thousands of men being killed and made cripple for life. For what . God only knows. Another soldier in the army, henry ropes. An officer in the 20th massachusetts peace would be hailed with joy in almost any terms. In the army feelings a consciousness that it has done its duty does not care. While these were not universal opinions, they were certainly opinions widely held in the army. All of this despair, these doubts, bracketed the issuance on january 1st, 1863, of the emancipation proclamation. An executive order that was the focus of more attention than any executive order probably in american history, and more debate and more controversy. All of these things. The controversy itself. Mind you, most of the army was either ambivalent or opposed to the emancipation proclamation because they felt it would make their jobs harder by enraging the southerners and causing them to fight harder. But that aside, just the tumult that surrounded the army at this time, one man from new york said the mind of the army just now is a sort of intellectual marsh in which false report grows fat and sweeps up and down with perfect audacity and fierceness. Another man said, we have, some of us, forgotten the distinction between a Good Government and its sometimes corrupt agents. In our personal indignation we lost sight for the moment of our correct principles. Now, the sources of discontent within the army of the potomac went way beyond simple defeat on the battlefield. The war by 1863 was not only going badly in virginia, though it was going reasonable well elsewhere in the south for the union cause, it was changing dramatically. All those issues. Bubbling to the front. And the breadth of the armys complaints that winter is almost astonishing. They have been, many of them, not been paid in months. And for many, the soldiers at home or the families at home were dependent upon those little income pieces of income. And it was the middle of winter, when physical hardships are the greatest. They were dissatisfied with leadership. Governor warren writes why cannot we have generalship to put us on equal footing with our enemies. There was the simple disruption that comes with constant change, of the 19 corps and Division Commanders that had been with the army during the seven days, only five were left. After hookers appointment to command. What was left seemed to inspire little confidence. There was a tremendous pining for the good old days of mcclellan. This will change rather rapidly this spring, but there was certainly a desire for stability once again, and mcclellan certainly represented that. And there was a perception that infected the army for months that it had been meddled with by politicians in washington. Alexander web wrote that fall, how many bright hopes disappointed and father all done by the fools in washington. He was a staff officer in the army. Was there ever such a government, such fools, such idiots . I hate and despise them more intensely than i do the rebels. A remarkable statement coming from an officer of the United States army. I hate and despise my government more intensely than i do the rebels. Of course, the emancipation proclamation caused tumult. The question of black troops coming into the field was a subject of debate. Between the condition of the army, the instability at the top, the immense issues surrounding the Union War Effort, of how it should be done, and a simple fact of failure, all of these left the army in a dire condition. Now, perhaps the greatest threat to the army also would prove to offer it its foundation for recovery. We look at the winter of 1862 63 as a period of calm and quiet. On a physical level it certainly was. But there was a tremendous transformation, a tremendous burgeoning within the army of the potomac that winter. And that burgeoning came as a reaction not just to a new appointment, not just to Abraham Lincoln or the emancipation proclamation but most importantly to the rise of the northern peace party, the copperheads. Just as robert e. Lees army galvanized the union army after second manassas i would argue the most important factor in the ability of the army of the potomac to go into maryland and confront the confederates on antietam creek was robert e. Lee doing the one thing that would motivate them up off their back sides and out into the field again, by crossing into the north. But now another external force rose up that caused the army to begin to see itself as a cohesive unit with a very specific goal. And that was the rise of the copperheads. Now, a number of state elections were held in the spring in 1863. And so these were issues in the rise of these peace parties especially in new jersey and in connecticut where they would win elections, extensive, or threaten to win elections extensively. The copperheads became the force, the evil force, against which the army began to coalesce. The mean, lowbred cowardly scoundrels are afraid to help us. They try to stab us in the back. Its maddening and curses loud and deep go up from thousands of brave men every day. If the traitors keep on i should not wonder to see the time when after the war is over that our own strong arms will take vengeance on the cowardly skunks that are a disgrace to our country. These the copperheads, many of them advocated for outright peace but all of them advocated for a prosecution of the war that most high commanders in the army would have agreed with a year before. Slavery, out of it. Southerners will be our countrymen again, treat them gently. Bring them back. A policy of conciliation. But there was a difference. And the difference was, the copperheads wanted peace. The copperheads opposed the success of the army in the field. In the army in the field could not accept that as a valid view. And so the army in the field rallied against this force. Hooker had nothing to do with it except this. As the debate evolved in the army, opposition to the governments policies, emancipation proclamation, treatment of civilians, the method of prosecuting the war, opposition to the governments policies became came to be seen as opposition to the war. That was not the case when mcclellan was in command. When the army engaged freely in the debate over the policies that should guide the war. But now hooker, who had obscured his political inclinations, had declined to engage in the debate over war aims, his silence on the issues and the momentum that these issues had in the public press freed the army to express itself. And to coalesce around an identity and a determination that its efforts, the armys efforts, would not be wasted. Would be justified by prosecuting the war to its end. So even when many members of the army disagreed with the specific policies, they came to see opposition to those policies by the populists in the north as opposition to the war. That would not have happened, probably, under mcclellan. But because hooker detached himself from the Union Soldiers in the army of the potomac became a Political Force with an identity all their own. I would argue, i would argue that when you see 80plus percent of Union Soldiers voting for Abraham Lincoln in 1864, the foundation for that change was not founded in the campaign for president in the months leading up to the election. The foundation for that devotion to the president and his continued support for the war was born in the winter of 18621863, marchapril 1863 under hookers watch. And he made no effort to inhibit it and ultimately benefitted from it tremendously, as did the Union War Effort at large. How did the army receive hooker . His ascension to command came with his appointment of chief of staff, daniel butterfield, who was widely disrespected by professional soldiers in the army. He was the fastestrising civilian soldier in the army of the potomac. Hed beeningi militia regiment in 1861, no military experience whatsoever and he went from regimental command to corps command in less than a year. And the other man who seemed to be in hookers special affections was a man named daniel sickles, another nonprofessional soldier who had risen rapidly and commanded under hooker the third corps. But generally the army itself neither cheered nor complained. Everybody appears entirely indifferent to the matter, one soldier said. Heros of many defeats, we are not inclined to give confidence to anyone. Unlike the army of Northern Virginia which identified wholly with robert e. Lee, the army of the potomac ultimately identified with itself. One wag from new york most of them are from new york wrote after hookers appointment when a man is hauling a heavy load up a hill, he has no time to swap and stop jackasses. [ laughter ]. So there was hope, cautious, but there was still the question of the army itself. To hookers credit, he gave the most intention to those things he could effect. He instituted reforms. He attended to the physical condition of his troops. Jonathan letterman, one of the most important figures in military history, instituted a series of physical improvements to the camp that seem so fundamental to us today but fundamentally changed how the army functioned during times in camp. Remember, in 1863 a typical soldier might be under fire for maybe eight hours in the whole year. So how an army functioned in camp was very important. In fact, there are two people that hooker singled out for praise. One is John Reynolds and the other is jonathan letterman. He says that letterman deserves much of the credit for the improvements that he, hooker, implemented. Cleanliness in camp, all of these basic things. The drop in rates of diarrhea and dysentery were dramatic. The incidents of desertion dropped dramatically. The food improved. Fresh bread, potatoes, vegetables. One irishman wrote i like it better than i did before. We get more potatoes in a week now than we used to get in a month. He issued furloughs, a practice that made lincoln very nervous, fearing that soldiers would never come back. He issued whiskey rations, which surprised nobody who knew of hookers reputation as a drinker. One soldier said he and his staff apparently devote a great deal of time to inspecting the quarts, he said. [ laughter ]. His most famous innovation or reform was probably in some ways the least important, but its the most collectible today. And that is the institution of corps badges. In fact, he did this largely for negative reasons. That was so that stragglers would be identified as to where they had come from and be sent back to their commands instantly. In fact, it became a very positive thing. Soldiers became very proud of their corps badges and collectors today love them. He instituted a series of reviews. Allowing an army to see itself was a powerful tool of commanders. We often hear about these reviews and think about them as just being show. And they were. Lincoln came down in 1863 and reviewed the entire army. One soldier said after an opportunity of seeing our army as i have this last week, i cannot help concluding that the army of the potomac is a collection of as fine troops as there are anywhere in the world. That was a quote in a letter written directly after one of these reviews. Another soldier said there is growing confidence in general hooker. The winter of discontent is passing away and the natural winter too. The elasticity of the American Mind is exhibited in the hopeful spirit which now characterizes the army. Now, of course hooker had a number of advantages. This was the longest period of quiet the army had experienced in over a year, the first extended period of quiet that it had had. That was important for sure. But he also had some advantages. The high command of the army had been purged, if you will, of intriguers. Its very interesting and somewhat ironic that one of the greatest advantages that Joseph Hooker had as commander of the army was that he didnt have Joseph Hooker within the army. [ laughter ]. Hooker didnt enter the political fray. So the political tumult was absent. One of the most interesting things ive found, in january of 1863, right after the emancipation proclamation, its hard to find a letter written that doesnt mention the emancipation proclamation, yay or nay. Go a year before and its hard to find a letter that mentions emancipation as an issue anywhere. It was just like any other social change in america where theres tremendous debate and tremendous uproar and then slow, quiet, eventual acceptance. Weve seen that in our own society today. Confidence in the government and respect for it is reestablished, wrote one soldier, as the soldiers see more fully the depths of the principles involved in the controversy. Thats an important point, because these soldiers became intensely engaged in the political context of the war that winter. I believe that the armies of 186 18611865 probably, i would argue, are the most politically aware armies that weve sent out into the field. They knew why we were there and they knew how the war was changing. With all this, hooker still had to fight a battle, still had to win a campaign, because that after all was what he was there for. All of this was prelude to that. Of course were not going to get into a tremendous discussion of the campaign at chancellorsville. You can read about that. Suffice to say that hooker successfully engaged in a turning movement against lee, putting himself on lees flank at chancellorsville on april 30th, 1863. Next day may 1st, the army was going to march. Jerry . [ laughter ]. Thank you. You can put that on your resume next time. This triumphant moment. And of course what did hooker do . He boasted of the moment. He boasted not retrospectively but prospectively. He said, lee must ingloriously fly. He issued an address to his army, which caused some unease in the army, a mixture of unease and joy because it seemed that the success they had sought was upon them, at least they hoped. Then of course the army began to move on may 1st out the roads leading from chancellorsville and the army moves out from chancellorsville on various roads, encounters the confederates. Then hooker stops and pulls back. This tight solid line around the chancellorsville intersection that you see there. I dont want to get into a critique of that other than to suggest a couple of things. Whether or not this is the right thing to do, steven sears argues it was his plan all along. I dont see the evidence of that myself. And the primary thing i would cite was the astonished surprise of virtually all of hookers subordinates, not down the chain but mead and couch and slocum. If this was the plan all along, it was a plan that hooker had kept to himself. And that combined with things that he would do to robert e. Lee, not defeat him, but bag him. Then he must ingloriously fly. The decision to pull back into the position around chancellorsville, regardless of its merits, reflected a manager who was not managing his people well. You cant surprise your people like that and expect them to embrace what youre doing when it seems to them to be exactly opposite of everything you had said that you were going to do. Warren would write of this moment we went forward filled with high hope and courage and i thought a great victory was to be ours. My mind expanded to the greatness of this event. Onward strike, we halted, we hesitated, wavered, retired. That force that turned us back seemed to be me to be made for us to crush. I know we could have done it. Men of mind weigh the responsibility before they engage. In the hour of trial, they are equal to the occasion. They who are bold away from danger, cowher away from the reality. This was a man who was in hookers inner circle. Its just an interesting thing that he implied and that mead articulates later. Nothing inspires conservatism like responsibility. I mean that with a biglittle c a big c. Over time we almost all learned not to do that. And it was not something hooker learned as well. He would of course be defeated at chancellorsville by a force that was about half of his size. He would declare it a great success. He would lay the blame for the defeat on others, which was his wont, of course. He laid the blame on the union 11th corps, commanded by Oliver Otis Howard, that pious soldier who hooker came to despise above all others. And he would spend much of the rest of his life taking every opportunity he could to diminish howard in significant ways. I will point this out to you. So the ultimate impact of chancellorsville on the Union War Effort, you would think after the mud march, after fredericksburg, got a crushing defeat against a force half your size would have sacaused the unn war effort to just like, holy cow. Lincoln thought so. What will the continue say, unt said. What did the country say . Not much. Not much. This perfect confederate victory moved the needle hardly at all. And really in many ways demonstrates chancellorsville does, while it has internal importance in virginia and obviously opened the way for lees first invasion of the north, it demonstrates this war had become so big and so complicated that a single defeat or victory anywhere in this war could only move the needle so much. No one was more frustrated by that fact than robert e. Lee, who saw the perfect battle virtually bear minimal fruit at chancellorsville. Hooker, of course, would blame others. Sedgwick, stoneman and he would do it in ugly form as he got older. Now, hooker would continue in command after the battle of chancellorsville. He ultimately would be removed from command at his own request, at his own offer just a couple days before the battle of get gettysbu gettysburg. It was Joseph Hookers choice that he was not the commander at the battle of gettysburg. He offered his resignation and lincoln said okay, see ya later. He didnt resign. He asked to be relieved and was relieved from command of the army of the potomac. He left the army under a pall of disappointment. Thats the way its come down to us over time. But that failure is exacerbated and highlighted by the verbiage that surrounded it. Thats an abject lesson in the virtues of modesty and the perils of boastfulness for sure. Now the army continued on. One of the things that interests me very much is the army of the potomac. It was able to continue on. After chancellorsville there is a diminishment in morale for sure. But hookers efforts to localize the failure at chancellorsville with the 11th corps which was a partially immigrant group composed by a great many germans and Eastern European soldiers. About 40 of the corps was that. Ultimately when an organization fails, organizations survive in part by finding internal, localized reasons for that failure rather than accepting the failure as a commentary as a whole. That worked very well for the army of the potomac after the battle of chancellorsville. Where the soldiers of almost every other corps were simply able to dismiss what happened because it was the 11th corps and no doubt pleased hooker that he could pin this on a man he despised at the same time, Oliver Otis Howard. So you dont see the army sag as it did after fredericksburg and after the mud march. Instead you see it pick itself up in a way clearly that Abraham Lincoln never expected to march onto gettysburg and win by far its most important battle of the war. The storybooks tell us gettysburg is the turning point of the war, we can all argue whether or not thats true. For the army of the potomac, theres no question that it was. For the army of the potomac, maybe not the nation, but for the army of the potomac, gettysburg was a turning point where the identity it had generated of itself and its commitment to its own success found expression finally in victory. This army is a truly wonderful army, wrote one officer on the eve of gettysburg. They have something of the english bulldog in them. You can whip them time and again. But the next fight they go into, they go in good spirits again. If the army of the potomac would only do soandso everything will go all right. They say there isnt a department in the service that has done as much hard marching or fought as many battles as we have. Its true, we have not been victorious. But the fault is not in the troops. Any man will fight when flushed with former victories, but only this shattered army will face the enemy though defeat be certain. The identity of that army came into focus during hookers command. And that perhaps is Joseph Hookers greatest legacy, greatest contribution to the war. There is no arguing, no diminishing that period from january 26th, 1863 until may 1st, 1863 as one of the most important periods in the history of the army of the potomac. And i would argue the period during which the army took on its identity, to some degree its structure, that would carry it through much greater struggles to come. After gettysburg, hooker would be reassigned eventually to command the 20th corps. The 11th and 12th corps send out to the western theater. Not going to get into that at all, only to say that his tenure in command ended when he was slighted once again. When Oliver Otis Howard received command of that army, hooker said, im done and offered to be relieved from his position. He was and then would ho hold lesser commands throughout the war and commence a campaign of terrorism in the western theater as well against his superiors. He resented sheridan for getting command in virginia as he did. And he hated william sherman. For the private part of the indignity, hooker wrote of appointing howard over him, it would have given me the greatest satisfaction to have broken my cyber over the head of sherman. This is written to a United States senator. Sherman is crazy. He has no more judgment than a child. He wrote of grant, grant is determined to have no officer of ability near him in rank. Of course what he wanted the senate to interpose in favor of was him being restored to some command. He would not be. He would stay in service until 1868, having suffered a stroke in 1865 and another one in 1867. He did get married. His wife lived three years. She died in 1868 after the war he would go on something of an interview tour, giving interviews to pretty much anyone who asked for one. And rhythmically throughout the years throughout 1870 and 1879, the year he died, those interviewed would appear in northern newspapers. While they dont necessarily tell us a lot that is historical historically significant, they are certainly windows into the psyche of Joseph Hooker. I would just close with this, that no organization can prosper well with a man like Joseph Hooker within it. Those who not only seek to advance themselves but to do so by ripping others down. Those of you who manage have had people like that. Those of you who have know how difficult it is to manage a situation like that. But as hooker demonstrates, every once in a while a person with those characteristics who rises into a position that they aspire to unobstructed now where they dont necessarily have to answer to anybody else can succeed. When for a few short months in the spring and late winter of 1863, Joseph Hooker stopped his back biting, his denigrating of others and focused on the improvement of the army under his command without having to worry to achieve that. And that is his great es legaes. Im glad to take any questions that you have. [ applause ]. Thank you. Youre welcome to defend yourself. I just wondered if its true that Sidney Crosby is the biggest cry baby in the National Hockey league. Only by those who people who dont watch him on a regular basis do people think that. I would just point out while i asserted the similarities between will and ambrose before i just detected a similarity between will and Joseph Hooker right there. [ laughter ]. Got one more. Fighting joe hooker. We hear that a lot. Is that a name he picked up very early on and was he named that but someone in a specific thing or has it grown over time . It was actually kind of a misconstr misconstruence of a newspaper report. It was a name that hooker himself had said that he didnt like, although he later occasionally referred to himself by that name. He said it made him sound like a wagon master or a hay dealer. Yes. It was a transcription error in a newspaper that ultimately led to that. And lee occasionally referred to hooker as mr. Fj hooker, which of course was not intended to be flattery. And no hookers are not named after Joseph Hooker. All right. On that, thank you very much. [ applause ] ho had an odyssey to get here but he is here happily. M. Hood is a distant relative of confederate general john bell put. He is the author of John Bell Hood the rise, fall, and resurrection of a confederate general. And also, the lost papers of confederate general John Bell Hood. President of the Confederate Museum in new orleans. Without further do, sam. [applause]