Losing is not the worst thing, not learning about how you lost is the worst thing. I think that Hooker was a capable general, unappreciated by history. Thanks Ron for this information!
I did not realize that Hooker was such an asset to the Union Army! I only knew about his failure at Chanslerville! Thank you for enlightening me on this man's important contributions to the war effort!
I am enjoying your videos. I was heavy into the Civil War back in the 1990's and have dropped off a bit. Thank you for this research and making me regain my interest. The end of the commentary after Hooker resigns actually brought tears to my eyes.
My GGGrandather served under Hooker and later Dan Sickles. People today understand what a concussion can mean for a football player, but most historians ignore the idea that Hooker at Chancellorsville suffered from a concussion that basically disabled him in the middle of the battle. Concussions were not really understood at the time.
I’ve recently taken a greater interest in the history and Battles of the American Civil War, always have been I rested but just recently have been able to learn more of the individual Commanders and leaders through this channel and a couple of other RUclips creators. I must say that you guys have made me reassess the basic things I thought I “knew” about the war. I’ve also learned that there were a few “overrated” Generals, there are quite a few more Generals in the Hooker mould that don’t get nearly enough credit for what they could and did do. Thank you for your work
I agree with the comments of Patrick Shannon that this whole series has been phenomenally revealing into the personalities of many prominent Civil War personalities, but I think that this is my favorite of all. I had no idea what his personality was really like, having only comments from Shelby Foote, but now I have really been enlightened about the man. Just the portrait of him you furnished reveals a man of resoluteness, decisiveness, and capability. The details about his many contributions to the war effort reveal that he was a general worthy of our admiration and gratitude. Who knows how much differently he might be viewed were it not for a simple twist of fate when a cannon ball struck the porch he was standing on. Thanks so much!
As any country music fan could tell you, the failures are always remembered, the good is often forgotten. Hooker couldn’t have been too bad a guy or he would never have been allowed to be one of President Lincoln’s pallbearers.
Never really thought about hooker all that much. He did do a lot of good things for the army, but getting knocked cockeyed at Chancellorsville and the subsequent defeat did put him off.. he was better than Burnside and as good as McClellan. Me surpassed him because of Gettysburg. I wonder how he would’ve done at Gettysburg. That was such a close battle.
It's amazing how, at the height of military necessity, politics raises its ugly head. Thing have changed little over the years. Apparently Joe had other qualities beyond his military abilities. He was described a heavy drinker and a 'ladies' man. I wonder if this influenced the term 'hookers' to describe the ladies that plied their trade while following his army?
*Because of his defeat at Chancellorsville, Hooker is often disparaged by historians. Does anyone know of a good (and relatively recent) biography of Joseph Hooker?*
I heard that Hooker‘s first proposal upon hearing about Lee‘s newest was to go on the offensive and take Richmond. Clearly, that idea will have been far too bold for Lincoln and Halleck, but I can see the merit in this approach. Richmond is probably not defensible without Lee‘s army protecting. By contrast, Washington DC is a major fortress and also has significant forces defending it (probably something like two of the AoP‘s Army Corps); Lee won’t be able to capture the city without a lengthy siege, if at all. And that‘s assuming he takes the bait and doesn’t go chasing after the Union army as soon as he realizes what‘s going to happen. Of course, they could still do a lot of damage in Pennsylvania, but nothing that would make up for losing Richmond.
Losing is not the worst thing, not learning about how you lost is the worst thing. I think that Hooker was a capable general, unappreciated by history. Thanks Ron for this information!
This is an excellent series of commentaries. They have provided me with a fresh & informed perspective on prominent civil war personalities.
I did not realize that Hooker was such an asset to the Union Army! I only knew about his failure at Chanslerville! Thank you for enlightening me on this man's important contributions to the war effort!
I look forward to your channel every day. Thanks you.
I am enjoying your videos. I was heavy into the Civil War back in the 1990's and have dropped off a bit. Thank you for this research and making me regain my interest. The end of the commentary after Hooker resigns actually brought tears to my eyes.
I got the book as an inter library loan It is a treasure for sure. Thanks so much
My GGGrandather served under Hooker and later Dan Sickles. People today understand what a concussion can mean for a football player, but most historians ignore the idea that Hooker at Chancellorsville suffered from a concussion that basically disabled him in the middle of the battle. Concussions were not really understood at the time.
Thank you for illuminating facts about General Hooker. I'd overlooked his army career, knowing only Chancellorsville and with Grant in Tennessee.
I’ve recently taken a greater interest in the history and Battles of the American Civil War, always have been I rested but just recently have been able to learn more of the individual Commanders and leaders through this channel and a couple of other RUclips creators. I must say that you guys have made me reassess the basic things I thought I “knew” about the war. I’ve also learned that there were a few “overrated” Generals, there are quite a few more Generals in the Hooker mould that don’t get nearly enough credit for what they could and did do. Thank you for your work
I agree with the comments of Patrick Shannon that this whole series has been phenomenally revealing into the personalities of many prominent Civil War personalities, but I think that this is my favorite of all. I had no idea what his personality was really like, having only comments from Shelby Foote, but now I have really been enlightened about the man. Just the portrait of him you furnished reveals a man of resoluteness, decisiveness, and capability. The details about his many contributions to the war effort reveal that he was a general worthy of our admiration and gratitude. Who knows how much differently he might be viewed were it not for a simple twist of fate when a cannon ball struck the porch he was standing on. Thanks so much!
You've been doing a lot with James Fowler Rusling. This guy sound like a treasure trove of info.
Huzzahs for the niche and nitty gritty portrayed in this class. Thanks to you Prfsr.
I am
Dr. Sir Yr. very Obt. Hbl. Servt.
Very interesting.
Thanks!
As any country music fan could tell you, the failures are always remembered, the good is often forgotten. Hooker couldn’t have been too bad a guy or he would never have been allowed to be one of President Lincoln’s pallbearers.
Thanks! Time well spent.
I’m constantly struck by how much a General’s own personality contributes to his success or failure.
Thanks!
My great grandfather’s half brother was killed while serving under Hooker at Chancellorsville.
My great grandfather served under Hooker at Antietam.
Never really thought about hooker all that much. He did do a lot of good things for the army, but getting knocked cockeyed at Chancellorsville and the subsequent defeat did put him off.. he was better than Burnside and as good as McClellan. Me surpassed him because of Gettysburg. I wonder how he would’ve done at Gettysburg. That was such a close battle.
Not really. The Confederates were denied of the heights. Gettysburg was decided on day one. Buford saved the day!
👍 👍
It's amazing how, at the height of military necessity, politics raises its ugly head. Thing have changed little over the years. Apparently Joe had other qualities beyond his military abilities. He was described a heavy drinker and a 'ladies' man. I wonder if this influenced the term 'hookers' to describe the ladies that plied their trade while following his army?
*Because of his defeat at Chancellorsville, Hooker is often disparaged by historians. Does anyone know of a good (and relatively recent) biography of Joseph Hooker?*
I heard that Hooker‘s first proposal upon hearing about Lee‘s newest was to go on the offensive and take Richmond. Clearly, that idea will have been far too bold for Lincoln and Halleck, but I can see the merit in this approach.
Richmond is probably not defensible without Lee‘s army protecting. By contrast, Washington DC is a major fortress and also has significant forces defending it (probably something like two of the AoP‘s Army Corps); Lee won’t be able to capture the city without a lengthy siege, if at all. And that‘s assuming he takes the bait and doesn’t go chasing after the Union army as soon as he realizes what‘s going to happen.
Of course, they could still do a lot of damage in Pennsylvania, but nothing that would make up for losing Richmond.
Seriously, Rusling is the proto- Forrest Gump. There used to be no general he did not personally know and serve under.