MASTER OF MILITARY STUDIES - DTIC
United States Marine CorpsCommand and Staff CollegeMarine Corps University2076 South StreetMarine Corps Combat Development CommandQuantico, Virginia 22134-5068MASTER OF MILITARY STUDIESCommander’s Intent of Major General Joseph Hooker during theChancellorsville CampaignSUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF MILITARY STUDIESMajor William M. JurneyAY 2000-2001Mentor: Dr. Richard L. DiNardoApproved:Date:Mentor: Prof E. H. Grayson, Col, USA (Ret)Approved:Date:
Report Documentation PageReport Date06042001Report TypeN/ATitle and SubtitleCommander’s Intent of Major General Joseph Hookerduring the Chancellorsville CampaignDates Covered (from. to)Contract NumberGrant NumberProgram Element NumberAuthor(s)Jurney, William M.Project NumberTask NumberWork Unit NumberPerforming Organization Name(s) and Address(es)USMC Command and Staff College 2076 South Street,MCCDC Quantico, VA 22134-5068Performing Organization Report NumberSponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name(s) andAddress(es)Sponsor/Monitor’s Acronym(s)Sponsor/Monitor’s Report Number(s)Distribution/Availability StatementApproved for public release, distribution unlimitedSupplementary NotesThe original document contains color images.AbstractDid "Fighting Joe" Hooker of the army of the Potomac lose his nerve during the ChancellorsvilleCampaign of 1863? Perhaps history has failed to recognze Major General Joseph Hooker’s truecommander’s intent for this campaign. Hooker’s intent was simple: maneuver forces to Lee’s flank andrear in order to force a withdrawal of Confederate troops from Fredericksburg. Hooker had no intention ofengaging in a "risky confrontation" with General Robert E. Lee and the army of northern Virginia.Hooker’s plan would fail due to his own steadfast belief in the ability of his plan to force Lee to withdraw.To say that Lee defeated the army of the Potomac is misleading because Lee did not defeat the army, hedefeated Hooker as he fought a very effective defensive battle that removed the federal threat fromVirginia due to Hooker’s failings as an army commander.Subject TermsChancellorsville; Hooker; Civil War; Commander’s IntentReport ClassificationunclassifiedClassification of this pageunclassified
Classification of AbstractunclassifiedNumber of Pages70Limitation of AbstractUU
FORM APPROVED - - - OMB NO. 0704-0188REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGEpublic reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding thisburden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters services, directorate for information operations and reports, 1215 Jefferson davis highway, suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the office of management andbudget, paperwork reduction project (0704-0188) Washington, dc 205031. AGENCY USE ONLY (LEAVE BLANK)2. REPORT DATE06 APR 20014. TITLE AND SUBTITLECOMMANDER’S INTENT OF MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPH HOOKERTHE CHANCELLORSVILLE CAMPAIGN3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVEREDSTUDENT RESEARCH PAPER5. FUNDING NUMBERSDURINGN/A6. AUTHOR(S)MAJOR WILLIAM M. JURNEY, USMC7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)USMC COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE2076 SOUTH STREET, MCCDC, QUANTICO, VA 22134-50689. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)SAME AS #7.8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBERNONE10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY REPORT NUMBER:NONE11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTESNONE12A. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTNO RESTRICTIONS12B. DISTRIBUTION CODEN/A13. ABSTRACT (MAXIMUM 200 WORDS)DID “FIGHTING JOE” HOOKER OF THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC LOSE HIS NERVE DURING THE CHANCELLORSVILLE CAMPAIGN OF1863? PERHAPS HISTORY HAS FAILED TO RECOGNIZE MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPH HOOKER’S TRUE COMMANDER’S INTENT FOR THISCAMPAIGN. HOOKER’S INTENT WAS SIMPLE: MANEUVER FORCES TO LEE’S FLANK AND REAR IN ORDER TO FORCE A WITHDRAWAL OFCONFEDERATE TROOPS FROM FREDERICKSBURG. HOOKER HAD NO INTENTION OF ENGAGING IN A “RISKY CONFRONTATION” WITHGENERAL ROBERT E. LEE AND THE ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA.HOOKER’S PLAN WOULD FAIL DUE TO HIS OWN STEADFAST BELIEF IN THE ABILITY OF HIS PLAN TO FORCE LEE TO WITHDRAW. TOSAY THAT LEE DEFEATED THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC IS MISLEADING BECAUSE LEE DID NOT DEFEAT THE ARMY, HE DEFEATED HOOKERAS HE FOUGHT A VERY EFFECTIVE DEFENSIVE BATTLE THAT REMOVED THE FEDERAL THREAT FROM VIRGINIA DUE TO HOOKER'SFAILINGS AS AN ARMY COMMANDER.14. SUBJECT TERMS (KEY WORDS ON WHICH TO PERFORM SEARCH)15. NUMBER OF PAGES:62CHANCELLORSVILLE, HOOKER, CIVIL WAR, COMMANDER’S INTENT16. PRICE CODE: N/A
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF REPORTUNCLASSIFIED18. SECURITYCLASSIFICATION OFTHIS PAGE:19. SECURITYCLASSIFICATION OFABSTRACTUNCLASSIFIEDUNCLASSIFIED20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYTitle: Commander’s Intent of Major General Joseph Hooker during the ChancellorsvilleCampaignAuthor: Major William M. Jurney, USMCThesis: Did “Fighting Joe” Hooker of the Army of the Potomac lose his nerve during theChancellorsville Campaign of 1863? Perhaps history has failed to recognize Major GeneralJoseph Hooker’s true commander’s intent for this campaign. Hooker’s intent was simple:maneuver forces to Lee’s flank and rear in order to force a withdrawal of Confederate troopsfrom Fredericksburg. Hooker had no intention of engaging in a “risky confrontation” withGeneral Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.Discussion: Hooker’s approach for planning his spring offensive would focus the Army ofPotomac’s efforts toward outmaneuvering Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. Hooker had putforth the idea of moving on Richmond and Lincoln advised him that his objective was Lee’sarmy and not Richmond. Hooker does pursue Lee’s army, as the main objective and notRichmond as the President had directed but the means that Hooker pursued to that end aremisleading. Hooker entered what he considered the initial stage of his spring offensive atChancellorsville thinking that he would first defeat Lee’s army by maneuver. Prior toChancellorsville, however, Hooker was already making preparations for driving to Richmond.Hooker had intended to confront Lee with the dilemma of being threatened from all sides.Unfortunately, Hooker had failed to communicate his intentions for his army’s movements ofMay 1, 1863 and confusion ran rampant among his subordinate commanders. Almostexclusively, Hooker developed the actual details of the plan himself. This flaw would result innumerous disconnects in Hooker’s plan.Fully aware of Lee’s supply situation, Hooker believed that if Lee’s lines were cut, hewould have to respond to protect them by retreating. In addition to threatening Lee’s supplylines, Hooker also believed that his planned actions would flank Lee out of his fortifiedpositions, as Lee would be squeezed between two of Hooker’s main elements. In the event thatLee did not move to oppose the Union’s maneuvers, Hooker planned to assume a tacticaldefense. That Lee would choose to fight instead of retreat was beyond Hooker’s consideration.Hooker remained unshaken in his conviction that Lee would be forced to retreat.Conclusions: Hooker’s plan would fail due to his own steadfast belief in the ability of his planto force Lee to withdraw. To say that Lee defeated the Army of the Potomac is misleadingbecause Lee did not defeat the army, he defeated Hooker as he fought a very effective defensivebattle that removed the Federal threat from Virginia due to Hooker's failings as an armycommander.iii
Table of ContentsPageMMS Cover Sheet.iDisclaimer.iiExecutive Summary .iiiTable of Contents . ivList of Illustrations.vIntroduction.1Analysis of Influences on Hooker's Intent .2Strategic Setting .3Preparation Phase.7Hooker's Decision Making Process.9Development of the Campaign Plan. 14Hooker's Concept of Operations . 18What's the Plan . 21Analysis of Hooker's Intent During Execution . 25Cavalry Action and Inaction. 25A Change to the Plan, or Was It . 27To Steal a March on Lee . 31What's Lee Doing . 33Attack, Defend, or Wait . 35Our Enemy must Ingloriously Fly . 39Lee's Retreating, or Is he. 45Back Across the River . 48Conclusions. 50Bibliography. 62iv
DISCLAIMERTHE OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS EXPRESSED HEREIN ARE THOSE OFTHE INDIVIDUAL STUDENT AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILYREPRESENT THE VIEWS OF EITHER THE MARINE CORPS COMMAND ANDSTAFF COLLEGE OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. REFERENCESTO THIS STUDY SHOULD INCLUDE THE FOREGOING STATEMENT.QUOTATION FROM, ABSTRACTION FROM, OR REPRODUCTION OF ALLOR ANY PART OF THIS DOCUMENT IS PERMITTED PROVIDED PROPERACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS MADE.
ii
List of IllustrationsPageFigure 1. Overview.55Figure 2. April 27-30, 1863 .56Figure 3. May 1, 1863 .57Figure 4. May 2, 1863 .58Figure 5. May 3, 1863 .59Figure 6. May 4, 1863 .60Figure 7. May 6, 1863 .61v
INTRODUCTIONDid “Fighting Joe” Hooker of the Army of the Potomac lose his nerve during theChancellorsville Campaign of 1863? Perhaps history has failed to recognize Major GeneralJoseph Hooker’s true commander’s intent for this campaign. Hooker’s intent was simple:maneuver forces to Lee’s flank and rear in order to force a withdrawal of Confederate troopsfrom Fredericksburg.General Hooker had no intention of entering into a decisive battle with the Army ofNorthern Virginia during his first major action as the Commander of the Army of the Potomac.Given the previous succession of unsuccessful field generals, Hooker was under politicalpressures from President Abraham Lincoln, who remained profoundly disturbed by the war’sprogress and by his inability to translate solid strategic decisions into successful campaigns.This perception compelled Hooker to minimize all possible risks in developing the plans for hisfirst major action as the new commander. If he could achieve a “risk free” victory, he wouldcertainly establish himself as a worthy commander. Additionally, Hooker had recently institutedimportant organizational reforms and had taken great steps to improve discipline and to restoremorale following the Battle of Fredericksburg. The effectiveness of these changes had not beentested yet. Therefore, given the circumstances of the new commander’s political perceptions andan untested army, General Hooker’s plan of attack for Chancellorsville was not an attack at all.Hooker had no intention of engaging in a “risky confrontation” with General Robert E. Lee andthe Army of Northern Virginia.1
The most commonly accepted rationale for the events of Chancellorsville is that Hooker“lost his nerve” and simply failed to carry through with the plan to destroy the Army of NorthernVirginia. In contrast, I believe that he never intended to decisively engage, but rather through aplanned maneuver and show of force, to establish himself as a worthy commander and gain a“safe” victory. Hooker’s primary intent was simply to force Lee to withdraw. History recordsthe ensuing paralysis that befell Hooker when General Lee did not react to his flankingmaneuvers as anticipated. Hooker did consider an alternative course of action or “branch plan.”His branch plan of action, in case Lee failed to withdraw, was for the Army of the Potomac tocontinue the strategic offense by means of a tactical defense rather than an assault on the Armyof Northern Virginia. If this situation were to occur, as history reflects that it did, then Hookerbelieved Lee would be forced to engage him on ground of his own choosing. Hooker believedthat in executing this branch plan, he would attain a position of advantage over Lee, which wouldstill achieve his original intent. Without question, General Hooker failed to take advantage ofmany opportunities during the battle of Chancellorsville, which may illustrate his “loss ofnerve.” His actions, however, may also be reflective of his rigid insistence on holding to hisinitial commander’s intent for this campaign.ANALYSIS OF INFLUENCES ON HOOKER’S INTENTIn order to understand Hooker’s intent and his subsequent actions at Chancellorsville, Iwill first examine key factors leading up to the spring offensive of 1863. In light of theupcoming campaign, I will also examine Hooker’s past experiences, his capabilities andlimitations, and those factors, which significantly impacted his planning and decision-making2
processes. Ultimately, this examination will come to terms with how these factors combined toshape Hooker’s overall actions as the Commander of the Army of the Potomac.Strategic SettingBy the summer of 1862 President Lincoln had assembled the fundamental elements of aneffective High Command and had determined a realistic strategy to achieve Union war aims.The naïve and limited objectives of 1861 had been replaced by the realization of the war’s truecost and the acceptance of more practical and mature war aims. Unconditional surrender, theabolition of slavery and the subsequent transformation of southern culture would become theunderpinnings of the Union war effort. Lincoln’s greatest challenge was to maintain thecollective will of the North, and in order to do this, he was determined to pursue an offensivestrategy that would yield timely and positive results. Despite regular and strategically relevantvictories in the Western Theater and moderate successes in the East, the Union had proven itselfincapable of achieving the decisive results in Virginia that were deemed essential to the defeat ofthe Confederacy.After the Federal debacle at Fredericksburg in December of 1862, President Lincolnreplaced the incompetent Ambrose Burnside with "Fighting" Joseph Hooker as Commander ofthe Army of the Potomac. Across the Rappahannock River at Fredericksburg was Lee's Army ofNorthern Virginia, still resting in their winter camp. General Hooker inherited a badly beatenand badly demoralized army when he took command of the Army of the Potomac on January 25,1863. President Lincoln, having once again decided to replace the leader of the Army of thePotomac, had opted for Hooker, an 1837 West Point artilleryman and veteran of the Peninsula3
Campaign, Second Manassas, South Mountain, Antietam, and Fredericksburg. Hooker hadacquired the nickname "Fighting Joe" while serving in the Peninsula Campaign. The nicknameactually arose from an error caused by an editor's leaving out a punctuation mark. The articleshould have read "Still Fighting--Joe Hooker" but was printed as "Fighting Joe Hooker." Hookerhated the moniker, but the nickname stuck. From that day on, he was called “Fighting JoeHooker” by his troops. 1Major General Hooker had served as one of Burnside’s three Grand Divisioncommanders throughout the fighting at Fredericksburg. His attitude toward Burnside hadbordered on the insubordinate, which reflected his indifferent support of the army commander’splan of action, vague and unsound as that plan was. Throughout his service, Hooker was wellknown for his tendency to criticize his superiors. Additionally, Hooker had served with somecontroversy preceding the Battle of Antietam at South Mountain as Burnside’s right wingcommander. Hooker’s Corps fought well, as did the other Corps; however, his report filed inlate 1862 was full of misrepresentations in what appeared to be an effort on Hooker’s part tograb all the glory of the battle at the expense of his comrades. The combination of Hooker’sSouth Mountain report and his attitude at Fredericksburg convinced Burnside that Hookerneeded to be relieved. Burnside met with Lincoln and disclosed the order calling for Hooker’srelief. Burnside requested that the President endorse the following or accept his resignation:“General Joseph Hooker, major-general of volunteers and brigadier general U.S. Army,having been guilty of unjust and unnecessary criticisms of the actions of his superiorofficers , and of the authorities, and having, by the general tone of his conversation,endeavored to create distrust in the minds of officers, who have associated with him, andhaving, by omissions and otherwise, made reports and statements which were calculatedto create incorrect impressions, and for habitually speaking in disparaging terms of theother officers, is hereby dismissed from the service of the United States as a man unfit to1Stephen W. Sears, Chancellorsville (Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1996), 56.4
hold an important commission during a crisis like the present, when so much patience,charity, confidence, consideration, and patriotism are due from every soldier in the field.This order is issued subject to the approval of the President of the United States.”2Despite Burnside’s request to relieve Hooker, the President elected to appoint Hooker as theCommander of the Ar
MASTER OF MILITARY STUDIES Commander’s Intent of Major General Joseph Hooker during the Chancellorsville Campaign SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF MILITARY STUDIES Major William M. Jurney AY 2000-2001 Mentor: Dr. Richard L. DiNardo
Navy This branch of our nation’s armed services conducts military operations at sea, world-wide. According to the Department of Defense, its focus is “maintaining the freedom of the seas, deterring aggression, and achieving victory at war.” Like the Air Force, the Navy has many aircraft to assist with protecting the seas.File Size: 959KBPage Count: 12Explore furtherUnderstanding the 5 Branches of US Military - US Militaryusmilitary.comBasic Branches of the United States Armylibarts.hamptonu.eduU.S. National Military Chain-of-Commanddde.carlisle.army.milArmy Branches Military Science - SOU Homeinside.sou.eduWhat Are the Branches of the US Military? Military.comwww.military.comRecommended to you b
Supersedes: AFI36-2608, 26 October 2015 Certified by: SAF/MR (Mr. John A. Fedrigo) Pages: 140 This instruction implements Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1336.08, Military Human Resource Records Life Cycle Management, and is consistent with DAFPD 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotion. It applies to all military and civilian members of .File Size: 1MBPage Count: 176Explore furtherAFI 36-2608 Military Personnel Records System Air Force .www.airforcecounseling.comAFI 36-2608 Military Personnel Records System Air Force .www.airforcecounseling.comAFI 36-2608 - MILITARY PERSONNEL RECORDS SYSTEMS .standards.globalspec.comAIR FORCE - AFI 36-2608 - MILITARY PERSONNEL RECORDS .standards.globalspec.comAIR FORCE - AFI 36-2608 - MILITARY PERSONNEL RECORDS .standards.globalspec.comRecommended to you based on what's popular Feedback
2 accelerate its study of the environmental impacts of military ranges. The ensuing investigations required by the enforcement action at MMR and the studies it spawned throughout the Army, have provided the military with valuable lessons about the impacts of military range training on the environment and the implications for other military ranges.
MILITARY LAW REVIEW Articles THE ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGS JUDGMEKTS . Uniform Code of Military Justice . and Practice Richard S. Schubert . 81 Foreign Military Law Notes: A Review of Dutch Military Law Danish Military Jurisdiction Swedish Military Jurisdiction Major Jozef Schuurmans . 101 Soren B. Nyholm .
Military Community & Family Policy . 2 . Execution Military OneSource Non-medical counseling Spouse Education and Career Opportunities, Military Spouse Employment Partnership and My Career Advancement Account Military Families Learning Network Military Family Readiness Program Accreditation Program Evaluation
of military moves. The short duration of military assignments, coupled with lengthy relicensing processes, can discourage military spouses from seeking relicensure, causing them to quit an occupation or causing military families to leave the military. From 2011 to 2016, the Department worked with all 50 States through common methods used by
military forces do not cooperate with Russian military forces. However, Section 1232 does not purport to limit military-to-military discussions with Russia to de-conflict military operations in Syria to reduce the risk of interference, miscalculation, or unintended escalation
rotational motion and astrophysics can have impacts on our lives, as well on the environment/society. This application and development of skills can be achieved using a variety of approaches, including investigation and problem solving. The Unit will cover the key areas of kinematic relationships, angular motion, rotational dynamics, gravitation, general relativity, and stellar physics .
