 | | American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America |
August 3rd, 2012, 06:05 PM
|
#1 | | Unchained ¤ Blog of the Year ¤
Joined: Oct 2009 From: Baltimorean-in-exile Posts: 17,048 | Winfield S. Hancock, 'the Superb'
I'm reading this right now:
Hancock, known as 'the Superb', or alternatively, 'the Profane', is one of the under-appreciated figures of the Civil War. A Pennsylvania-born West Pointer, the divisions caused by the Southern secession hit Hancock hard. Two of his best friends, Henry Heth and Lewis Armistead, both joined the Confederacy. Both Hancock and Armistead were wounded during Pickett's Charge, but only Hancock survived.
Hancock's military career was at its peak during the Gettysburg Campaign. He famously exposed himself to Rebel fire on the third day, telling his aide 'there are times when a corps commander's life does not count'. At the time he was commanding the Second Corps of the Army of the Potomac; he claimed in letters home to his wife that he had been offered the command of the entire Army though there is no other evidence for this.
Hancock's service under Grant was not as noticeable, and he was troubled by the painful wound he received at Gettysburg. Like Grant, his successes during the War carried him into a political career, but he lost his bid for the presidency to James Garfield in 1880. Hancock died six years later.
Other than his soldierly bearing and his talents as a commander, Hancock stood out for his spectacular temper and his outbursts of oaths and profanity. He was a leonine personality, and something of a 'character', standing out as one of the most impressive figures to hold a command in the Federal Army.
| |
Last edited by Salah; August 3rd, 2012 at 06:10 PM.
|
| |
August 3rd, 2012, 06:08 PM
|
#2 | | Southern Unionist
Joined: Aug 2010 From: VA Posts: 5,334 | Quote: |
Other than his soldierly bearing and his talents as a commander, Hancock stood out for his spectacular temper and his outbursts of oaths and profanity. He was a leonine personality, and something of a 'character', standing out as one of the most impressive figures to hold a command in the Federal Army.
| I have nothing against Brian Mallon, but I thought him a very odd choice to portray Hancock in the movie Gettysburg for the simple reason that Hancock was neither a small man or a soft-spoken one.
I could be wrong, but I was almost certain Hancock's nickname was "The Superb".
| | |
| |
August 3rd, 2012, 06:10 PM
|
#3 | | Unchained ¤ Blog of the Year ¤
Joined: Oct 2009 From: Baltimorean-in-exile Posts: 17,048 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord I could be wrong, but I was almost certain Hancock's nickname was "The Superb". | And you're right goddamnit... | | |
| |
August 3rd, 2012, 06:14 PM
|
#4 | | Southern Unionist
Joined: Aug 2010 From: VA Posts: 5,334 |
I think it's notable that even in his somewhat reduced capacity under Grant, he was still the favored leader for attacks, and when Grant proposed that Meade be sent to the Shenandoah to counter Early, he suggested putting Hancock in Meade's place. Even then, he was that highly regarded.
| | |
| |
August 4th, 2012, 04:12 AM
|
#5 | | Historian
Joined: Oct 2011 From: above sea level in NJ Posts: 1,812 |
Is it true that McClellan gave him the nickname after the battle of Williamsburg?
| | |
| |
August 6th, 2012, 05:03 AM
|
#6 | | Southern Unionist
Joined: Aug 2010 From: VA Posts: 5,334 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuthmosis III Is it true that McClellan gave him the nickname after the battle of Williamsburg? | Yes, it's true. Unlike Fighting Joe Hooker (Who in fairness, earned his name), it wasn't the result of a newspaper error. | | |
| |
August 6th, 2012, 07:33 PM
|
#7 | | Historian
Joined: Oct 2011 From: above sea level in NJ Posts: 1,812 | Quote:
Originally Posted by Viperlord Yes, it's true. Unlike Fighting Joe Hooker (Who in fairness, earned his name), it wasn't the result of a newspaper error.  | Yeah, I heard about that. LOL.
"...fighting[.] Joe Hooker..."  And he was indeed a pretty aggressive corps commander before and after Chancellorsville. (I'm sure Sherman had his reasons for going with Howard after McPherson was killed...)
Back to Hancock: (from Antietam: The Soldier's Battle by John Michael Priest(1989), p. 185) Quote:
"Come away from here, general, you ought not to be here."
The general snapped his eyes upon one of his still panting aides who had overanxiously interrupted his superb performance [of dressing down a major who was behind a tree before an impending Confederate attack on his unit].
"The enemy is coming right toward us!" the officer exclaimed while pointing a badly shaking finger toward Cooke's screaming line as it crossed the Hagerstown Pike.
"Damn them!" Hancock spat. "Let them come! That's what we are here for...."
| | | |
| |
August 31st, 2012, 06:52 PM
|
#8 | | Southern Unionist
Joined: Aug 2010 From: VA Posts: 5,334 | Quote: |
(I'm sure Sherman had his reasons for going with Howard after McPherson was killed...)
| Well, the reason he didn't go with Hooker was for the simple reason that he and Hooker absolutely loathed one another. Regardless of whose fault it was, it was probably correct for Sherman not to rely on someone who hated his guts. Why the command wasn't given to the extremely capable John "Black Jack" Logan, whom Sherman actually quite liked, is a mystery only explainable by Sherman's preference for West Pointers, even "Uh-Oh" Howard. Sherman apparently realized he'd been wrong, and tried to make it up to Logan by having him lead the Army of the Tennessee in the Washington review.
Quite off-topic on my part though.
| | |
| | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.
|  |