How Politics Cost Hooker His Civil War Commission

n the midst of the Civil War sesquicentennial, the bicentennial of Union General Joseph Hooker’s birth on November 13 hardly seems worthy of much celebration. Hooker is remembered mainly for losing at Chancellorsville, which some military historians consider Robert E. Lee’s most brilliant battle, and for his renown as a ladies’ man contributing to the English language. While the term hookers was around long before its alleged namesake, Hooker’s military career provides a window through which to observe Lincoln’s leadership and occasional lack of it, and his problems in dealing with military politics in his quest for the right commander.
A West Point graduate, “Fighting Joe” Hooker distinguished himself for bravery on the staffs of Generals Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor during the Mexican-American War. But Hooker found trouble, or it found him. During that war, Hooker backed another general who claimed credit for Scott’s victories. When Scott accused the general of insubordination and court-martialed him, Hooker testified on the general’s behalf, and Scott neither forgave nor forgot. After the war, when the army sent him to California, Hooker reportedly drank too much, overindulged in womanizing, and borrowed money from two other officers assigned there, Henry Halleck and William T. Sherman. He never paid them back; they neither forgave nor forgot, either.
Read Full Article »


Comment
Show comments Hide Comments


Related Articles