Bio CSA William J. Hardee

[jkBluesman]

Lt. Gen. William Joseph Hardee, CSA (b. 1815, d. 1873) was probably the best Confederate corps commander in the West. His feud with Gen. Braxton Bragg and his friendship with Gen. Joseph E. Johnston however would hinder him to become an army commander. A native of Georgia he had graduated from West Point in 1838 and had served in the US-army in the cavalry. He had fought against the Seminoles and seen service in the war against Mexico. He was best known for being the author of the army’s official manual on tactics also called Hardee’s Tactics. At the outbreak of the Civil War he offered to serve in the Confederate army and President Jefferson Davis appointed him Brig. Gen. (June 13, 1861) and sent Hardee to Arkansas to take command of the troops in the upper district of that state, where he would meet Patrick Cleburne, who would soon become a Hardee protégé. When the Arkansas forces were attached to Albert Sydney Johnston in Kentucky, Hardee (Maj. Gen. since October 7, 1861) became divisional commander and corps commander in the Army of Mississippi that lost the Battle of Shiloh. When Bragg was given command of the army in May 1862, he put Hardee in charge of drilling the army and he thought him to be the only reliable corps commander he had. After the invasion of Kentucky failed, Hardee stayed in the newly created Army of Tennessee as commander of the 2nd corps (Lt. Gen. October 10, 1862) though he had some serious doubts about Bragg’s competence. He openly expressed his views to Bragg after the Battle of Murfreesboro. After that their relationship became very strained. In July 1863 Hardee was transferred to the Mississippi to support Joe Jonston. He returned to the Army of Tennessee during the siege of Chattanooga but even the splendid conduct of his corps, especially of Cleburne’s division, at Missionary Ridge could not prevent the army’s defeat. After Bragg left the army in December 1863, Hardee assumed temporary command of it, but declined an offer to keep it. His reputation had suffered from the feud with the former commander however, who would continue to influence the events in the West as supervisor. Hardee would never get a second chance for army command. After Bragg Gen. Joseph E. Johnston was appointed (with whom Hardee got along very well) and on the eve of the Battles of Atlanta, Davis would prefer the less experienced Gen. John Bell Hood to Hardee. As Hardee asked to be relieved from service under Hood, Davis appealed to his patriotism and “Old Reliable” stayed. When Hood blamed Hardee for loosing the Battle of Bald Hill, Hardee again asked for relieve, however Davis again convinced him to stay. But in September 1864 Hardee had enough of Hood and this time he would be transferred to the Department of South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, where he opposed Sherman’s March to the Sea. In fact, he could not do much more than evacuate Savannah. During the last weeks of the war, he joined Johnston’s forces with whom he fought at Bentonville (March 19, 1865) and surrendered afterwards. After the war Hardee worked in the warehousing and insurance businesses and became president of the Selma and Meridian Railroad. He was buried at Selma, Alabama.

As he wrote the drilling manual for both armies, we should consider to give him a 7 on tactics. As he was a cavalry officer before the war, he might get more than a 0 here.
Concerning the teaching abilities drilling and discipline were surely choosen by a great mind as yours. Maybe something like making and promoting lower ranking officers could be included.

[christof139]

Actually, Hardee's Light Infantry tactics were but one of many used. They were pretty good. Most of the tactics were based on French tactics, with everything else thrown in including our own experiences in the Mexican-American War and the Frontier Wars etc.

The Union 1861 U.S. War Department Manual, 'The 1861 U.S. Infantry Tactics, Infantry of the Line, Light Infantry and Riflemen', is not the same as Hardee's Tactics. Hardee's Tactics were widely read, respected, and partially adapted, but I don't believe they were the official U.S. War Department tactical bible.

Have to look and see for myself.

Chris

[christof139]

In 1855 hardee's tactics were officially adapted by the U.S. War Dept., then in 1861 they had another revised version titled differently. Answered my own question. Was never sure myself about that. Know I know definitively.

Good link for Hardee:

http://home.att.net/~MrsMajor/1862.htm

Wasn't Hardee offred command of at least the Army of Tennessee and he declined it?? He actually temporarily commanded it I do believe. Just read about all this recently concerning the CSA Invasion of Kentucky and Murfreesboro Camapigns.

I think you all are doing some very good and informative biographies.

Chris

[jkBluesman]

He was temporarily in command of the army but he never got offered it permanently. Davis does not even have to considered Hardee for the job after it became obvious that Hood was despised in the whole army (he may have earlier, when Johnston replaced Bragg, but Johnston was Hardee's senior and had not partizipated in the feud between Bragg and his subordinates; a feud in which Hardee undermined Bragg's competence and authority very much).

[Gil R.]

Thanks! I gave Hardee "Disciplined" (twice, increasing the odds he'd teach it) and "Organized." This means that the men under him will be great at making formation changes, but not as lethal as guys taught "Shooters," "Wild," etc. Sound good?

[christof139]

He was temporarily in command of the army but he never got offered it permanently. Davis does not even have to considered Hardee for the job after it became obvious that Hood was despised in the whole army (he may have earlier, when Johnston replaced Bragg, but Johnston was Hardee's senior and had not partizipated in the feud between Bragg and his subordinates; a feud in which Hardee undermined Bragg's competence and authority very much).

Yes thanx. I went and looked at one of my Murfreesboro books and sometime before that battle is when Hardee was in temporary command. Seems he refused command at some point too, but that would take more digging, unless you know of this refusal as you just may if it's true.

Davis did make some big errors, but with the internal politics as they were it was a bit of a dilemma. Same as if Lincoln had put Hooker in command of the AotP after 2nd Manassas instead of Little Mac.

I had the original first hardcover edition of the Cleburne book, but lost it in 1989, and I think I may have just ordered a paperback copy from Amazon.com. That is a good book.

It's awful hard to assign leadership values and attibutes to generals.

Chris

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: christof139

It's awful hard to assign leadership values and attibutes to generals.

Chris

Agreed. The more I get into this project, the more I appreciate how difficult it is. And as I've mentioned previously, we're hoping to provide a major upgrade to generals, making them much more multi-faceted, if/when we come out with an expansion pack. (That is, anything we program for a new release could be retro-fitted to this one.) We've got a bunch of ideas, such as more ratings (e.g., artillery rating, which I greatly regret omitting) and ways of making generals hurt performance. Also, we want to add more special abilities for brigades, which means also figuring out which generals should teach them. (For example, we need one called "Hill-chargers," or something like that, that gives a brigade a bonus when attacking enemies in an elevated position -- and just think of all the generals who could be assigned that one!) So we'll all get to discuss these new ratings and abilities for generals when the time comes.

[christof139]

Agreed. The more I get into this project, the more I appreciate how difficult it is. And as I've mentioned previously, we're hoping to provide a major upgrade to generals, making them much more multi-faceted, if/when we come out with an expansion pack. (That is, anything we program for a new release could be retro-fitted to this one.) We've got a bunch of ideas, such as more ratings (e.g., artillery rating, which I greatly regret omitting) and ways of making generals hurt performance. Also, we want to add more special abilities for brigades, which means also figuring out which generals should teach them. (For example, we need one called "Hill-chargers," or something like that, that gives a brigade a bonus when attacking enemies in an elevated position -- and just think of all the generals who could be assigned that one!) So we'll all get to discuss these new ratings and abilities for generals when the time comes.

Yeah, and 1,000+ bios to complete with all the leadership values and attribute assignments is more than difficult.

For some of the lesser known junior generals you might just want to use none or maybe 1 lesser attribute on a random basis. It's neat to have generals give at least 1 minor type attribute, but none is OK IMHO for some of the lesser known generals.

'Foraging' might be considered a lesser attribute, and it is not useless, and it might be OK to give quite a few of the lesser known generals this attribute. would help ease supply to a small degree, and make the game interesting since some of these lesser knowns would have some more value and maybe a player may not feel so overwhelmed at times by getting a string of lesser generals without any attibutes. Would add some flavor, literally to the troops' diets as well as the game, and a feeling that most of your generals are at least worth something. A little but nice bonus surprise.

'Foraging' would also be a good one to give Union Gen. Hunter because of his pillaging of the Valley in 1864, and you might have given him that, can't remember.

I don't have any problems with the way the game is now actually, but can appreciate the interest and work going into this, and it will make the game that much more interesting.

I like reading all the ideas here anyway.

Chris

[jkBluesman]

The teaches sound good to me.
It would be great for future upgrades to distinguish between a "normal" general and a cavalry general too. For example Forrest was an outstanding cavalry leader but Stuart was too. While Forrest was great at tactics and inflicting damage by raids, Stuart was one of the best if not the best commander of the war in collecting information on the enemy, which means scouting and screening too. Wheeler (who got an awful positiv respond in the voting process) became famous for his performance against Sherman, while he was really bad in scouting and writing usable reports for the Army of Tennessee.

Christof,
I could not find any evidence for Hardee's decline of command. However I do not have a biography simply dealing with him. Nathaniel Chearis Hughes, Jr. wrote one in 1965 as far as I know. All sources I looked at indicate that Hardee has never been offered permanent command.

[Gil R.]

I've gone through the generals database and for all 9-percenters who don't yet have bios, and therefore have not been assigned historically-based teachable abilities, I've trimmed down the number of randomly-assigned abilities they have. So, when the patch comes out, no no-name will have five abilities to teach.

Thanks for the suggestion on Hunter. I just went in and gave him "Foragers" twice. That'll do until we get a bio for him and I can figure out what else he should have.

By the way, I noticed today that we have a clear imbalance between USA and CSA bios, in that far more bios have been done for CSA 9-percenters than USA. This is also true, though not as drastically, for 25- and 100-percenters go. It doesn't affect gameplay, but isn't ideal. Perhaps I ought to institute a rule that for every five CSA generals someone writes about they have to provide three for USA generals...

[jkBluesman]

Maybe history is not written by the winners but by the loosers as Albert A. Nofi suggests in one article dealing with Longstreet.
Is there any commander of the Iron Brigade left? That way, I can do one more Union general though I will finish D.H. Hill first.

[Gil R.]

Wikipedia lists these guys as commanders of the Iron Brigade up until Gettysburg:

* Brig. Gen. Rufus King: September 28, 1861 – May 7, 1862
* Brig. Gen. John Gibbon: May 7, 1862 – November 4, 1862
* Brig. Gen. Solomon Meredith: November 25, 1862 – July 1, 1863

All three are still available. Let me know which you would want.

[Gil R.]

ORIGINAL: jkBluesman

The teaches sound good to me.
It would be great for future upgrades to distinguish between a "normal" general and a cavalry general too. For example Forrest was an outstanding cavalry leader but Stuart was too. While Forrest was great at tactics and inflicting damage by raids, Stuart was one of the best if not the best commander of the war in collecting information on the enemy, which means scouting and screening too. Wheeler (who got an awful positiv respond in the voting process) became famous for his performance against Sherman, while he was really bad in scouting and writing usable reports for the Army of Tennessee.

Oops, missed this post, since I was writing my own. But yes, I agree that it would be good to have more distinctions like this made. One idea that has occurred to me is that "Chargers" really should be two abilities -- one for infantry and another for cavalry. That way, for example, a Stuart or Custer could teach "Chargers" to cavalry units under their command but not infantry, just as Pickett could teach it to infantry but not cavalry. That's the sort of thing I'd like to do down the road. And bonuses for scouting, raiding (or destroying raiders), etc. all fit in with that.

[christof139]

I could not find any evidence for Hardee's decline of command. However I do not have a biography simply dealing with him. Nathaniel Chearis Hughes, Jr. wrote one in 1965 as far as I know. All sources I looked at indicate that Hardee has never been offered permanent command.

Hmmm, thanx, and you know what, I might be thinking of when Joe Johnston was not yet recovered from the 7-Days Battles and I believe Davis offered him command of the AoT and Johnston I believe declined it because of his wounds. Maybe that's what I am thinking of. I am going to browse a bit over the next month or so and if I find anything like this concerning Hardee I'll let you know. Hardee's promotin to commander of the AoT would have been a big 'if' etc.

Hee hee hee. When I play, I make sure I keep Bragg as a Divisional or Corps commander ONLY!!! Hardee then goes from Corps to Army Command. Much more pleasant, and interesting. Bragg isn't all that bad though.

Chris

[christof139]

You all probably have this link already, and it is good and helpful for those that don't have it:
 
http://www.generalsandbrevets.com/
 
It may have been posted here already, but here it is again.
 
Chris

[christof139]

And some biographies by Kerry Webb, an Aussie fellow I do believe, and the site link in the previous post is also from him methinks:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/generals.html

Chris

[jkBluesman]

I would want Gibbon and Meredith.

[Gil R.]

Sold to the highest bidder!

[Gil R.]

Oops. I just went to my assignments document and see that Flanyboy has those two generals reserved. I haven't heard from him in ages, so maybe he's no longer active in the project. I'll message him and see if he's still interested.

[christof139]

I boo-booed and confused something, and just to show that I somehow misread and confused something I misread and stated about Hardee" he was temporarily in command of the AoT after Bragg resigned following the disaster at Chatanooga in the Fall of 1863.  I know you know this, but I wanted to clear the air.

Chris

PS: Hardee was in tactical command of Bragg's army when it moved from Mississippi to Chattanooga just prior to Bragg's 1862 offensive into Tennessee and Kentucky.