APPENDIX III
Historians' Ambivalence about Cedar Mountain
|
page 1484 There is no unanimity of opinions about the battle at Cedar Mountain in August 1862. Stephen Ambrose in his initial attempt at history writing described Cedar Mountain as a victory for Pope, echoing the public statements of Henry Halleck, the subject of his biography.1 The more experienced "Confederatephile" Douglas Southall Freeman was clearly disappointed in the performance of Jackson in the handling of an inferior-sized force. He entitled his chapter: "Jackson Fumbles at Cedar Mountain."2 "Unionphile" Bruce Catton's impression was that Jackson had "driven Banks's corps off in rout with heavy loss" due to his huge advantage in numbers, though not without an unexpectedly stout fight.3 Several years later, Catton said only that Jackson followed Banks a short distance, and that "the battle meant nothing in particular." He said mistakenly that the outcome negatively affected Union morale.4 Catton's idea of the battle being insignificant was essentially also the attitude of historian James McPherson, but he incorrectly accused Banks of knowing in advance that he was badly outnumbered.5 Banks had some idea of Jackson's total strength, but there was no way of knowing in advance how many soldiers were present for battle that day. Best-selling author Shelby Foote in his treatment intimated Jackson pursued Banks part of the way to Culpeper during the night. He was particularly
1. Ambrose, Halleck: Lincoln's Chief of Staff, p. 71. 2. Freeman, Lee's Lieutenants: A Study in Command, vol. II. 3. Catton, This Hallowed Ground: The Story of the Union Side of the Civil War. 4. Catton, Terrible Swift Sword, vol. 2, p. 391. 5. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era, pp. 526, 624. |
|
page 1485 impressed with the number of Union casualties Jackson inflicted. He felt, nevertheless, that Jackson's force "had been mishandled and they knew it."6 The Comte de Paris in his large history in the 1870s was still influenced by the widespread impression in the North that this was a Union victory, calling Cedar Mountain an advantage to the Union side.7 Probably the most distorted version of the battle at Cedar Mountain came from Admiral David Porter's friend, Joel Headly, just after the war. Headley portrayed Banks as irrationally moving his men up to a position near the mountain where Jackson's forces just mowed them down. According to Headley, Jackson decoyed the disobedient Banks "into a trap, and shattered his corps into fragments."8 Headley did not seem to have enough minimal knowledge about the fight to allow him to draw any valid conclusions. Banks's next harshest critic was his first biographer, Fred Harrington, who thought Cedar Mountain was a defeat for Banks and his men, but he blamed all the Union command for the outcome. Harrington's account falls flat by failing to even mention the offensive coup of Crawford's men, depicting them as mere fodder for one of Banks's ridiculous charges. Harrington's thematic refrain was that Banks repeatedly failed to use common sense though Harrington did not seem to know enough about the conflict to draw any such conclusions.9 For James Hollandsworth, Banks's second biographer, Cedar Mountain was "clearly a Confederate victory."10 He used a number of Harrington's phrases in describing Banks's performance but did take advantage of more recent works in giving proper credit to the operations of Crawford's brigade. Robert Krick's excellent monograph on the subject lacks some factual errors found in Hollandsworth's. Many of the other authors cited here, in fairness, did not have the advantage of having Krick's book before them when writing what they wrote. Jackson biographer James I. Robertson also called Cedar Mountain a "clear Confederate victory" but joined in the criticism of Jackson's relatively poor performance.11 Pope biographer Peter Cozzens described his subject "the victor of sorts."12 Another Pope biography by Schutz and Trenerry took no position as to the victor. Relying heavily on George Gordon’s unbalanced account, these men
6. Foote, The Civil War, A Narrative, vol. 2, pp. 601-3. 7. Comte de Paris, History of the Civil War in America, Porter vol. II, p. 260. 8. Headley, The Great Rebellion: A History of the Civil War in the United States, vol. II, pp. 57-8. 9. Harrington, Fighting Politician: Major General N. P. Banks, pp. 80-84. 10. Hollandsworth, Pretense of Glory: The Life of General Nathaniel P. Banks, p. 79. 11. Robertson, Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend, pp. 535-6. 12. Cozzens, General John Pope: A Life for the Nation, p. 97. |
|
page 1486 portrayed Banks as a bungler who "ruined Pope's one real chance to catch Jackson."13 Nineteenth-century historian John C. Ropes, influenced by George Gordon's accounts, described Cedar Mountain as a "mere tactical victory for Jackson."14 Robert K. Krick who has written the most about the battle of Cedar Mountain was the least judgmental, letting the success or failure of individual movements speak for themselves. The correspondent for the Cincinnati Enquirer in 1862 may have had the most insight. Jackson could not claim a victory, he wrote, and we could not acknowledge a defeat.15 In summary, contemporary feelings about this battle and Banks's role are as varied as they were in the 1800s.
13. Schutz and Trenerry, Abandoned by Lincoln: A Military Biography of General John Pope, p. 115. 14. Ropes, The Army under Pope, p. 29. 15. Cincinnati Daily Enquirer, Aug. 13, 1862. |