Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville: The Principles of War and the Horns of a Dilemma at the Burton Farm CSC 1997 Subject Area - History EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: STONEWALL JACKSON AT CHANCELLORSVILLE: THE PRINCIPLES OF WAR AND THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA AT THE BURTON FARM Author: Major Jeremiah D. Canty I. Thesis: The Battle of Chancellorsville in May 1863 and particularly the Flank March and Attack under Jackson served as a metaphor for the operational victories the South gained while at the same time signifying why the South could not hope to win strategically based on a policy of accepting greater levels of risk than its Northern opponent. II. Discussion: In the spring of 1863 the Federal cause had just recovered from the disasters of the previous year with a resurgent army and leadership. In consonance with the Federal policy of all out attack and relief of command if not successful, General Hooker headed south to try his hand against the nemeses of the North; General Lee and General Jackson. Initially, Hooker was very successful and essentially "turned" Lee's position at Fredericksburg and south of the Rappahannock by maneuvering across the river before Lee could react. Lee, facing defeat in detail as he attempted to hold off two possible Federal thrusts, was galvanized into action that seemed to defy the military principles of the day. Dividing his already heavily outnumbered army Lee attacked the eastern most elements of Hooker's army that was south of the river. The unexpected thrust unnerved Hooker who withdrew back into the Wilderness to fall back on defensive positions in anticipation of further Confederate attacks. Lee and Jackson realized they had no choice but to attack the Federals and decided on yet another division of the army, in further defiance the principles of war. Even though Hooker correctly appreciated Lee's intent he failed to take adequate precautions against a Confederate move from the west. In spite of being observed on several occasions the Second Corps of "Stonewall" Jackson arrived on the flank of the Federal army and delivered one of the most crushing blows of the war. Lee and Jackson's ability to absorb levels of risk that were not feasible for Hooker to accept gave them a distinct advantage over the Federal commander and thus acted as a significant force multiplier. By using tempo to compensate for inferior numbers and to move progressively faster inside Hooker's decision making cycle they achieved a notable success, but one that did not have any great strategic impact. 1 Report Documentation Page Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for the 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 this burden 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. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. 1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED 1997 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-1997 to 00-00-1997 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville: The Principles of War and the 5b. GRANT NUMBER Horns of a Dilemma at the Burton Farm 5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER 5e. TASK NUMBER 5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION United States Marine Corps,Command and Staff College, Marine Corps REPORT NUMBER University,2076 South Street, Marine Corps Combat Development Command,Quantico,VA,22134-5068 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) 12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Approved for public release; distribution unlimited 13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 14. ABSTRACT 15. SUBJECT TERMS 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 89 unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR) Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98) Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18 III. Conclusion: The relentless pursuit by the Confederacy of operational victories in the hope of forcing the North to give up the attempt at reunion saw its last, but ultimately Pyrrhic victory at Chancellorsville. The predictable assumption of risk would no longer pay off. After Chancellorsville the waging of operational conflict on the margin, that is to say leaving no room for error, came to its predictable conclusion on the fields of Gettysburg two months later. 2 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1 Chapter Page 1. THE SITUATION PRIOR TO CHANCELLORSVILLE................................. 7 2. PRELUDE ...................................................................................................... 11 3. CHANCELLORSVILLE.................................................................................. 13 Lee Surprised 13 The Initiative Goes to Lee 16 The Reconnaissance 19 The Plan 22 The Flank March 25 Map--"Position of Troops at 2 p.m." 33 The Attack 34 Map--"Position of Troops at 5 p.m." 38 4. THE PRINCIPLES OF WAR AND JACKSON'S FLANK MARCH AND ATTACK................................................. 39 Simplicity 39 Objective and Unity of Command 42 Offensive 47 Mass and Economy of Force 50 Maneuver 54 Security 56 Surprise 59 5. PYRRHIC VICTORY....................................................................................... 61 6. CONCLUSION................................................................................................ 63 Notes .................................................................................................................... 68 Bibliography........................................................................................................ 84 3 INTRODUCTION One of the great debates about the military art has centered around whether great leaders are made or, as the great Marshall Saxe believed, they are born. While unable to positively determine one way or the other, given the present state of knowledge of the human mind, evidence and intuition indicates that certain factors contribute to the effective leading of men in stressful situations such as intense combat. The Marine Corps, like the other services, has demonstrated a clear preference for the analytical method of decision making, which in many ways reflects the American Way of War--the search for a more prescriptive method of arriving at decisions. The challenge of transforming the citizen into the soldier, is the primary cause for the American tendency to conduct war by the numbers. The prescriptive method of war then, is an attempt to reduce the time it requires to turn the inexperienced volunteer or recruit into a veteran, the aim of which is fewer casualties and speedier conflict resolution. This desire to formalize war, through the search for certain fundamental principles on which to build combat insight, goes a long way to explaining the tendency of warriors to fight the next war, at least initially, the same way they fought the last one. Only when the old lessons proved too costly were they rejected, and the whole process began again, using the old war as the base line for the new. As unfortunate as this cycle is, history, and the insight it provides, is one of the most important guide posts for the future.1 Invariably, history offers some insights, which military institutions distill into principles of war, so general that their utility is often called into question. However, these principles do have worth when templated over case studies in order to examine the decision-making processes in the context of the times those decisions were made. 4 The Marine Corps has made some progress in the field of behavioral applications to real time, non-analytical decision making in doctrinal publications such as FMFM-1, Warfighting. While avoiding formal acknowledgment that certain principles exist, FMFM-1 uses historical examples to illustrate concepts of maneuver warfare that resemble, to a large degree, the old principles of war couched in different terms. The value of a historical perspective, coupled with an analysis of the vicarious experiences of great leaders, provides unique insight into the decision making process. The opportunity for the American soldier to practice his or her craft in real life is limited, primarily due to the American reluctance and deeply embedded tradition, perhaps even mistrust, to maintain large military forces. The lack of a viable threat close to mainland United States explains to a large extent the United States' historical lack of readiness in times of conflict. This lack of military preparedness manifested itself most strongly in a traditional American reliance on militia and then volunteer forces in all of America's wars up until the present day. The attempt to compromise between the need to a maintain a large military commensurate with the nation's status in relation to the world and the fear that a large military structure is inherently dangerous to republicanism, created the American concept of "pooled" expertise. If a large professional officer and non- commissioned officer (NCO) corps could be maintained relative to the number of enlisted personnel, yet to be called up, then in time of war, the nation's ability to tap into its huge industrial and manpower resources would be accomplished with maximum effect on warfighting capabilities with minimum effect on the peacetime social, industrial and political infrastructure. The cadre of officers and NCOs trained with meticulous care in peacetime would then form the nucleus of professionalism around which the vast enlisted 5 manpower resources formed for combat. Once the war was fought and presumably quickly won, the mass of men were demobilized while the officer corps remained to carry the torch for the next conflict. This tradition created a lopsided weighting of professionally trained officers and NCOs to the raw material needed to perfect the art-- the enlisted man. The Prussians, for example, chose conscription and national service as the vehicle to provide their officer and NCO corps "hands on" experience of leadership. The American military in order to compete with a strong cultural distrust and fear of a large military's perceived threat to personal liberty, had to seek an alternative solution to giving their professionals the requisite leadership skills. The solution was to emulate the European model by creating an array of military schools, where a small group of men could be trained to varying degrees in the martial art, and in their turn became the trainers for the great mass, should the need arise.2 According to one of Jackson's biographers, Byron Farwell, at the time Jackson attended The United States Military Academy it was more a school that produced "good engineers who were also officers, rather than good officers who were also engineers."3 Modeled after L'Ecole Polytechnique in France the United States Military Academy at West Point reflected, to a large extent, an American military unsure of itself, and a nation unsure of what it wanted of its professional military. Looking for a model, it was natural to select the French military establishment, the perception being that Napoleon Bonaparte had rewritten the book on military science (science rather than art). A fascination with a prescriptive method of war was only to be expected in a young nation that had no real military tradition of its own in the European sense of the word.4 The relative newness of the Academy gave it a certain insecurity and this being the case it was only natural to choose from the talent of those that had for so 6 long laid Europe's finest low. The result was a clear tendency, academically at least , to think about fighting the next war in America as the Napoleonic Wars had been fought in Europe five decades before. Amidst such ingrained dogma came battlefield decision-making skills that had stood the test of time. Certainly, there was nothing concerning decision making processes analysis that measures up to the standard of today, and yet military genius emerged on both sides in the Civil War. Their experiences and actions still provide insight into the human psyche for the modern warfighter and decision maker. That their decisions can still give utility to the modern decision maker provides testament to the enduring character of the Principles of War. The story of the Civil War generals, epitomized by General Thomas J. Jackson, is one of men taken from a vast array of backgrounds, mostly civilian, with limited military experience, and thrown into the cauldron of war. Tested in war, the ultimate proving ground, these men experienced meteoric promotion, with few years or even months as a soldier, rising from the control of sometimes no more than themselves to the control of tens of thousands of men The most successful leaders were those like Jackson, who experienced the tempest of war, survived its vagaries, and went on to perfect, as far as possible, the operational art. Two years of intense warfare allowed Jackson to make decisions based on his experiences as to what he and his men could accomplish. As importantly, that same experience base gave Jackson insight into what his opponents could, could not and would, would not do in their attempts to defeat him. To a far higher degree than he is given credit for, Jackson understood (though he would hardly recognize the term) the Clausewitzian concept of friction. 7 Today it has become fashionable to think in terms of gaining perfect knowledge of the battlefield. In his book Command in War, Martin van Creveld cites the lament of Moshe Dayan5 who longed for the good old days when command on a battlefield was a relatively simple thing, because the commander could look to his right and left and see his host and the enemy's all at the same time and in a quick glance. Of course, even then, certain knowledge of the battlefield did not exist, because the greatest variable in war is not force ratios but rather man's mind. Jackson understood, because he had experienced it, that decision making in modern war was not about the attempt to gain perfect knowledge of the expanding battlefield6--it could never be achieved--but rather, to recognize when the critical mass of useful information had been reached, making a judgment and then acting with alacrity on what was surely imperfect information. The greatest leader then was one who had the character and will to operate in this environment of uncertainty while others feared to proceed. This then, is Jackson's great gift to the military student. His understanding of the inherent friction in war combined with a powerful will to create a leader in combat who could create a victory where before there was only defeat. General Jackson's greatest skill was to become not the master of the impossible, but rather master of the possible. It was this quality, imperfect at first, but honed to a fine edge by his experiences, that at his moment of greatest glory made Jackson so indispensable to Lee and ultimately the Confederate cause, while contributing to the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg . No other Confederate leader, perhaps not even Lee, realized the power of the individual to accomplish the achievable. Jackson knew intuitively as the result of his accrued experience what his men could and could not do, what the enemy was capable of and the measures he would 8 have to take to ensure, as much as any man could, success on the battlefield. It was this self knowledge, not certain knowledge, that Jackson brought to the bloody fields of Chancellorsville on 2 May 1863, and which so confounded his enemies. The ultimate utility of using Jackson's actions at Chancellorsville on 2 May 1863 as a model for decision making analysis is that to a large degree, he and the American Civil War serve as a metaphor for the American Way of War, a way of war that many believe is at the end of its usefulness in a world of non-state terrorism and asymmetrical warfare. However, with change comes the realization that perhaps things are not that different after all. 9