ABE LINCOLN: Is Anyone Aware of Where He Commanded troops in the field?

@OmSigDAVID,

He was fond of "meddling" with every one of his generals until Grant asked him to "please **** off"
(I paraphrased Bruce Catton from his book, "Grant Takes Command")

I dont think Lincoln had ANY direct command experience even when he was a captain in the Illinois militia during the BlackHawk Wars in the 1830's. He did visit several battle sites and conferred with generals. There is a famous foto of lincoln, Sherman and Grant standing by a bivtent.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Long ago, in Military Science class,
Capt. Dioreo, a Professor of Military Science, representing the Army,
in full uniform, told our class that Lincoln was both
the Commander-in-Chief and the local commanding general
(having personally assumed command)
in a Civil War battle, but the span of time since then
has deteriorated my memory of further detail.

In another thread, this has been disputed.
My Googling has been of no avail; not yet.

I hope that a Lincoln expert will remember.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Capt. Dioreo

Ill bet he took a lot of **** over his name.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

not from any ROTC cadets

0 Replies

@farmerman,

When youre 30 miles from home,
and your pants are full of foam
Dioreo, Dioreo

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Lincoln almost got himself shot when viewing Gen Early attack on Washington DC at Fort Stevens.

A union doctor within a few feet of the President was in fact kill by a Confederate sniper.

So he did come within rifle range of the enemy still as far as I am aware he never directly command troops.

0 Replies

I know this is wasted effort, but . . . Lincoln never commanded troops in the field during the American Civil War. Period.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Yeh but if capt Diahhrea say so its gotta be "no ****"

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Shouldn't you be on the Grant Thread?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Yeh but if capt Diahhrea say so its gotta be "no ****"

As to this subject matter, of his chosen and personally prepared lecture,
it is very plausible that his teaching is accurate; more likely than not, in my sense of the situation.

The Captain identified the battle qua place n date,
but my memory fails of the details; its been a while.

David

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I know this is wasted effort, but . . . Lincoln never commanded
troops in the field during the American Civil War. Period.

I will not ask u to prove a negative,
but, perchance if u DO have anything beyond a gut feeling
on this point in support of your position
and if u r willing to share it with us,
it will be welcome.

The concept was received from a credible source.
Its only MY fault that I cannot remember the details.
The concept was not implausible; it is not weird for the boss
to appoint himself to manage a military battle.
That is not against human nature.

I will try to find an expert on Lincoln to elucidate the point.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

David it did not happen.

Washington is putting down the Whiskey rebellion and Madison in the direct overseeing of part of the fail defenses of Washington in the War of 1812 are the only presidents who had command of troops in combat or at least military operations as president.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

David it did not happen.

Washington is putting down the Whiskey rebellion and Madison in the direct overseeing of part of the fail defenses of Washington in the War of 1812 are the only presidents who had command of troops in combat or at least military operations as president.

Lemme see what I can come up with.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The Captain identified the battle qua place n date,
but my memory fails of the details; its been a while.

Thats a problem we often have with some "wisdom" imparted by past teachers. Its often difficult to acknowledge that this guy could have been wrong. He was an authority figure in your life.

AS I said, please read Bruce Catton's "Grant takes Command". There is a sizable discussion of how Lincoln was fond of "meddling" with his generals.
Eg, when Geeorge Mead pulled the victory in Gettysburg, Lincoln gave him a host of crap for not pursuing Lee and finishing him off.

I do not have ANY evidence that supports your ROTCY teachers" fantasy.
You were the one who posted a silly premise , so accusing others of "not proving a negative" is just plain stupid reasoning on your behalf. You should be more careful in how you retrieve information from your memory banks. You made the claim and you are the one who assumes it was correct.
Youre wrong.

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Lincoln gave him a host of crap for not pursuing Lee and finishing him off.

As it would had shorten the war and save a few hundreds thousands lives giving him **** is very most call for.

I cannot see Grant allowing Lee to cross back over the Potomac River for example if he had been in command at the time.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

when Geeorge Mead pulled the victory in Gettysburg

Robert what is even more amazing given that Lee was blinded by having his cavalry forces out of touch with him, he was outnumbers, and had divided his forces all over the place that ****-head Mead had barely won the battle.

Lincoln needed to deal with some very very poor generals indeed until Grant show up on the scene and if anything he should had interfere with them more then he did.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

David wrote:

The Captain identified the battle qua place n date,
but my memory fails of the details; its been a while.

farmerman wrote:

Thats a problem we often have with some "wisdom" imparted by past teachers.
Its often difficult to acknowledge that this guy could have been wrong.
He was an authority figure in your life.

So far as I know, he was reasonable n competent.
He was not a screw-up; he was not Barney Fife.

farmerman wrote:

AS I said, please read Bruce Catton's "Grant takes Command".
There is a sizable discussion of how Lincoln was fond of "meddling" with his generals.

That trait is consistent with his deciding that
"if u want something done right: do it yourself" and personally taking command.
We know that he had the authority to do that, if he wanted to.
Its only a question of whether he excercised it or not.

farmerman wrote:

Eg, when Geeorge Mead pulled the victory in Gettysburg,
Lincoln gave him a host of crap for not pursuing Lee and finishing him off.

I do not have ANY evidence that supports your ROTCY teachers" fantasy.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

farmerman wrote:

You were the one who posted a silly premise, so accusing others of "not proving a negative"
is just plain stupid reasoning on your behalf.

U misinterpreted me.
My statement acknowledged that I was not asking him to prove a negative
and I implied that it 'd be rong to do so,
tho IF he wanted us to consider any specific evidence
on the point, that it 'd be welcome.
If u wanna tell me that I was rong in saying that,
I 'll hear n consider any reasoning that u may choose to offer on that point.

farmerman wrote:

You should be more careful in how you retrieve information from your memory banks.

I do my best.
I do not claim that my memory cannot be rong.
It has been b4.

farmerman wrote:

You made the claim and you are the one who assumes it was correct.

I did. I do.
Its source has at least ostensible credibility n plausibility.
Its the same as if U made a plausible statement on farming
or on geology, I 'd accord u at least prima facie tentative belief,
until confronted with significant counter-evidence
because I do not believe that U and the Captain are fools.
(tho he had a cleaner mouth than u do)

farmerman wrote:

Youre wrong.

Maybe; we shall c what we shall c, but at least give the investigation a decent shot.
Its too soon to hoist the white flag. I 'm lazy, but not THAT lazy.

Liberally parafrazing John Paul Jones: I have not yet begun to ask around.

I was a fool: I was at a Mensa meeting a few hours ago.
I shoud have raised my voice (I DID, on an unrelated topic)
and inquired qua whether any expert on Lincoln coud help us.

Well, there will be more meetings.

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Once more if anyone did tell you that Lincoln had commanded in the field he was not a good source of information and that go double if you are talking about the civil war period.

More then likely you misheard or misunderstood whatever his comment happen to had been. If you did hear correctly the man was a nut case.

Lincoln whole life is a well known indeed at least to anyone interested in the subject.

Hell every damn battle or small sub battles in the civil war running to a few thousands of them are listed in books and none have Lincoln commanding anything himself.

Assuming your source is not a nut case the only thing he could be referring to was the time Lincoln went to fort Steven, a fort guarding Washington DC and had a man within a few yards of him kill by a sniper.

He was not commanding anything at the time however.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Here is his whole military career beginning and ending in 1832.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/abrahamlincoln/p/plincoln.htm

Abraham Lincoln's Military Career:

In 1832, Lincoln enlisted to fight in the Black Hawk War. He was quickly elected to be the captain of a company of volunteers. His company joined regulars under Colonel Zachary Taylor. He only served 30 days in this capacity and then signed on as a private in the mounted Rangers. He then joined the Independent Spy Corps. He saw no real action during his short stint in the military.

1 Reply

ABE LINCOLN: Is Anyone Aware of Where He Commanded troops in the field?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know