To my mind based solely on the evidence presented in this paper, outside of other research I have done, the most damning criticism of Wagner’s decision to “hold this position” is Colonel Opdyke’s willingness to refuse orders even on threat of Court Martial. Clearly given Opdyke’s command to charge the Confederates as the Union lines broke down shows that he was no coward but rather looked at Wagner’s tactics as no good.

In the end it seems to stretch incredulity to believe that every other major officer on the battle field would conspire to save Schofield’s career especially if his cowardice and blundering strategy came so close to losing the battle and potentially all of their lives. One would safely assume that a short conversation amongst those officers after the combat would have had them standing unanimously AGAINST Schofield if for no other reason than to preserve themselves and their men from having to serve under such a poor general in any future engagement.

Furthermore, I cannot see what would cause these men to maintain relatively uniform statements regarding Wagner’s behavior years later writing in their own memoirs or papers as a retelling of the tale according to Daniel’s conclusions would bring no shame upon themselves and exonerate Wagner in the process. Even if one argued that some sort of twisted sense of esprit de corps among those classically trained in the military arts versus officers promoted I cannot see a reason that these professional soldiers would defend a man so incompetent and craven as Schofield would have been based on this essay’s conclusion.

Yes, Cleburne and Forrest again. Seems like we just had a round of this not long ago on a Yahoo board. But overall pretty good.

But what do I know.

Eric