Is it True Lincoln Actually Commanded Troops in Battle Early in the American Civil War?

I'm not talking issueing orders to the generals in the field from the White House here. I'm talking Lincoln actually being in the field commanding troops himself the same year his son died.

2011-06-24T19:41:22Z

Exactly what I expected. No one would know of the events in early May 1862. May 5, 1862 Lincoln travels to Hampton Roads with Secretary of War Stanton and Secretary of the Treasury Chase in order to try and get McClellan moving again, arriving the morning of May 6th at Fort Monroe. Hearing rumors that the Confederates were about to abadon Norfolk, Lincoln planned the bombardment of Confederate artillery at Sewell's Point, Virginia on the morning of May 8th. By mid morning Lincoln led the naval forces involved in the bombardment of Sewell's point, coming under artillery fire from the Confederates for the first time and nearly coming under friendly fire from USS Stevens. Lincoln would select the spot for an army landing that evening and sent the troops in the next day to capture Norfolk, which had been abandoned by the time they arrived.

Got it from "Friendly Fire in the Civil War" by Webb Garrison, "Terrible Swift Sword" by Bruce Catton, and http://www.historycentral.com/Navy/cwnavalhi

rabbitmedic2011-06-23T20:05:28Z

Favorite Answer

no, he was in the BlackHawk war

11

rodney h2011-06-24T03:27:46Z

No but he was a meddler. He tried to command a war with no experience, and wanted in on all decisions. Something most war presidents have had a problem with since WWII(and we have lost every one since because of the "fighting from washington" attitude). And the early battles showed his meddling. When grant became general, he told him to take a flying leap in no uncertain terms. And he took over the job of winning the war. He only really reported to lincoln after that.

He never seen combat even in the Illinois militia days(which was 3 months and on burial duty). He was not military minded. He was a REMF as the military so calls them.. He commanded troops but in a cleanup capacity.

02

Anonymous2011-06-24T01:56:47Z

No. That would be very dangerous, and the loss of the president would be the last thing a country on the verge of breaking in half would need. Also, the various duties of the President would have been neglected.

41

?2011-06-24T01:58:27Z

The is no historical evidence to suggest that this ever happened.

31

tuffy2011-06-24T07:24:30Z

No

01

Related Questions

what was the true cause of the american civil war?Which famous Civil war battle repressented the highest point of penetration by confederate troops into the NorAmerican Civil War buffs---General Robert E Lee vs. General U.S. Grant?If Texas were to actually secede, doesn't the precedent set by Lincoln basically force a civil war?What future American president commanded American troops at The Battle of New Orleans and who assisted him?

Trending Questions

Should the US have continued and wiped out the Soviet Union after they won WWII?28 answersso my friend says Hitlers German cause he moved to germane  ?15 answershow were white people able to capture african and load them onto slave ships?14 answersWhat's the most important thing when moving?27 answersIs it true, that before the end of WW2, people only lived in big cities or in small towns? There were no suburbs?10 answers