Why did generals lead from the front?

[BoJe]

I guess I know why (morale, tradition, honour and such things) but thinking of the horrendous casualty rates among officers, why didn't someone ever stop and think if it really was a good idea to have the leadership (generals as well as lower ranking officers) always wiped out as the first?

Was there any cool heads at that time arguing for different tactics?

[Los]

Basic leadership principle throughout all of eternity, don't expect the men to do something you are not willing to do yourself.

Likewise sometimes as a commander you gotta see for yourself up front w/ your own eyes...

[Colonel Dreux]

Oh, there were people who weren't stupid about what could happen, but early in the War it was cowardly to suggest such actions. However, there are number of times where important officers got down and out of the way of firing. In Jackson's Valley Campaign he and his officer skedaddled off their horses when they were targeted and he was quoted as saying something like "sometimes you just have to save yourself". Lee and Longstreet admonished D.H. Hill for exposing himself to cannon fire at Antietam, cause they were all in the same party, but Lee and Longstreet were beneath the crest of the land... and a Union batter spotted Hill and sent a shell underneath is horse. Longstreet said it was the best shooting he'd seen in the War.

[2nd Kentucky]

I just finished an alternate history book titled Gettysburg (original huh?). Anyways, near the end of the book, Meade orders all Corp commanders to stay with him, so they won't be in the fight, also he gave the orders for Division and Brigade commanders to stay behind their men.

On a serious note; In their tent, or riding about on a march officers could calmly say that they wouldn't be stupid enough to go out in the firing line. But in the thick of the action, their "blood was up" as some people say, adrenaline was pumping and they could not think rationally for their own safety.

[galusha]

When they don't you end up with the likes of McClellan.

[Colonel Dreux]

galusha wrote:

When they don't you end up with the likes of McClellan.

Unfair. Grant didn't lead from the front when he was Commander of all forces.

[galusha]

The op was talking about leaders in general and not Commander of all forces. I can not give examples of Mac wearing out horses or being shot at or too close to the front. But I'll wager Grant had more. I know Mac was missing/ not close during two of his important battles, Antietam and Malvern Hill.
I have always thought the Union Army got better when they had leaders who were up at the front, the cream eventually rose to the top. The Confederate Army had leaders from the get go who knew how to lead during combat, and suffered greatly after the attrition rate of so many fine generals/leaders.
just my humble opinion

[Colonel Dreux]

galusha wrote:

The op was talking about leaders in general and not Commander of all forces. I can not give examples of Mac wearing out horses or being shot at or too close to the front. But I'll wager Grant had more. I know Mac was missing/ not close during two of his important battles, Antietam and Malvern Hill.
I have always thought the Union Army got better when they had leaders who were up at the front, the cream eventually rose to the top. The Confederate Army had leaders from the get go who knew how to lead during combat, and suffered greatly after the attrition rate of so many fine generals/leaders.
just my humble opinion

Yes, but again McClellan had been commander of all forces by the time Malvern Hill and Antietam happened. Not once did Grant ever lead the Army of the Potomac from in front. He would have killed himself if he had.

[Shirkon]

All of you seem to forget that Grant wasn't the commander of the AOTP, Meade was. Grant was Commander in Chief of all the Union armies.

I need to correct myself here. Grant was General in Chief, not Commander in Chief. Lincoln was commander in chief though he did it seems allow Grant to perform most of the duties once he was made Lt. General. And Grant for the most part allowed Meade to command the AOTP with at first few instances of not passing orders through Meade.

[galusha]

I didnt forget that Grant was the overall commander. I really dont give a hoot who is or was the overall commander in this discussion. Again, I thought it was about leading from the front. We got on this Grant /Mac thing after I made a slight about McClellan. He was just an example of the type of general who comes to mind(my mind) of not being there or in contact with the front. I would still say Grant was the type of leader who lead the front because of his proven behavior of being all over the battlefield thruout his career. I am sorry but I am not familiar with any account of Mac having done so. I am sure he did though because he was a capable general and not a coward( he must have done something right to get where he got), but he prove not to be as good a fighting general as Grant and many others. Was it because he didnt lead his men as well from the front during combat? I believe it was so. "Lee to the rear" sounds right, "Mac to the rear" does not to me.