In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 , Introduction , Throughout its history, the American army has cherished its heroes and held their exploits as examples for future generations of leaders to follow. On a national level, everyone recognizes the names of Washington, Lee, Pershing, Patton, and MacArthur. At a more specialized level, military professionals and historians draw inspiration from the episodes of Joshua Chamberlain at Little Round Top or Phil Sheridan at Winchester. Within the army community, legends of soldiers’ deeds have made for spellbinding conversation around campfires since the birth of its organization. Many of these characters have been obscured over the years, but their stories are important because they capture the mood of the army and show how it has evolved over time. As has always been the case, our army reflects the prevailing attitude of our society, and knowledge of American army folklore is another way to understand the history of our nation. This is the story of one of those soldiers. Israel Bush Richardson was a talented and fearless infantry leader in the Civil War who has been denied the recognition that he deserves for his performance as a brigade and division commander in the Army of the Potomac. Tragically, he died just as his aggressive leadership was being recognized by the highest levels of the government. Although he played a short role in comparison with the great scope of events during the Civil War, he was held in high esteem by his soldiers and his peers for many years after. His duty to his country can be measured by his participation in twelve active campaigns over the course of three conflicts during his military service. His early death, from a wound at the Battle of Antietam in November 1862, robbed his country of his experienced, commonsense leadership just as President Lincoln was searching for a solution to his nagging leadership problems within the Union army. By looking back through Richardson’s military career and his personal letters, it is possible to trace how he was mentored by superiors and events during his 2 introduction almost twenty years of service in the army before the Civil War. The hard lessons young Richardson and his generation learned during this period shaped their views of strategy and the handling of an army. Those lessons, as well as their moral values, have gone far in determining the heritage of our country’s armed forces today. By the end of the Mexican War, Richardson, as a company grade officer, had more combat experience than most of his peers in the army. This experience is key in how he came to regard his duty and develop his character , courage, and competence. Through the expression of Richardson’s private thoughts to his family, which at times differed from the recognized doctrine of the army, we can begin to trace the professional arguments that always start when frontline units attempt to put professional theory into practice. He was quick to point out in his letters, often years before it became accepted truth in his profession, that the army was successful in Florida because of a change in small unit tactics and that later, in Mexico, the greatly outnumbered American army was victorious due to superior training, tactics, and discipline. As both sides of our nation mobilized for war in 1861, many men motivated by pride, patriotism, and politics rushed to fight for their country. Key leaders in both armies did not understand the dynamics of logistics, the training of large numbers of volunteers, and aggressive new tactics that complemented the greater lethality of new weapons. The few men who did understand, and who rose to the top on both sides of the conflict, tended to be young professionals from the Old Army. This group, like Richardson, entered the army around the time of the Mexican War and drew their first and lasting lessons of leadership from older officers who had spent careers of thirty years or more leading soldiers and fighting battles along the expanding frontiers of their country. To fully understand the character of Israel Richardson, one must know his mentors as well. A few of these personalities are well known, such as Winfield Scott, Zachary Taylor, and William Harney. Others, successful in their own careers but not as famous, including Edmund Alexander, Ethan Allen Hitchcock , Louis Craig, and William Henry, are equally inspiring. As Richardson’s life unfolded, his own leadership style began to reflect bits and pieces of...

Share