Just think if Vincent rebuffed Warren’s orders pointing out that he already had orders from his superior. Warren also didn’t have direct authority over Vincent.
It's incredible to think of the impacts from in-monent decisions, and what leadership can truly mean in those contexts. For example when is it ok to change the implementation of orders when the present context clearly can benefit from it? And is it ignoring orders or more using the latest field info to refine them? Dan Sickles advancing into the Peach Orchard could be clear ignoring orders that led to negative results. Warren and Vincent covering Little Round Top might have saved the day, possibly the battle (and depending how much value one places on the strategic importantce of the battle, maybe even war). Fascinating to think about! 😃
General Warrens career met an untimely end during the final battles of the war. He was unceremoniously relieved of command of the 5th Corps during the battle of Five Forks by General Phil Sheridan. Two of his three divisions began their attacks improperly aligned to strike the confederates of George Pickett's division. Sheridan relieved Warren for cause and appointed Joshua Chamberlain as commander when he saw what had happened. Warren became the only union General relieved for cause during battle in the war. Warren appealed to Grant but was ignored.
It was great that he was later exonerated, when President Hayes ordered a court of inquiry, and even Chamberlain spoke very highly in support of him. It seems his intuition and ability to read the context of a situation were a special trait for his leadership (Gettysburg, Mine Run Campaign). And exciting that soon after the war he was elected as a member of the very prestigious American Philosophical Society. In the past its members included George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall. It was founded by Ben Franklin. He was in good company.
![[UNCUT] The Loyal Pin ปิ่นภักดิ์ EP.4 (4/4)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/d3l5rxl5CVo/mqdefault.jpg)
Just think if Vincent rebuffed Warren’s orders pointing out that he already had orders from his superior. Warren also didn’t have direct authority over Vincent.
It's incredible to think of the impacts from in-monent decisions, and what leadership can truly mean in those contexts.
For example when is it ok to change the implementation of orders when the present context clearly can benefit from it?
And is it ignoring orders or more using the latest field info to refine them?
Dan Sickles advancing into the Peach Orchard could be clear ignoring orders that led to negative results. Warren and Vincent covering Little Round Top might have saved the day, possibly the battle (and depending how much value one places on the strategic importantce of the battle, maybe even war).
Fascinating to think about! 😃
General Warrens career met an untimely end during the final battles of the war. He was unceremoniously relieved of command of the 5th Corps during the battle of Five Forks by General Phil Sheridan. Two of his three divisions began their attacks improperly aligned to strike the confederates of George Pickett's division. Sheridan relieved Warren for cause and appointed Joshua Chamberlain as commander when he saw what had happened. Warren became the only union General relieved for cause during battle in the war. Warren appealed to Grant but was ignored.
It was great that he was later exonerated, when President Hayes ordered a court of inquiry, and even Chamberlain spoke very highly in support of him.
It seems his intuition and ability to read the context of a situation were a special trait for his leadership (Gettysburg, Mine Run Campaign).
And exciting that soon after the war he was elected as a member of the very prestigious American Philosophical Society.
In the past its members included George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Marshall. It was founded by Ben Franklin.
He was in good company.