In my reading on the Civil War the subject that is notable by its absence is the discussion of the use, impact and perhaps misuse of the Staff Officers. At a time when European armies, like the French and Prussians, have already identified challenges to the staff when directing large armies in complex battles and set up staff colleges to train dedicated staff officers, the United States hasn't. Maintaining a small army during the early nineteenth century, through both the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, these lessons were never learned by American officers even though the likes of Lee, Joe Johnson, McClellan and Beauregard had served on Scott's staff in Mexico. In fact their experience suggested they required only a small staff to communicate in the field.
Does anyone know good studies of the subject or have views of their own? Is Gettysburg a disorganised shambles for the Confederates because Lee has too small and inefficient a staff? Does Chilton need to be handed a pistol and given some privacy for the loss of Special Order 191 - a staff officer's worst nightmare? How much of Grant's reputation belongs to John Rawlins? How much of the credit Hooker gets for reorganising the Army of the Potomac after Fredericksburg belongs in reality to Dan Butterfield? Are the successful generals the ones who have the best, most effective staff? Are there unsung excellent staff officers buoying the reputation of average generals...? Discuss...
This is an interesting topic, and not something I have personally seen specific studies on. However, as you have indicated the roles of staff officers can be significant in the success or failure of their generals both overall and even within specific battles. We can also see the role of staff officers for Rosecrans at Chickamauga with the fatal orders to General Wood. Despite the significance of the role there are also a number of examples of senior generals that have friends or family members on their staff. Meade has his son to his right in the photo here.
When the wheels fall off in a battle we never ask "how has the order, formed in the general's mind, been transmitted to the recipient officer"? Is it written? By whom? Is is verbal? Does it have both written and verbal elements? How is it delivered? By whom? Is it made by reference to a map? Who's map? Which idiot introduced the word "if practicable" into orders and what did it mean...?
You make good points. There is a lot to explore here, though perhaps part of the reason this area has not been pursued more is a lack of primary source material. There are some exceptions for staff officers like Horace Porter under Grant and Moxley Sorrel under Longstreet. But where is the staff officer account of what really happened to Special Orders 191, or other critical events? Without good source material we end up left with a lot of these famous "what ifs".
@long2821 I wonder if it was known EXACTLY what happened with Order 191 and who did it but they just decided to take a "This did not happen" approach to it and it's been lost to history.
@Mare At this stage I would suspect this will remain a mystery forever. Conspiracy or a cover-up is of course a possibility. D.H. Hill certainly went to lengths after the war to clear his name, and he was well connected doing some publishing after the war and being in contact with a lot of veterans. If something could be dug up I suspect he would have found it. Once he was able to produce his original copy from Stonewall Jackson it at least told his side of the story. If anyone maintained the secret it would be a single staff officer, and maybe someone like Lee himself if he knew who carried the order. I would not expect Lee to have come out and smeared the staff officer if he knew, and the staffer certainly never came forward.