The Five Who Lost Out on Glory!

[5fish]

I have a simple question that I have been unable to answer that leads into Gettysburg.

When Meade accepted command of the AoP, he was the sixth man asked.

Who were the other five generals ask to command the AoP but turned it down and why?

I ask the question once before as a post and got no responses. I do know that Reynolds was one of those five general asked before Meade but I do not know why he turned it down or why any of them would turn down a chance at commanding an entire army?

Do not all army officer live to command an army in the field?

Most navy officer, I know live to command a ship and then the fleet?

Hopefully, someone can shed some light on the question.

Poor Reynolds turns down command only to die at Gettysburg. I can't believe Hancock would have turned down command of the AoP?

I am surprised these five generals, who lost out on Glory are not infamous.

[whitworth]

as I recall he had yet to command a corps in battle.

[5fish]

I was surfing the web and got another interpretation of the events leading to Meade taking command. Reynolds wrote a letter to Lincoln about Hooker then met with Lincoln privately. Lincoln offers command and Reynolds is willing but his request for total freedom could not be met so he turned it down. It implied that the other four senior generals to Meade were not even asked instead they were by passed. They were just skipped over for Meade, maybe that explains why their names are not infamous.

[gary]

Talk about short term memory. We just had a talk about Lee's Retreat from Gettysburg and how Meade was ordered to take command of the Army of the Potomac after five other generals turned it down. BTW, Ike said he was glad he wasn't in Meade's position of being placed in command only a few days before a major battle. Meade didn't even get a chance to know the army. Ike admitted he had a long time to get to know the men and commanders before D-day.

[J_Man0507]

I have been going through all that I have on Gettysburg and the campaign leading up to the battle, and have found only the mention of Reynolds rejecting the offer on the fact that he would not have near autonomy from Washington, and then Meade being asked to take command. I have found no mention of any other generals being offered the command. And I don't think there were any IIRC.

Now, I think there were generals who were above Meade, but they were not asked, and I would surmise that the reason is all the backroom plotting that went on behind Hookers back after Chancelorsville. Many of the corps and division commanders were maneuvering for position to take command of the AoP and Meade was one of the few who did not and was seemingly qualified to lead the Army. He had fought well throughout the war and lead capably and effectively. That is the reason he was offered the command over the other generals. Lincoln saw him as capable and not a backstabber like the others. And I don't think he wanted a Brutus in charge of the army protecting the capital.

[M E Wolf]

Dear J_Man0507;

I think what you post is very logical thinking. It seemed that the previous leaders were taking things on as a personal agenda, rather than the agenda of President Lincoln and the US Congress, Secretary of War and to just obey orders and yet, use their creative juices, knowledge and experiences to get it done.

What I would like to offer for thought though--perhaps General Reynolds did see how untimely the position would be. Perhaps General Reynolds wasn't ready to take up the position as it was a situation of a big battle to come rather than post-battle. I'd think if General Reynolds did survive Gettysburg and when General Meade was replaced; this would have been a better timing.

I also feel from what I've read about General W. S. Hancock, he was very keen on details and was sensible. Why put his neck on the chop block when others were eager to do so. He had his glory in the successes and post Civil War he raised up even higher.

I also think those in the other 'theaters' were ample leaders as well.

What General Meade had going for him, was he was a Pennsylvania man himself. Having a battle in his home state would be more meaningful to him and would be inclined to put more effort into the battle. I also think that the citizens would have been more inclined to support their home grown General as well.

If I knew the direction of Lee's army was heading into Pennsylvania; I'd want a man who knows Pennsylvania at the head of the army to fight in that state. Knowing the ground per se--gave more than it would have given to someone from an entirely different state.


Just some thoughts.

Sincerely,
M. E. Wolf

[ole]

Someone mentioned that Lincoln wouldn't (or couldn't) accept Reynolds' terms which, if the recollection hasn't failed me, had to do with non-interference from Washington.

ole

[J_Man0507]

Okay, I did a little more digging today and this is what I found. I pulled out Sears' Gettysburg and this is what he said about Reynolds and the whole command issue:

On Reynolds terms: "Reynolds response to the president was that...he "was unwilling to take Burnside's and Hooker's leavings." He wanted assurances there would be no more interference from Washington in the running of the army...There is no record of the form Lincoln's reaction took, but obviously he did not - could not - accept such a bargain. In that case, said Reynolds, he could not accept the command."

On Lincoln's line of thinking in replacing Hooker: "During the conversation, Reynolds seems to have spoken bluntly of Hooker's shortcomings, and have promoted General Meade...for head of the army. Yet there must have been something about Reynold's expressed attitude toward the command [i.e the other generals in the AoP] that it hardened Lincoln's own attitude on the subject. These various generals were going out of their way to condemn Hooker as unfit [something that Meade refused to do], yet not one of them would step up to take his place. Rather than continuing this discouraging search through the seniority list, the president determined, at least for the time being, to stay with Joe Hooker."

Both of these are found on page 41 of Sears' Gettysburg. It seems that once Lincoln found out about all of the back channel talks and backbiting going on in the high command from Reynolds, he had serious second thoughts about replacing Hooker with anybody else. But Reynolds had placed the seed of Meade being a possibility in Lincoln's head, so when he accepted Hooker's resignation, he promoted Meade above all the others.

[bankerpapaw]

Originally Posted by ole

Someone mentioned that Lincoln wouldn't (or couldn't) accept Reynolds' terms which, if the recollection hasn't failed me, had to do with non-interference from Washington.

ole

Isn't it ironic that Lincoln more or less resorted to a hands off approach once Grant took command. How long would the war have lasted if Lincoln hadn't "backed off"? Look at the wars we have been involved in since WWll and the results because of Washington's political
influence. Even WWll had political ramifications toward the end.

[ole]

Isn't it ironic that Lincoln found in Grant someone with whom he felt no need to interfere? Someone who he could trust as his right arm?

Now I'll hijack the tread back to where it was. Are we saying that there were not "five who lost out on glory"?

ole