What if Hooker was in command at Gettysburg?

[Jamieva]

Disaster. He would've been a disaster.

[nbforrest]

He may have been OK just sitting there on the high ground given his numbers. Meade probably was an improvement, certainly in the Gettysburg circumstances. But then again, look what happened at Chancellorsville...
I doubt there would have been a huge disaster though...just too many Yanks.
Hooker did fine out west...he was a good subordinate commander, which tends to get overlooked.

Respectfully

[ole]

Tend to agree. Too many Yanks. It would have taken Braxton Bragg to lose under those circumstances.
Ole

[milhistbuff1]

then again, one ill timed or placed attack can destroy an Army AOT at Franklin-Nashville etc

[samgrant]

Meade was a very good general. He never got the respect he deserved. A lot of that was political bickering amonst the Union brass.

I'll take Meade over Hooker anyplace, anytime.

(Tho Hooker had his moments!)

[nbforrest]

Originally Posted by milhistbuff1

then again, one ill timed or placed attack can destroy an Army AOT at Franklin-Nashville etc

Yes, but the AOP was not in that situation...sitting on high ground bristling with artillery and outnumbered the opponent. Not really the same situation that fool Hood put the AOT into at Nashville.

Respectfully

[nbforrest]

Originally Posted by samgrant

Meade was a very good general. He never got the respect he deserved. A lot of that was political bickering amonst the Union brass.

I'll take Meade over Hooker anyplace, anytime.

(Tho Hooker had his moments!)

Now, this is taking the thread in another direction, but I will comment a bit on Meade.
He has gone down in my estimation as an army commander. Was he the best commander the AOP had? Absolutely. But that is not saying a lot. I don't think he really had the energy or skills to carry out an effective offensive. One could blame others for Mine Run (although Meade certainly did not do great) but as I read more about the Overland and Petersburg campaigns, I don't think Meade ever really got the hang of taking the offensive. He had Grant to push him forward, but Meade just wasn't very good at it. Was Meade incompetent? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Solid and dependable as a corps commander but a rather mediocre army commander. Now, the interesting question is: how much was Meade hindered or aided by Grant? Would he have done better or worse on his own?

Respectfully

[whitworth]

I doubt he would allow the 11th Corps under Howard, to be a lead corps into Gettysburg.