Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
Kidd raises it in his memoirs. Never even considered it before he raised the issue. He points out that Hooker was more aggressive than Meade and that even if Meade was more aggressive, considering that he was appointed in command shortly before the battle, he didn't even know his staff that well and couldn't have anyway. Thoughts and opinions please.
Hooker at Gettysburg, I think it would have been a mess. His rep as "fighting Joe" seems to have been overrated especially when compared to his performance at Chatanooga & the Atlanta campaign.
I think Meade did a stellar job w/ the situation at hand. I remember reading that Meade was having problems correlating the fact that he was commanding the whole AoP and not just a Corps... He was an excellent Corps commander and he did quite well as an Army commander.
A more thought provokikng what if might be if Hancock had been in command of the AoP instead of Meade. i don't know if he ever had the right connections to put in charge of the AoP but I've always felt Hancock was a ****ed good general.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
Hooker at Gettysburg? Does that not have other implications? In my mind, Hooker would have had to have been successful @ Chancellorsville. In light of this, would the battle have even been fought? Would Hooker not have been on his way to Richmond?
Hooker remained in command of the AoP after Chancellorsville, he was removed when it became obvious to Washington that he was seeking to avoid direct confrontation with the AoNV.
Hooker had lost his confidence, at least as an army commander. He soon regained it as a corps commander.
No way Hooker could have fought effectively, with his confidence in himself, as army commander, shattered.
In some theoretical world if Hooker was at Gettysburg, he would have been soundly whooped by the wiley, old, gray fox.
No doubt about it. Hooker would have been self-conscious and second-guessing himself while Lee, without Stuart, would have been running circles around him. Hooker's own officers, but for Sickles and a few others, hated or distrusted him. A recipe for disaster.
For the longest time, i believed that it was a shame Hooker was removed before he could fight Gettysburg. i always thought that given his chance to make reparations for Chancellorsville, he would have proven as effective as Meade in command, if not moreso for having the reins of command well under control. Rethinking the issue however, I have concluded that Hooker might have become 'gunshy' around Lee, especially the nearer he came to Halleck and the pressures from Washington in his rear. What's more, whereas Meade need only handle his army professionally and limit mistakes before Lee, Hooker only needing to do the same, i am afraid that because he knew he no longer commanded the confidence of his corps commanders, may have tried a Hood-like Franklin stunt to show who was boss. Meade, on the other hand, being cautious and new to command, needed to rely on his commanders' judgments, indeed, he knew he could trust their professional decisions. This helped lead to Union victory at Gettysburg. Conversely, Hooker showed at Chancellorsville that he did not rely on his subordinates views, which helped him lose that battle.
Moreover, Hooker's contributions to the Gettysburg Campaign should not be overlooked. His loosing of his cavalry on Stuart and shadowing the Confederates was superb, as well as his rapid movement north with the corps, crossing the Potomac and sheilding Washington, all worthy of the highset praise.
The best decision Lincoln may have ever made was replacing Hooker with Meade.
Meade had nothing to prove. Getting the command late, he could not contemplate a full scale assault of Lee at Gettysburg.
Meade played conservative at Gettysburg; Hooker might have attacked.
Hooker in command at Gettysburg? He would have been outflanked like at Chancellorsville.
__________________ F. S. Powers
Union Ancersor: Pvt Arnuah Norton, 60th Ohio. (G-G-G Grandfather) Died at Salisbury NC, November 3, 1864
Confederate Ancestors: Captain Thomas A. Morrow, 29th Texas Cavalry (G-G-G- Uncle) and 2LT George W. Morrow, 31st Texas Cavalry (G-G-G Grandfather). Both survived the war
I don't believe hooker would have been too gunshy. When D N Couch stepped down, the much more aggressive and potentially insubordinate Hancock would have succeeded him to corp command. Hancock followed through on his victories, something Couch was unwilling to do. (see Stephen Sears book on Chancellorsville when hooker is stunned by cannon shot hitting his HQ) By Gettysburg, Hooker's inclination to prevent another defeat would have complemented Hancocks aggressive yet prudent fighting style.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
