Lt. General position never was?..What if..

[5fish]

After learning that Gen. Grant's move east in 1864 was not a given but just a political move by Lincoln, I believe it opens itself up to a "What if".

What if Lincoln had not given into political pressure to create the Lt. General position fearing Grant had his eyes on the Presidency?

The union Spring campaigns would have been much different. Generals Grant and Sherman would have marched on Atlanta while Gen. Meade faced off Gen Lee.

Would there have been a March to the Sea?

Would President Lincoln been reelected?

Would Grant have destroyed the Confederate AoT?

How would have Gen. Meade fared against Gen. Lee?

Would the war have lasted longer?

Would Lincoln have interfered with Grant fearing Grant would be drafted to run for President by either party?



A new perspective.......

[timewalker]

Originally Posted by 5fish

After learning that Gen. Grant's move east in 1864 was not a given but just a political move by Lincoln, I believe it opens itself up to a "What if".

What if Lincoln had not given into political pressure to create the Lt. General position fearing Grant had his eyes on the Presidency?

The union Spring campaigns would have been much different. Generals Grant and Sherman would have marched on Atlanta while Gen. Meade faced off Gen Lee.

Would there have been a March to the Sea?

Would President Lincoln been reelected?

Would Grant have destroyed the Confederate AoT?

How would have Gen. Meade fared against Gen. Lee?

Would the war have lasted longer?

Would Lincoln have interfered with Grant fearing Grant would be drafted to run for President by either party?

A new perspective.......

I'l bit.

I do not think there would have been a march to the sea. Even Grant was not terribly sure it was a good idea, but he trusted Sherman enough to let him try. Halleck on the other hand, would have vetoed it outright and unless he was overruled by Lincoln (who would thus have been supporting his commanding general rather than overruling him as he would have if vetoing it when Grant approved Sherman doing it), the march would not have taken place.

Hard to say if Lincoln would have been reelected, but I think so. Unless Meade gets soundly trounced in Virginia, Grant still takes Atlanta and Farragut probably still takes Mobile. No Sheridan in the valley, but Atlanta and Mobile are probably enough to tip the scales, since Grant being "stalled" outside of Petersburg or Meade being stalled in Norther Virginia would be a wash. I am assuming that Meade is cautious and not as bold as Grant in continuing to press when checked by Lee.

I do not think Grant would have destroyed the AoT because destroying an army was easily said but very hard to do. I cannot see the AoT getting in a position to surrender en masse and that was pretty much the only way to destroy an army.

Meade I think would have been a cautious but competant commander against Lee. He would not make any great blunders as Burnside, Hooker or Pope had and he would not be quite as cautious as McClellan, but I think he would have fallen into the typical AoP pattern of fight a battle and then retreat to regroup, refit and resupply. No great drive on Richmond.

Finally, no, I do not think Lincoln would have interfered with Grant in order to quash any political aspirations of Grant. If he knew anything at all about Grant he knew the man did not want the office. Further, it was not Lincoln's style. Hooker was terribly ambitious and Lincoln put him in command anyway in the hopes of winning even though Hooker, by winning, would no doubt have become a political rival in 1864. While Lincoln was ambitious and a consumate politician, I do not see him sacrificing what he saw as one if his best generals at the risk of the war effort.

[trice]

Originally Posted by 5fish

After learning that Gen. Grant's move east in 1864 was not a given but just a political move by Lincoln, I believe it opens itself up to a "What if".

What if Lincoln had not given into political pressure to create the Lt. General position fearing Grant had his eyes on the Presidency?

Lincoln had been looking for new alternatives in 1863. Grant was one; Rosecrans another. He'd had them checked out with a view to their political suitability for such a post by various means (including visits by Richard Henry Dana, Stanton's highly political assistant). Dana did a bit of a hatchet job on Rosecrans -- not a chance Dana would have liked Rosecrans, who was hated by Stanton -- and Rosecrans got clocked at Chickamauga. Meanwhile, Grant won at Vicksburg and held long telegraph conversations in the middle of the night with Washington, letting people get a feel for who he was. Grant was also denying political ambition at the time.

[quote=5fish;93992]The union Spring campaigns would have been much different. Generals Grant and Sherman would have marched on Atlanta while Gen. Meade faced off Gen Lee.[/qoute]

If Rosecrans had gotten the spot, how would the war have changed? To begin with, that has to assume Rosecrans either didn't lose at Chickamauga or recovered himself at Chattanooga for a breakout. Then I'd guess Rosecrans goives the command of the advance on Atlanta to Thomas if he can.

Or maybe that puts Grant in charge at Atlanta (and Grant had trouble with Thomas). More likely (since Rosecrans doesn't like Grant) that Grant gets shunted off to something else: maybe the Mobile expedition, or maybe the Red River and Texas.

Originally Posted by 5fish

Would there have been a March to the Sea?

In early 1864, before the campaign started, Grant was already leaning towards a thrust from Atlanta once the city fell. He favored Mobile (Grant had been looking at Mobile since at least early in 1863), but Savannah was also on the list of objectives that April. So if Grant is in the West and takes Atlanta, you can count on him planning to march someplace.

Originally Posted by 5fish

Would President Lincoln been reelected?

If he was winning, yes.

Originally Posted by 5fish

Would Grant have destroyed the Confederate AoT?

Assuming it was Grant vs. Johnston out West with Thomas and Sherman under him -- I'd say absolutely he'd have taken Atlanta. If the Confederacy had been dumb enough to put Hood in, Grant and that team would have smashed him and taken Atlanta as soon or even sooner in my opinion

Originally Posted by 5fish

How would have Gen. Meade fared against Gen. Lee?

Moderately well, but probably not as well. He might not have had the political capital to sustain that drive. People tend to forget that the Cold Harbor operation was a Meade operation and almost won the war/took Richmond.

Originally Posted by 5fish

Would the war have lasted longer?

My guess: if Meade is in command in VA, Lee will do as well or better. If Rosecrans takes the field there, he'll do well initially but has to win quickly -- he doesn't have the stamina to fight Lee for long. If Meade does about as well in VA, Grant will do better in GA, so maybe the war ends at about the same time.

Originally Posted by 5fish

Would Lincoln have interfered with Grant fearing Grant would be drafted to run for President by either party?

Lincoln had already made inquiries into that before Grant was picked, as noted above. If he'd thought there was a lot of reason to fear that, Grant would have been less likely to get the job.

Tim

[OpnDownfall]

Arguing from a false premise; that Grant could not have be General-In-Chief, without first being Lt. General. Many Radicals and Democrats, did not see the necessity of reviving the rank of Lt. General as the authority of any Major General could be enhanced or restricted as thought necessary, by the president and Sec'y of War (or even, Congress)
For political reasons (if not military i.,e., don't want the war in the East to stagnate during an election Year, giving Lee greater opportunities to disrupt caregfully laid plans, both political and military) Lincoln needed to be 'seen' as leading a successful campaign in defeating the forces of the csa and during an election year, the biggest army and most highly visible barometer of Lincoln's success in leadership, to the voting public was Northern Va. The war could not be seen as lanquishing.
If Lincoln doubted Grants political loyalty, well, he put up with McClellan and survived because winning the war was central to Lincoln's war policy and could put up with inept, malcontents better than most politicians I have ever studied. First things first, from the record of Grant (and other likely replacements)it was obvious that If a General-In-Chief were needed, then it had to be Grant and if there were any doubts concerning other, non-military, worries, Lincoln could put up with them if it meant winning the war. But to win the war, a General-In-Chief was 'probably' a good idea, but he did not have to be a Lt. General.

[5fish]

Think of this scinerio...

Spring of 1864, Grant begins his march towards Atlanta and his great face off with Johnston finally. Grant wants to destroy the AoT so he begins by engaging Johnston at Rocky Face Ridge but unlike Sherman did Grant smashes into his fortified position with the desire to smash the AoT. After a couple of days Grant decides after smashing into the fortified position it was time to move around it.

Next big engagement is at Resaca and again Grant tries to maul Johnston by smashing into his fortified position. Yet again after a couple bloody days Gen. Grant moves around Johnston.

The pattern repeated itself over again at Adairville. New Hope church, and on to Kennesaw Mountain Grant slammed into Johnston entrench position for a couple days. At the end Grant's army was finished and he had to stop his march towards Atlanta. In his efforts to maul the AoT he smashed the fight out of his army and had lost his numerical advantage in man power and the moral of his army as the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain came to a close. It would not be until late fall before Grant was able to refit his army in men and supplies. Johnston was hurting but Atlanta still stood tall.

Meade and Lee fall into a stand off in the Summer and Fall of 1864.


Presidential election in the Fall of 1864 turns into a hanging chad type for NY., NJ. and OH are to close to call. Lincoln thinks about suspending the Constitution and declare martial law as the vote slowly turns against him.

[OpnDownfall]

First, one has to assume that Grant was as tactically inept as Sherman.
Grant's offensive moves in his Overland Campaign, were usually undone by inopportune breakdowns in the AoP command system.
With better corps commanders and against Johnston, it is not a given that Grant's offensives would have been as costly (or unsuccessful) against Johnston as those against Lee.

[5fish]

No! I beleive Grant did not have great respect for Johnston knowing he like to retreat. Johnston was not scared to fight and Grant would have been playing to Johnston hands. Grant would have smashed into Johnston army every chance he had knowing he had the numbers in men but johnston would have excepted it knowing he was getting the best of each fight in the kill ratio.

Johnston reduced Sherman advantage in men from 2 to 1 by the time they reached Peaches Creek it was to 8 to 5 then Johnston was relieved.(Big Mistake! by Prs. Davis. Johnston was able to do that even thou Sherman most of the time went around his flank!!

I assume Grant will not want to flank Johnston just smashed first as he did to Lee then moved. I assume Grant can not get reinforcements as he pleases because he is not the Lt. General. He still has to deal with Halleck.

I assume Grant would punch himself out against Johnston becuase he would have play into Johnston style of fight.

[Elennsar]

Perhaps, but judging by Grant's previous campaigns, it seems more likely that he wouldn't just play "charge straight into the enemy's lines" if he didn't feel it would work.

That is the thing. Grant was not an idiot or a berserker. I'm not sure how much what happened in Virginia so far as assaults was intentional and how much was things went wrong, but assuming that he would act exactly the same (and suffer the same consequences) seems improbable.

I don't see Johnston from his past record being superior to Hood if kept in command. Look at his "fight" with McClellan or his miserable "assistance" of Vicksburg. Johnston would, unless Grant's army was completely mauled, continue that...losing Atlanta.

Confederate effective strength as a percentage of Sherman's, according to McMurry (Atlanta 1864: Last Chance for the Confederacy):

April 30: 46.9%
May 31-June 10: 63.2%
June 30: 60%
July 31: 57.1%
August 31: 62.5%

8:5 is not a good ratio for an assault, but it isn't particularly bad, either.

Assuming the kind of warfare Grant fought with Lee, assuming a similar casuality ratio...

Johnston is ground down very badly. I would not be entirely surprised if the Army of Tennessee could not bear that kind of punishment and remain an effective army at all (at least so far as officers go...the depletion in their ranks would be horrific). The Army of Northern Virginia was gutted by Grant's efforts, even if he spent many lives in doing so.

I'm not familar enough with the Army of the Cumberland (the main Federal army Grant would be using) to gauge how well it would perform in accordance to Grant's wishes, which would make a significant difference in how much pain the Rebels take relative to what they inflict.

[OpnDownfall]

Any thing is possible in 'What If...' speculations, as compared with actual events. However, is it possible to argue that Sherman was a better tactical commander than Grant or evenThomas?
Sherman's inept execution of his plan of a turning movement through Snake Creek Gap to take Resaca (and break Johnston's supply line), argues than Grant or Thomas could not have done much worse and might, instead, have ended the war in the west in May of 1864

[Elennsar]

I would say, assuming he was aggressive enough, Thomas could have gutted the Confederates there. That if is something I'm not familar enough with him to know if its a safe guess he would have been.

Grant...goodbye Army of Tennessee, hello Atlanta.

Exagerating, but that seems quite reasonable. Sherman was not much of a big battle fighting general, which was what was needed there, as Johnston botched his defense (strategically) quite badly.