What if U. S. Grant ...

[Horace Porter]

... had stayed in the West for 1864?

[Neal]

Thanks for making this thread realistic ( rather than trying to think of Lee w/ AK-47's )

Makes me wonder if then the Confederates would be able to defend their land long enough for Lincoln to withdrawl his soldiers from the south and have the south win its independence.

Of course im just thinking of possiblities it would be boring if i just said " the war would of lasted longer. "

Thanks for the thread.

[Nytram01]

Georgia would run red with blood.

[RobertP]

Essentially the same thing. Grant and Sherman would have taken Atlanta, marched to Savannah and then swung north to put Lee in a vise. The Army of the Potomac would have continued to press on, maybe less agressively, knowing that Grant's army was on the way. It actually could have ended the War sooner.

[dvrmte]

Leaving Grant in the West means he won't be Commander in Chief of all armies, I presume.

That would leave Meade over the AOP. I don't see Meade handling Lee as well without Grant. Meade had no personal relationship with Lincoln and didn't want the position. I see problems in Virginia and a threat to Lincoln's reelection.

The West may have been less of a problem with Grant facing Johnston, maybe not. Grant may have been less hesitant than Sherman to attack Johnston prior to Atlanta. That could have given Johnston the opportunity for a major counterattack. Someone would have been defeated quicker and probably before reaching Atlanta.


Sincerely,
dvrmte

[RobertP]

Leaving Grant in the West means he won't be Commander in Chief of all armies, I presume.

That would leave Meade over the AOP. I don't see Meade handling Lee as well without Grant. Meade had no personal relationship with Lincoln and didn't want the position. I see problems in Virginia and a threat to Lincoln's reelection.

Sincerely,
dvrmte

Meade, or whomever his successor in the AOP, would only have to hold Lee, not agressively go after him as did Grant. The UNV after Gettysburg was never in a position for significant offensive operations.

[ole]

Disagree, Robert, to a degree. Lee had zero hope of destroying the AotP, but the AoNV was always dangerous; even in it's last days.

Ole

[coltshooter1]

After another failed Union campaign in the summer of 1864, General Hancock is appointed to command the AoP and holds the line against Lee. While making no progress on taking Richmond, Hancock prevents a September 1864 invasion of the north by the ANV, by fighting the ANV to a draw near Chamberberg, PA. Grant is finally given command of all Union forces. Lee and Johnson's combined army is forced to surrender at Danville, VA in the fall of 1865 after being caught between the AoP and Sherman's troops. A little speculative fiction for you to consider.

[dvrmte]

Meade, or whomever his successor in the AOP, would only have to hold Lee, not agressively go after him as did Grant. The UNV after Gettysburg was never in a position for significant offensive operations.

How would he hold Lee. Only at Petersburg was Lee held and he was still dangerous.

Lee may not have been interested in sitting still. Whomever would have to fight him to a position to hold him, as Grant did.

Grant had his hands full in the Overland Campaign. Any less general probably wouldn't have faired as well. Grant was in some bad positions at times and had Lee's trap been sprung, who knows what would have happened.

Sincerely,
dvrmte

[Stonewall1982]

I agree with some of the statements above. My opinion would be that if Grant had stayed in the west things would not have been much different. My reason are that Sherman and Grant worked so well together. Sherman opperated in a similar but not exact way the Grant did. Also, the March to the Sea was devised by both Grant and Sherman. So in theroy that would still have happened, perhaps even sooner. If it did, they could have marched north and hit the AoNV from the southern end and caught Lee in a pincer move.

Also, I wonder who would have replaced Meade as commander of the AotP. Certainly it could have been Hancock, who was a capable general. I don't know how he would have faired in an offensive against Lee, but I would venture to gues that he certainly could have held off a rebel offensive.