Hooker at Gettysburg?

[OldReliable1862]

If anyone remembers the old MMP board game Gettysburg, it gave you the option to have Joe Hooker in command of the Union army, with Meade remaining in command of the V Corps. I wanted to look into this scenario and what the users here think of it.

As the Army of the Potomac prepared to respond to Lee's invasion, Hooker got into a dispute with Halleck over French's troops at Harper's Ferry. Halleck refused to let Hooker have them as reinforcements, and the increasingly fed-up Hooker finally offered his resignation. Lincoln, Stanton, and Halleck had been losing faith in him, and were only too happy to accept it. So, three days before going into battle, the Army of the Potomac would have a new commander.

However, what if Hooker doesn't lose his temper over the Harper's Ferry troops, and continues as army commander? Can it be assumed the preliminary movements that led to the battle would still occur, or would Hooker have utilized his forces differently from Meade?

 

[Luke Freet]

If anyone remembers the old MMP board game Gettysburg, it gave you the option to have Joe Hooker in command of the Union army, with Meade remaining in command of the V Corps. I wanted to look into this scenario and what the users here think of it.

As the Army of the Potomac prepared to respond to Lee's invasion, Hooker got into a dispute with Halleck over French's troops at Harper's Ferry. Halleck refused to let Hooker have them as reinforcements, and the increasingly fed-up Hooker finally offered his resignation. Lincoln, Stanton, and Halleck had been losing faith in him, and were only too happy to accept it. So, three days before going into battle, the Army of the Potomac would have a new commander.

However, what if Hooker doesn't lose his temper over the Harper's Ferry troops, and continues as army commander? Can it be assumed the preliminary movements that led to the battle would still occur, or would Hooker have utilized his forces differently from Meade?

The problem with Hooker at Gettysburg is that Hooker is a very heavily hated man. Despite being a newborn Republican, Stanton and Halleck hated him (to be fair, those two were the worst judges of character in military history, sans stuff in ancient China). They wanted him out of the picture as soon as possible. Chancellorsville wasn't enough for them to do so, but that combined with the Harper's Ferry incident was enough pretext for them.
I do want to note something though. Apparently, Hooker, when he first heard about Lee's Invasion, suggested that he could march on Richmond without much opposition and take the Confederate capital. However, Lincoln didn't want to leave the north undefended in the face of Confederate invasion, and so the idea was scraped. There's something to be said there about democratic states at war but I won't get into that. What I do want to point out is the idea of Hooker going south while Lee skirts past him north, and seeing how Lee would react to such an audacious move. It'd be the second time Hooker surprises Lee.

 

[dgfred]

I think slam east to threaten Washington and smash Hooker as he rushes back to save the day.

 

[Luke Freet]

I think slam east to threaten Washington and smash Hooker as he rushes back to save the day.

I mean, I'd assume Hooker would have left the 20K garrison of Washington behind, which could easily hold the city against the entirety of Lee's force if need be, heck, Hooker could leave, say, the 11th Corps or something to bolster the garrison, while he had more than enough troops to overwhelm the about 10K rebels holding Richmond, made all the more easier by the fact that Union artillery was systematically superior to Confederate arty. Hooker knows Washington would be in good hands.

 

[dgfred]

The threat/move might have been enough. Don't know if the Union had the gumption to attack Richmond as Washington is weakly defended with a minimum 'left behind'.

 

[OldReliable1862]

Northern newspapers were filled with panicky headlines regarding Lee's invasion, and many were no doubt frightened. Lincoln must have been thinking of this when he shot down Hooker's suggestion to make a lunge at Richmond.

 

[Luke Freet]

The threat/move might have been enough. Don't know if the Union had the gumption to attack Richmond as Washington is weakly defended with a minimum 'left behind'.

I mean, 20K men at the least behind fortifications would have held out well against the Confederate army, which is historically aweful at siege warfare (only time I can think of where a confederate force won a major siege was at Harper's Ferry, which was more due to the ineptitude of Dixon Miles and Jackson's skill at positional operations...and with Jackson dead, not really many other great siegers on the Confederate's side).

 

[OldReliable1862]

If Hooker is really aggressive in throwing out screening forces, he may end up giving Longstreet the battle he wanted - a defensive engagement on ground of Lee's choosing. Of course, we shouldn't assume Hooker will repeat his prior mistakes.