Joe Hooker at Gettysburg

[bankerpapaw]

What might the results of Gettysburg been had Joe Hooker remained in command of the AOP?

 

[MaryDee]

Hopefully the mods will move this to the "what if" discussions.

Looks like they already did while I was posting this!

 

[General Butterfield]

If everything in the campaign went the same, which isn't guaranteed, and an engagement at Gettysburg occurred I expect the results to be very similar. Hooker wasn't interested in attacking Lee and would have adopted a defensive posture very similar to Meade. Post Chancellorsville, Hooker's famed aggressiveness and confidence seems to have melted away. Despite this he was still a competent commander and in his last days the redeployment north from the Rappahannock was done skillfully.

One thing that might be interesting is Sickles role. Hooker and him were much closer than Meade. Sickles would be more likely to obey Hooker and Hooker would be more likely to take Sickles advice. That could help or hurt the situation.

 

[War Horse]

The results wouldn't have been similar. Hooker was not half the commanding general Meade turned out to be. Ever hear the saying, "Don't let your mouth over commit your azz". That's Mr. J.F Hooker in a nutshell.

 

[General Butterfield]

The results wouldn't have been similar. Hooker was not half the commanding general Meade turned out to be. Ever hear the saying, "Don't let your mouth over commit your azz". That's Mr. J.F Hooker in a nutshell.

I personally think Hooker is superior to Meade but ignoring that I still can't imagine Hooker doing anything that drastically different. Butterfield and Warren are still in their same positions which means things will probably run about the same. It could even go a bit better, Meade made some mistakes in the battle such as the following:

"By withdrawing a large number of troops from Culp's Hill, Meade had committed a major blunder that almost cost the Union the war."
Many Gallant Men Were Lost by Kelly Bell

 

[War Horse]

I personally think Hooker is superior to Meade but ignoring that I still can't imagine Hooker doing anything that drastically different. Butterfield and Warren are still in their same positions which means things will probably run about the same. It could even go a bit better, Meade made some mistakes in the battle such as the following:

"By withdrawing a large number of troops from Culp's Hill, Meade had committed a major blunder that almost cost the Union the war."
"Many Gallant Men Were Lost" by Kelly Bell

We all have our opinion.

 

[General Butterfield]

We all have our opinion.

Agreed. I really like Meade too, visited his grave a few years ago since i'm local.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Meade wasn't the best general in the world but he had one priceless asset: he wasn't afraid of Robert E. Lee.

After Chancellorsville, I doubt the same could be said for old Joe Hooker.

 

[War Horse]

Meade coordinated the movement of the troops at Gettysburg, despite the insubordination of Sickles amoung others. He made wise decisions that entire compaigme. Perhaps he didn't sacrifice life needlessly. That doesn't make him a bad general.

 

[Aussie Billy Sherman]

Hooker was a good Corp commander but couldn't make the step up to army command

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Yes, I'm sorry but was keeping an open mind until Meade v. Joe showed up? The difference between the two had to be, when they showed up, notifying Meade of his command, his initial reaction to this unusual activity was assume he'd been placed under arrest. Hooker would have assumed someone was bringing another award, commendation or promotion. That isn't snark. Hooker may not have been as bad as painted, just had that fatal ego.

I don't know. Records aside, Gettysburg was so close, without the way Meade permeated command it could have gone horribly wrong. Meade didn't care how he looked? All his attention was focused on that job. You wonder about Hooker. Would he have been distracted enough, second guessing himself and everyone else, thinking how he would look afterwards, to have it overshadow crucial decisions?

 

[Jamieva]

I doubt Joe would have sent Hancock forward to take over early on July 1.

IMO after what happened on July 1 I think Joe would have retreated but that's a total guess.

 

[General Butterfield]

Yes, I'm sorry but was keeping an open mind until Meade v. Joe showed up? The difference between the two had to be, when they showed up, notifying Meade of his command, his initial reaction to this unusual activity was assume he'd been placed under arrest. Hooker would have assumed someone was bringing another award, commendation or promotion. That isn't snark. Hooker may not have been as bad as painted, just had that fatal ego.

I don't know. Records aside, Gettysburg was so close, without the way Meade permeated command it could have gone horribly wrong. Meade didn't care how he looked? All his attention was focused on that job. You wonder about Hooker. Would he have been distracted enough, second guessing himself and everyone else, thinking how he would look afterwards, to have it overshadow crucial decisions?

I doubt Joe would have sent Hancock forward to take over early on July 1.
IMO after what happened on July 1 I think Joe would have retreated but that's a total guess.

I guess it depends how you see Meade's role whether he successfully facilitated plans already in place or did something dramatically different to win the battle. From my point of view its probably a little of both and could be argued either way.

Meade took command three days before the battle so he really had little time to get himself together. He interviewed with Hooker who gave him his views on the campaign, Butterfield was kept to help organize and Warren to help plan the routes the army would take. During the battle Meade was sometimes active but seemed passive to an extent. For instance at meeting between the Meade and his generals on the night of July 2nd, Butterfield ran the meeting and Meade is reported to have said very little, the main questions of the meeting were decided by vote. Now on the other hand as pointed out sending Hancock might have been a brilliant move that was not already in the Hooker-Butterfield playbook.

Basically what I'm saying is I think Meade generally stuck to Hooker's plan for the campaign but also made his own tactical additions, listened to his generals advice and delegated effectively.

Now in regard to Hooker's personality he can be egotistical indeed but he wasn't totally irredeemable. To illustrate he focused on improving the food situation for the average solider and is quoted as saying " My men shall be fed before I am fed and before any of my officers." He seems to have genuinely cared about the welfare of men under his command. Now that being said Hooker would be the first person to gloat about how his plans are "perfect" which is probably what Meade heard alot of..... i'd also like to point out Meade and Hooker have a history together, Meade took over for Hooker when he was wounded at Antietam so perhaps this wasn't that new for either of them.

 

[General Butterfield]

Rethinking this a bit since it is AH. Two of my ancestors were in the 95th Pa and fought at Gettysburg. Had Hooker done something stupid and got the army destroyed, I would cease to exist. Better go with the safe pick Meade....

 

[Southern Unionist]

Unless Hooker would have placed someone other than Reynolds first in line, the communication between Reynolds and Buford the night before day one would have been the same, and the US Army would have still started off holding the high ground, a huge advantage.

 

[James N.]

If everything in the campaign went the same, which isn't guaranteed, and an engagement at Gettysburg occurred I expect the results to be very similar. Hooker wasn't interested in attacking Lee and would have adopted a defensive posture very similar to Meade. Post Chancellorsville, Hooker's famed aggressiveness and confidence seems to have melted away. Despite this he was still a competent commander and in his last days the redeployment north from the Rappahannock was done skillfully.

One thing that might be interesting is Sickles role. Hooker and him were much closer than Meade. Sickles would be more likely to obey Hooker and Hooker would be more likely to take Sickles advice. That could help or hurt the situation.

I thought so too, but if you read more about Chattanooga and the Atlanta Campaign, Hooker seems to have done very well. His troops seized Lookout Mountain and although they had to replace a bridge over a creek which delayed their arrival on Missionary Ridge, they still arrived in time to play a significant role there. Hooker led the pursuit of Bragg, and although Pat Cleburne got the better of him at Ringgold Gap, Hooker was very active there in the front lines. Right before Kennesaw Mountain he handed John B. Hood a bloody repulse at Kolb's Farm on June 22. Unfortunately for him he was disliked by both Grant and Sherman and passed over for promotion, so resigned before the fall of Atlanta.

 

[Burning Billy]

I'm not well read enough on all things Joe Hooker to speculate, but would Hooker have made the key personnel decisions that Meade made? Perhaps an underrated part of Meade's generalship at Gettysburg was his skillful delegation to subordinates. Meade sent Hancock take command of the field on the first day, a decision that would impact how the battle would play out, despite Howard technically being Hancock's superior. For those of you who are better read on Hooker, would he have made that same call? Would fighting Joe have elected to go himself to take command from Howard, instead of delegating to Hancock?

 

[BillO]

I'm not well read enough on all things Joe Hooker to speculate, but would Hooker have made the key personnel decisions that Meade made? Perhaps an underrated part of Meade's generalship at Gettysburg was his skillful delegation to subordinates. Meade sent Hancock take command of the field on the first day, a decision that would impact how the battle would play out, despite Howard technically being Hancock's superior. For those of you who are better read on Hooker, would he have made that same call? Would fighting Joe have elected to go himself to take command from Howard, instead of delegating to Hancock?

I'm not too sure that having Hancock take command from Howard really made any difference at all as to the first day's fight.

 

[Dom71]

I guess it depends how you see Meade's role whether he successfully facilitated plans already in place or did something dramatically different to win the battle. From my point of view its probably a little of both and could be argued either way.

Meade took command three days before the battle so he really had little time to get himself together. He interviewed with Hooker who gave him his views on the campaign, Butterfield was kept to help organize and Warren to help plan the routes the army would take. During the battle Meade was sometimes active but seemed passive to an extent. For instance at meeting between the Meade and his generals on the night of July 2nd, Butterfield ran the meeting and Meade is reported to have said very little, the main questions of the meeting were decided by vote. Now on the other hand as pointed out sending Hancock might have been a brilliant move that was not already in the Hooker-Butterfield playbook.

Basically what I'm saying is I think Meade generally stuck to Hooker's plan for the campaign but also made his own tactical additions, listened to his generals advice and delegated effectively.

Now in regard to Hooker's personality he can be egotistical indeed but he wasn't totally irredeemable. To illustrate he focused on improving the food situation for the average solider and is quoted as saying " My men shall be fed before I am fed and before any of my officers." He seems to have genuinely cared about the welfare of men under his command. Now that being said Hooker would be the first person to gloat about how his plans are "perfect" which is probably what Meade heard alot of..... i'd also like to point out Meade and Hooker have a history together, Meade took over for Hooker when he was wounded at Antietam so perhaps this wasn't that new for either of them.

IIRC when I read Stephen Sears book he mentions that Meade had already made the decision to stay and fight after the second day, and sent a dispatch to Halleck saying so hours before that war council. The war council was more for getting his people on the same page which is why he was so quiet. He wanted all his commanders in agreement,again IIRC.

 

[Carronade]

Hooker did well both before and after his stint in command of the AofP - or to put it another way, his one big failure was on the battlefield, commanding the army against the ANV, like he'd be doing at Gettysburg in this discussion.