Joe Hooker at Gettysburg

[Dom71]

Interestingly enough i just passed the chapter in Edwin Coddingtons book where he states that when Meade took command Halleck have him the authority to place in command any officer he deemed capable on the field regardless of seniority. A n authority Hooked did not have. Page 215 top

 

[General Butterfield]

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.

Thanks that makes more sense why he was quiet. Funny story he actually wasn't the quietest one at the meeting according to what I read Warren was so tired from the days activities he fell sleep.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

I would love to have known what was said at the Meade/Hooker meeting on the morning of June 28. Unfortunately I don't trust much of what was said about the transition that was written later by Butterfield (sorry @General Butterfield) or Pleasonton. Both had agendas then and later. Meade testified that he didn't learn much from Hooker. As I believe he was generally truthful, I go with that.

If I recall Coddington correctly, Hooker had a scheme on June 26&27 to move behind Lee's communications in the Cumberland Valley. Upon taking command, Meade redirected the army in a more easterly direction (toward Westminster) and changed his supply depot. I'm not sure Hooker had formed a new plan by the time Meade showed up to take over.

For what it's worth, in his autobiography O. O. Howard said that Meade changed the army's direction when he took over. I'm not sure I completely trust Howard's account either -- he had an agenda too.

 

[Dom71]

This is the problem with a question such as this that @Andy Cardinal and others have touched on. Their are too many factors in my opinion to answer it. For instance(anyone with better knowledge please correct me.)

1. One of the first things Meade did when he took command was to shake up the cavalry corps. Having certain officers promoted to "boy Generals" and such. But one assumes if Hooker is still in command this shakeup doesn't happen so with Meade not ordering the cavalry's movements, does Buford still end up in Gettysburg on the 30th.
2. Does Hooker give Reynolds a wing of the army to command?
3. If so does he trust Reynolds to decide to fight there?
4. We know that Hooker didn't have the authority to send a less senior officer to take charge of the field and even if he did would he send Hancock to Gettysburg on the 1st?
5. Maybe most importantly, does Lee maneuver in the same way with Hooker in charge?

These are just some of the things you can ask. I think it's impossible to answer.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

I prefer Meade to Hooker, but respect @General Butterfield 's preference for Hooker over Meade. Hooker had some good qualities and some flaws as did Meade. I do think there is a significant difference between the two though, if in nothing else than this: the officer corps (Sickles excepted) didn't like or trust Hooker. They did Meade. The command coordination at Gettysburg was better than at any other previous battle. Part of that was due to Meade I think. I think that would have been the same had Reynolds taken command. Hooker had lost the confidence of most of his corps and division commanders, which would have made it hard to have been as successful as Meade was at Gettysburg.

 

[ErnieMac]

On July 1, 1963, George Meade listened to the advice of his corps commanders on the scene and advanced to Gettysburg to fight Lee. Roughly two months earlier Joseph Hooker heard his corps commanders vote advise him to continue to fight at Chancellorsville, but decided to retreat. Its possible the Hooker was suffering the effects of a concussion, but my thought is that Gettysburg would not have been fought past July 1 had Hooker remained in command.

 

[highplainsdrifter59]

Hooker was okay, but he will always be dogged for the rumble in the jungle around Chancellorsville. Hooker did okay in the Atlanta campaign even when he was always over estimating the forces before him. Like thinking Johnston's entire army was before him at Kolbs farm. He was somewhat slow footed in doing what Grant had ask of him at Chattanooga, he did it but Grant thought he took his time in doing so.

Meade.....reliable, and sound in his actions. He really didn't get to shine much after Gettysburg when Grant pretty much took control of the AOP until the end of the war. As many still call it Grants Army but it was Meade's army. So Meade just became the lackey to Grant. I liked Meade, but was shadowed by the ever presence of that Lieutenant General that hung around.

 

[James N.]

I prefer Meade to Hooker, but respect @General Butterfield 's preference for Hooker over Meade. Hooker had some good qualities and some flaws as did Meade. I do think there is a significant difference between the two though, if in nothing else than this: the officer corps (Sickles excepted) didn't like or trust Hooker. They did Meade. The command coordination at Gettysburg was better than at any other previous battle. Part of that was due to Meade I think. I think that would have been the same had Reynolds taken command. Hooker had lost the confidence of most of his corps and division commanders, which would have made it hard to have been as successful as Meade was at Gettysburg.

I think one factor at work here is the cronyism among officers of the Old Army: Hooker had resigned from the army after the Mexican War and gone to California; of course, Sickles had never been in the army before in the first place. Meade, Reynolds, Hancock, Howard, Doubleday, Slocum, Sykes, and many others had remained in the army, even if in relatively junior positions and tended to dislike the amateurs and especially politicians that made up the volunteer army and often resisted those who they considered outsiders. Some like McClellan (who had also resigned to head up a railroad company) managed to be accepted by them, but others not so much.

 

[LtRusell]

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.

Hooker would have been wise if commanding at Gettysburg to fall back in an orderly manner and make that dash to block the CS Army from entertaining the idea of going to Washington.

Both sides knew the ground there didn't matter. It seemed as though no one thought and there was just a fight to the death action. Both should have moved and moved fast. It might have been a running battle like the 7 days.I would take that over Pickett's Charge any day.

And remember, it's Fighting Joe Hooker, not Thinking Man Joe Hooker.