Union General's death

[Saruman]

Which Union General's death was the biggest set-back for the Union war effort?

 

[Saruman]

My own choice is Phil Kearny.

Buford was replaced by other able Union cavalrymen like Merritt, Sheridan etc.
Lyon was replaced by the competent Samuel R. Curtis.
McPherson's death didn't really have much of an impact on the course of the Atlanta Campaign.
Mansfield was elderly and probably wouldn't have risen any higher than corps command.
Reynolds was replaced by other able Union corps commanders like Hancock, Parke etc.
Sedgwick died late in the war when the outcome had pretty much been decided.
Smith was an able officer, but Grant pretty much covered his loss.
Sumner was old and being shipped off to the Trans-Mississippi when he died.
Wallace was replaced by competent Western officers.

That leaves Kearny. His death in 1862 deprived the Union command in the East of a highly aggressive and competent general. The Eastern theatre is where the Union really lacked this kind of commander up until 1863/64. He might have risen to corps/army command and been more of a challenge for Lee than Burnside, Hooker et al.

 

[Specster]

Which Union General's death was the biggest set-back for the Union war effort?

Id say that Reynolds was a pretty big setback. I think day 1 & 2 Gettysburg may have been different if Reynolds hadnt fallen early.

I am too biased to vote for Lyon, plus there is too little known. Yet, the fact he was sent to Missouri, which was privotal at that time, speaks volumes as to the confidence he instilled. Plus he is from my region. I am too biased for my vote to have any meaning.

 

[ErnieMac]

I voted for Buford. I can't help wondering what the result would have been if Buford had been the one ordered to clear the Brock Road between the Wilderness and Spotsylvania instead of Sheridan.

 

[Northern Light]

My own choice is Phil Kearny.

Buford was replaced by other able Union cavalrymen like Merritt, Sheridan etc.
Lyon was replaced by the competent Samuel R. Curtis.
McPherson's death didn't really have much of an impact on the course of the Atlanta Campaign.
Mansfield was elderly and probably wouldn't have risen any higher than corps command.
Reynolds was replaced by other able Union corps commanders like Hancock, Parke etc.
Sedgwick died late in the war when the outcome had pretty much been decided.
Smith was an able officer, but Grant pretty much covered his loss.
Sumner was old and being shipped off to the Trans-Mississippi when he died.
Wallace was replaced by competent Western officers.

That leaves Kearny. His death in 1862 deprived the Union command in the East of a highly aggressive and competent general. The Eastern theatre is where the Union really lacked this kind of commander up until 1863/64. He might have risen to corps/army command and been more of a challenge for Lee than Burnside, Hooker et al.

At Gettysburg, Reynolds was replaced by O.O. Howard, who was certainly not in the same league as Reynolds. His death caused a lot of confusion and wasted time, in my opinion, that led to the defeat on the first day. If Reynolds had lived through July 1st, I am not sure there would have been a second and third day at Gettysburg.

 

[patbold]

My vote was for Reynolds. His untimely death left a void in the union command that was almost disastrous. Mead appointed Hancock, who was very capable to take control of the battle but Howard who was his senior and not overly competent, was already on the scene and refused to take orders from his junior.

While they agreed to "share" command this led to confusion and no effective over all command on the first day.

 

[JKG3117]

I voted Smith, the poster boy for Penicillin. I think he would have been a boon to Grant, if for no other reason than Grant had confidence in him.

Jim

 

[pamc153PA]

I voted Reynolds. I have always wondered what things would have been like at Gettysburg and beyond for the Union Army if he had taken command when it was offered to him, and/or if he'd lived.

 

[JerseyBart]

Early deaths, 61-62, seem more detrimental to me than deaths at Gettysburg, late 63 or when Grant took command, so I chose Phil Kearny.

 

[NedBaldwin]

I voted for Smith. He died early with the seniority and reputation to make a difference.

 

[hanna260]

I'm going to go with the consensus and pick Reynolds. As Northern Light excellently explained, O.O. Howard- the poor sap at Chancellorsville- was certainly-despite being all by reports a nice man- not at all the commander Reynolds was. Gettysburg might have looked very different had Reynolds been around!

 

[theoldman]

At Gettysburg, Reynolds was replaced by O.O. Howard,

Guess I missed that one. I always thought Abner Doubleday replaced Reynolds. O.O. Howard, commander of 11th Corps became the senior man on the field when Reynolds went down.

 

[hanna260]

Guess I missed that one. I always thought Abner Doubleday replaced Reynolds. O.O. Howard, commander of 11th Corps became the senior man on the field when Reynolds went down.

Yeah, Doubleday replaced Reynolds as the corps commander but Howard was in control. And lord, do I agree with those who said that he did very, very poorly.

 

[St Albans Raid]

I vote Kearny!