Who would have commanded the AONV if Lee was killed in the Wilderness?

Harms88

Sergeant
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Location
North of the Wall & South of the Canucks
One of the more fascinating 'what ifs' for me is the one where in the Wilderness, Lee, Stuart and their staffs ran into a squad of Union soldiers. They ended up staring at each other, than drifting apart, most likely because the appearance of Confederate riders spooked the Federals. But what if it happened where the Federals fired on the group and hit Lee and Stuart? With Longstreet also going down, what would have become the command structure of the Army of Northern Virginia?

Would someone within the Army rise to command (like Hood would for the Army of Tennessee)? Or would an outsider be brought in? And if so, which commander would Davis have put in charge? And how would they have conducted the Army?

My own belief is that Beauregard takes command, and pulls the majority of the AONV back to protect Richmond while allowing a detachment, perhaps the Second Corps, to conduct a very Napoleonic-esque lightning campaign such as the Six Days Campaign of the 1814 Invasion of France, constantly hitting in small battles. But what do you guys think?
 
Lee's moment of peril was around midday May 5, so if he had been killed or disabled, Longstreet as senior general would have been called to take command of the army at that point. He probably would not be in the front lines to be wounded on May 6. Also his corps' attacks might not be as effective as they were historically if he was not directly in charge. One possibility is that the fighting in the Wilderness might drag on longer than it did.

So the first question might be whether the Confederate government would retain Longstreet in command of the ANV. Returning him to corps command and bringing in an outsider would be controversial to say the least.
 
Lee's moment of peril was around midday May 5, so if he had been killed or disabled, Longstreet as senior general would have been called to take command of the army at that point. He probably would not be in the front lines to be wounded on May 6. Also his corps' attacks might not be as effective as they were historically if he was not directly in charge. One possibility is that the fighting in the Wilderness might drag on longer than it did.

So the first question might be whether the Confederate government would retain Longstreet in command of the ANV. Returning him to corps command and bringing in an outsider would be controversial to say the least.

The main issue I would see with a Longstreet command of the AONV is that he blundered pretty badly against Burnside of all people in Tennessee when given independent command. We also see that Hooker's Suffolk thrusts earlier in 1863 were pretty successful, again, with Longstreet supposed to keep them in check.

I can only imagine he was heartily relieved to see Lee and know he no longer had to be the one calling all the shots when he returned from the West.
 
We also see that Hooker's Suffolk thrusts earlier in 1863 were pretty successful, again, with Longstreet supposed to keep them in check.
He did, to the extent that he was suppose to. His command in the area was more about to make supplying his troops easier (by not sharing the same area as other troops) and to gather other supplies in the area. Than actually fighting the federals.

Longstreet was next in line and his less than stellar job against Burnside did not justify removing him for a position he was in line for.

And as Carronade points out, If he had taken over from Lee it is much less likely that he would have been wounded.
 
He did, to the extent that he was suppose to. His command in the area was more about to make supplying his troops easier (by not sharing the same area as other troops) and to gather other supplies in the area. Than actually fighting the federals.

Longstreet was next in line and his less than stellar job against Burnside did not justify removing him for a position he was in line for.

And as Carronade points out, If he had taken over from Lee it is much less likely that he would have been wounded.

In terms of Generals of the CSA, how many generals were senior to Longstreet at this time? Or is it a longer list than I'm imagining and too many to type?
 
In terms of Generals of the CSA, how many generals were senior to Longstreet at this time? Or is it a longer list than I'm imagining and too many to type?

I think the list is not a very long one. You have Joe Johnson, Braxton Bragg, Stand Watie, Beauregard and obviously Lee. Beyond that, I want to say maybe one or two more (I'd need my copy of Leaders of the Lost Cause to check)
 
I don't know if any other commander besides Lee would have had the wherewithal to successfully counter Grant's moves. What are the other choices at that point? Longstreet, AP Hill, Ewell, Early, Anderson, Gordon, Hampton?
 
Longstreet until the end of the battle, then I'd assume Beauregard, being senior in the east. I think this would have shortened the war, as I don't believe that Beauregard had the ability to stop Grant.
 
I think the list is not a very long one. You have Joe Johnson, Braxton Bragg, Stand Watie, Beauregard and obviously Lee. Beyond that, I want to say maybe one or two more (I'd need my copy of Leaders of the Lost Cause to check)

Johnston is in the west opposing Sherman. Bragg was done. When was Watie promoted? So by default, Beauregard.
 
... ... Stand Watie? He was just becoming a Brigadier around the time of the battle and that was his highest rank.

The only one more senior to Longstreet are the full Generals. Which would include Samuel Cooper though it is pretty unlikely to get him out into the field. And E. Kirby Smith had been nominated for full General months before the Wilderness but the confirmation by Congress came just a few days after the battle so technically he´d still junior to Longstreet (though right next to him, the only one with the same date of rank) though as he was serving in that role already it might be considered neglectibe.

Longstreet would take over simply by seniority, provided that in this scenario of Lee being killed he hadn´t been wounded (or wounded as seriously) as he was. Of course it is a completely different question if he´d receive a promotion and get permanent command or if they´d bring in one of the already named ones. Longstreet was not out of favor, he had just received the thanks of Congress (as had E. Kirby Smith) and the anti-Longstreet click that spilled poison into history books were still fighting a real war. It involves politics ... and Davis issues (which of course is always an issue). Next one present with the ANV was Ewell and then Hill, though Polk and Hardee were senior to those.
 
Last edited:
... ... Stand Watie? He was just becoming a Brigadier around the time of the battle and that was his highest rank.

The only one more senior to Longstreet are the full Generals. Which would include Samuel Cooper though it is pretty unlikely to get him out into the field. And E. Kirby Smith had been nominated for full General months before the Wilderness but the confirmation by Congress came just a few days after the battle so technically he´s still junior to Longstreet (though right next to him, the only one with the same date of rank).

Longstreet would take over simply by seniority, provided that in this scenario of Lee being killed he hadn´t been wounded (or wounded as seriously) as he was. Of course it is a completely different question if he´d receive a promotion and get permanent command or if they´d bring in one of the already named ones. Involves politics ... and Davis issues.
yeah someone mentioned Watie in an earlier post.
 
(In agreement with others here) Beauregard if Longstreet is not retained. And the rest of the 1864 campaign would be pretty interesting either way: both were at their best on defense. Also, Longstreet knows Grant, which might be helpful in the absence of Lee figuring out and countering Union moves.

The real question is who would possibly be able to get as much from what is undoubtedly at that point Lee's army...
 
I think the list is not a very long one. You have Joe Johnson, Braxton Bragg, Stand Watie, Beauregard and obviously Lee. Beyond that, I want to say maybe one or two more (I'd need my copy of Leaders of the Lost Cause to check)
First of all the senior officer in the CSA was Samuel Cooper. But he was a pure staff officer who did his job well.
Then A.S. Johnston, but he was dead.
R.E.Lee Who we just killed.
J.E. Johnston, but he was in command out west.
Beauregard. Who might very well take over.
Then Bragg, but he was not really an option.

E. Kirby Smith, he was nominated for the rank of General on Feb 19th 1864. And confirmed on may 11th. So at the time of this "what if killing of Lee" he was still a LT. general.

When looking at Lt generals, Longstreet top the list. Followed by Smith.

So as I see it there would be 3 options.
1. Put Beauregard in command.
This would be the right call when looking at seniority.
But he had not really commanded large forces in combat since early in the war. And had no real connection to the specific army.
(Can be both good and bad)

2. Promote Longstreet to General and give him the command.
He had plenty of experience with commanding larger forces, And he knew the army and the men knew him. But his record in independent command was not good.
But then again, he never actually got to command a real army in a field battle on his own. At Chickamauga he commanded half the army and made one of his very effective attacks... as he did a number of times trueout the war.

3. Confirmed Smith and move him east.
But with him in Command of the Trans-mississippi department, and doing a good job, moving him to a totally new command he know nothing about would not make much sense.

The real question is who would possibly be able to get as much from what is undoubtedly at that point Lee's army...
Think Longstreet would have had the best option of being accepted by the men. They knew him and of the trust Lee had in him.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top