Lincoln didn't want Meade or Grant he chose John F. Reynolds who turned it down. So he defaulted to Meade who did his job. Grant even thought so that's why he never relieved Meade as commander of the Army of the Potomac. Grant was reckless at time, he got victories but a great cost in human life.The results of the Battle, convinced Lincoln the AoP could not win the war in the East with the generals it had. If not for Chickamauga, Grant would have been called East sooner than he was.(Meade was the caretaker of the AoP, keeping the army out of trouble and marking time until Grant could arrive)
P.S. In point of fact, though. For a negotiated settlement to occur, either Lincoln or Davis had to go. Between their goals and policies there was no room for compromise(the first prerequisite for negotiation) To paraphrase, if Davis was as concrete on passing on an independent CSA that the people of the confederacy had entrusted him, intact, Lincoln was as Steel itself in the exact same position concerning the Union.
No you are scratching at the surface of Marse Robert’s greatest detrimental traits.Consider the alternative.
Originally Davis asked Lee to detach a corps to Joe Johnston would could march to the relief of Pemberton who was besieged in Vicksburg. Lee demurred, arguing that by threatening Washington or Baltimore, Grant would have to break off and send men east to assist the AoP. It was a gamble that lost. Grant never sent troops.
Second, had a corps been dispatched to Johnston and Johnston then relieved Pemberton, Grant would have suffered his fifth failure at taking Vicksburg. Grant could have been sacked as another failure like Hooker, Burnside, McDowell, Pope, McClellan, etc.
Had Grant been sacked, he may not have been the general responsible for relieving the trapped Union army at Chattanooga. Who would be fighting Lee in 1864? Meade would not have had the grit like Grant did.
I don't think you're daftWould you think me daft if I said that all in all it really wasn't SUCH a defeat. Lee lost the battle as he was not able to do what he had wanted and he had to pull away and retreat from the battlefield. It was actually a close run thing the first two days and the Federal army was in just about as bad a shape as the ANV actually losing more men.
Vicksburg on the other hand was a disaster for the Confederacy.
Lincoln didn't want Meade or Grant he chose John F. Reynolds who turned it down. So he defaulted to Meade who did his job. Grant even thought so that's why he never relieved Meade as commander of the Army of the Potomac. Grant was reckless at time, he got victories but a great cost in human life.
The biggest loss for Lee at Gettysburg in my opinion was the loss of life. Where the North could refill ranks Lee couldn't.Would you think me daft if I said that all in all it really wasn't SUCH a defeat. Lee lost the battle as he was not able to do what he had wanted and he had to pull away and retreat from the battlefield. It was actually a close run thing the first two days and the Federal army was in just about as bad a shape as the ANV actually losing more men.
Vicksburg on the other hand was a disaster for the Confederacy.
As far as I know, there isn’t anything primary in writing (from Lincoln) discussing who would be a replacement. Reynolds did travel to Washington and meet within Lincoln at the time and it is widely believed that Lincoln offered Reynolds the command. However, any evidence of this comes from second or third hand sources. It was also rumored that Reynolds suggested Meade to the President at this meeting.Didn't Grant replace Halleck? Is there any where in writing that shows who Lincoln was considering when he decided to move on from Hooker?
Well, as understand it, Pickett didn't lead the charge. Three other generals led it for him. Of those three, General Armisted was the one who got closest to breaching the Union line.Pickett may have been the wrong man to lead the men in the charge. He finished dead last in his class at West Point. Perhaps his ability to lead the men in the charge was simply not good enough. He may have been over confident in his abilities.
I'm sure that hurt but I suspect the biggest blow to Lee was the dawning realization that his cherished command structure was in a complete shambles.The biggest loss for Lee at Gettysburg in my opinion was the loss of life. Where the North could refill ranks Lee couldn't.
That's assuming Grant wouldn't whip Johnston and this extra corps, a very big assumption.Second, had a corps been dispatched to Johnston and Johnston then relieved Pemberton, Grant would have suffered his fifth failure at taking Vicksburg. Grant could have been sacked as another failure like Hooker, Burnside, McDowell, Pope, McClellan, etc.
Grant replaced Halleck in March 1864. At the time Lincoln was seeking a replacement for Hooker, Grant was a thousand miles away conducting the siege of Vicksburg, and he was an army commander on a par with Rosecrans or Hooker. It was only after the surrender of Vicksburg and his retrieval of Union fortunes at Chattanooga that Grant emerged as the Union's preeminent general.Didn't Grant replace Halleck? Is there any where in writing that shows who Lincoln was considering when he decided to move on from Hooker?