TFSmith121
Banned
Don't feel bad ... Life gets in the way, as I know
Life gets in the way, as I know too well...
Best,
Life gets in the way, as I know too well...
Best,
You actually came back! Hurrah! I was somewhat surprised that XI Corps collapsed that quickly, but I suppose that's what poor leadership and morale will do for these exhausted troops. BTW, where is XII corps in this mess? I recall they were on the flank of XI Corps, surely Slocum (2) can see the need to save those men, right?
Special Note for any new readers: This was originally a Discussion Thread only created by Paul V McNutt. It quickly died out. As a new member, I asked for permission from Paul and Ian to take up the thread myself and turn it into a genuine ATL. After a hiatus of years, and thanks to Ian's patience, I hope now to start it up again.
The main purpose of this post is to alert new members that the fact that Paul V McNutt has been banned will have no effect on future updates
Is the question really what would have happened AFTER the battle? Grant had no problem letting someone attack. Once the lines were stabilized, wouldn't it have simply been Shiloh redux?
Grant has an entire corps that wasn't engaged.
The three day battle got Sickles, Howard and Hancock out of action. Would a senior leadership team of Newton, Slocum, Sykes, Sedgwick and Gibbon have been able to do anything?
Could Meade, under Grants supervision, but with Hooker's staff, been able to do anything?
Would Grant have counterattacked on July 4 or would he have pushed V, VI and XII Corps with a cavalry screen south to block Lee?
Great to see you back.
As to the question, it's really about Grant replacing Hooker, I think, so he starts before, gets promoted sooner. Speaking of Shiloh, that might be a logical POD, it was sort of done backward from the point of Grant being at Gettysburg and how that might have come about. A decisive victory rather than a bloodbath would cause Grant's stock to rise faster, maybe Vicksburg is taken a couple months earlier, and then Grant is therefore available to be transferred over after Chancellorsville.
Welcome back, I confess to being really nervous when I realized that I was 6 pages from the end and the posts were still 5 years old.
That said, I've found this to be a really interesting (and plausible) timeline. I was particularly interested to have one of my biggest personal what-ifs (Union attacks on the 4th) thoroughly debunked. Granted, it was primarily based on the movie but I never realized just how dominant a position that the ANV actually had defensively.
So it's been a couple months but here are some thoughts.
1. Grant would have found a way to put underutilized forces (especially VI Corps) in a position to block Lee's retreat.
2. Failing that, Grant would have had Lee "out in the open" - which was an oft stated objective in 1864. There is NO WAY Gettysburg would have been over on July 3 if Grant was commanding AotP. He woud have counterattacked on the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th.
3. If Grant was commanding,we have to assume it is as army commander, not general-in-chief.
As such, his corps commanders now include Meade, who was a very, very solid corps commander. No accusations of the slows like Slocum or Sykes. Meade's impact as V Corps commander could have been instrumental - potentially no wheatfield, peach orchard or devils den. Little Round Top could have been very different.
4. In short, Grant's innate aggressiveness would have resulted in a very different battle. I can't imagine him receiving attacks without serious attempts at counter punching. That's not a dig against Meade. He did a GREAT job and has been treated incredibly unfairly by Grant fans and the Lost Cause crowd. He just wasn't as aggressive as Grant.