AHC: Union and CSA generals for war in 1885

AceOfSpades

Weird request: I have a scenario involving an American War of Reunification beginning around 1885, and I'm looking for potential Army commanders to distribute.


I have three main fronts: Virginia, Kentucky-Tennessee, and the Mississippi River Valley. Secondary fronts will be linked to the U.S. Navy blockade and amphibious assaults on North Carolina, New Orleans, and Mobile.

I have Grant on his deathbed, Sherman retired, Butler in politics, and both Thomas and Burnside long dead.

Hancock, Sheridan, Howard, McPherson, Buford, and the Custers are still around, but aging fast. I also have Nelson Miles, William Shafter, Arthur MacArthur, Ed Hatch, Henry Lawton, Ben Grierson, and Louis Carpenter for the younger generation. Schofield is the Commanding General, and Merritt is at West Point.

For the Confederates, I have Cleburne, Wheeler, Forrest, Hood, Jeb Stuart, and Ed Porter Alexander, with Stonewall Jackson as General-in-Chief.

Any other suggestions?
 
SWS

SWS

What about John B. Gordon, if he isn't devoted to politics? The Confederacy lost several young, promising officers IOTL. You could choose to 'resurrect' them based on the POD in question. John Pelham, William D. Pender, Joseph W. Latimer, John S. Bowen, Micah Jenkins, Stephen D. Ramseur, and John A. Wharton all come to mind.
 

Elfwine

Don't forget Lee's sons and nephews.

For the Union: Is Emory Upton still around this timeline?
 
Last edited:

Kerney

Longstreet would probably make a better General in Chief. He was a better 'people person', was better at the big picture it takes to win a war.

Jackson was ingenious on a tactical level, but he couldn't get along with other officers and was most likely on the autism spectrum (that's not an insult). I'm not sure he'd be as much as hero had he lived due to him being fairly blunt spoken.
 
TheRockofChickamauga

TheRockofChickamauga

It just so happens that once I compiled a list of young Union generals, so I be glad to provide the whole for your effort. Some died in OTL combat and thus might need ATL resurrecting, but I found:
  • Henry L. Abbott
  • Adelbert Ames
  • William F. Bartlett
  • John R. Brooke
  • John M. Corse
  • George A. Custer
  • Rufus R. Dawes
  • Arthur H. Dutton
  • Francis Fessenden
  • Martin D. Hardin
  • Charles G. Harker
  • William B. Hazen
  • Francis J. Herron
  • James L. Kiernan
  • Hugh J. Kilpatrick
  • J. Howard Kitching
  • Ranald S. Mackenzie
  • Wesley Merritt
  • Nelson A. Miles
  • Galusha Pennypacker
  • William P. Sanders
  • William H. Seward Jr.
  • George C. Strong
  • William B. Tibbits
  • Henry E. Tremain
  • Emory Upton
  • Alexander S. Webb
  • James H. Wilson
As for Confederates, I can second all the recommendations in the list of @SWS as well as recommend James Dearing, Pierce M.B. Young, Robert F. Beckham, John S. Marmaduke, William H. Jackson, Lunsford Lomax, Frank Armstrong, William B. Bate, Theodore W. Brevard Jr., and Francis M. Cockrell. Of course, you can't forget the Spanish-American War generals of Joseph Wheeler, Fitzhugh Lee, Tom Rosser, Matthew C. Butler, and William C. Oates. Samuel Sumner, Edgar R. Kellogg, Fred C. Ainsworth, Loyd Wheaton, Anna Chaffee, J. Franklin Bell, and John C. Bates can be added to the list of potential junior general officers in the conflict.

(Sorry if this is too info-dumpy)
 

AceOfSpades

Phew, much obliged for the suggestions. Of course, the question now is who among them would be the most able strategic commanders in this scenario.

I can have Hancock face Jackson in Virginia, McPherson against Hood in Kentucky, and Parke with the Navy. Hancock however would probably die/be killed midway through, and McPherson seems too cautious to burn a path to Savannah. I have no idea who could lead against Vicksburg. Schofield would also have to be replaced later.

Of the remaining candidates, Buford and Sheridan are pure cavalry, while Chaffee, MacArthur, Shafter, Lawton, and Miles have potential. Oliver Howard works best as a subordinate,
 
Last edited:

Elfwine

Herron might not be bad for Vicksburg, depending on what you're looking for.

It's hard to predict who would be best of the guys who lead brigades or at most divisions twenty years earlier. Id look for the ones known as steady and dependable over the "attack, attack, attack!" types like Kilpatrick (not called Kill-Cavalry as either irony or flattery), myself, but it's no guarantee.
 
TheRockofChickamauga

TheRockofChickamauga

As was said before, Herron could be a good man to lead the Vicksburg Campaign. As for the best strategic mind among the Union bunch, I would say Upton is undoubtedly the answer. Upton was a genius on most if not all aspects of military affairs, and quite possibly could have even risen to command of the whole United States Army IOTL had he not tragically committed suicide in 1881. Alexander S. Webb had plenty of political connections in the all-important state of New York, so he could possibly be a successor to Hancock. Henry W. Slocum and Francis C. Barlow were still active publicly at this time, so they could be possibilities as well. Thomas H. Ruger and George Crook were active in the Indian Wars from around this time period.
 
Last edited:
wcv215

wcv215

John Rawlins maybe. He’d be 54, but with the war ending earlier he doesn’t get sick and will stick by Grant post-war as he did OTL until his death.

Edit: He might be a better candidate for Secretary of War, or Halleck’s job rather than field command.
 
Last edited:

AceOfSpades

Hmm. McPherson should be able to take Atlanta with some effort, but would there be any general besides Sherman who would be willing to dare a “March to the Sea”?
 
TheRockofChickamauga

TheRockofChickamauga

AceOfSpades said:
Kilpatrick is dead in this scenario, and I don't trust Sickles not to fuck it up.
Click to expand...
That is true, but I was just thinking that if you wanted two men to really mess up the South, it would be those two (although they would probably mess up their own armies at the same time!)

Practically speaking, maybe Wesley Merritt. He was a firm practioner of hard war, and certainly had the self-confidence.
 

Kerney

BtW, which prominent officers are you omitting and why.

I mean, I would give Cleburne an Army command on talent, but I could see his politics or 20+ years in civilian life mean he serves at a lower rank. Giving Hood an Army is mistake.

Longstreet seems obvious.
 

kaijudirector

Wonder if Governor/Professor Chamberlain of Maine would be tempted to come out of retirement and go back to war again... of course from what I've read his legend would have come from the advantage of having written his memoirs in such an erudite manner and because of that certain incident at Little Round Top...

However if Strong Vincent's around, I think he would do well.

Also no commands for John Gibbon or James H. Wilson?
 
Last edited:
TheRockofChickamauga

TheRockofChickamauga

kaijudirector said:
Wonder if Governor/Professor Chamberlain of Maine would be tempted to come out of retirement and go back to war again... of course from what I've read his legend would have come from the advantage of having written his memoirs in such an erudite manner and because of that certain incident at Little Round Top...
Click to expand...
I imagine Chamberlain can certainly be coaxed back into command. IOTL, during the Spanish-American War he sought an appointment but was denied by the McKinley Administration.

kaijudirector said:
John Gibbon or James H. Wilson
Click to expand...
Gibbon and especially Wilson merit command consideration as well. Gibbon, due to his close relationship with Hancock that presumably would not be ruined by the end of the war like IOTL, could possibly be his successor here, and Wilson's relative toughness and versatility mean that a multitude of positions should be available for him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top