Clark's Mountain; The Utter Destruction of the Army of the Potomac

My phone battery life is really low, so I won't be able to explain it very much until I get back home, but inspiration just hit me.

Lee planned, and nearly executed the destruction of the Army of Virginia when it was under Pope at Second Manassas, but his plans were intercepted and Pope switched to a much more defensible position. My question is; what would've happened had Lee managed to turn the Union left at Clark's mountain from the Rapidan, and literally destroyed the Army of Virginia, similar to Hood's army being destroyed in Tennessee?

I think a LOT would change, but like I said my phones about to die so bye for now
 
Last edited:
My phone battery life is really low, so I won't be able to explain it very much until I get back home, but inspiration just hit me.

Lee planned, and nearly executed the destruction of the AotP when it was under Pope at Second Manassas, but his plans were intercepted and Pope switched to a much more defensible position. My question is; what would've happened had Lee managed to turn the Union left at Clark's mountain from the Rapidan, and literally destroyed the Army of the Potomac, similar to Hood's army being destroyed in Tennessee?

I think a LOT would change, but like I said my phones about to die so bye for now
For once I actually agree completely with you here - the lead up to Second Bull Run is a ridiculously good opportunity for Lee. The Union doesn't have a large numeric advantage for once, is overextended, and commanded by General Pope with a set of terrible subordinates - if there's any time for Lee to engulf a Union army it's right then. If Lee does pull off his Cannae I see a scrounged together army under McClellan trying to defend Washington while Union forces in the rest rather anxiously send reinforcements. (In my mind Lee may not be able to capture Washington but can probably rampage northwards after this to the point of getting European recognition.) I would bet at the very least that the civil war drags out long enough that Lincoln loses reelection.
 
Actually Pope Commended the Army of Virginia. The Army of the Potomac was on it's way to join him but was slow to arrive that was the reason Lee did what he tried to do in the first place. Pope army consisted of the troops in Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley and was roughly the same size as Lee. Lee had to delay for a day due to lack of supplies as well.
 
Actually Pope Commended the Army of Virginia. The Army of the Potomac was on it's way to join him but was slow to arrive that was the reason Lee did what he tried to do in the first place. Pope army consisted of the troops in Northern Virginia and the Shenandoah Valley and was roughly the same size as Lee. Lee had to delay for a day due to lack of supplies as well.
I know, I just realized that 20 seconds after my phone died. If only McClellan had marched faster, maybe the war could've ended then. Then again, he wasn't the only "accidentally" slow marchers involved in that battle*cough*Porter*cough*
But with Burnside's men, Pope actually outnumbered him by around 25,000 men.
 
For once I actually agree completely with you here - the lead up to Second Bull Run is a ridiculously good opportunity for Lee. The Union doesn't have a large numeric advantage for once, is overextended, and commanded by General Pope with a set of terrible subordinates - if there's any time for Lee to engulf a Union army it's right then. If Lee does pull off his Cannae I see a scrounged together army under McClellan trying to defend Washington while Union forces in the rest rather anxiously send reinforcements. (In my mind Lee may not be able to capture Washington but can probably rampage northwards after this to the point of getting European recognition.) I would bet at the very least that the civil war drags out long enough that Lincoln loses reelection.
Damn calvaryman getting caught by Union troops.
 
Bump, because I really do want to know what would happen and my lackluster understanding of the civil war can only take me so far.
 
Bump, because I really do want to know what would happen and my lackluster understanding of the civil war can only take me so far.

So let's say we have the Battle of Clark's Mountain on August 21st, Lee's plan to cut-off Pope goes as intended and in one stroke the Union are down 55,000 men killed or captured. McClellan's 96,000 or so men (i.e. the Army of the Potomac returning from the Peninsula Campaign) are almost certainly going to go straight back to Alexandria and hunker down in defense of Washington - McClellan is cautious in the best of times and after an objectively horrible defeat at Clark Mountain he's not about to go on the offensive. Halleck is almost certainly going to try and send massive amounts of reinforcements from the west - Buell is going to have a rougher time dealing with Bragg and I could see Iuka or Corinth going the other way. The big question in the east what Lee choses to do in the interim - the obvious guess would be that he invades into Maryland/Pennsylvania as OTL, drawing out a reluctant McClellan with a diminished army. Lee beats McClellan handily (and at this point European intervention is probably provoked) but his invasion is still going to run into logistical issues and Union reinforcements are arriving; so he will reluctantly retreat rather than get caught too far north. Either way, Union advances of 1862 have been stalled roughly across the map, and the C.S.A. has at least some chance of coming out of this an independent nation.
 
Not sure he'll actually get a chance to beat McClellan in alt-Antietam; I find it more likely he just crosses over, raids a bit (capturing Harper's Ferry as OTL) and then returns without having seriously engaged. The Army of the Potomac is still larger, and he'll want to avoid fighting in unfamiliar ground, while McClellan (assuming he doesn't manage to find Lee's battle plan lying around as OTL) would probably be even more hesitant about engaging after seeing a Union army destroyed. If pressed, McClellan can always say he considered the defense of Washington to be his priority, and point to Lee's eventual withdrawal as justification for his strategy; Lincoln won't buy it, of course, but that's not going to stop him from trying.

Now, politically, the effects of Lee having marched through Maryland unimpeded will be seriously embarrassing for the administration. The elections likely go worse for the Republicans. McClellan will be fired (and, under the circumstances, may not be as viable candidate in 1864 without his "victory" at Antietam, which could be interesting in its own right). The Emancipation Proclamation obviously isn't issued.

One minor note would be the fates of the various officers in the army, if they were captured or killed. Pope would OTL be transferred to Minnesota to fight the Dakota Wars (which he fought with a similar level of competence he displayed in Virginia), and quite a few subordinate officers would go on to play important roles in the Civil War and afterwards. It would be interesting to see how things changed for them.
 
Bump, because I really do want to know what would happen and my lackluster understanding of the civil war can only take me so far.

Fair enough. First, let's push the idea of European recognition out of our heads. That's not going to happen until the Confederates are clearly winning the war. A month or so before Second Manassas, they almost lost Richmond--so it's years away at best.

Second, Lee was not Thomas and Pope was not Hood, and the Army of Virginia wasn't the same as the Army of Tennessee outside of Franklin. Hood's army was in much worse shape, and Thomas had a much better understanding of modern warfare than Lee did. Hood was an addict, and he was hyper-aggressive. Pope wasn't a brilliant general, but he also wasn't a candidate for a sanitarium.

Third, the destruction of armies really wasn't a thing in this war. But for argument's sake, how exactly would Lee have "destroyed" the Army? Does he push the Union off Henry House Hill on the 30th, forcing a surrender? If that's the case, even if they had taken the hill, there's still a ford that's on the North side of Warrenton pike, and I don't expeect Pope to give up right away. So you're probably looking at a lot more casualties on the Confederate side, leaving Lee too weakened to invade Maryland. This buys McClellan some time as head of the Army of the Potomac, and you might be able butterfly Burnside into being in command when/if Lee invades the following spring.
 
Fair enough. First, let's push the idea of European recognition out of our heads. That's not going to happen until the Confederates are clearly winning the war. A month or so before Second Manassas, they almost lost Richmond--so it's years away at best.

Second, Lee was not Thomas and Pope was not Hood, and the Army of Virginia wasn't the same as the Army of Tennessee outside of Franklin. Hood's army was in much worse shape, and Thomas had a much better understanding of modern warfare than Lee did. Hood was an addict, and he was hyper-aggressive. Pope wasn't a brilliant general, but he also wasn't a candidate for a sanitarium.

Third, the destruction of armies really wasn't a thing in this war. But for argument's sake, how exactly would Lee have "destroyed" the Army? Does he push the Union off Henry House Hill on the 30th, forcing a surrender? If that's the case, even if they had taken the hill, there's still a ford that's on the North side of Warrenton pike, and I don't expeect Pope to give up right away. So you're probably looking at a lot more casualties on the Confederate side, leaving Lee too weakened to invade Maryland. This buys McClellan some time as head of the Army of the Potomac, and you might be able butterfly Burnside into being in command when/if Lee invades the following spring.

I think it's relevant to note that this wouldn't be during the OTL battle of second bull run, but during the maneuvering leading up to it, when Pope a) had only the Army of Virginia and b) was drawn much farther south.
 
Fair enough. First, let's push the idea of European recognition out of our heads. That's not going to happen until the Confederates are clearly winning the war. A month or so before Second Manassas, they almost lost Richmond--so it's years away at best.

Second, Lee was not Thomas and Pope was not Hood, and the Army of Virginia wasn't the same as the Army of Tennessee outside of Franklin. Hood's army was in much worse shape, and Thomas had a much better understanding of modern warfare than Lee did. Hood was an addict, and he was hyper-aggressive. Pope wasn't a brilliant general, but he also wasn't a candidate for a sanitarium.

Third, the destruction of armies really wasn't a thing in this war. But for argument's sake, how exactly would Lee have "destroyed" the Army? Does he push the Union off Henry House Hill on the 30th, forcing a surrender? If that's the case, even if they had taken the hill, there's still a ford that's on the North side of Warrenton pike, and I don't expeect Pope to give up right away. So you're probably looking at a lot more casualties on the Confederate side, leaving Lee too weakened to invade Maryland. This buys McClellan some time as head of the Army of the Potomac, and you might be able butterfly Burnside into being in command when/if Lee invades the following spring.
Pope was no Hood, but Lee was no Sherman. Entirely different scenario here, I was just bringing up an example of a destroyed army in the civil war.
 
Pope was no Hood, but Lee was no Sherman. Entirely different scenario here, I was just bringing up an example of a destroyed army in the civil war.

No, Lee wasn't Sherman, he didn't have anything close to the strategic mind Sherman had. What does Sherman have to do with anything?
 
I think it's relevant to note that this wouldn't be during the OTL battle of second bull run, but during the maneuvering leading up to it, when Pope a) had only the Army of Virginia and b) was drawn much farther south.

Okay. Could you expand a little on that?
 
Okay. Could you expand a little on that?
Sure - IOTL, in the period of time in which McClellan with the Army of the Potomac was rather slowly withdrawing from the Peninsula Campaign, General Pope was actually in charge of the Army of Virginia as a separate entity with slightly over fifty thousand men, heading towards Gordonsville (so moving near where Grant would later be during the Overland Campaign). Once Lee suspected McClellan was not still going to attack Richmond he turned his attention to Pope (who very unusually for a Union commander basically had a parity in numbers with Lee) and in typical Lee fashion sought to grandiosely defeat the opposing army. Lee was foiled multiple times in around two weeks by a variety of factors (rivers flooding, or, in the case of this POD, his orders being captured) and Pope got beyond the Rappahannock and united with the Army of Potomac to once again have a significantly larger army. From then on Lee marched up behind Pope, we had the Battle of Second Bull Run where Pope was soundly defeated despite having a considerably larger army, and then Pope retreated.

If Lee is able to attack earlier, when Pope's force is much smaller (and mainly the worse bits) ,and Pope is farther south and cut off by the Rappahannock and such, Lee has every possibility of winning a crushing victory - and even possibly encircling Pope's force and compelling it's surrender. It's not a certainty, but this is very much the best chance Lee ever got in terms of relative manpower.

I would agree with you that the OTL Battle of Second Bull Run does not really offer any opportunities for a wholesale destruction of the Union army.
 
Sure - IOTL, in the period of time in which McClellan with the Army of the Potomac was rather slowly withdrawing from the Peninsula Campaign, General Pope was actually in charge of the Army of Virginia as a separate entity with slightly over fifty thousand men, heading towards Gordonsville (so moving near where Grant would later be during the Overland Campaign). Once Lee suspected McClellan was not still going to attack Richmond he turned his attention to Pope (who very unusually for a Union commander basically had a parity in numbers with Lee) and in typical Lee fashion sought to grandiosely defeat the opposing army. Lee was foiled multiple times in around two weeks by a variety of factors (rivers flooding, or, in the case of this POD, his orders being captured) and Pope got beyond the Rappahannock and united with the Army of Potomac to once again have a significantly larger army. From then on Lee marched up behind Pope, we had the Battle of Second Bull Run where Pope was soundly defeated despite having a considerably larger army, and then Pope retreated.

If Lee is able to attack earlier, when Pope's force is much smaller (and mainly the worse bits) ,and Pope is farther south and cut off by the Rappahannock and such, Lee has every possibility of winning a crushing victory - and even possibly encircling Pope's force and compelling it's surrender. It's not a certainty, but this is very much the best chance Lee ever got in terms of relative manpower.

I would agree with you that the OTL Battle of Second Bull Run does not really offer any opportunities for a wholesale destruction of the Union army.

I see, I missed that part. No matter what though, he would still probably take very heavy casualties to force a surrender. I just think that's the nature of warfare back then. And that leaves him in no position to invade Maryland.
 
No, Lee wasn't Sherman, he didn't have anything close to the strategic mind Sherman had. What does Sherman have to do with anything?
Because it was Sherman's army that destroyed Hoods. Also, don't even try pretending like Sherman was better than Lee. It kind of distracts from the other points your making, and makes them sound less valid by association.
 
I think you could argue Sherman had a better mind for grand strategy than Lee. As someone points out almost every thread, Lee was an excellent tactician and a poorer strategist than many of his opponents.

But anyways, I think that you'd struggle to force the Army of Virginia to surrender without horrific casualties to the Confederate army - which would consequently mean that whenever McClellan was replaced with someone good or at least aggressive, Lee would be in even worse shape. And even more mythically invincible. So that'll be interesting.
 
I think you could argue Sherman had a better mind for grand strategy than Lee. As someone points out almost every thread, Lee was an excellent tactician and a poorer strategist than many of his opponents.

But anyways, I think that you'd struggle to force the Army of Virginia to surrender without horrific casualties to the Confederate army - which would consequently mean that whenever McClellan was replaced with someone good or at least aggressive, Lee would be in even worse shape. And even more mythically invincible. So that'll be interesting.
It would be. But this was at a point of the war when the Confederates could afford to create a decent amount of new reinforcements and send them over.
 
Was it really so easy to destroy an army in the Civil War era? Wouldn't Lee's casualties be enormous as well?

It seems to me that it was all but impossible to destroy an ACW army in the field.

Take the First Battle of Winchester. Stonewall Jackson, at the top of his game, against "Commissary" Banks, with a 2-to-1 advantage in numbers, wins a decisive victory. The Union army was completely routed, and had to rally north of the Potomac. But when the smoke cleared, and the Union troops had rallied - 3/4 of the force was still present under arms.

I don't see it happening elsewhere.

Maybe at Antietam, if the Union really strikes hard; Lee's retreat was blocked by the Potomac.

Appomatox - but that was an exhausted army hunted down by three to four times its numbers. At Fort Donelson and Vicksburg, the defeated army was trapped in a fortress. Most of the Confederates got away from Petersburg, AFAIK.
 
Top