Grant WIs

What if the federal hq had requested that Grant take command of the army of Potomac after Shiloh and before he set his eyes on Vicksburg?

Another possibilty. After Vicksburg he is allowed to go after Mobile? If he had marched with his army into the deep south he could have taken Atlanta from the south
 
The second is really interesting; i suspect there was seen to be much more need for help in the East becasue of Gettysburg, even though that was a Union victory. Would Lincoln have trusted Meade to remain in command and try to do a pincer move, with Grant coming up from the South? (Or could Sherman have put in charge of the AoP?)

That's a lot of land, and it seems much more viable after a successful Chancellorsville for Grand to just be ordered to march East a couple months later after he wins at Vicksburg. But, I suppose a pincer move would help - certainly remove lots of the reinforcements lee kept getting. But, would Grand have to winter somewhere, anyway

Hmmm, there is Chattanooga if he can get that far by late fall. Still not sure how possible that would be to do.
 
The first idea sounds interesting - Grant running the campaigns in late 1862 and onward. Probably needs two things to happen:
  1. Grant wins decisively at Shiloh - not only stopping Johnston cold on the first day but routing the Confederates on the second day. How do you do this with an army largely made up of raw recruits? Perhaps with a lot of pick and shovel work prior to the arrival of Johnston on the scene.
  2. McClellan dies during the Peninsula Campaign. The Union armies are extricated without too much loss.
Is the Grant of 1862 equal to Lee? Hard question. Grant had some excellent subordinates out West, and a lot of the more prominent AoP corps and division commanders in that timeframe were incompetent.

On the second count - Having a Union army running amok through the Deep South might have sped up the end of the war. This probably does not happen unless the Union has another fifty thousand troops out west to garrison places like Vicksburg, Jackson, etc.
 
Agreed, that's why I think for #2 to happen, you almost have to have a quick Union win somewhere else, which then depletes the Confederate morale and makes things a little more even for Grant's army. Chattanooga seems a bit too far away to get to without good supply lines, as does Mobile. Although, with Mobile, you do have the advantage of a naval attack helping to secure it from the other side; I don't know if the Union could have pulled that one off at that time, though.
 
Given Grants habit of throwing hundreds of men against his opponants, even when there are well constructed defenses before him, then it is not totally implausable that, had Grant face Lee at any time before Gettysburg in Virginia, he would have been defeated soundly by Lee and lost his standing in the Union Army and the history books completely.

If, for example, Grant was in charge of the AOTP at Fredericksburg then he would have been defeated with relative ease by the ANV and would have had his reputation so severly damaged that it would be unlikely that he would ever hold a high command post again.

However if Grant had been in charge of the AOTP during Antietam then it would be far more likely that he would overwealm Lee's forces and either drive them back with heavy casualties or defeat them completely.

Also it is worth remembering that Pope was an offensive general brought east early in the war and he was defeated by the vastly superior Confederate Generals Lee, Jackson and Longstreet. At this stage in his career Grant was no where near good enough to get the better of Lee and his army in the east.

The best option out of the two given would cirtainly be for Grant to march into the Deep South and march through Georgia, the key to the Confederacy, earlier in the War. However with there still being relatively large forces being able to oppose him, remembering that Beauregard would not have lost Corinth if Grant was moved east and Bragg would not have invaded Kentucky, then it is unlikely that Grant would have been able to march straight through the Deep South at this proposed point in time.
 
Time to get outta Dodge...

The AoP was still too political an animal to do much outside of Antietam, where Grant would having taken the opportunity of a strategic victory and turned it into a devastating one. However, just the fact that Grant had taken over would have had Longstreet AND Ewell telling Lee to get the Anv back over the Potomac as fast as he could go. Lee knew nothing of Grant and would have to have heeded their warnings, especially as his whole Maryland campaign was predicated on McClellan's caution, NOT Grant's aggressiveness.:p:eek:
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Given Grants habit of throwing hundreds of men against his opponants, even when there are well constructed defenses before him, then it is not totally implausable that, had Grant face Lee at any time before Gettysburg in Virginia, he would have been defeated soundly by Lee and lost his standing in the Union Army and the history books completely.

If, for example, Grant was in charge of the AOTP at Fredericksburg then he would have been defeated with relative ease by the ANV and would have had his reputation so severly damaged that it would be unlikely that he would ever hold a high command post again.

However if Grant had been in charge of the AOTP during Antietam then it would be far more likely that he would overwealm Lee's forces and either drive them back with heavy casualties or defeat them completely.

The words of Lee when asked who the best Union General was seem apt: "McClellan, by all odds! I think he is the only man on the Federal side who could have organized the army as it was. Grant had, of course, more successes in the field in the latter part of the war, but Grant only came in to reap the benefits of McClellan's previous efforts. At the same time, I do not wish to disparage General Grant, for he has many abilities, but if Grant had commanded during the first years of the war, we would have gained our independence. Grant's policy of attacking would have been a blessing to us, for we lost more by inaction than we would have lost in battle. After the first Manassas the army took a sort of 'dry rot', and we lost more men by camp diseases than we would have by fighting."
 

67th Tigers

Banned
The first idea sounds interesting - Grant running the campaigns in late 1862 and onward. Probably needs two things to happen:
  1. Grant wins decisively at Shiloh - not only stopping Johnston cold on the first day but routing the Confederates on the second day. How do you do this with an army largely made up of raw recruits? Perhaps with a lot of pick and shovel work prior to the arrival of Johnston on the scene.

It would help if he was on the field and did anything to shape the battlespace. As it was McClernand was senior General for the opening phases and he did a good job saving the army (although being an enemy of Grants he was ignored and praise heaped upon Sherman, who effectively commanded after Grant arrived)
 
I have since improved my opinion of Grant from 2007 but stand by my original statement that Grant in 1862 is no match for Lee.
 
The words of Lee when asked who the best Union General was seem apt: "McClellan, by all odds! I think he is the only man on the Federal side who could have organized the army as it was. Grant had, of course, more successes in the field in the latter part of the war, but Grant only came in to reap the benefits of McClellan's previous efforts. At the same time, I do not wish to disparage General Grant, for he has many abilities, but if Grant had commanded during the first years of the war, we would have gained our independence. Grant's policy of attacking would have been a blessing to us, for we lost more by inaction than we would have lost in battle. After the first Manassas the army took a sort of 'dry rot', and we lost more men by camp diseases than we would have by fighting."

Robert E Lee never said those words, they come from John Singleton Mosby. http://books.google.com/books?id=zKk-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PR15&lpg=PR15

Fitzhugh Lee said that Lee considered McClellan the most intellectual of the Union Generals.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1lnMl1UDhnkC&pg=PA220
 
Last edited:
Top