Lee's army surrenders 1862

[Derek Jackson]

As I understand it the McLellan had the Confederate orders, the Union arguably won a victory at Atietemam but Lee's army got back to Virginia.

Could a competent aggressive Union General have cut off the Army of Northern Virginia and forced it to surrender or fight to its effective destruction?

My queries about this are:

Where would Lincoln have found a competent aggressive General at that stage (without damaging other campaigns)?

How would the South react?

The legal basis of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation was as a war measure. It gave the Southern white leadership notice that the Union would in effect confiscate valuable property if the rebellion went on.

Would any Confederate states have ended their rebellion to preserve property in human beings?

How long would the confederacy have lasted if it had lost its main army?

 

[Anaxagoras]

Where would Lincoln have found a competent aggressive General at that stage (without damaging other campaigns)?

There were several in the Army of the Potomac. Reynolds. Meade. Hancock. It was only politics that was keeping McClellan in command (and the fact that the men of the army loved him).

How would the South react?

My guess is that they would be rather put out.

Would any Confederate states have ended their rebellion to preserve property in human beings?

North Carolina, maybe. Not sure about the rest.

How long would the confederacy have lasted if it had lost its main army?

Not too long, I would think. If the POD involves someone other than McClellan being in command, I would think Richmond would fall in a matter of weeks following a surrender of the AoNV. THere's really not much to keep the Yankees from marching clear from Virginia down to South Carolina. If the Confederates transfer troops from the West, then the road is open to Atlanta in late 1862.

Of course, if McClellan is still in command, he will clearly consider it necessary to build up his forces to 200,000 men before taking on the dozen or so Southern troops dug in across the Potomac. That might give the SOuth some breathing room.

 

[DMA]

I basically agree with Anaxagoras on almost everything apart from finding a Union commander in the East who could actually achieve a victory wherein Lee surrenders. Hancock, although very competent, is also too professional. He won't want to push his chances just in case he overextends himself & his plan backfires. I'd dare say Reynolds is similar to Hancock although a bit more aggressive. Meade, again very competent, is too conservative to launch such an attack if we look at the OTL Gettysburg (to use as an example).

But more importantly, these three generals are rather junior, in the overall scheme of things, & other generals will be given a chance first. Now McDowell & Pope have already come & unceremoniously. Other than McClellan, though, we've got Burnside & Hooker. Burnside conducted Frederiskburg so enough said. That leaves Hooker & he'd rather attack where Lee isn't i.e. a march on Richmond. But up against Lee, Hooker is very ordinary to say the least e.g. Chancellorsville.

IMHO the Union will have to wait until one of their Western generals come East akin to Grant, as the Western generals haven't face Lee yet & visa-versa. As such the confidence of victory, which the western Union generals have, does marvels: which, incidentially, is something the ANV generals enjoy over their Union counterparts in the AOP. Plus the western Union generals will fight to the death, if need be, unlike their eastern counterparts, meaning, if it comes to a slugging match between the two armies, the Union has a more than even chance in gaining a victory or two akin to Shiloh.

Overall, though, Lee is simply too good of a general to be surrounded & thus forced to surrender. At best the ANV, if the Union was more successful at Antietam, may suffer double the casualties, but it'll still escape. Such losses, though, may convince Lee not to conduct another forey into the North, thus we don't have Gettysburg. And if this is the case, the war could go on for some considerable time after 1865.

 

[violadog]

I At best the ANV, if the Union was more successful at Antietam, may suffer double the casualties, but it'll still escape.

I beg to differ, though feel free to correct me if I am wrong, either in the details or in my conclusions, anyway IIRC The ANV was, at Antietam, in the worst position that it was ever in at any battle. Lee has his back to the Potomac River, with one good ford in his rear. His army, as usual, was badly out numbered by McClellan's forces, and to boot, one of his best divisions, AP Hill's was still at Harper's Ferry, fifteen miles away.
The Battle itself was three separate engagements, one at the Dunker Church, one at the Sunken Road, and one on Burnside's Bridge. If McClellan had managed to bring these attacks off together, instead of one at a time, it is quite possible, that Lee's flanks would have been turned and his center broken, and the entire army would be running for the ford in the rear. If that's the case, I think it quite likely that all or most of the Army of Northern Virginia would surrender, or be destroyed as an effective fighting force.

 

[DMA]

I beg to differ, though feel free to correct me if I am wrong, either in the details or in my conclusions, anyway IIRC The ANV was, at Antietam, in the worst position that it was ever in at any battle. Lee has his back to the Potomac River, with one good ford in his rear. His army, as usual, was badly out numbered by McClellan's forces, and to boot, one of his best divisions, AP Hill's was still at Harper's Ferry, fifteen miles away.
The Battle itself was three separate engagements, one at the Dunker Church, one at the Sunken Road, and one on Burnside's Bridge. If McClellan had managed to bring these attacks off together, instead of one at a time, it is quite possible, that Lee's flanks would have been turned and his center broken, and the entire army would be running for the ford in the rear. If that's the case, I think it quite likely that all or most of the Army of Northern Virginia would surrender, or be destroyed as an effective fighting force.

In a perfect scenario I would agree with much of what you've claimed here. But a couple of points. The first is we're talking about McClellan here. He showed us repeatedly his conservative generalship many times, yet at Antietam he once again out did himself by refusing to send in his reserves to help Burnside's attack from the South. If McClellan had done this, sure, the ANV would be in serious trouble akin to being surrounded & forced to surrender.

The other thing here is ignoring the fact that Lee would/could do something to avoid complete annihilation whether it be via surrender or by being compleely overrun. As you rightly pointed out, Hill's light division wasn't at the battlefield when the battle commenced - but don't forget they still managed to forced march themselves to the battlefield just in time to intercept Burnside's final attack ending the danger. Whether or not the Union's uncommitted reserves could have changed the day if committed, is the obvious fundamental issue here, yet even so, having Hill's timely arrival should ensure much of the ANV could escape if Lee realised that the battle was lost & retreat was the only viable option. I'm sure Longstreet would be arguing this & it wouldn't surprise me if Jackson agreed. Consequentially, sure ANV casualties would be much higher than OTL (even double as I first postulated), as we can probably write-off Hill's entire division as a rearguard sacrifice. Importantly, though, IMHO the ANV & Lee should be able to escape to fight another day.

 

[danwild6]

No doubt that if Hancock, Reynolds or Meade had command at Antietam the AoNV would've been annihilated. You may not see an all out thrust for Richmond but whoever was in command would undoubtedly have been more aggressive than McClellan.

I can see Lincoln willing to send a peace overture to the Confederacy as he had done throughout the war when it seemed that the South might be willing to listen.

In turn the Confederacy would not have been crushed. Southern nationalism therefore is still relatively strong post-war. Possible future problems

 

[DMA]

No doubt that if Hancock, Reynolds or Meade had command at Antietam the AoNV would've been annihilated. You may not see an all out thrust for Richmond but whoever was in command would undoubtedly have been more aggressive than McClellan.

The only problem here is Meade is too conservative. As I said, you just have to look at what he did at Gettysburg on the fourth day. Hancock is a professional soldier, but even he may think twice about such a so-called death blow. I'm not overly sure Reynolds would either althoughadmittedly he's the more agressive of the three. Furthermore, don't forget the AoP had little faith in themselves, by the time Antietam had been fought, as their confidence & morale was low, whilst the opposite could be said of the ANV.

But the biggest problem, however, is that all of them are too junior at Antietam. None of them are even corps commanders at this time, so none would be considered to be eligible for GOC AoP, as Meade was 3rd Div I Corps commander (& only a brigadier), Reynolds got I Corps only before Fredericksburg & was oddly enough Meade's CO at Fredericksburg, whilst Hancock was still only a divsional commander at Fredericksburg that being 1st Div II Corps (& also still a brigadier). Meanwhile, as I said, there are more senior generals in front of them i.e. Hooker, Sumner, Porter, Franklin, Burnside, & Mansfield who still hadn't made a complete mess of things.

 

[violadog]

Meanwhile, as I said, there are more senior generals in front of them i.e. Hooker, Sumner, Porter, Franklin, Burnside, & Mansfield who still hadn't made a complete mess of things.

So the question is can anyone of them do better than McClellan did in OTL. I'll throw in my two cents; again, see if you agree with me. Burnside and Hooker both got tried as Army Commanders in OTL. Burnside, of course, had the complete disaster that was Fredericksburg, which was pretty much uncoordinated assaults with massive reserve, which if he applies the same strategy in 1862 leads to largely the same results. Hooker developed a pretty good plan at Chancellorsville, and near cared it out there as well, but froze at the last minute. If he is in command, we might well see a Chancellorsville on the Potomac. On the other hand, he did earn the nickname "Fightin Joe" and was not afriad to engage in battle either before or after Chancellorsville. Sumner was in his mid sixties to upper sixties if IIRC so he is probably pasted over because of his age. Again IIRC Fitz-John Porter was relieved by John Pope at 2nd Manassas, so he is probably out of the running. I don't know much about either Franklin or Mansfield, but judging by the results, they are pretty much non-entities. In that case, I suspect the best bet for victory at Antietam and the surrender of ANV is probably Hooker.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

The question isn't who would be an especially good commander but rather which Union generals, if any(other than Little Mac) could miss a clean victory when he had superior numbers, superior firepower, the defender's advantage and a complete knowledge of the enemy's plan of operation down to a detailed breakdown of exactly how all of Lee's units were split up and isolated from the main body of the Army of Northern Virginia.

How McClellan was unable to at least bull his army between some of Lee's units and the main body is still a source of wonder.

 

[Xen]

If the defeat is bad enough this could cause severe probelms for Lee. Now as argued his army may not be completly destroyed but could be effectively ended as a major force, only able to offer token resistance.

Also what would this major defeat do to the morale of the army? of the commander? the society they are fighting for? We sometimes forget to take into account human psyche when dealing with war. Would the south still have confidence in Lee? In its cause? How will they react to having a pale shadow of its former army between the Army of the Potomac and the capital?

Its very possible after this defeat Lee resigns or is fired and replaced by someone else like Longstreet. Maybe the war will officially end sooner, but guerilla resistance continues for many more years, possibly to present day. We can have a situation like Northern Ireland or Israel/Palestine.

 

[swearengen_in_08]

alternate antietams

De-lurking...

I'm a big ACW buff and Antietam is one of my favorite battles, so let's see if my thoughts can offer any insights. This post may ramble a little bit, so bear with me...

Firstly, Antietam was was the best chance the Union had in the entire war to eliminate a principal Confederate army in a single battle: not only did the AOTP outnumber the ANV by a 2:1 margin, it had the advantages of fighting in relativly open ground, removing the benefits of dense terrain or entrenchments, and giving the always excellent union artillery a dominant position on the east bank of the Antietam. With the ANV having its back to the Potomac with only a single usable ford, and with added benefit of "home field advantage" the federals usually didn't have, one would think a shaved chimp could have gotten a decisive victory out of such a situation, but George McClellan again proved he had absolutley no buisness being anywhere near combat. Antietam was possibly the worst managed battle of the war from the Union side, with Mac excercising no coordination of the battle at all, and with many of his corps commanders doing the same.

So the first of our what ifs: A different AOTP commander
The ideal solution in my mind would be to send Grant or Sherman east. Grant had the seniority, and had experience commanding armies and winning battles, and I believe that the army of the Tennessee was mostly idle at that point of the war. I'd say that with either of these two men in command gives the Union army a win. On the other hand, Lincoln would probably not be likely to bring a western general east so soon after the disaster that was John Pope, and a general from a different theater might very well have problems adjusting to a new, unfamiliar setting.

Among the current generals in the AOTP to replace Mac, its future stars mentioned earlier, Reynolds, Meade, and Hancock are all out, not nearly enough seniority to be given command of an army. Among Corps commanders, Sumner was too old and infirm, and his performance at Antietam was awful (more on this later). Porter would be removed and court-martialed for his conduct at Second Manassass shortly after the battle, so he's out. Mansfield is also too old, and never served with the AOTP to boot, so he's out. That leaves us Hooker, Burnside, and Franklin.

Franklin is somewhat competant, if unremarkable, and historically urged for his VI corps to be put in late in the battle, and might be the best available option. He was a close associate of McClellan though, which might cause the administration to think twice.

As for Burnside, he was the only general at hand who had held a previous independent command, and might prove a tempting choice. There is little reason to think he would manage the battle any better than Mac did, considering his historical performance as corps commander(and at Fredericksburg), although if he is just a bit more aggressive, he could pull out a decisive win.

Hooker is probably the most interesting choice in my mind. His historical performance at Chancellorsville will always sully his reputation, but I think at Antietam he would have done well. His actions at Chancellorsville are popularly attributed to a lack of nerve, but I think that they can be attributed to his experiences at Antietam and Fredericksburg, where attacking frontally resulted in severe casualties, thus making him want to fight on the tactical defense at C-ville. In this scenario, he would have no such inhibitions, and he might take a much more aggressive posture. I think, at the least, he'd fight Antietam with a much more hands on nature than Mac did, which would bode well for the Union.

Moving beyond the commanders, the Union has plenty of tactical errors it can fix if it wants to come away with a decisive win. Most importantly, in my mind, is the use of the II corps. Sumner's mismanagment of this unit, which was the largest and arguably the best corps in the army, wasted all of its potential power. If he had joined on Hooker's flank in the dawn assault, the combined forces would have swept the entire Confederate left flank off of the field, and could have driven the rest into the river. Alternately, when he did attack historically after the I corps had been spent, he could have concentrated his forces rather than having his 3 divisions operate in a scattered and independent manner, which ended up wasting them, with his first division being routed in a rebel counterattack (while under Sumner's personal command no less, marching in close order), while the other two were used up in pointless attacks on the sunken road. If Sumner actually coordinated his corps, he could have supported his initial attack and flanked D.H. Hill's men out the sunken road.

On the federal left, Burnside's forces also wasted a great opportunity. Had the Antietam been scouted properly, the fords south of Burnsides' bridge could have been identified and the IX corps deployed in full early on. (and Mac had two days to prepare for battle, this lapse is inexcusable in my mind) If used aggressivly enough, Burnside would at the least keep Walker's division from being moved the Dunker Church position, and if supported, could capture the Potomac fords and trap Lee's army.

Now, assuming a Union victory, what happens next? Well, if all or almost all of the ANV is destroyed or captured, including its chief commanders, (Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart) it's a catastrophe for the CSA. There is nothing of significance between the AOTP and Richmond. If the AOTP is commanded by anyone other than Mac, they probably get there before the CSA can organize any kind of defense. The CSA holds Knoxville at this point, and can use the Virginia-Tennessee railroad to reinforce the east at expense of the west, but that would take considerable time as Bragg and Kirby Smith are in Kentucky at the moment, and would have to retreat in the face of an emoldened federal army pursuing them. Mac would delay long enough for some form of defense to put around Richmond, but that just means Mac gets to do the only thing he's good at, siege warfare.

Now what? Politically, Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation, in possibly even a more strengthened form due to Union successes. With a worst case scenario for the CSA, it loses both the ANV and the state of Virginia. This may not end the war immediatly, but it obviously puts the south at a huge disadvantage. Any thought of foreign assistance is gone, and the Davis government would be forced to flee to the deep south. Davis was never an especially popular figure to begin with, and the knives may come out following such a disasater. The EP is going to make the fire-eaters that much more determined to keep on resisting, but following the loss of its principal army and its capital, I'd think that a sizeable peace faction would develop among the CSA government and populace, looking to get whatever deal they could from Lincoln. With defeat staring them in the face and the EP hanging over their heads, they may well throw in the towell. Maybe most of the upper south gives in (especially the pro-union upcountry), with limited resistance continuing in the cotton states.

Now, what effect does an earlier victory have on the Union and its politics? By 1864/65, abolition of slavery and restoration of the Union had become one and the same, but this was absolutely not the case in 1862. The Lincoln government is going to be stuck in a very precarious position between radical republicans and conservative democrats. Assuming the war ends by '64, does he run for reelection? What about the victorious general at Antietam? If it's Mac, then he is the Democratic nominee for sure. After all, he managed to secure it as a failed general, so given his Napolean complex ther's no way he doesn't get, and probably wins the general, the victor of the war. If Hooker is the winning general, he would be ambitious enough to run, for either party I would think, being slippery enough to conform himself to whatever position requried. As for slavery, I think a program of gradual emancipation would follow, over the course of 20 to 30 years. Reconcilliaiton might be a lot easier with an earlier Union victor, without total war and postwar carpetbaggers.

 

[DMA]

So the question is can anyone of them do better than McClellan did in OTL. I'll throw in my two cents; again, see if you agree with me. Burnside and Hooker both got tried as Army Commanders in OTL. Burnside, of course, had the complete disaster that was Fredericksburg, which was pretty much uncoordinated assaults with massive reserve, which if he applies the same strategy in 1862 leads to largely the same results. Hooker developed a pretty good plan at Chancellorsville, and near cared it out there as well, but froze at the last minute. If he is in command, we might well see a Chancellorsville on the Potomac. On the other hand, he did earn the nickname "Fightin Joe" and was not afriad to engage in battle either before or after Chancellorsville. Sumner was in his mid sixties to upper sixties if IIRC so he is probably pasted over because of his age. Again IIRC Fitz-John Porter was relieved by John Pope at 2nd Manassas, so he is probably out of the running. I don't know much about either Franklin or Mansfield, but judging by the results, they are pretty much non-entities. In that case, I suspect the best bet for victory at Antietam and the surrender of ANV is probably Hooker.

I'd agree with you that Hooker is probably the best of the eastern generals at the time. A little know fact is that, thanks to Hooker, the Union's military intelligence branch was greatly improved so he was then able to plan Chancellorsville campaign to the point that he did suurprise Lee as to his movements. So anyone that can achieve that is starting well. But then again Chancellorsville also demonstrated Hooker's failing: that being when battle really came he was indecisive.

Now maybe, deep down (& even allowing for Hooker being knocked senseless at one point), Hooker may have been planning for a defensive battle. If so, well that suited Lee fine as the OTL demonstrated. So again, based upon historical events, I have my doubts as to whether Hooker could have been able to make the coup de grace against Lee at Antietam, although I would go along with higher ANV casualties with an obvious defeat akin to Gettysburg rather than the "draw" which OTL Antietam was.

 

[DMA]

De-lurking...

Hello swearengen. Welcome to AH.Com. And thanks for de-lurking!

Great analysis of Antietam. And although I don't disagree with the aftermath, the sticking point for me is how does the AOP achieve such a outright victory at Antietam considering the Union personnel in charge? Other than bringing Grant east, or fast-tracking someone like Hancock or Reynolds, I have little faith in the others...

 

[Nytram01]

Is there any reason to suggest that the Battle of Antietam would have happened if Lee faced a different commander than McClellan?

Lee moved with agression against McClellan because he new McClellan was a slow, caucious and methodical general.

Had he been against Hooker or Burnside or any of the others would he had been willing to split his forces as he did? Would he even have headed towards Antietam creek?

 

[DMA]

Is there any reason to suggest that the Battle of Antietam would have happened if Lee faced a different commander than McClellan?

Lee moved with agression against McClellan because he new McClellan was a slow, caucious and methodical general.

Had he been against Hooker or Burnside or any of the others would he had been willing to split his forces as he did? Would he even have headed towards Antietam creek?

Very good points actually. I'd doubt, though, Lee would worry too much about Burnside. And considering Burnside seemed to lack higher army planning skills, we could well & truly have an earlier version of Fredricksburg taking place somewhere in Maryland.

Hooker meanwhile may want to ignore Lee's adventures in Maryland & have a go at Richmond. This is certainly what he wanted to do prior to Gettysburg, before being replaced by Meade. So I see two possible scenarios - either Lincoln agrees with Hooker & 3 or 4 corps march on Richmond whist the rest keep on eye on Lee's movements; or Hooker is sacked & replaced by someone else - and your guess is as good as mine as to who becomes GOC AOP.

 

[Nytram01]

Very good points actually. I'd doubt, though, Lee would worry too much about Burnside. And considering Burnside seemed to lack higher army planning skills, we could well & truly have an earlier version of Fredricksburg taking place somewhere in Maryland.

Hooker meanwhile may want to ignore Lee's adventures in Maryland & have a go at Richmond. This is certainly what he wanted to do prior to Gettysburg, before being replaced by Meade. So I see two possible scenarios - either Lincoln agrees with Hooker & 3 or 4 corps march on Richmond whist the rest keep on eye on Lee's movements; or Hooker is sacked & replaced by someone else - and your guess is as good as mine as to who becomes GOC AOP.

Grant was busy in the West and he would be reluctant to let his favorite lieutenant Sherman come east to have a go at Lee.

George Henry Thomas would be a possible choice being a very capable commander depite his somewhat methodical approach to war and whats more he was a native Virginian so he could give Lee a run for his money in Lee's native state.

Perhaps the extrodinary Joshua Chamberlain could have been the solution to your conundrum if indeed he hadn't just begun his time in the Civil War at Antietam.

Meade was similar to Longsteet, a force of nature when roused but it was rare for them to actually be in the mood to attack.

Perhaps Philip Sheridan would have been good enough for a battle against Lee.

It's hard for me to even imagine somebody beating Lee easilly because I hold Lee in the highest regards. I rate Lee as the third and final great general of the 1800's with Napoleon and Wellington.

 

[DMA]

Grant was busy in the West and he would be reluctant to let his favorite lieutenant Sherman come east to have a go at Lee.

I agree he may have been reluctant to leave, but between April & October 1862 AFAIK Grant wasn't doing that much out West.

George Henry Thomas would be a possible choice being a very capable commander depite his somewhat methodical approach to war and whats more he was a native Virginian so he could give Lee a run for his money in Lee's native state.

Perhaps the extrodinary Joshua Chamberlain could have been the solution to your conundrum if indeed he hadn't just begun his time in the Civil War at Antietam.

Meade was similar to Longsteet, a force of nature when roused but it was rare for them to actually be in the mood to attack.

Perhaps Philip Sheridan would have been good enough for a battle against Lee.

Four good suggestions, but Chamberlain (who I admire BTW) has little military experience. You'd need a POD dating back some 20 years to change Chamberlain's situation. Meade we all know about & he certainly did the job at Gettysburg; Sheridan is too much of a cavalry man IMHO; the suggestion of Thomas, though, could very well make a difference but is he senior enough in the food chain?

It's hard for me to even imagine somebody beating Lee easilly because I hold Lee in the highest regards. I rate Lee as the third and final great general of the 1800's with Napoleon and Wellington.

Actually I'd rate Jackson higher than Lee, but I completely agree with your sentiments. Lee is just too good to have the ANV caught & annihilated at this point in the War.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Nytram may have raised a key point. One of Lee's top qualities in the field was that he knew most of his counterparts and took their qualities into consideration. When he didn't know them personally some officer in his army surely would.

 

[Nytram01]

I agree he may have been reluctant to leave, but between April & October 1862 AFAIK Grant wasn't doing that much out West.

I'm English, just so you know, and I live in England so I have limited knowledge on the American Civil war, despite how interesting I find I. Naturally I was drawn to the more high profile eastern theatre than the West so I dont know as much about the western theatre so whether Grant was totally engrossed in his war or not I wouldn't know but I do know that Bragg invaded the north around this time so I assumed that Grant would at least be slowed by Braggs counter attack.

Four good suggestions, but Chamberlain (who I admire BTW) has little military experience. You'd need a POD dating back some 20 years to change Chamberlain's situation. Meade we all know about & he certainly did the job at Gettysburg; Sheridan is too much of a cavalry man IMHO; the suggestion of Thomas, though, could very well make a difference but is he senior enough in the food chain?

I remember reading that at one point in the war Grant and Thomas were pitted against each other by a senior officer so they didn't have the best of relationships however Thomas was a able commander and has been very under-rated by the history books being overshadowed by Grant and Sherman.

If there is no-one capable in the eastern theatre to take on Lee then that leaves the western theatre and out of the highest ranking officers in the west Thomas was the only one Grant would be prepared to lose. That therefore is a General of good ability who was not really wanted where he was and could have given Lee and challenge given the opportunity to do so.

Actually I'd rate Jackson higher than Lee, but I completely agree with your sentiments. Lee is just too good to have the ANV caught & annihilated at this point in the War.

Lee was a better mediator than Jackson but I do agree that Stonewall was a pheonominal commander however would he have been able to organise and deploy the ANV as well as Lee or better than Lee? And if he did would his death at Chancellorville cause the ANV to collapse from having no capable commanders after Jacksons death?

 

[swearengen_in_08]

Originally posted by DMA
Great analysis of Antietam. And although I don't disagree with the aftermath, the sticking point for me is how does the AOP achieve such a outright victory at Antietam considering the Union personnel in charge? Other than bringing Grant east, or fast-tracking someone like Hancock or Reynolds, I have little faith in the others...

Thanks. Agreed, I'd have little faith in Burnside et al, against Lee and company under most conditions, but all the Union needed at Antietam for complete victory was one more push, which I think just about any general other than McClellan would have ordered. Also, Mac wasn't just overcautious, he made no atempt whatsoever to coordinate his army during a major attack (similar to Lee at Gettysburg on the second day). Add that on to the screw ups of Sumner and Burnside, and the Union still managed to pull out a draw. My opinion is that no one could have managed Antietam worse than Mac did, even a fool like Burnside. If Burn had followed his Fredricksburg strategy of repeated frontal assaults, he would have driven Lee into the Potomac.

Originally Posted by Nytram01
Is there any reason to suggest that the Battle of Antietam would have happened if Lee faced a different commander than McClellan?

Lee moved with agression against McClellan because he new McClellan was a slow, caucious and methodical general.

Had he been against Hooker or Burnside or any of the others would he had been willing to split his forces as he did? Would he even have headed towards Antietam creek?

I think Lee would have still followed his original strategy regardless of the federal commander. Lee moved with aggression against every federal commander he faced, and splitting forces was his style.

On the other hand, if a more aggressive general commanded the AOTP, the federals might have forced the South Mountain passes quicker and maybe even relieved Harpers Ferry, which would probably force Lee to retreat back to Virginia.

Alternately, Lee could concentrate his forces at the South Mountain gaps and fortify them, and invite a Fredercksburg type battle.