What if - McClellan sacked after Malvern Hill

Suppose that McClellan's angry retort at Lincoln in the early summer of 1862 - according to his Wikipedia article it was censored by the War Department - had gotten out, or even some other events had happened so that he is canned permanently after being on board a ship miles away during the Battle of Malvern Hill, with Lincoln telegraphing him, "Since you wish to impersonate Francis Scott Key by being on board a ship during a major battle, you now have all the time int he world to do so."

(This imagined quote from Lincoln is too good for me not to post; i love writing potential Lincoln humor.)

I imagine Pope would still replace him early, but who after that? Burnside early? What if he turns it down?

Because I might reopen my once Open Threat about an early Union win at Shiloh to make it more along the lines of THe Union Forever, but obviously quite different, I am thinking of having that happen, which makes me wonder something else: With Grant possibly taking Vicksburg, and with Forrest being killed rather than just wounded at Shiloh meaning there is no Murfreesboro diversion and the Union can drive on Chattanooga faster, could Rosecrans wind up getting the command?
 

Japhy

Banned
To be technical first off, Pope never replaced McClellan, he has a separate command in a separate territory and assumed control of AoP Corps as they entered his area of operations, with McClellan sidelined.

The next in line in the AoP is a McClellan man in Fitz-John Potter who would probably attempt to do what Thomas did when ordered to relieve Buell with the Army of the Ohio, decline to do it while the Army was in the Field.

If Pope though is brought in and inserted he'll have a far more difficult time then Pope did IOTL being an offer being brought in directly to the highly partisan and political AoP. IOTL Fitz-John Porter would be put on trial over his actions at Second Manassas due to his and the rest of the Army's reluctance to transfer to Pope's control as an axillary force. That would be even worse here.

Now if Lincoln wants to do it fast, and is willing to move past Porter and won't wait for Pope to arrive the next most senior officer in the AoP is Edwin V. Sumner the first Commander of II Corps. He's old and old school but had a reputation for tough fighting. And he is one of many who after Malvern Hill called for using the developing supplies at Harrison's Landing to push back against Lee's Army.

Harrisons Landing had been a secondary supply point though so the stockpiles are limited. The Army could not for example fight another seven days straight with what they had on hand but with Lee having taken massive loses and having yet to organize his forces in a manner that would suit him for the next year of victories, the Confederates aren't in shape to fight another Seven Days either. One, maybe two engagements, and a level of daring that McClellan and his faction never had and Richmond could, theoretically be back under threat. Or Lee could block the AoP yet again.
 
Tghanks for the clarification - interesting. Of course, he fought in some hard battles anyway, but as commander it might hasten his death some, too. Though he'd probably whittle Lee down enugh to get the Army of the Potomac out of there and also take the supplies with them; which would butterfly away Longstreet's ability to grab them as OTL at Chancellorsville.

He might instill the discipline Hooker did months later, though, if he lasts long enough - and if he can avoid all the political infighting.
 
It would be General Sumner most likely and he would have come down like the hammer of justice on Lee. Little Mac actually had Lee where he wanted him but didn't have the guts to finish him off. He just lacked the killer instinct needed by a general.
 
Assuming that McClellan is immediately relieved in the aftermath of Malvern Hill, the Army of the Potomac would still withdraw to Harrison Landing. Afterall, Malvern Hill, with a little effort, could easily be flanked to McClellan's right. If McClellan wasn't going to counterattack, withdrawing was the most pragmatic move.

Now there is the question of who replaces McClellan. John Pope was already in charge of the Army of Virginia (I, XI, XII Corps) on June 26, 1862 and the Battle of Malvern Hill occured on July 1, 1862.

The two most likely candidates are Edwin V. Sumner and Fitz-John Porter. Both Sumner and Fitz-John Porter felt that the army was perfectly secure and their commands in excellent conditions, and they opposed any suggestion to remove the army from the bank of the James River.

Honestly speaking, Fitz-John Porter was the best corps commander in the Army of the Potomac at the time and thus he had the best potential for army command. Though he never got to demonstrate whether he could succeed in an offensive role, he did deliver the most punishing attack on Jackson's corps at Second Manassas and was a very able soldier. However, Fitz-John Porter was close friend of McClellan and would likely refuse command if McClellan was sacked. This results in Sumner taking command of the Army of the Potomac.

Edwin V. Sumner is a mixed bag as a commander. His poor performance at Williams led McClellan to assess Sumner as "a greater fool than I supposed." However, over the course of the Peninsular Campaign he earned a more favorable reputation, leading energetically and being wounded twice. However, I don't believe that Sumner could be a good army commander. His performance at Antietam was horrible at best. Sumner led the II Corps at the head of the column, this was a very bad decision as he was unable to direct the troops at the rear. Sumner's habit of leading from the front resulted in his failure to correct French's division from straying away from Sedgwick's column. This resulted in the disaster at West Woods in which Sedgwick's Division was conpletely shattered. Meanwhile, Sumner assumed that French was right next to Sedwick and sent his son, an aide, to instruct French to attack the enemy in front of him. Due to his mistaken assumptions and the fact that he was in the frontlines rather than the rear, Sumner failed to use his staff to correct French which led him to strike the Sunken Lane instead. Overall, Sumner's performance as corps commander was quite poor and I can't see he would make a good army commander. The only positives I can list for Sumner are: his willingness to obey orders and his aggressiveness.

Sumner could decide to attack Lee in support of Pope's offensive. This could potentially pin Lee down while Pope invades central Virginia. However, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia was still a very potent force after the Seven Days Campaign. Combine this with Sumner's potentially poor performance as an army commander, Sumner may get a bloody nose from Lee. This may even serve as evidence for Lincoln to evacuate the Army of the Potomac early.

However, given what I have read on Henry Halleck and the Second Bull Run campaign, it is likely that the Army of the Potomac would still be pulled out from the banks of the James. Halleck felt that the situation in Virginia violated the precepts of war. Halleck viewed McClellan's position on the James as incompatible with the classic concept of "concentration of force." If Halleck still decides to evacuate the Army of the Potomac from the banks of the James to reinforce Pope, Sumner would be more willing to respond to the orders than McClellan. Though Sumner would be, like McClellan IOTL, constrained by limited shipping abilities, I think Sumner would not drag his feet on complying with orders to send VI Corps to reinforce Pope. This would probably prevent the Battle of Second Bull Run from being a total Union failure at the very least.
 
Top