John Fulton Reynolds accepts command of the Army of The Potomac

[oscssw]

When Hooker got canned Lincoln offered the command of the Army of The Potomac to John Reynolds.  With General Halleck still in command in Washington Reynolds refused the command stating he did not want to work for Halleck. 

Halleck was pretty much universally despised by most of the senior officers in the Union Army for good reason.  He was the consummate back stabbing military politician who had failed miserably as a field commander.

Poor George (The Snapping Turtle) Meade was not given a choice. He was ordered to take command and only a very short time before Gettysburg.

Reynolds was held in very high esteem by the Union Army.  He did not suffer from "The slows".  He was greatly admired

by John Buford and General Hancock; both outstanding field commanders.

So the way the alternate time line goes.   Reynolds gets command of the AOP right after Fredericksburg.  Everything else goes as per the OTL, Lee invades the North and the armies meet at Gettysburg.  everything goes by the OYL until after Pickets charge.  Reynolds orders the AOP to immediately go on the offensive.

Is the Army of Northern Virginia annihilated?

If so, does the AOP under Reynolds head for Richmond?

Does Grant still get the senior Union Command?

Can the south rally enough troops to stop the AOP or does it just roll south and destroy successive much smaller Confederate armies until the war is won, maybe in 1863?

 

[lordroel]

Jun 2, 2021 15:01:04 GMT oscssw said:

When Hooker got canned Lincoln offered the command of the Army of The Potomac to John Reynolds.  With General Halleck still in command in Washington Reynolds refused the command stating he did not want to work for Halleck. 

Halleck was pretty much universally despised by most of the senior officers in the Union Army for good reason.  He was the consummate back stabbing military politician who had failed miserably as a field commander.

Poor George (The Snapping Turtle) Meade was not given a choice. He was ordered to take command and only a very short time before Gettysburg.

Reynolds was held in very high esteem by the Union Army.  He did not suffer from "The slows".  He was greatly admired

by John Buford and General Hancock; both outstanding field commanders.

So the way the alternate time line goes.   Reynolds gets command of the AOP right after Fredericksburg.  Everything else goes as per the OTL, Lee invades the North and the armies meet at Gettysburg.  everything goes by the OYL until after Pickets charge.  Reynolds orders the AOP to immediately go on the offensive.

Is the Army of Northern Virginia annihilated?

If so, does the AOP under Reynolds head for Richmond?

Does Grant still get the senior Union Command?

Can the south rally enough troops to stop the AOP or does it just roll south and destroy successive much smaller Confederate armies until the war is won, maybe in 1863?

 

So i assume John Reynolds does not die at the start of the Battle of Gettysburg. 

[oscssw]

Jun 2, 2021 15:03:41 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 2, 2021 15:01:04 GMT oscssw said:

When Hooker got canned Lincoln offered the command of the Army of The Potomac to John Reynolds.  With General Halleck still in command in Washington Reynolds refused the command stating he did not want to work for Halleck. 

Halleck was pretty much universally despised by most of the senior officers in the Union Army for good reason.  He was the consummate back stabbing military politician who had failed miserably as a field commander.

Poor George (The Snapping Turtle) Meade was not given a choice. He was ordered to take command and only a very short time before Gettysburg.

Reynolds was held in very high esteem by the Union Army.  He did not suffer from "The slows".  He was greatly admired

by John Buford and General Hancock; both outstanding field commanders.

So the way the alternate time line goes.   Reynolds gets command of the AOP right after Fredericksburg.  Everything else goes as per the OTL, Lee invades the North and the armies meet at Gettysburg.  everything goes by the OYL until after Pickets charge.  Reynolds orders the AOP to immediately go on the offensive.

Is the Army of Northern Virginia annihilated?

If so, does the AOP under Reynolds head for Richmond?

Does Grant still get the senior Union Command?

Can the south rally enough troops to stop the AOP or does it just roll south and destroy successive much smaller Confederate armies until the war is won, maybe in 1863?

 

So i assume John Reynolds does not die at the start of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Correct and he stays healthy until he is 99.

[lordroel]

Jun 2, 2021 15:08:02 GMT oscssw said:

Jun 2, 2021 15:03:41 GMT lordroel said:

So i assume John Reynolds does not die at the start of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Correct and he stays healthy until he is 99.

Would he be a rival to Ulysses S. Grant.

[oscssw]

Jun 2, 2021 15:12:24 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 2, 2021 15:08:02 GMT oscssw said:

Would he be a rival to Ulysses S. Grant.

He might be.  Grant was never the commander of the AOP.   On March 2, 1864, Lincoln promoted Grant to lieutenant general, giving him command of all Union Armies.   I believe the confusion stems from the fact Grant chose to stay out of Washington and colocated his HQ with various field armies including that of the AOP.

Now you might have a point that if Reynolds defeated Robert E Lee maybe Lincoln would rethink his choice of Grant and give the top job to Reynolds.  A lot depends on how fast Reynolds can move the AOP south I'd think.

However, Grant did so well during the Chattanooga Campaign he would certainly be a contender for the Top job.

If I remember correctly Grant had control of three armies ( all much smaller than the AOP) during that campaign which would prove he was capable of commanding multiple armies in a very complex campaign.  That is something Reynosds would not have proven.

So that would be a minor diversion of ATL back to the OTL? Good point.

Are you thinking you can't change history?

[lordroel]

Jun 2, 2021 15:48:32 GMT oscssw said:

Jun 2, 2021 15:12:24 GMT lordroel said:

Would he be a rival to Ulysses S. Grant.

He might be.  Grant was never the commander of the AOP.   On March 2, 1864, Lincoln promoted Grant to lieutenant general, giving him command of all Union Armies.   I believe the confusion stems from the fact Grant chose to stay out of Washington and colocated his HQ with various field armies including that of the AOP.

Now you might have a point that if Reynolds defeated Robert E Lee maybe Lincoln would rethink his choice of Grant and give the top job to Reynolds.  A lot depends on how fast Reynolds can move the AOP south I'd think.

However, Grant did so well during the Chattanooga Campaign he would certainly be a contender for the Top job.

If I remember correctly Grant had control of three armies ( all much smaller than the AOP) during that campaign which would prove he was capable of commanding multiple armies in a very complex campaign.  That is something Reynosds would not have proven.

So that would be a minor diversion of ATL back to the OTL? Good point.

Are you thinking you can't change history?

So reading this, American Battlefield Trust segment on John F. Reynolds:

After the Battle of Chancellorsville, Reynolds was one of several Union Generals who urged Hooker’s removal from command. However, when President Lincoln met with Reynolds and offered him command of the Army of the Potomac, Reynolds replied that he would only accept the command if he could be sure there would be no interference from his superiors in Washington. Unwilling to sacrifice civilian control of the military, Lincoln instead put Reynolds's friend General George Meade in command.

Does that mean your point on him not wanted to work for Halleck is true as well.

[oscssw]

Jun 2, 2021 15:56:01 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 2, 2021 15:48:32 GMT oscssw said:

He might be.  Grant was never the commander of the AOP.   On March 2, 1864, Lincoln promoted Grant to lieutenant general, giving him command of all Union Armies.   I believe the confusion stems from the fact Grant chose to stay out of Washington and colocated his HQ with various field armies including that of the AOP.

Now you might have a point that if Reynolds defeated Robert E Lee maybe Lincoln would rethink his choice of Grant and give the top job to Reynolds.  A lot depends on how fast Reynolds can move the AOP south I'd think.

However, Grant did so well during the Chattanooga Campaign he would certainly be a contender for the Top job.

If I remember correctly Grant had control of three armies ( all much smaller than the AOP) during that campaign which would prove he was capable of commanding multiple armies in a very complex campaign.  That is something Reynosds would not have proven.

So that would be a minor diversion of ATL back to the OTL? Good point.

Are you thinking you can't change history?

So reading this, American Battlefield Trust segment on John F. Reynolds:

After the Battle of Chancellorsville, Reynolds was one of several Union Generals who urged Hooker’s removal from command. However, when President Lincoln met with Reynolds and offered him command of the Army of the Potomac, Reynolds replied that he would only accept the command if he could be sure there would be no interference from his superiors in Washington. Unwilling to sacrifice civilian control of the military, Lincoln instead put Reynolds's friend General George Meade in command.

Does that mean your point on him not wanted to work for Halleck is true as well.

Yes Halleck was in Washington and from what I understand it was not orders from Lincoln he objected to but orders from Halleck.  In July 1862 Lincoln appointed Halleck General-in-Chief of all Union forces.  He was a meddler not content at giving his field commanders their objective but meticulously telling them how to carry them out.  This from Washington far from the actual ground of the battles. Halleck a decent organizer, but failed utterly as a strategist. His time as General-in-Chief was defined by his inability to get along with or have his orders followed by nominally subordinate commanders.   Lincoln determined that he was “little more than a first rate clerk.

[oscssw]

Getting back to the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia. I'd think the Army of the Potomac, despite the weather could hound Lee as he moved south toward the Potomac. Logistics would be a key point. The most vulnerable part of the ANV was it's supply & hospital trains. Lee would probably be forced to abandon his wounded to the care of the AOP, but he needed those supplies. No way for him to replenish as long as the AOP was close on his heels.

Lee's only counter was to rely on his Cavalry screen. So that would be an early object of Reynolds. Somewhere along that march Stewart's cavalry would have to be brought to battle as it tried to screen the supply train from the advancing Union forces. Stewart's Cavalry, like the rest of the ANV, had been savaged at Gettysburg. The Union cavalry had also suffered losses but it was well able to make good those losses in short order. The ANV in enemy territory could not. So the clash would happen and even if Stewart pulled off a victory his already depleted force would be spent while the Union cavalry would be replaced by fresh regiments.

Once the ANV cavalry was used up Lee would have to make a very hard decision. Did he have the supplies for another good fight? If so, he would dig in on favorable ground and pray the AOP would conduct a frontal assault.
However, they were still in enemy territory and Reynolds need do no more than hold in place and let the ANV starve. So I'd think Lee would continue south as fast as he could go.

Reynold's objective was still the destruction of the ANV. He would use the hammer and anvil. The USN would move gunboats up the Potomac and coordinate with either a flying column of infantry or a large cavalry force to deny Lee a crossing of the Potomac. The AOP would hammer the ANV against the anvil of gunboats and troops. Result the destruction of the South's most powerful army and the loss of invaluable senior officers and veteran troops. Who knows, Lee might have had another heart attack.

So in my ATL the ANV is annihilated. Lee is dead and with him most of his senior surviving commanders.

Now what does Jefferson Davis do? He swallows crow and begs Joe Johnston to somehow put together an army to defend Richmond. No other surviving confederate commander is a near equal, maybe even equal or better than Lee than Joe.
As I see it given the loss of the ANV Joe would be forced into fixed trenches defense of Richmond. No way a scratch force could be expected to maneuver against the Veterans of the AOP. AOP would now adopt siege tactics. This would take a while all depending again on logistics, southern logistics.

I could see Sherman being turned loose on the interior of the confederacy as he was in the OTL and he would still make the South Howl. With luck it is all over by Christmas 1863. Without luck early 1864.

without Lee to tell his men to go home, I fear the aftermath would be a prolonged guerrilla war extending more than a decade. I think Joe Johnston would make the same appeal to his men but despite Joe being a great general the troops did not love him the way they did "Massah" Robert.

The only real hope is that Abe Lincoln could reconcile the south by his policy of "Letting them up easy". The assassination of Lincoln would mean the occupation contending with a widespread insurrection would begat atrocity answered with reciprocating atrocity and the 'Freed" slaves in the middle of it. All I can see is an ongoing blood bath.

I think I need a single malt and a good cigar.

[oscssw]

I have been thinking about the South continuing the struggle with a widespread guerrilla war.

FWIW, I fought in a civil war in Nam. We were taught that if 10% of the population was willing to actually engaged in combat ops, no army could win without engaging in genocide. Pretty damn sobering thought, even to an 18 year old Swab Jockie.

In the OTL POTUS Lincoln did die and the North ignored his advice "To let them up easy".
The initial occupation of the South was anything but gentle and still guerrilla warfare was more in the form of a cover for banditry than a continuance of "The cause".

I came up with a few possible reasons:

1. Widespread misgivings in the South about secession.
2. Sherman's March forced many southerners unaffected by the war that they were now to be made to suffer if it continued.
3.Resentment by many southerners of conscription of their sons and requisition of their goods.
4.Southern factionalism.

I'm sure you folks can come up with some others.

[lordroel]

Jun 4, 2021 14:38:28 GMT oscssw said:

I have been thinking about the South continuing the struggle with a widespread guerrilla war.

Watching this good tour of a Civil War battlefield and reading this article: A Civil Ending?, it would not help the South get as the article says:

Lee's much feared veteran force, still posed a credible threat to Union foes. To surrender under those circumstances, as a viable, united nation rather than as a fragmented, conquered rabble, might bring a more lenient peace, spare the South absolute subjugation and persuade history to judge the Confederate cause kindly. A gracious, voluntary surrender, Breckinridge insisted, would yield an honorable defeat.

But of course president. Jefferson Davis insisted that victory alone could save the South, and he meant to achieve it, even if he had to disperse his armies and wage a guerrilla war. His unrealistic predictions of ultimate victory bordered on the ''delusional,'' William C. Davis says, but for Jefferson Davis, an honorable defeat -- if, indeed, defeat must come -- meant going down swinging.

[oscssw]

Great video Lordroel. I learned a lot of details, like 90,000 men surrendered by Joe Johnston to Sherman.

[lordroel]

Jun 4, 2021 15:17:54 GMT oscssw said:

Great video Lordroel. I learned a lot of details, like 90,000 men surrendered by Joe Johnston to Sherman.

Well as always, you see politicians trying to be politicians and soldiers trying to be soldiers.

I like watching the American Battlefield Trust, they are fasianteing to watch.

But back to your thread. 

Destroying the Army of Northern Virginia in 1863/64 after the battle of Gettysburg might shorten the war, also this might butterfly away the death off one of my 3 greatest US presidents. 

[oscssw]

"A rich man's war and a poor man's fight."

I knew the Union Enrollment act (conscription law) allowed for paid substitutes. I also knew the Union volunteers were skeptical the draftees would stand and fight. The fear turned out to be unfounded in most cases.

I did not know what was going on in the south. Now I do and this supports my contention dissatisfaction with the South's conscription laws would play a large factor in why the South did not conduct a wide spread guerilla war.

So much for the confederates being all volunteers.
On April 16th 1862, the Confederacy adopted a law that provided for support of the army by extending the terms of enlistment of currently enrolled soldiers to three years from the date of original enlistment. In addition, the law made all white males between the ages of 18 and 35 who were citizens of a state in the Confederacy subject to national military service for a term of three years, unless released at an earlier date by the President.

In October 1862, when the Confederate Congress, after an extensive lobbying campaign, adopted the so called “Twenty Negro Law,” which granted an exemption to an owner, or one overseer on each plantation with twenty or more able-bodied slaves. This provision immediately became unpopular with men serving in the army as is reflected by the sentiments of General D.H. Hill who said “ome examples claim to own twenty negroes, and with justice might claim to be masters of an infinite amount of cowardice.” This provision was amended in 1863 and again in 1864 when the requirement of the $500 payment was changed to a bond to provide 100 pounds of meat to the government for each able-bodied slave. In addition, at this time, the age range for enrollment was extended from 17 to 50; although active service applied only for men between the ages of 18 and 45.

[lordroel]

Jun 5, 2021 14:37:44 GMT oscssw said:

So much for the confederates being all volunteers.
On April 16th 1862, the Confederacy adopted a law that provided for support of the army by extending the terms of enlistment of currently enrolled soldiers to three years from the date of original enlistment. In addition, the law made all white males between the ages of 18 and 35 who were citizens of a state in the Confederacy subject to national military service for a term of three years, unless released at an earlier date by the President.

Shows that among many there was not the support to raise a large volunteer army if they needed to resort to this.