What it says on the tin. McClellan gets kicked by a horse just a day before the battle of Antietam starts. What are the consequences of such an incident? Who is McClellan's successor? Will the Emancipation proclamation still occur? Will Bobby Lee manage to escape again?
McClellan dies before Antietam, who's his successor for AotP?
- Thread starter Arnold d.c
- Start date
Sumner or FitzJohn Porter i think. Of course, i am nowhere near the expert on this in any capacity.,
TFSmith121
Banned
Sumner is senior and the man on the spot, more or less
Sumner is senior and the man on the spot, more or less, although depending on the circumstances, Lincoln might tell Halleck to take command in the field.
Burnside and Hooker are presumably both in the running as senior corps commanders who (historically) got the nod; Mansfield is a dark horse, but probably had the most suitable prewar experience of any of them. Porter may or may not survive his association with McClellan after 2nd Manassas; he won't if Pope has anything to do with it, of course.
Sumner, Hooker, and Franklin each got one of the army-sized Grand Divisions in Burnside's organization of the AotP before Fredericksburg, so Franklin is presumably in the mix as well.
Best,
Sumner is senior and the man on the spot, more or less, although depending on the circumstances, Lincoln might tell Halleck to take command in the field.
Burnside and Hooker are presumably both in the running as senior corps commanders who (historically) got the nod; Mansfield is a dark horse, but probably had the most suitable prewar experience of any of them. Porter may or may not survive his association with McClellan after 2nd Manassas; he won't if Pope has anything to do with it, of course.
Sumner, Hooker, and Franklin each got one of the army-sized Grand Divisions in Burnside's organization of the AotP before Fredericksburg, so Franklin is presumably in the mix as well.
Best,
Last edited:
During the Union retreat of the Seven Days, McClellan expressed reluctance to name a second in command during his absences, knowing that Sumner was the most senior corps commander, due to Sumner's poor performance during the Battle of Williamsburg on May 5, 1862.
Did Little Mac change his opinion before his 'death'?
Did Little Mac change his opinion before his 'death'?
TFSmith121
Banned
If McClellan is dead or discredited, his opinion
If GBM is dead or discredited, his opinion probably is not going to be given much weight.
Best,
If GBM is dead or discredited, his opinion probably is not going to be given much weight.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
The AotP's attacks weren't coordinated as it was, so
The AotP's attacks weren't coordinated at Antietam as it was, however, under GBM, so that's a wash; Sumner is likely to order the V Corps into action, unlike Mac and if nothing else, Sumner et al can hold a line ... Lee is much less likely to stampede Sumner than McClellan, certainly.
Best,
At Antietam, Sumner might be even worse than McClellan (rash, uncoordinated attacks versus lack of drive). Lee might even get a kind of "victory".
The AotP's attacks weren't coordinated at Antietam as it was, however, under GBM, so that's a wash; Sumner is likely to order the V Corps into action, unlike Mac and if nothing else, Sumner et al can hold a line ... Lee is much less likely to stampede Sumner than McClellan, certainly.
Best,
TFSmith121
Banned
Burnside or Porter, presumably.
If so, Burnside or Porter, presumably.
Neither one is exactly audacious, but neither will lose to Lee at Antietam, either.
Best,
If so, Burnside or Porter, presumably.
Neither one is exactly audacious, but neither will lose to Lee at Antietam, either.
Best,
Halleck didn't have any desire to take field command and would more then likely do what he could to prevent it. I am no expert by any means but I remember reading that after the Fredericksburg fiasco Burnside wanted to commit to an offensive and his generals didn't. Lincoln asked him to go down and speak with all the generals and make a decision. Hallack refused and even offered his resignation when Lincoln made a comment about his lack of desire to be on the field.
TFSmith121
Banned
The thing is, he did just that in the West after Shiloh
The thing is, he did just that in the West after Shiloh; assembled what had been Pope's, Grant's, and Buell's armies and marched (ever so cautiously, but still) on Iuka and Corinth. His forces managed to win both, as well (more or less).
One of the issues that 2nd Manassas raised was whether Halleck should have goine into the field and served as what would have amounted to an army group commander over Pope and McClellan; that - in a situation where McClellan and Pope have both been supplanted after 2nd Manassas and before Antietam - remains one of several options for high command in the east.
Halleck was brought east in 1862 to serve as general-in-chief, not chief of staff; one could expect Lincoln might have been insistent.
Given the above caveat, the "most likely" options include (in no particular order, and setting aside the question if Porter gets cashiered or not):
Burnside
Franklin
Halleck
Hooker
Mansfield
Sumner
Porter
Best,
The thing is, he did just that in the West after Shiloh; assembled what had been Pope's, Grant's, and Buell's armies and marched (ever so cautiously, but still) on Iuka and Corinth. His forces managed to win both, as well (more or less).
One of the issues that 2nd Manassas raised was whether Halleck should have goine into the field and served as what would have amounted to an army group commander over Pope and McClellan; that - in a situation where McClellan and Pope have both been supplanted after 2nd Manassas and before Antietam - remains one of several options for high command in the east.
Halleck was brought east in 1862 to serve as general-in-chief, not chief of staff; one could expect Lincoln might have been insistent.
Given the above caveat, the "most likely" options include (in no particular order, and setting aside the question if Porter gets cashiered or not):
Burnside
Franklin
Halleck
Hooker
Mansfield
Sumner
Porter
Best,