The suggestion was made earlier that oh, had Grant won decisively at Shiloh with Lew Wallace's attack from the rear, he might have been placed in charge where Pope was in our timeline since Grant had received his promotion a month earlier.
Supposing that happens, and instead of Banks alone making an initial assault, Grant has more of an attack on Jackson's forces, forcing him to retreat at least somewhat. Grand is able to then win a victory perhaps like our timelines Shiloh, where it is quite bloody on both sides but in this timeline Confederate losses are 50% greater and Union losses about two-thirds what they were in our timeline.
The obvious situation is that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation a month early and Grant likely replaces McClellan as leader of the army of the Potomac. He was a much better Diplomat when it came to working with subordinates and also with Washington, so it is likely that he can at least get the second team generals under him to win a bloody battle even if not to win decisively.
This makes things interesting for later campaigns, however.
Lee and Jackson of each suffered losses, Jackson at first and then both combined when Grant defeats them. There is no invasion of Maryland here, but would grants be expected to push forward that much? Or, would Lincoln be content to wait until Grant builds the morale up and then starts his invasion like Hooker in our timeline? Or, would Grant go halfway? One could argue that if he gets to Fredericksburg, then Spotsylvania, and holds it then he will be in very good position. In this timeline Jackson will not have stolen Union supplies at Manassas Junction so grants would have a bit of an advantage, but you would still have the really bad mud keeping everyone from moving around much. Lincoln might be satisfied with this if he knows that 1862 animals with the Union firmly entrenched in Northern Virginia.
Presuming Grant does something like was hooker planned but does a much better job of it, something else interesting results. The union likely takes Richmond in June of 1863 ( the hugely outnumber the Confederates by this time in our timeline and I doubt this would change that oh, if anything the union has a greater numerical advantage) with Pope struggling to do anything against Vicksburg. Or, would Pope be relieved of command by that time and someone else placed in command?
The loss of second Manassas won't destroy Lee's or Jackson's careers, but there will not be the ability of people to see them as invincible when they lost a few big battles and the Confederate capital within 10 months.
Chattanooga will fall by later in 1863 also, but could a need for reinforcements cause enough men to be taken from Tennessee that Buell, despite his snail's pace, is able to take Chattanooga by November?
Supposing that happens, and instead of Banks alone making an initial assault, Grant has more of an attack on Jackson's forces, forcing him to retreat at least somewhat. Grand is able to then win a victory perhaps like our timelines Shiloh, where it is quite bloody on both sides but in this timeline Confederate losses are 50% greater and Union losses about two-thirds what they were in our timeline.
The obvious situation is that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation a month early and Grant likely replaces McClellan as leader of the army of the Potomac. He was a much better Diplomat when it came to working with subordinates and also with Washington, so it is likely that he can at least get the second team generals under him to win a bloody battle even if not to win decisively.
This makes things interesting for later campaigns, however.
Lee and Jackson of each suffered losses, Jackson at first and then both combined when Grant defeats them. There is no invasion of Maryland here, but would grants be expected to push forward that much? Or, would Lincoln be content to wait until Grant builds the morale up and then starts his invasion like Hooker in our timeline? Or, would Grant go halfway? One could argue that if he gets to Fredericksburg, then Spotsylvania, and holds it then he will be in very good position. In this timeline Jackson will not have stolen Union supplies at Manassas Junction so grants would have a bit of an advantage, but you would still have the really bad mud keeping everyone from moving around much. Lincoln might be satisfied with this if he knows that 1862 animals with the Union firmly entrenched in Northern Virginia.
Presuming Grant does something like was hooker planned but does a much better job of it, something else interesting results. The union likely takes Richmond in June of 1863 ( the hugely outnumber the Confederates by this time in our timeline and I doubt this would change that oh, if anything the union has a greater numerical advantage) with Pope struggling to do anything against Vicksburg. Or, would Pope be relieved of command by that time and someone else placed in command?
The loss of second Manassas won't destroy Lee's or Jackson's careers, but there will not be the ability of people to see them as invincible when they lost a few big battles and the Confederate capital within 10 months.
Chattanooga will fall by later in 1863 also, but could a need for reinforcements cause enough men to be taken from Tennessee that Buell, despite his snail's pace, is able to take Chattanooga by November?