[Texas Mulerider]

I confess to spending a whole lot more time with Confederate generals. Actually, I spend more time on the Trans-Mississippi than anything else, since that's where I live and I'm just a couple of hours away from the major battlefields of the Red River campaign. Perhaps my favorite Confederate general is Dick Taylor, Zachary's son and Jefferson Davis's brother-in-law, who had no military education, being a Yale man, but who apprenticed under Stonewall and brought what he learned in the Shenandoah Valley with him to Louisiana. He was an extremely able commander (and administrator) whose talents, like N.B. Forrest's, weren't recognized in Richmond until the very last. When Taylor was sent east of the Mississippi in late 1864, Forrest was very impressed with him, and Forrest was not easily impressed. But I digress.

Ok, I understand that Hancock & Reynolds weren't yet corps commanders through the commands of Pope and Burnside. But what about during Hooker's and Meade's? Which brings up an interesting thought: would either Hancock or Reynolds have followed up at Gettysburg with a more vigorous pursuit than Meade's? I tend to think Hancock might have.

[Non-Sequitur]

But what about during Hooker's and Meade's?

Supposedly Reynolds was offered command of the Army of the Potomac before Meade but turned it down. Meade was senior to Hancock and had a solid, if unspectacular, record. He was a good choice for the army and had he been in command at Chancellorsville the outcome might not have been as disasterous as it was. Hooker was a puzzle. He was a good corps commander before and after Chancellorsville and on paper there was no reason why he was a bad choice as army commander.

It's possible that either man would have been more aggressive after Gettysburg but they may not. After Gettysburg the army was worn out, about a third were casualties, artillery and wagons were pretty beaten up. It's possible that they may have let Lee escape as well.