Lincoln replaced Burnside with Hooker due to Burnside's inability to effectively lead the Army of the Potomac after the disastrous Battle of Fredericksburg in December 1862. Burnside's hesitance and poor decision-making contributed to significant losses, and Lincoln sought a more aggressive commander who could improve morale and military strategy. Hooker was known for his organizational skills and had a reputation for being more decisive, which Lincoln hoped would revitalize the Union forces.
To replace Burnside with Hooker.
Joseph Hooker
A costly defeat of the newly-promoted Union General, Ambrose Burnside, followed by his demoralising 'Mud March', which caused Lincoln to replace him with Joe Hooker.
After the poorly planned attack on Fredericksburg during the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln replaced Union General Ambrose Burnside as the commander of the Army of the Potomac. Burnside's failed strategy and high casualties led to the decision to find a new leader for the Union forces.
Union generals McClellan, Burnside and Hooker were all graduates of West Point and all of them had been appointed by President Lincoln to lead the Army of the Potomac. Each of them had also been relieved of being commander of that same army. In order there was 1. McClellan 2. Burnside and 3. Hooker.
Major General Joseph "Fighting Joe" Hooker succeeded General Burnside as the commander of the Army of the Potomac. Hooker was the third general Lincoln had as the leader of the North's premier army.
general Joseph hooker
Lincoln replaced General Hooker with GeneralGeorgeMeade because when Hooker failed to win in the battle of Chancellorsville, Lincoln lost faith in Hooker, and had to replace him with General Meade. The union had many bad leaders. Although, Lincoln chooses Hooker as a General again later in the battles.Good luck, :) Bye.
President Lincoln wanted to make a careful choice on which general would replace General George B. McClellan to lead the Union's high profile army, the Army of the Potomac. He narrowed his choices down to General Ambrose E. Burnside and "Fighting" Joe Hooker. Both men had served well in the war's early battles and both had served in the Mexican War. Burnside was ten years younger than Hooker, however, that was not a key element in Lincoln's decision. Of the two, Hooker was well known to have been critical of General McClellan. On the other hand, Burnside had been a friend of McClellan's and they knew each other from their time at West Point. Lincoln knew all too well the fierce loyalty the Army of the Potomac's officers and soldiers had towards McClellan, and Lincoln did not want to hrt the morale of the troops by appointing someone that had been an outspoken critic of McClellan. Lincoln chose Burnside, but was surprised that Burnside turned down the offer twice. It seems that it was exactly because of Burnside's friendship with McClellan, he did not wish to "betray" his friend and seem to be Lincoln's replacement for a man the rank and file of the army held in such high esteem. Finally, on Lincoln's third request, Burnside placed the nation's need for a good general above his own personal loyalty to McClellan, and accepted the job.
George Meade
Following the Union defeat at Fredericksburg in December 1862, President Lincoln replaced General Ambrose Burnside with General Joseph Hooker. Hooker was appointed to lead the Army of the Potomac, and he was tasked with revitalizing the Union forces and improving their strategic effectiveness in the ongoing Civil War. Lincoln hoped that Hooker's leadership would reinvigorate the army after the significant losses at Fredericksburg.
general hooker