Civil War History: 'What If' scenarios

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

I know this is a game forum, and not a civil war history forum, but we talk about history here all the time, and I'm sad to say that I don't know many Civil War buffs in real life. So I hope you don't mind if I start a purely history-oriented discussion.

 

"What if..."

The greatest single question in history. How fragile is the path of time, that even the slightest change in events can utterly change everything.

What if Johnston had survived Shiloh? What if Lee had never lost his secret orders before Sharpsburg? What if The Union had never attempted the assault on Fredericksburg?

This is the place to discuss these, and many other questions. The little things that changed the course of the whole war.

 

To kick things off, what do you think would've happened if Stonewall Jackson had survived Chancellorsville? I personally think it could have changed the course of the war. Not because of Jackson himself, but because of the effects his death had on Southern morale, and on General Lee himself.

Lee's decisions at Gettysburg have often come under scrutiny. His indecisive and inept leadership was shocking, especially from a man of such incredible military genius. 

May I suggest that perhaps he was still grieving over the loss of his best friend and right-hand-man? Was he perhaps nervous and cautious, out of fear for loosing another good general? I think so. 

I think that if Jackson doesn't die at Chancellorsville, Lee is much more energetic and decicive, his men in much better spirits, not to mention the effect of Jackson himself. Thus I think that The South wins Gettysburg handily. Whether or not this means The South wins her independence is another discussion for another time, but I think that with Jackson on her side, she stands a more then fair chance.

[Hodo]

There is a "Mockumentary" that covers the South winning the war.

It was by Spike Lee, it is called "Confederate States Of America."

Worth a watch... it is a bit frustrating and will make any decent person mad.  But it is a plausible outcome for the war.

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

15 minutes ago, Hodo said:

There is a "Mockumentary" that covers the South winning the war.

It was by Spike Lee, it is called "Confederate States Of America."

Worth a watch... it is a bit frustrating and will make any decent person mad.  But it is a plausible outcome for the war.

Propaganda. I try not to overuse that term, but dear heavens, not even in the Nazi wartime films have I seen propaganda more ridiculous and unbelievable then that film. I apologize for saying so, but... wow... there's literally nothing realistic about it.

Basically all it does is say, "Everyone from The South is evil and racist, good thing they didn't win the war. If they did, they would somehow completely annex America and Mexico, even though all they wanted was their independence. And they would somehow keep slavery into the 21st Century. How? Why? Lol, IDK, but they totally would, because the South is evil like that."

It's literally straight-up propaganda against the South. I just won't mince words on that one. 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Albert Sidney Johnston

[Hodo]

40 minutes ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Propaganda. I try not to overuse that term, but dear heavens, not even in the Nazi wartime films have I seen propaganda more ridiculous and unbelievable then that film. I apologize for saying so, but... wow... there's literally nothing realistic about it.

Basically all it does is say, "Everyone from The South is evil and racist, good thing they didn't win the war. If they did, they would somehow completely annex America and Mexico, even though all they wanted was their independence. And they would somehow keep slavery into the 21st Century. How? Why? Lol, IDK, but they totally would, because the South is evil like that."

It's literally straight-up propaganda against the South. I just won't mince words on that one. 

No offense but the Confederacy wasnt exactly sugar plums and candy canes.   They would not have changed much over the next 150years since the Civil War ended.  It would have been as extreme as some of the things said in the movie.  But it would have been much the same.   They would not have abolished slavery, they would not have aloud for the push of equal rights.  They sure as hell would not have let women vote.  There would have been segregation for all races not white.  

It would have been an agricultural and rural society where the difference between rich and poor would have been astoundingly distant.   Without the US, WWI and WWII would not have ended the way they went, odds are WWII would have ended with a Nazi victory, as the Confederacy would have most likely sided with them.  And in WWI the lack of US industry, as the Confederacy was a rural based economy wouldnt have been able to come up to the challenge.  For the most part I feel the CSS would have been little more than a 3rd world country in the 20th century, and would not have been able to curb the expansion of Fascism or Communism.   

Some major world linchpins are pivotal moments based on the fact the United States being there.

[Major Grigg]

12 minutes ago, Hodo said:

No offense but the Confederacy wasnt exactly sugar plums and candy canes.   They would not have changed much over the next 150years since the Civil War ended.  It would have been as extreme as some of the things said in the movie.  But it would have been much the same.   They would not have abolished slavery, they would not have aloud for the push of equal rights.  They sure as hell would not have let women vote.  There would have been segregation for all races not white.  

It would have been an agricultural and rural society where the difference between rich and poor would have been astoundingly distant.   Without the US, WWI and WWII would not have ended the way they went, odds are WWII would have ended with a Nazi victory, as the Confederacy would have most likely sided with them.  And in WWI the lack of US industry, as the Confederacy was a rural based economy wouldnt have been able to come up to the challenge.  For the most part I feel the CSS would have been little more than a 3rd world country in the 20th century, and would not have been able to curb the expansion of Fascism or Communism.   

Some major world linchpins are pivotal moments based on the fact the United States being there.

I would like to think that if the Confederate states of America won and had slavery in 2017, that almost every western country would declare war. 

 

I havent seen this "film", but it sounds a little much. 

[Hodo]

13 minutes ago, Major Grigg said:

I would like to think that if the Confederate states of America won and had slavery in 2017, that almost every western country would declare war. 

 

I havent seen this "film", but it sounds a little much. 

No slavery would had ended in the CSA, but it wouldnt have been till MUCH later than it did.  I am talking well into the early 20th century.   And without the USA, there would have been no pressure on majority of the outside world to abolish slavery.  Outside of most of Europe getting rid of it, the USA was the spearhead of ending it around the world.  

[Major Grigg]

11 minutes ago, Hodo said:

No slavery would had ended in the CSA, but it wouldnt have been till MUCH later than it did.  I am talking well into the early 20th century.   And without the USA, there would have been no pressure on majority of the outside world to abolish slavery.  Outside of most of Europe getting rid of it, the USA was the spearhead of ending it around the world.  

So what do you think this continent would look like today if the CSA had won? 

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

54 minutes ago, Hodo said:

No offense but the Confederacy wasnt exactly sugar plums and candy canes.   They would not have changed much over the next 150years since the Civil War ended.  It would have been as extreme as some of the things said in the movie.  But it would have been much the same.   They would not have abolished slavery, they would not have aloud for the push of equal rights.  They sure as hell would not have let women vote.  There would have been segregation for all races not white.  

It would have been an agricultural and rural society where the difference between rich and poor would have been astoundingly distant.   Without the US, WWI and WWII would not have ended the way they went, odds are WWII would have ended with a Nazi victory, as the Confederacy would have most likely sided with them.  And in WWI the lack of US industry, as the Confederacy was a rural based economy wouldnt have been able to come up to the challenge.  For the most part I feel the CSS would have been little more than a 3rd world country in the 20th century, and would not have been able to curb the expansion of Fascism or Communism.   

Some major world linchpins are pivotal moments based on the fact the United States being there.

Again, where are you getting this? What in the name of Elbereth makes you think that "they sure as hell wouldn't let women vote", and that slavery would have continued into the 20th century? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have actual data to support these outrageous claims, or is this just wild speculation based on you presupposed view of the "evil" South? Because I'm highly suspecting the latter...

[Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf]

The south had one reason to keep slavery (apart from some lunatics thinking it was "right" to enslave Africans, they were a minority, but they were there): The slaves kept the southern economy running. Sooner or later even if the CSA had won the civil war, strained diplomatic relations, a wave of fleeing slaves and most likely uprisings in the north and the economic backlash of all this would have led to the abolishing of slavery. I think around the 1880-90s at the latest. To be honest, after the end of the real civil war the African Americans were in the south were held in something like wage slavery: Getting too much money to die, less to live. Segragation would have been upheld longer then it did. Would the CSA have expanded? I don't think so, not more then the USA did. If they would have fought in the WW1 I honestly don't know, it needed a lot of persuasion on Woodrow Wilsons side and a load of idiotism on the side of my forefathers (^^) to get the USA in the war.

To be honest, the plot of "Confederate States of America" ist utter bullshit. I think there would have been USA and CSA, if the south would have won. What this could have done to history I have no idea.

[Hodo]

4 minutes ago, Major Grigg said:

So what do you think this continent would look like today if the CSA had won? 

To be honest, not sure.  

The CSA did make it well known they had goals of expanding into Central and South America.  I even imagine that Canada would look VERY different today.  First and foremost Texas would have became a sovereign nation probably controlling most of the south western US (Arizona, New Mexico and southern California).  I also figure that the CSA would have made moves into Mexico, but would have ultimately ground to a halt and ended up in an uneasy peace accord drawing a line a bit further south than the current boarder.   CSA and Texas would have became close allies, much like the US and Canada now.  Canada would have became a very crowded nation, with northern blacks and native Americans leaving the new CSA in droves.   Canada and the CSA would have had a uneasy peace between the two for a while, as they would have been where most runaway slaves would have headed to, as it at the end of the Civil War would be a British Territory and thus slavery was outlawed.   This would stay with the CSA over the next few decades, as racism would have been the foundation on a large part of the CSA psyche.  

Alaska would have never been purchased by the USA, and the CSA would have never had the funds or the gaul to make such a frivolous purchase.  Thus missing out on one of the greatest oil reserves in north America and when the Klondike Gold rush happens it will be in a Russian Territory, where it would remain such through the 1900s and well into the current day and age.  The Cold War would not have happened.  As the USSR would not have had the geopolitical clout it had after WWII, as they would not have been able to overcome the onslaught of the Nazi German war machine in 1938.  And with the CSA staying mostly out of the war, but supporting Germany with raw materials, Germany would have been able to supply the war, and fight the war.  Leading to a MUCH different Europe.  

But the North America would have had fewer states.  The states we have would be far more independent, and the government would have been far smaller.   State taxes would very wildly between states.   Most of the states that were formed after 1870, wouldnt be what they are now.  Some I doubt would have been formed at all.  Hawaii, is one of them, Alaska being the other.  Several US Territories wouldnt be formed, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands and Guam being others.   

I feel England would have been the CSA's biggest thorn after the war, they would want payment for the support they were getting during the war.  With little in the way of hard assets, or real income outside of the cotton and tobacco exports the CSA would have been strapped for real cash.  This with the increasing outside pressure to abolish slavery from European nations like France and the UK.   The CSA would have been more dependent on European industry than the USA would have been.  

 

Overall the continental CSA wouldnt be too different than the USA.. except for Texas and most of the south western parts being all a separate nation.  

[Hodo]

27 minutes ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Again, where are you getting this? What in the name of Elbereth makes you think that "they sure as hell wouldn't let women vote", and that slavery would have continued into the 20th century? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have actual data to support these outrageous claims, or is this just wild speculation based on you presupposed view of the "evil" South? Because I'm highly suspecting the latter...

Most of the southern states laws are still on the public records to this day.  

With that as a baseline it is not hard to see where the thought pattern would have lead to.  The common belief of the southern gentleman of the 1860s was, voting was a privilege and burden for a (white)man.   

Over time this view would have soften a bit.   I doubt they would have had the support they gained during the 1910s do to the outbreak of WWI and the primary opposition being the German-American distillers and brewers who were against women gaining the right to vote.  Being one of the largest industries and ethnic backgrounds along the boarder states with the north and south, the German-American population would have held a lot of pull politically.  

[James Cornelius]

2 hours ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

I think that if Jackson doesn't die at Chancellorsville, Lee is much more energetic and decicive, his men in much better spirits, not to mention the effect of Jackson himself. Thus I think that The South wins Gettysburg handily. Whether or not this means The South wins her independence is another discussion for another time, but I think that with Jackson on her side, she stands a more then fair chance.

First off, I'd argue against Lee being distraught at the loss of his "best friend" Jackson. They worked well together, but weren't particularly close. If anything, Lee was much closer to Longstreet.

 

In my view the most significant effect the presence of Jackson would have had at Gettysburg was that he would have pressed forward to take Culp's Hill since Lee's order said "if practicable" which Jackson surely would have found it.

 

But there is too much that otherwise might have changed prior to that. Bear in mind that the battle was initiated on the Confederate side by units of Hill's Third Corps. Had Jackson not died, Hill's Corps likely never would have existed: the reorganization of the ANV into three corps from two was due in large part to the fact that while Lee had enough confidence in Ewell and Hill to give them each a corps, neither one was worthy to be the sole opposite of Longstreet.

 

Even if a reorganization had taken place (as admittedly three corps was a more flexible arrangement than two, despite the fact that no other officer in the ANV was the equal of Longstreet and/or Jackson) who is to say Hill would have been the third corps commander? It might have been Ewell. Therefore, the opening dispositions of the arrival at Gettysburg might have been completely different making the rest of the battle too different to accurately gauge.

 

But, if we posit that everything else remains constant, then Jackson's drive to advance and take the heights on the first day of the battle, rather than Ewell's reluctance, would have dramatically changed the outcome and likely made Longstreet's (correct) assertion to flank the AoP instead of assault it a moot point.

 

 

The other four alternative scenarios that have often intrigued me are 

 

1) What if Johnston had not been wounded at Seven Pines and remained in command? Would McClellan have been able to crawl his way to Richmond?

 

2) What if McClellan had coordinated his army better at Antietam? Specifically, what if the two reserve corps had been committed?

 

3) What if Hooker had not lost his nerve at Chancellorsville? Much like McClellan at Antietam, he had two untouched and fresh corps and still drastically outmanned Lee. Could he have counter-attacked and utilized his manpower advantage?

 

4) During Longstreet's time in the west (Chickamauga) he was part of the group that sought to have Bragg replaced. Many seemed to think that Longstreet was the natural replacement as the senior lieutenant general in the CSA. However, records indicate Longstreet tried to get Lee to take the western command (which Longstreet admittedly thought was more strategically vital than the campaign in Virginia, further evidence in my opinion of Longstreet's superior strategic understanding compared to his peers including Lee and Jackson)  and for he (Longstreet) to succeed Lee in command in Virginia. So what if a) that had happened and Lee had gone west, rather than Grant going east? And b ) if Longstreet had simply accepted the western command prior to the Chattanooga campaign and thus Grant would have faced him rather than the inept Bragg? It was the success at Chattanooga, perhaps even more so than Vicksburg, that propelled Grant to the general in chief position, after all. 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Sir R. Calder of Southwick

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

25 minutes ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:

First off, I'd argue against Lee being distraught at the loss of his "best friend" Jackson. They worked well together, but weren't particularly close. If anything, Lee was much closer to Longstreet.

 

In my view the most significant effect the presence of Jackson would have had at Gettysburg was that he would have pressed forward to take Culp's Hill since Lee's order said "if practicable" which Jackson surely would have found it.

 

But there is too much that otherwise might have changed prior to that. Bear in mind that the battle was initiated on the Confederate side by units of Hill's Third Corps. Had Jackson not died, Hill's Corps likely never would have existed: the reorganization of the ANV into three corps from two was due in large part to the fact that while Lee had enough confidence in Ewell and Hill to give them each a corps, neither one was worthy to be the sole opposite of Longstreet.

 

Even if a reorganization had taken place (as admittedly three corps was a more flexible arrangement than two, despite the fact that no other officer in the ANV was the equal of Longstreet and/or Jackson) who is to say Hill would have been the third corps commander? It might have been Ewell. Therefore, the opening dispositions of the arrival at Gettysburg might have been completely different making the rest of the battle too different to accurately gauge.

 

But, if we posit that everything else remains constant, then Jackson's drive to advance and take the heights on the first day of the battle, rather than Ewell's reluctance, would have dramatically changed the outcome and likely made Longstreet's (correct) assertion to flank the AoP instead of assault it a moot point.

 

 

The other four alternative scenarios that have often intrigued me are 

 

1) What if Johnston had not been wounded at Seven Pines and remained in command? Would McClellan have been able to crawl his way to Richmond?

 

2) What if McClellan had coordinated his army better at Antietam? Specifically, what if the two reserve corps had been committed?

 

3) What if Hooker had not lost his nerve at Chancellorsville? Much like McClellan at Antietam, he had two untouched and fresh corps and still drastically outmanned Lee. Could he have counter-attacked and utilized his manpower advantage?

 

4) During Longstreet's time in the west (Chickamauga) he was part of the group that sought to have Bragg replaced. Many seemed to think that Longstreet was the natural replacement as the senior lieutenant general in the CSA. However, records indicate Longstreet tried to get Lee to take the western command (which Longstreet admittedly thought was more strategically vital than the campaign in Virginia, further evidence in my opinion of Longstreet's superior strategic understanding compared to his peers including Lee and Jackson)  and for he (Longstreet) to succeed Lee in command in Virginia. So what if a) that had happened and Lee had gone west, rather than Grant going east? And b ) if Longstreet had simply accepted the western command prior to the Chattanooga campaign and thus Grant would have faced him rather than the inept Bragg? It was the success at Chattanooga, perhaps even more so than Vicksburg, that propelled Grant to the general in chief position, after all. 

Ah! Someone that actually reasoned to the purpose of thread! Thank you!

Interesting take on Jackson's death, I totally forgot about Hill's corps. 

Anyways, I have an interesting response to the first query about Johnston's injury, but I don't have time to type it out at the moment. I'll respond when I can, and thanks for the intriguing answer!

[A. P. Hill]

In my 50 plus years of studying the American Civil War, I've played this game of "what if" far too many times.      For me it's always come back to ... it happened like it happened and there's no sense or point in speculating.

That said, in General Lee's defense, he, as well as A. P. Hill were suffering from the same ailment that many of the men of the Army of Northern Virginia were suffering from.  It comes from eating too much green corn and unripe fruit.

It all relates back to a story about body parts and who or what makes a good boss!  

If you haven't heard that one, just ask.

Edited July 11, 2017 by A. P. Hill

[Bigjku]

Honestly I think blaming sickness gives Lee way too much of a pass.  He moved aggressively in invasion of the union twice and both times he ended up with his forces scattered and was forced into battle not in accordance with his plans.

In general I think his tendency towards vague orders and nebulous suggestions (plus poor staff work) came back to bite him in the ass every time he didn't have the advantages of fighting on his home turf.

To me an interesting what if is the one regarding Hooker at Chancellorsville.  Take that victory away and Lee has Fredericksburg and....nothing else all that impressive.  And Fredericksburg was more or less a product of Burnsides stupidity.  I think Lee is slightly overrated.

[Col_Kelly]

8 hours ago, Bigjku said:

To me an interesting what if is the one regarding Hooker at Chancellorsville.  Take that victory away and Lee has Fredericksburg and....nothing else all that impressive.  And Fredericksburg was more or less a product of Burnsides stupidity.  I think Lee is slightly overrated

Before Lee is put in command, the Union army stands 12 miles out of Richmond... a year later the confederates are in Pensylvannia. Isn't that a simple proof of Lee's skills ? You say that only Fredericksburg looks good on his resume apart from Chancelorsville...

A.) What about Gaine's Mill ? Second Manassas ? Cold Harbor ? North Anna (hadn't he had suffer from a stroke Grant would have suffered a terrible defeat there : biggest what if of the ACW if u ask me as the North was a few months away from it's elections) ?. I mean how many victories do you have to win against the odds to be considered a great general ? The man wasn't perfect but nobody is.

B.) Burnside wasn't stupid, he managed to defeat Longstreet on even odds later in the war. He did not even want to fight Fredericksburg as he acknowledged the rebels were too well entrenched, Lincoln forced him to engage. Even then the defeat was mostly gen. Franklin's fault as he refused to attack with half the AoP against the weakest part of the rebel line. He sent only two divisions and those managed to break the CSA for a while. Had he supported that assault Fburg could have been a Union victory. Even though the poor Ambrose is far from being Napoleon the 2nd he wasn't the idiot people like to remember.

[Bigjku]

I did say slightly overrated, not horribly so.

Gaines Mill and the whole 7 days campaign kind of falls into the problems I mentioned elsewhere that Lee suffered on the offensive.

At Mechanicsville he intended an attack with 60,000 men and got less than 1/3rd of that into action.

At Gaines Mill while Lee won but didn't achieve the large scale result he wanted as the V Corps got away and gave better than it took really.

The Seven Days battles are interesting in that it seems Lee beat the man McClellan more so than he beat the AotP really.  But it started a mental slide for the army that wouldn't be fully dealt with until 1864-5 really.  Lee set out to destroy an isolated and outnumbered part of the Union Army and couldn't get it done.

Second Manassas was a strong victory but again Lee set out to destroy an isolated piece of the Union Army and didn't quite accomplish what he wanted.

The late war battles once people started digging in I view with less credit to both sides.  The side of the tactical offensive generally started losing if forced into action on a certain timeframe as the war moved along.

Lee was very good.  But despite a few good chances to isolate and destroy parts of the Union Army at 7 Days, 2nd Bull Run , Day 1 at Gettysburg and North Anna he never got the job done.  We can make up any number of excuses as to why the facts to some degree speak for themselves.

It is really the one thing missing from Lee's resume is that he never forced a major enemy formation into surrender or outright rout.  He was never even really able to put himself in a position to do so.  A large part of it comes down to he was usually on the wrong end of numbers.  But even when he had local superiority it didn't get done.  And often the reason was a common fault he did not seem to correct during the war.  Ambiguous orders due to poor staff work, subordinates who didn't act in concert with his plans and movements that left his forces dispersed rather than concentrated during many offensive actions were problems in 1862 and never really got solved.  Those issues are also directly attributable to his major personal fault which was an unwillingness to deal with personal conflicts directly.  It's fair to be critical of these things.

There is no Donadlson or Vicksburg for Lee.  There is no Rossbach.  No Austerlitz, Ulm or Jena and Auerstadt.  No Saratoga or Yorktown.  Yes the odds were generally against him but they weren't absurdly tilted most of the war.  Other generals won strategically critical victories against odds.  Lee really didn't.  He traded casualties in varying proportions to the enemy for time.  When finally pressed by a Union general that had a clear strategic objective and determination to fight the issue out Lee would fight hard but be maneuvered into an unwinnable position that was guaranteed to destroy his army in the long run.

[Albert Sidney Johnston]

20 hours ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Ah! Someone that actually reasoned to the purpose of thread! Thank you!

Interesting take on Jackson's death, I totally forgot about Hill's corps. 

Anyways, I have an interesting response to the first query about Johnston's injury, but I don't have time to type it out at the moment. I'll respond when I can, and thanks for the intriguing answer!

Alright. So what happens if Johnston isn't wounded at Seven Pines? 

I'm afraid I'm still rather pressed for time, and cannot give an answer as eloquent as I would like. However, in my humble opinion, I think that The South still looses. Not only do they loose, but that defeat is more humiliating and destructive then in our timeline.

The Army of Northern Virginia wasn't like other armies. It survived on daring, on tenacity. If fought best when the odds were against it, when its fate hung in the balance. 

I just don't think that Davis would have allowed a purely defensive campaign like Johnston wanted to carry out. I just can't imagine the armies of the South watching as Union troops slowly but surely grind closer and closer to Richmond with each and every day, doing nothing but fighting battles on their own ground.

It's a little like The Turtle and the Hare: Johnston was the slow and steady, and Lee was the quick and daring. Johnston's strategy might have worked in the long term, but I think Southern soldiers would have lost faith in him far before then. General Lee was just, well... flashier. He was fearless, he took risks, and that made him forever endeared to the armies of the CSA. I just don't think slow, cautious Johnston could have done the same.

Can you imagine a dusty Texan private, with tears streaming down his face, exclaiming "I would charge hell itself for that old man!" for Johnston? I certainly can't.

Were Johnston's strategies intelligent? Yes. Would they have worked? Probably. But I just don't think he had the same incredible charisma, nor could he have inspired the same loyalty from his troops, as the ever-legendary General Lee.

[James Cornelius]

Another great what if in my mind is:

 

What if Winfield Scott was just a little healthier in 1861 and able to take the field at First Bull Run? Considering McDowell's plan was actually quite sound but he lacked the ability to properly coordinate even a small (by later standards) army, would a stronger hand directing affairs have allowed for a Union victory? What, if anything would that have changed?

[Fred Sanford]

7 minutes ago, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:

What if Winfield Scott was just a little healthier in 1861 and able to take the field at First Bull Run? Considering McDowell's plan was actually quite sound but he lacked the ability to properly coordinate even a small (by later standards) army, would a stronger hand directing affairs have allowed for a Union victory? What, if anything would that have changed?

Diabeetus kills!

Seriously, I think a major reason the South held on as long as it did can be attributed to poor Union leadership early on as much as anything else.

[maturin]

23 hours ago, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

Again, where are you getting this? What in the name of Elbereth makes you think that "they sure as hell wouldn't let women vote",

Aren't you going to tell us all about the robust rural Southern suffragette's movement in the 19th Century? We're waiting.

Women gained the vote in one canton of Switzerland in 1991.

[Col_Kelly]

6 hours ago, Bigjku said:

I did say slightly overrated, not horribly so.

Gaines Mill and the whole 7 days campaign kind of falls into the problems I mentioned elsewhere that Lee suffered on the offensive.

At Mechanicsville he intended an attack with 60,000 men and got less than 1/3rd of that into action.

At Gaines Mill while Lee won but didn't achieve the large scale result he wanted as the V Corps got away and gave better than it took really.

The Seven Days battles are interesting in that it seems Lee beat the man McClellan more so than he beat the AotP really.  But it started a mental slide for the army that wouldn't be fully dealt with until 1864-5 really.  Lee set out to destroy an isolated and outnumbered part of the Union Army and couldn't get it done.

Second Manassas was a strong victory but again Lee set out to destroy an isolated piece of the Union Army and didn't quite accomplish what he wanted.

The late war battles once people started digging in I view with less credit to both sides.  The side of the tactical offensive generally started losing if forced into action on a certain timeframe as the war moved along.

Lee was very good.  But despite a few good chances to isolate and destroy parts of the Union Army at 7 Days, 2nd Bull Run , Day 1 at Gettysburg and North Anna he never got the job done.  We can make up any number of excuses as to why the facts to some degree speak for themselves.

It is really the one thing missing from Lee's resume is that he never forced a major enemy formation into surrender or outright rout.  He was never even really able to put himself in a position to do so.  A large part of it comes down to he was usually on the wrong end of numbers.  But even when he had local superiority it didn't get done.  And often the reason was a common fault he did not seem to correct during the war.  Ambiguous orders due to poor staff work, subordinates who didn't act in concert with his plans and movements that left his forces dispersed rather than concentrated during many offensive actions were problems in 1862 and never really got solved.  Those issues are also directly attributable to his major personal fault which was an unwillingness to deal with personal conflicts directly.  It's fair to be critical of these things.

There is no Donadlson or Vicksburg for Lee.  There is no Rossbach.  No Austerlitz, Ulm or Jena and Auerstadt.  No Saratoga or Yorktown.  Yes the odds were generally against him but they weren't absurdly tilted most of the war.  Other generals won strategically critical victories against odds.  Lee really didn't.  He traded casualties in varying proportions to the enemy for time.  When finally pressed by a Union general that had a clear strategic objective and determination to fight the issue out Lee would fight hard but be maneuvered into an unwinnable position that was guaranteed to destroy his army in the long run.

Interesting points. I can agree that some people see a God of War in Lee and it's true to say that he wasn't. So yes maybe he was slightly overrated by some.

Since I became Lee's advocate in this exchange of ours I'll keep going that way however :). You're right when saying that he failed to gain a real strategical victory, it is something that puzzled him the entire war. Perhaps you can blame the man but I think technology and context are also important factors here.

Technology because the rifled musket makes defense extremely advantageous, therefore a broken formation that manages to reform will suddenly be able to halt the victors and pin them down. Chancelorsville is a perfect example imo : despite complete surprise and total unpreparation from Howard's 11th Corps, the Yankees eventually rebuil their lines and stop Jackson's assault, evening the casualties. Shiloh falls right into that category as well. Maybe Lee could have understood that change and modify his plans accordingly, maybe it was too early for anyone to do so.

Context because unlike Grant at Vicksburg/Donelson or Napoleon at Ulm, Lee never had the manpower to box-in his opponent and force him into a siege. Therefore he's unable to capture entire chunks of the Union army. I believe he understood that after 2nd Manassas and tried to adapt by winning political victories on Northern soil : it ended up in failure but he came close at Gettysburg.

[James Cornelius]

On 7/11/2017 at 8:28 AM, Albert Sidney Johnston said:

 

I just don't think that Davis would have allowed a purely defensive campaign like Johnston wanted to carry out. I just can't imagine the armies of the South watching as Union troops slowly but surely grind closer and closer to Richmond with each and every day, doing nothing but fighting battles on their own ground.

It's a little like The Turtle and the Hare: Johnston was the slow and steady, and Lee was the quick and daring. Johnston's strategy might have worked in the long term, but I think Southern soldiers would have lost faith in him far before then. General Lee was just, well... flashier. He was fearless, he took risks, and that made him forever endeared to the armies of the CSA. I just don't think slow, cautious Johnston could have done the same.

 

Bear in mind though this wasn't working in a vacuum.

 

Let's say that Johnston continues his defensive strategy and McClellan's advance is no faster than it was in OTL. The wild card becomes Pope's army coming from the north - without the aggressive nature of the Seven Days battles does McClellan start to turn tail? If so, Johnston can theoretically race north to stop Pope, though whether he does so with Lee's alacrity is debatable. Nonetheless, Johnston was NOT a bad general, so he very well might have recognized the threat for what it was. But let's say at worst all he does is halt Pope's advance rather than the spectacular victory Lee achieves at Second Mannanas.

 

Or, on the other hand, what if McClellan succeeds? Does he run for President in 1864 in this scenario, but this time as the general who won the war? What does THAT do to events if the war is ended in 1862 - prior to the Emancipation Proclamation - and a President who is a conservative Democrat (by standards of then, not now of course) is elected (and likely for two terms). As an aside, if that had happened, McClellan would have been the youngest man ever elected, even to this day. 

 

[Buford Protege]

On 7/11/2017 at 2:26 PM, Sir R. Calder of Southwick said:

Another great what if in my mind is:

 

What if Winfield Scott was just a little healthier in 1861 and able to take the field at First Bull Run? Considering McDowell's plan was actually quite sound but he lacked the ability to properly coordinate even a small (by later standards) army, would a stronger hand directing affairs have allowed for a Union victory? What, if anything would that have changed?

In all reality the only major difference between McDowell's planning and Scott's planning in Mexico was the thoroughness of his recon.  Scott made do with few cavalry and used his engineers when the cavalry were overstretched to do the job.  Scott likely would have done more checking on the Confederate position than McDowell.  But, that is likely due to McDowell never leading men in battle prior to the Civil War where Scott had learned the hard was back in the War of 1812.

 

The biggest problem with the what if question here is the arrival of Johnston's forces.  McDowell had Beaureguard on the run, with a classic Scott end-around, until Johnston's troops stabilized the left.  Scott was not able to control Patterson's army in the Valley so it would have still allowed Johnston to arrive at the time needed.  The biggest mistake was placing a man like Patterson in charge in the Valley.  What they needed was someone who would have been aggressive enough to stall Johnston.  Unfortunately much of the remaining high command in the US army was scattered and trying to get all the veteran regular troops where they were needed and not on the field of battle.  But, would a Sumner have been better? Wool?  There is no way to know.  McClellan was in Ohio complaining about everything and many regular officers were simply trying to make it to the theaters of war.  So, to me the great what if of the early days is what if Johnston never arrives at Bull Run?

[James Cornelius]

McDowell could have attacked the day prior. He held off, at least partly, because of the lack of control over his subordinates movements and the fact that several of them only loosely obeyed his marching orders, at best.

 

An attack one day earlier means Johnston's reinforcements aren't there.

 

I think it likely Scott would have been able to get it right the first time.