Historical 'What-Ifs'

[Stauffenberg]

I believe Montgomery became the capitol of Alabama in 1846. There's a wiki on it. Not sure that it's necessarily guaranteed that a state capitol would become a national capitol, you can argue the point pro and con.

Well, there's no argument really since Montgomery was the official capital of the CSA for 4 months in 1861 when the Confederacy was first formed. It is therefore not inconceivable that it could have been moved back there from Richmond later on in the war.

[Stauffenberg]

I don't know how much trade was moving between Virginia and New Orleans though.

Sorry I meant that the trade out of New Orleans, overseas mostly, was comparable to the revenues generated by Virginia.

[Chaplain Lovejoy]

Don't forget Tennessee (and even Alabama) had a very large pro-union chunk of territory in the East that rebelled and was put down by Mr. Davis fairly early in the war. The votes to secede in the part of the state failed miserably. The game starts with 100% CSA loyalty there, which is just flat wrong.

Speaking of votes, loyalty, etc.:

[Longshanks]

Speaking of votes, loyalty, etc.:

Thanks! I enjoyed studying that map. I guess S Carolina must have had "hanging chads".

[Aphrodite Mae]

What if Lincoln himself had issued a proclamation stating that historical "what if" speculation is pointless? And what if he had underlined the absurdity, by the way he presented the proclamation?




[CENTER][ATTACH]17358[/ATTACH][/CENTER]





Seriously, though... its fascinating to read the posts in this thread! Thanks, guys!

[Captain_Orso]

Umm.. excuse me your Majesty , could you ask the President to climb down off my back now. I've got things to do; and besides, my jaw is hurting from holding that pose

[rattler01]

What if Lincoln was really a vampire hunter? I think that would make an awesome movie. Oh wait?!

[Stauffenberg]

What if Lincoln himself had issued a proclamation stating that historical "what if" speculation is pointless?

I'll call you, and raise you Mae:

What-if Jeffrey Keene (on the left), retired Assistant Fire Chief of Westport, Connecticut, is in fact the reincarnation of Brigadier General John B. Gordon (on the right)—as he claims to be.



And what-if all sorts of reincarnated individuals from the Civil War era were to appear at some point somehow, on an ACW forum?



[font="Palatino Linotype"][“I turned back to the page with the picture of the Sunken Road, and on the page across from it was another picture. This time a chill ran through me and the hair on the back of my neck stood up again. The picture was of Brigadier General John B. Gordon. The face was not unknown to me, I knew it well, I shave it every morning.”
- Jeff Keene][/font]

[tagwyn]

Jim-NC: Steaming BS on your idea!! Lee turned down overall command of Union forces so to see him in Tenn. - can't do it man. L3

[Aphrodite Mae]

What if Lincoln was really a vampire hunter? I think that would make an awesome movie. Oh wait?!

I haven't seen that one, Rattler, but it sounds like a "must see"!

One of my favorite movies featuring Lincoln is the little known and less understood fourth installment of The Matrix.

[CENTER][font="Arial Black"]"Four score and seven years ago, he took the RED pill..."[/font]

[ATTACH]17367[/ATTACH][/CENTER]

I'll call you, and raise you Mae:

Ah, that may not have been so wise, Stauffenberg! ...Did you notice the alien spacecraft at the edge of the "Grizzly Cav" picture of Lincoln? Look closely at the left side of the picture!

In any event, I'll have to fold, and cash my chips. Otherwise, I'm going to be cashiered as Queen, for having so badly derailed a thread!

My sincere apologies for such an egregious thread hijack, gentlemen. If anyone sincerely feels that the dignity of this thread has been irrevocably compromised, please let me know with a PM, and I'll see if we can't have this late bout of insanity placed in a separate thread.

We now return to our regularly scheduled plausible "what ifs..."

[Stauffenberg]

Ah, that may not have been so wise, Stauffenberg! ...Did you notice the alien spacecraft at the edge of the "Grizzly Cav" picture of Lincoln? Look closely at the left side of the picture!

I won't underestimate your subtle designs in future... wait, are those hieroglyphs I see in the Matrix-like poster backdrop behind Lincoln...?
And the brilliant green light suspiciously matches up exactly with my cat photo to the left here...

In any event, I'll have to fold, and cash my chips. Otherwise, I'm going to be cashiered as Queen, for having so badly derailed a thread!

What if... the thread had been left to languish? Clearly, the thread needed to be revivified, and who better to accomplish the mission.

[Stauffenberg]

And so let's carry on...
Step on up with your what-if's gentlemen.

I'll lead off here with one I have often thought about.

In May '63 Jackson was wounded as per history, but it was a minor flesh wound and he recovered quickly.
Meanwhile, President Davis was confronted with reports of acute problems with Bragg and his subordinates out West and had dispatched Johnston to check this out. After listening to all sides, Davis consulted with Lee who, after the great Confederate victory at Chancellorsville, resulting from Jackson's smashing assault upon Hooker's right wing, recommended that Jackson be promoted and sent to command the Army of the Tennessee. This was done forthwith, Jackson replacing Bragg in time for Chickamauga.

I don't think it takes much imagination to envision what Jackson could have accomplished in this battle, arriving with his prestige (and Longstreet's Corps). It might have been one of the few non-siege, near total destruction of an opposing army in the field, in the entire Civil War.

The what-if I would be keen to explore here, would be the subsequent campaign for Atlanta, with Sherman vs Jackson.

Thoughts and game experiences on this welcome.

[GraniteStater]

Here's a serious W-IF.

What if Joseph Lister had implemented his approach to sterile surgery and recovery in the 1850s instead of 1867?

Would've been an entirely different world, medically.

[Philippe]

I've never worried my head about this one before because it wasn't going to happen.

But what if Robert E. Lee had put duty to his country above duty to his state when Winfield Scott made the offer? [The question is probably absurd because in Lee's mind, Virginia was his country].

I suppose it means that Lee, rather than McDowell, would have lead the clumsy invasion that ended at First Bull Run. But would he have had any more success in resisting the call for immediate invasion? Or would he have ended up as a corps commander with a tarnished reputation?

[tagwyn]

Lee in Western theatre? Nonsense! He would have refused to serve there IMHO. t

[Philippe]

My bad. I was confusing Scott's offer with Francis Blair's offer to command the defense of Washington. Which was impossible, of course, because it would have meant fighting against Virginia.

But imagine First Bull Run happening a few months later than it did, and with Lee in command of the Union army.

In the best case scenario the Union army still wouldn't have marched into Richmond, but the worst case probably wouldn't have been as bad as what actually happened.

I wonder what would have happened next.

[Stauffenberg]

Lee in Western theatre? Nonsense! He would have refused to serve there IMHO. t

Perhaps so. But Lee might have accepted a personal plea from Davis to take command in the West on an emergency short-term basis, with the understanding that he return to resume command in Virginia as soon as feasible. Lee was not the sort to disobey a direct order from his president; and neither was Davis likely to ride roughshod over the clear preferences of his most prized general.
Compromise gentlemen, a compromise must be reached in the nation's hour of need...

[Longshanks]

I don't think it takes much imagination to envision what Jackson could have accomplished in this battle, arriving with his prestige (and Longstreet's Corps). It might have been one of the few non-siege, near total destruction of an opposing army in the field, in the entire Civil War.

The what-if I would be keen to explore here, would be the subsequent campaign for Atlanta, with Sherman vs Jackson.

Thoughts and game experiences on this welcome.

My game experience is that Jackson and Longstreet both make excellent army commanders, second only to Lee himself, so I'm agreeing with Stauffenberg. You can send Joe Johnston or Bory to Missouri or Texas or New Orleans. For details, see the "Unfortunate Series of General Swaps" thread.

[Banks6060]

If Jackson gets to Three Stars, or Longstreet for that matter. It only makes sense to send them abroad, IMHO. You do your best to put your best commanders where you need them the most. Make Bory and "The Johnstons" your eastern Corps Commanders.

BUT, had Jackson gone west in history, it may have been a double edged sword. At Chickamauga, might Jackson have likely have pushed Thomas a little too hard...costing his troops and his army??

As much as Jackson had success...it was often at a pretty nasty cost to his command. Not that I would see Jackson's command going as poorly as Hood's did in the west, (Hood was working with far less than adequate resources)....I certainly think it would have been bloody for both sides though.

[Stauffenberg]

If Jackson gets to Three Stars, or Longstreet for that matter. It only makes sense to send them abroad, IMHO. You do your best to put your best commanders where you need them the most. Make Bory and "The Johnstons" your eastern Corps Commanders.

BUT, had Jackson gone west in history, it may have been a double edged sword. At Chickamauga, might Jackson have likely have pushed Thomas a little too hard...costing his troops and his army??

As much as Jackson had success...it was often at a pretty nasty cost to his command. Not that I would see Jackson's command going as poorly as Hood's did in the west, (Hood was working with far less than adequate resources)....I certainly think it would have been bloody for both sides though.

Well it was almost always at a nasty cost as you know, and the game shows that up well as you often find yourself thinking "that's ok!"when you lose 14,000 to your opponent's 7,000, but you got +4 NM and a slew of promotions...

If Jackson's attack at Chancellorsville had been launched 2-3 hours earlier I think Hooker's entire right wing would have been pulverized with thousands of dazed prisoners in the bag, and the rest desperately trying to get across the Rappahanock á la Manassas...

And Rosy unwittingly presenting Jackson with a division-wide hole in his line at Chickamauga? It almost gives me goosebumps imagining an 8 brigade assault through that gap with Jackson torching it up from behind "keepin the skeer on." Jackson was not Bragg and would not have had the slightest hesitation in going for broke through to the Tennessee R.. Rosecrans would have been in far worse shape than "a duck hit on the head" (Lincoln's assessment after the battle): he would have likely been a duck without a head. Thomas would have been surrounded and annihilated eventually. A completely crushing Confederate victory in the West would have changed the course of the entire war. Almost any cost in Confederate casualties would have made that result worth it.

I'm not idealizing Jackson (well not too much ), but he was always determined to push the enemy, at all costs, towards total collapse in the same ruthless way Forrest was, and with the three stars and an army, in an ideal situation here, to do it with.

[GraniteStater]

Read Grant's Memoirs. His assesment of Jackson was that he was a very effective commander who, however, had made his reputation against Fremont and Banks. If Jackson had faced Sherman or Sheridan, Grant felt, the result may have been different.

I am a huge Grant fan. He is, and not just in my opinion, the outstanding commander of the ACW. Sherman may well have done as well, and maybe even better than Grant, maybe, but Billy himself felt that Grant had earned his stars and position and no one better could be in his office.

Grant and Sherman were the two officers who, earlier and more clearly than any others, saw what war was in the mid-ninteenth century. They prosecuted and won the world's first modern general war.

Lee and Jackson have a romantic aura - exactly that, an aura. No one on the Confederate side, with the exception of Benjamin Judah, grasped what was before them. They lost because of that inability, that and other reasons; a cold hard look at what they had in hand in the spring of 1861 should have told them not to start a war when they had no navy, very few factories and nothing in abundance except arrogance, to paraphrase Rhett Butler. A realistic assesment of the diplomatic scene should have told them that the British Empire, which had abolished slavery 30 years earlier, was not going to war for a slavocracy, no matter how little cotton they got from the South; the world's leading industrial power was certainly capable of other solutions, which they quickly effected, in Egypt and India.

If you think about it, Lee's reputation rests almost entirely on the events of one year, from June 1862 to June 1863. He never won after Chancellorsville. Jackson was sorely missed; a living Jackson in Pennsylvania would have been a distinct difference.

The amazing thing is that the CSA lasted as long as it did. The Lord works in mysterious ways, his wonders to behold; a Union victory at First Bull Run, the complete destruction of Lee at Antietam, might have produced a Union with slavery mitigated but not abolished outright. I personally think that the reasons for it unfolding the way it did can never be fully grasped by our mortal and finite intellects.

My rankings:

Grant
Sherman
Lee/Joe Johnston
Jackson/Sheridan/Thomas

with Longstreet, Hooker, Rosecrans, Meade as the outstanding Corps commanders (IOW, leaders who did best at executing another's plans, with a big asterisk for Longstreet, who would've been an excellent Army commander, I think), and Forrest as a leader who is sui generis.

Not arguing here - just trotting some thoughts out.

[wsatterwhite]

And so let's carry on...
Step on up with your what-if's gentlemen.

I'll lead off here with one I have often thought about.

In May '63 Jackson was wounded as per history, but it was a minor flesh wound and he recovered quickly.
Meanwhile, President Davis was confronted with reports of acute problems with Bragg and his subordinates out West and had dispatched Johnston to check this out. After listening to all sides, Davis consulted with Lee who, after the great Confederate victory at Chancellorsville, resulting from Jackson's smashing assault upon Hooker's right wing, recommended that Jackson be promoted and sent to command the Army of the Tennessee. This was done forthwith, Jackson replacing Bragg in time for Chickamauga.

I don't think it takes much imagination to envision what Jackson could have accomplished in this battle, arriving with his prestige (and Longstreet's Corps). It might have been one of the few non-siege, near total destruction of an opposing army in the field, in the entire Civil War.

The what-if I would be keen to explore here, would be the subsequent campaign for Atlanta, with Sherman vs Jackson.

Thoughts and game experiences on this welcome.

Considering Jackson's own prickly nature and the highly politicized nature of the Army of Tennessee high command, the same dysfunction that plagued Bragg's command might have persisted under Jackson- if not becoming worse. Also, the mere presence of Stonewall Jackson isn't going to suddenly turn Bishop Polk into, well, Stonewall Jackson .

One other thing regarding Jackson in the West, as GraniteStater points out, Grant noted that certain generals had their reputations inflated by the opponents they faced. While Bragg and his crew certainly had issues, the guys on the other side of the field were a big reason why battles like Shiloh, Stones River, Chickamauga and Atlanta (Bald Hill) turned out the way they did instead of going down in history as smashing victories (or in the case of Chickamauga, a wasted victory). Putting Jackson in command at Chancellorsville, how would he handle it when instead of a complete rout like the Bull Run battles, the devastating rebel assault leaves a good portion of the Union Army in a strong position on Horseshoe Ridge ready and willing to stand and fight?

[GraniteStater]

Indeed, C-ville could well have been the end of the Confederacy, at least in Virginia. Lee divided his force in the face of superior strength; I don't fault Hooker, there is such a thing as prudence, but one thrust forward in the center that day woud've caught the ANV divided and almost certainly defeated in detail.

Lee gambled, apparently knew his man, and won. Lee was audacious, of that there is no doubt.

"L'audace, plus l'audace, toujour l'audace."

[Stauffenberg]

Read Grant's Memoirs. His assesment of Jackson was that he was a very effective commander who, however, had made his reputation against Fremont and Banks. If Jackson had faced Sherman or Sheridan, Grant felt, the result may have been different.

I am a huge Grant fan. He is, and not just in my opinion, the outstanding commander of the ACW. Sherman may well have done as well, and maybe even better than Grant, maybe, but Billy himself felt that Grant had earned his stars and position and no one better could be in his office.

Grant and Sherman were the two officers who, earlier and more clearly than any others, saw what war was in the mid-ninteenth century. They prosecuted and won the world's first modern general war.

Lee and Jackson have a romantic aura - exactly that, an aura. No one on the Confederate side, with the exception of Benjamin Judah, grasped what was before them. They lost because of that inability, that and other reasons; a cold hard look at what they had in hand in the spring of 1861 should have told them not to start a war when they had no navy, very few factories and nothing in abundance except arrogance, to paraphrase Rhett Butler. A realistic assesment of the diplomatic scene should have told them that the British Empire, which had abolished slavery 30 years earlier, was not going to war for a slavocracy, no matter how little cotton they got from the South; the world's leading industrial power was certainly capable of other solutions, which they quickly effected, in Egypt and India.

If you think about it, Lee's reputation rests almost entirely on the events of one year, from June 1862 to June 1863. He never won after Chancellorsville. Jackson was sorely missed; a living Jackson in Pennsylvania would have been a distinct difference.

The amazing thing is that the CSA lasted as long as it did. The Lord works in mysterious ways, his wonders to behold; a Union victory at First Bull Run, the complete destruction of Lee at Antietam, might have produced a Union with slavery mitigated but not abolished outright. I personally think that the reasons for it unfolding the way it did can never be fully grasped by our mortal and finite intellects.

My rankings:

Grant
Sherman
Lee/Joe Johnston
Jackson/Sheridan/Thomas

with Longstreet, Hooker, Rosecrans, Meade as the outstanding Corps commanders (IOW, leaders who did best at executing another's plans, with a big asterisk for Longstreet, who would've been an excellent Army commander, I think), and Forrest as a leader who is sui generis.

Not arguing here - just trotting some thoughts out.

No, not arguing here either, not the old Grant vs. Lee comparison, as such. You make some strong points and I'll just post some of my thoughts.

Grant to me was like the QB brought in after half time to save a game that looked like it might be lost. He had no great throwing arm, no long bombs, but an excellent running game, which he used over and over. He was incredibly tenacious in refusing to pass the ball over, but rather risking, and usually getting, a new 1st down.

He was at his best out west; however, in the east against Lee he almost destroyed his army, and the north politically, in losing 60,000 + men from Wilderness to Petersburg. The South could have won that war politically, and nearly did in my view. One doesn’t have to take my word for it--Lincoln himself thought it was all over in '64. It's rather pat and easy to state in retrospect that the South had no chance, using the usual arguments about industry, manpower etc (and all very good arguments by the by). But, as you observed, they remarkably hung in there against all odds and gave the north a close run for it, politically. Perhaps this outcome was not so unlikely as is often believed.

How could Lee win militarily by '64 given the force disparities? In fact he didn't have to, he just had to keep his army as a viable force between Washington and Richmond, apparently able to endlessly inflict a high casualty rate upon his adversary. Wilderness to Petersburg= roughly 61,000 Union losses to 35,000 Confederate. By Petersburg Grant's army was nowhere near the same force he started with, and this in terms of quality not just numbers. Many of his veterans were gone for various reasons. If Sherman had been halted, rebuffed, or defeated in front of Atlanta in '64 there were excellent odds Lincoln would not have been re-elected. An end to the fighting, and de facto recognition of the South's right to exist is all that is needed for a complete Southern victory.

Grant was brilliant at Vicksburg, but was lucky not to have been up against a Jackson or Lee out there. He was in the same league as Lee, Jackson, Forrest and others, in that he was not going to lose his nerve over casualties and let a victory slip through his grasp. In the larger macro-historical view of the two armies of that war--Grant was perhaps more indispensable for eventual Union victory, than Lee was for the South, and that is saying a lot.

I think Lee is over-rated in ways. He was a hothead, a bloody commander at times, and Longstreet had more of the winning ticket by '64 if it could have been played out his way. A few more Cold Harbours and the North would have been sickened by the whole ordeal. Lee was rash heading north, his attacks at Gettysburg were foolhardy, but in a way it doesn't matter. He was brilliant when he needed to be, and his army had the highest morale of any elite group of men until, perhaps, Rommel's Afrika Korps. Many of his men would have "attacked hell itself for that old man" to paraphrase one of his soldiers--would they have done so for Grant? Not after Cold Harbour they wouldn't have. They were trench and charge-shy at that point, and they settled into trench warfare perfectly foreshadowing WW I.

And Jackson--his campaign in the Shenandoah proves he was one of the most exceptional generals of the war. Chancellorsville was Lee and Jackson, the earlier Valley campaigns were just Jackson, and he shines like no other general except... well other Confederate officers like Forrest of course, Stuart... really the spectacle of almost the entire brains and genius of a country's officer corps literally "going south" is what makes this war so fascinating. On the basis of that, I would submit, it’s amazing the north did not finally lose the war. If there had been no Grant or Sherman, then what? That is putting an awful lot of eggs in one basket. The South had truly outstanding officers galore--the North did not.

Good point about Grant's memoirs, those are long overdue for me to read. It's hard not to admire and like that rumpled unpretentious personage of his, I admit.

[Stauffenberg]

Indeed, C-ville could well have been the end of the Confederacy, at least in Virginia. Lee divided his force in the face of superior strength; I don't fault Hooker, there is such a thing as prudence, but one thrust forward in the center that day woud've caught the ANV divided and almost certainly defeated in detail.

Lee gambled, apparently knew his man, and won. Lee was audacious, of that there is no doubt.

"L'audace, plus l'audace, toujour l'audace."

The issue is a bit moot I think: if Hooker had been the type, or had the inclination, to charge ahead and keep the initiative, Lee would have perceived this and changed his plans accordingly. To my mind, the Chancellorsville victory is similar to Rommel at Gazala. Both were gambles that aimed straight at complete victory if they succeeded, and a severe defeat if they did not.

[GraniteStater]

Good observations. You and I could wag about this for weeks, I'm sure.

And read the Memoirs. You are informed to begin with, and these will be a fascinating read. They are, also, the greatest work of nonfiction at length by an American in the nineteenth century. He's an outstanding writer, a model of clarity and style. Many of his colleagues felt no one knew how to write an order better, giving the recipient scope for initiative, but also clear and including all pertinent details.

He is so good, you don't even need the maps. I would use the Memoirs in an expository writing class as a touchstone.

[gchristie]

I've always found these two quotes to be quite illuminating about Grant and Sherman, and their relationship to one another. The thing that draws me to the Civil War are the characters involved and their characters revealed. It is our Iliad, in my opinion, though it lacks its Homer.

[font="Georgia"]Earlier, in October 1864, while visiting with Brigadier General James H. Wilson, Sherman contrasted his generalship with Grant's:[/font]

"Wilson, I am a damn sight smarter than Grant. I know a great deal more about organization, supply, and administration, and about everything else than he does. But I tell you where he beats me, and where he beats the world. He don't care a damn for what the enemy does out of his sight, but it scares me like hell.... I am more nervous than he is, I am more likely to change my orders, or to countermarch my command than he is. He uses such information as he has, according to his best judgment. He issues orders and does his level best to carry them out without much reference to what is going on about him. And, so far, experience seems to have fully justified.''

[font="Georgia"]Grant speaks of these matters of military history and judgment, as if in dialogue with Sherman, when he observes:[/font]

"Some of our generals failed because they worked out everything by rule. They knew what Frederick did at one place, and Napoleon at another. They were always thinking about what Napoleon would do. Unfortunately for their plans, the rebels would be thinking about something else. I don't underrate the value of military knowledge, but if men make war in slavish observances to rules, they will fail. No rules will apply to conditions of war as different as those which exist in Europe and America. Consequently, while our generals were working out problems of an ideal character, problems that would have looked well on a blackboard, practical facts were neglected. To that extent I consider remembrances of old campaigns a disadvantage. Even Napoleon showed that, for my impression, that his first success came because he made war in his own way, and not in imitation of others. War is progressive.''

[Longshanks]

"The fact remains and cannot be dislodged that General Grant's book is a great, unique and unapproachable literary masterpiece. There is no higher literature than these modest, simple Memoirs. Their style is at least flawless, and no man can improve upon it."
-Mark Twain

[GraniteStater]

I've read them three times. He is, quite simply, superb.

[Stauffenberg]

Not out to be a contrarian here, at all. But how does one reconcile the obvious superb qualities of Grant the general with his awful legacy as president later on... All these corruption scandals, in particular the Whiskey Ring Scandal, seem to conjure up that dark side of Grant that had haunted him at the beginning of the war, and perhaps throughout. This does not indict his better traits, but renders him in a more sympathetic light as a human being, at least during the war. Not sure about his presidency.

By the same token the "marble man" mythology about Lee is best tempered with a closer look at his flaws; hard not to come away with the impression, however, that a Lee presidency would not have been rocked by all those scandals.

And now my own favourite quotation about Grant:

"He habitually wears an expression as if he had determined to drive his head through a brick wall, and was about to do it."
- Col. Theodore Lyman