Civil War what if
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
Not much, the brief forays into Northern Territory may have not happened with the Army of Virgina. But the Northern states would still have industry and a naval choke hold on their side. So the long term result would ultimately most likely turned out the same. This is like saying what would happen if all Confederate field officers wore sandals the entire war what impact that would make.
Good chance the blockade would have eventually strangled the Confederacy in a purly military senario, but... I believe the War was won/lost in the West. The Confed generals in the west, for the most part wern't @ the top of thier game. With more competant a leader than Bragg....as it was it took the idiocy of Hood that gave Atlanta to Sherman in turn giving Lincoln reelection. With better Gens & a few more Chickamaugas....a political victory might have happen for the CSA vs military defeat. More to it than a glib dismissal that the sandals comment was.
Partisan
Active member
Entirely possible, but the Confederates had to work with what they had - generals, valiant volunteers and limited resources. So if they had, had more "leaders of quality" whom should they have had? How would they have developed them and what would have been the "dream team".
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
True having more potent general, and even at the colonel level officers in the field in the west, the Confederates could have conducted guerrilla and "hit em where they ain't" tactics to surprising effect.
But sadly I think that discussion would lead to a topic outside this thread.
(o and kudos on the sandals comment
)
But sadly I think that discussion would lead to a topic outside this thread.
(o and kudos on the sandals comment
)
Korean Seaboy
Active member
The confederates would have still lost, but only would have taken longer
Mark Conley
Active member
Its interesting...but i feel it may have given the south an advantage:
war depends upon two things most desperatly when you are playing on your home turf: Massing the men quickly and effectivly to confront, flank, and annilate the opposing forces. the second is maintaining a valid and clear line of communication with your superiors in the political control area. having a centralised capital deep in the south was probably more ideal than some think.
Montgomery was the hub city of the south at that time. The roads leading in and out of montgomery were pretty much like todays modern city, allowing for the rapid ingress of telegraph, train, and horse carried postal. Thus, communications could be delayed to the front in virginia, but rapidly assessed east, west and south, especially with mobile, atlanta, vicksburg, and new orleans.
Along with the ease in communications was the sub presence of industry not under threat of attack. In birminham, they mine iron ore and make iron: tredger in virgina was just a manufacturer. the presence of cotton, naval supplys such as pine wood, turpintine, and cotton, would have been centrally under the watchful eyes of the confederate government: this may have ensured its rapid and more unobtrusive use in the war effort, as opposed to a more lukewarm response it got later in the war.
I always felt that Lee was artifically handicapped with having to worry too much about richmond under attack. While not tied to the richmond capital area with his troops, Gen Robert E. Lee was alway cautious of a sudden and quick attack on richmond, which was just 90 miles or so from the dreaded union in Washington, DC. certainly this fed into much of his main battle strategys throughout the war.
So...whats it all mean? I think that if they would have kept the capital in montgomery, they might have stood a better chance against the union. Still, it was the Norths willingness to throw so much men and weapons against the south that really broke its back.
war depends upon two things most desperatly when you are playing on your home turf: Massing the men quickly and effectivly to confront, flank, and annilate the opposing forces. the second is maintaining a valid and clear line of communication with your superiors in the political control area. having a centralised capital deep in the south was probably more ideal than some think.
Montgomery was the hub city of the south at that time. The roads leading in and out of montgomery were pretty much like todays modern city, allowing for the rapid ingress of telegraph, train, and horse carried postal. Thus, communications could be delayed to the front in virginia, but rapidly assessed east, west and south, especially with mobile, atlanta, vicksburg, and new orleans.
Along with the ease in communications was the sub presence of industry not under threat of attack. In birminham, they mine iron ore and make iron: tredger in virgina was just a manufacturer. the presence of cotton, naval supplys such as pine wood, turpintine, and cotton, would have been centrally under the watchful eyes of the confederate government: this may have ensured its rapid and more unobtrusive use in the war effort, as opposed to a more lukewarm response it got later in the war.
I always felt that Lee was artifically handicapped with having to worry too much about richmond under attack. While not tied to the richmond capital area with his troops, Gen Robert E. Lee was alway cautious of a sudden and quick attack on richmond, which was just 90 miles or so from the dreaded union in Washington, DC. certainly this fed into much of his main battle strategys throughout the war.
So...whats it all mean? I think that if they would have kept the capital in montgomery, they might have stood a better chance against the union. Still, it was the Norths willingness to throw so much men and weapons against the south that really broke its back.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I don't think it would have mattered where they put the capital as they lacked the manpower, infrastructure and industrial base to fight a protracted war.
I also think people tend to romanticise Lee as some great leader who given more would have led the South to victory when in reality he never won an offensive battle and was overly cautous throughout the war, I personally think the South lost its best General when Jackson was killed.
In the end as long as the North had the will to fight the South was doomed.
I also think people tend to romanticise Lee as some great leader who given more would have led the South to victory when in reality he never won an offensive battle and was overly cautous throughout the war, I personally think the South lost its best General when Jackson was killed.
In the end as long as the North had the will to fight the South was doomed.
In theory North Vietnam couldn't have won either, but Wars can be won politically. Lincoln might not have been reelected in Bragg had puished on after Chickamauga & destroyed the Union Army & retaken Tennessee, leaving the deep South Yankee free come election time. As it was Sherman only got it with a couple months to spare.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Not entirely true as North Vietnam still had open supply lines and fought a war that suited its combat ability, the Southern States on the other hand had next to no industrial base and was blockaded effectively by the North therefore it was impossible to keep a large army in the field and on the offensive thus the only war the Southern States could have fought was a defensive one and they failed to do that.
The Southern States could not win as long as the North had the will to fight and I can not think of any stage between 1861 and 1865 where they lost the will to fight even after the poor showing of 1861-62.
I think people much like they do Lee have painted the South in a very romantic light but the reality is that it is only through Northern ineptitude at command level that war was not over by 1863.