American Civil War What-If...

[ksf1973]

Consider this:

1st Battle of Bull Run:

Federal forces overrun and destroy Jackson's brigade, killing him in the process.

The popular conception is that the heroic stand of this brigade helped rally the wavering Confederate forces, enabling the counter-attack that won the South this battle. If Jackson was out of the picture, would that have been enough to break the whole Confederate line?

On the long term, would a Federal victory at 1st Bull Run have enabled an advance to, and conquest of, Richmond, and would this have been enough to cripple the Confederacy and finish the war in "90 days"?

[asnrobert]

Considering the inexperience of Union troops and leadership, I don't foresee them being able to capitalize on a victory at Bull Run, just like the South was unable to capitalize on its victory and advance on Washington.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Consider this:

1st Battle of Bull Run:

Federal forces overrun and destroy Jackson's brigade, killing him in the process.

The popular conception is that the heroic stand of this brigade helped rally the wavering Confederate forces, enabling the counter-attack that won the South this battle. If Jackson was out of the picture, would that have been enough to break the whole Confederate line?

On the long term, would a Federal victory at 1st Bull Run have enabled an advance to, and conquest of, Richmond, and would this have been enough to cripple the Confederacy and finish the war in "90 days"?

Kristian:

Robert has addressed this fairly well and it is somewhat ironic that we debated just the opposite event over the winter (ask DJ about how that turned out LOL!). Point being considering the size of the conflict, just taking one city probably would not be enough. I doubt Confederate convictions could be so easily shaken. It took the relentless grinding of at least four years of war and defeats to start to cause the South to doubt the possibilities of victory.

[old_pop2000]

Consider this:

1st Battle of Bull Run:

Federal forces overrun and destroy Jackson's brigade, killing him in the process.

The popular conception is that the heroic stand of this brigade helped rally the wavering Confederate forces, enabling the counter-attack that won the South this battle. If Jackson was out of the picture, would that have been enough to break the whole Confederate line?

On the long term, would a Federal victory at 1st Bull Run have enabled an advance to, and conquest of, Richmond, and would this have been enough to cripple the Confederacy and finish the war in "90 days"?
First question: If Jackson is dead and his brigade overrun, what happens? Beauregard probably retreats down the Alexandria Railroad over the Rappahanock occupying either Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville. Neither side had an overwhelming numerical advantage. In fact, the Union had 35,000 men and the Confederates had 32,000 men however, only 18,000 men were involved in the battle. Jackson's death means nothing, other than a good brigade and commander are killed and destroyed. Like all commanders, Jackson had much to learn.

Second question: Could the Army of the Potomac have advanced to Richmond? Probably not, it is south of Fredericksburg on the James River and McDowell would have had to cross the Rappahanock first, not an easy task at this juncture.

The armies would have stalemated, with neither side being able to move much farther. McDowell was not strong enough to cross the Rappahanock at either location or Brandystation. The position is a strong one, up and down the river. Beauregard and Johnson would have been falling back on the their supply station, while the Federals are increasing theirs, so I see stalemate. McDowell might attempt a crossing and lose the battle there and be forced to retreat or simply occupy northern side of the river. This would allow Washington time to gather more troops and supplies.

[djcyclone]

The only thing I see out of this scenario is Lee being less successful later on in the war. It is thriorized that he was depressed after Jackson actually did die, so if Jackson had died earlier in the war maybe Lee would have been effected earlier as well, and thus would not have been able to hurt the Union in the way he did. Just a thought.

[djcyclone]

Kristian:

Robert has addressed this fairly well and it is somewhat ironic that we debated just the opposite event over the winter (ask DJ about how that turned out LOL!). Point being considering the size of the conflict, just taking one city probably would not be enough. I doubt Confederate convictions could be so easily shaken. It took the relentless grinding of at least four years of war and defeats to start to cause the South to doubt the possibilities of victory.



What do you mean ask DJ? You never did convince me that I was wrong. Your argument was just as hypothisized as mine was. Nice try though.

It all just comes down to opinion when dealing with what if's in history. The sad truth is we can argue and argue, but we will never know who is right or wrong, so why bother.

[asnrobert]

What do you mean ask DJ? You never did convince me that I was wrong. Your argument was just as hypothisized as mine was. Nice try though.

It all just comes down to opinion when dealing with what if's in history. The sad truth is we can argue and argue, but we will never know who is right or wrong, so why bother.

I think what Ed meant was that the discussion got a tad heated (no name calling but everyone sticking to their guns).

As Dennis has said before (on the old forum anyway) was that history does not occur in a vacuum: if you change one factor, it will have an effect on other factors as well.

[Warship NWS]

What do you mean ask DJ? You never did convince me that I was wrong. Your argument was just as hypothisized as mine was. Nice try though.

It all just comes down to opinion when dealing with what if's in history. The sad truth is we can argue and argue, but we will never know who is right or wrong, so why bother.

DJ, a piece of friendly advice, and no offense intended, relax a little. Ed did have a "LOL!" included in his comment so we was not trying to be rude. Remember, these are forums not face to face conversations where body language and facial expressions are readily apparent. Yes, debates can get passionate and even a little heated and so long as they do not get personal that is fine. Ed can be a little feisty at times but nothing personal is meant by it. If you think there is a problem direct the matter to me personally and I will handle it accordingly as needed.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Just to remind everyone, alternate history is interesting and can be instructive. However, history can and does have many variables, that must be explored and understood. History is not created in a vacuum. There are many variables that are subtle and unseen, that can contribute to the march of history. When engaging in alternate history, ensure that you have explored those variable. Also, remember that changing one variable will probably generate many more.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Just to remind everyone, alternate history is interesting and can be instructive. However, history can and does have many variables, that must be explored and understood. History is not created in a vacuum. There are many variables that are subtle and unseen, that can contribute to the march of history. When engaging in alternate history, ensure that you have explored those variable. Also, remember that changing one variable will probably generate many more.

Dennis:

Every historical action has an equal and opposite reaction to paraphrase a great scientist.

[ksf1973]

My personal view of this is similar to you guys, that the Union might have won 1st Bull Run, but it wouldn't have won them the war out of hand. Low quality of soldiery, command and control and logistics would have kept the Federals from exploiting.

[djcyclone]

DJ, a piece of friendly advice, and no offense intended, relax a little. Ed did have a "LOL!" included in his comment so we was not trying to be rude. Remember, these are forums not face to face conversations where body language and facial expressions are readily apparent. Yes, debates can get passionate and even a little heated and so long as they do not get personal that is fine. Ed can be a little feisty at times but nothing personal is meant by it. If you think there is a problem direct the matter to me personally and I will handle it accordingly as needed.

Thanks.



Actually I was not even upset when I read that post or when I responded too it. I did get upset in some of the first post that Ed responded too, but never to the point of being angry.

I do not see these post as being arguments, but simply sharing ideas. If someone disagrees with someone else, they should simply put " I disagree, and this is why"

I do tend to get upset when someone consistantly trys to change another persons opinion, but that was not the case in this post.

I suppose I should have put a smiley face or something, but I was tired, and I had to get up in two hours to go too work. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Warship NWS]

I suppose I should have put a smiley face or something, but I was tired, and I had to get up in two hours to go too work. Sorry for the misunderstanding.


No problem.. take care friend.

[old_pop2000]

My personal view of this is similar to you guys, that the Union might have won 1st Bull Run, but it wouldn't have won them the war out of hand. Low quality of soldiery, command and control and logistics would have kept the Federals from exploiting.
The key to winning the war was in the west and there was no real strategic actions occuring until 1862. I don't see any real strategic advantages being gained in the narrow battle area of the east.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Actually I was not even upset when I read that post or when I responded too it. I did get upset in some of the first post that Ed responded too, but never to the point of being angry.

I do not see these post as being arguments, but simply sharing ideas. If someone disagrees with someone else, they should simply put " I disagree, and this is why"

I do tend to get upset when someone consistantly trys to change another persons opinion, but that was not the case in this post.

I suppose I should have put a smiley face or something, but I was tired, and I had to get up in two hours to go too work. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

DJ:

Don't worry about it, I considered it a non-issue. That's why I didn't respond.;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

My personal view of this is similar to you guys, that the Union might have won 1st Bull Run, but it wouldn't have won them the war out of hand. Low quality of soldiery, command and control and logistics would have kept the Federals from exploiting.

Kristian:

I don't believe at that time period there was any knock out blow that either side could have inflicted on the other to win the war overnight. As you mention all the issues of soldier quality, logistics and very importantly size of the armies would make it impossible to knock either side out. There was just too much area to fall back on and regroup. Also I don't think that the Confederacy, which was really a defensive alliance when you examine it, had that much of an attachment to Richmond as the US did to Washington DC. Viriginians would have been disheartened but probably would use it as a rallying point for the cause. I will allow that the loss of Jackson that early in the war would have possibly made some Southern victories impossible. Second Bull Run comes to mind here. But then again, its possible another of Lee's generals might have had greatness thrust upon him. A more modern example is that of General Bernard Montgomery. He only got command of the 8th Army because the first choice, General William Gott died when his transport was shot down.

[Ed Rotondaro]

The key to winning the war was in the west and there was no real strategic actions occuring until 1862. I don't see any real strategic advantages being gained in the narrow battle area of the east.


Dennis:

Interesting how General Scott's "Anaconda Strategy" worked perfectly. It's too bad it took the US so long to find the competent generals to execute it.

[old_pop2000]

Dennis:

Interesting how General Scott's "Anaconda Strategy" worked perfectly. It's too bad it took the US so long to find the competent generals to execute it.
Actually, Scott wanted 60,000 men to move down the Mississippi, securing the waterway and New Orleans then stop. After that, he just wanted a waiting game. In that sense, the plan was or would have been a failure. Only military action to defeat the Southern coalition of states was going to finish the Confederacy. No blockade is completely fool proof and the wait, would have made the South stronger. Only military action could attrit her men and resources to end the conflict.

[asnrobert]

I will allow that the loss of Jackson that early in the war would have possibly made some Southern victories impossible. Second Bull Run comes to mind here.

Don't forget Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign. He defeated three Union Armies and threw Washington into a panic. Without his successful campaign there, Lincoln might have been persuaded to send McClellan the additional forces he requested, and the Peninsula campaign might have turned out differently (but that's a big if, knowing McClellan). Also, if the Union was able to occupy the Shenandoah Valley (the "breadbasket of the Confederacy") earlier, how would this have affected the Southern war effort.

[ksf1973]

What was it Stanton said about McLellan on the peninsula?

"If he had a million men, he'd be convinced the enemy had two million, and sit in the mud and howl for three million".

McLellan was not a good general, or human being.

[old_pop2000]

Don't forget Jackson's Shenandoah Valley campaign. He defeated three Union Armies and threw Washington into a panic. Without his successful campaign there, Lincoln might have been persuaded to send McClellan the additional forces he requested, and the Peninsula campaign might have turned out differently (but that's a big if, knowing McClellan). Also, if the Union was able to occupy the Shenandoah Valley (the "breadbasket of the Confederacy") earlier, how would this have affected the Southern war effort.

This is an alternate history, where the ANV is forced to retreat in defeat from 1st Manassas. We cannot say for certain, the Shenandoah Valley campaign would have ever occurred in such a scenario. With new requirements to rebuild the ANV after the defeat and protect the Rappahanock River line and Richmond, any thought of sending another punitive expedition to the Shenandoah Valley might have to wait. 1st Manassas occurred in July 1861, but the Shenandoah Valley campaign did not take place until around May-June 1862.

We know that a lackluster winter campaign was waged by the Confederates. But with the requirements to reinforce, retrain and equip the army after the defeat, Confederate strategy might have had to wait. They may have lost the initiative, after 1st Manassas.

Again, we just don't have enough information to make a reasonable assessment of the next course of the war.

[Citadelvette]

The only thing I see out of this scenario is Lee being less successful later on in the war. It is thriorized that he was depressed after Jackson actually did die, so if Jackson had died earlier in the war maybe Lee would have been effected earlier as well, and thus would not have been able to hurt the Union in the way he did. Just a thought.

I don't think Lee would be affected, Jackson's death so early would mena their relationship never developed. Lee at the time was Davis' military advisor, Johnston commanded the army.

[Citadelvette]

What was it Stanton said about McLellan on the peninsula?

"If he had a million men, he'd be convinced the enemy had two million, and sit in the mud and howl for three million".

McLellan was not a good general, or human being.

I disagree about the good general part. A good combat comander he was not. But he was a good organizer, logistician, and trainer. He was way to cautious in the field and much to afarid to risk the army he built and major fault. But had he never commanded and just organized and trained armies and logistics he would most likley not become a political figure and "Little Mac's" military reputation might have been better. For the record I'm not a McLellan fan or advocate by any means and I think he hurt more than he helped. But I gotta give the devil his due on this one.:(

[old_pop2000]

I disagree about the good general part. A good combat comander he was not. But he was a good organizer, logistician, and trainer. He was way to cautious in the field and much to afarid to risk the army he built and major fault. But had he never commanded and just organized and trained armies and logistics he would most likley not become a political figure and "Little Mac's" military reputation might have been better. For the record I'm not a McLellan fan or advocate by any means and I think he hurt more than he helped. But I gotta give the devil his due on this one.:(
I would agree, that the AOP became a professional army because of McClellan's reforms. We tend to judge by results on the battlefield and forget that more soldiers and activities occur off the field than on.

[Ed Rotondaro]

What was it Stanton said about McLellan on the peninsula?

"If he had a million men, he'd be convinced the enemy had two million, and sit in the mud and howl for three million".

McLellan was not a good general, or human being.

Kristian:

I don't know as much about McLellan to say he was a bad human being, but he was just not cut out of the right cloth to lead an army. He might have made a decent corps commander with a Grant or Sherman to stiffen his spine or might he might have just continued to come up short. Either way history has adequately pigeon holed his legacy.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I disagree about the good general part. A good combat comander he was not. But he was a good organizer, logistician, and trainer. He was way to cautious in the field and much to afarid to risk the army he built and major fault. But had he never commanded and just organized and trained armies and logistics he would most likley not become a political figure and "Little Mac's" military reputation might have been better. For the record I'm not a McLellan fan or advocate by any means and I think he hurt more than he helped. But I gotta give the devil his due on this one.:(


Citadelvette:

Very good analysis and a fair judgement.