Another Civil War question...

[ksf1973]

I read a description of the Battle of Antietam recently which claimed that McLellan could have won the Civil War for the Union if he'd completely destroyed Lee's army.

Setting aside the fact that McLellan couldn't have destroyed a weevil in a biscuit factory, do you think the war would have been over if Antietam had led to a complete Southern defeat? I'm talking the complete annihilation of The Army of Northern Virginia and the death or capture of Lee. It sounds too simplistic to me, but what do the rest of you think?

[Citadelvette]

The war would've continued albiet with a different strategic emphasis w/o the ANV. losing one army isn't going to stop the South's resistance.

[old_pop2000]

I read a description of the Battle of Antietam recently which claimed that McLellan could have won the Civil War for the Union if he'd completely destroyed Lee's army.

Setting aside the fact that McLellan couldn't have destroyed a weevil in a biscuit factory, do you think the war would have been over if Antietam had led to a complete Southern defeat? I'm talking the complete annihilation of The Army of Northern Virginia and the death or capture of Lee. It sounds too simplistic to me, but what do the rest of you think?
Based on evidence of actual combat in the war, no side had the mobility or firepower to conduct a battle of annihilation except in certain circumstances where the commanding officer allowed himself to be surrounded in a fortress like Henry, Donelson or Vicksburg. Each side was always capable of extricating themselves from lost battles and retreat in reasonably good order. Therefore, it is almost inconceivable for the ANV to have been destroyed at the Battle of Sharpsburg. Even neglecting the fact that the Union commanding general was so conservative and slow, it is still almost impossible to contemplate. Most likely, with heavy casualties on both sides, the Confederates would have retreated back across the Potomac in good order and headed back to winter quarters at Fredericksburg.

[ksf1973]

Which, if I remember correctly (and I probably don't), is what ended up happening in real life.

Your point is a valid one, and it strikes out at the notion that the American Civil War could have been won at a stroke. Only through the long, grueling battle of attrition which it ended up becoming, where the North could fully employ it's crushing superiority in industry and population, could the war be finished.

I don't know very much about the ACW (hence my last few threads), but it's becoming clear to me that the war more or less had to play out the way it did.

[old_pop2000]

Which, if I remember correctly (and I probably don't), is what ended up happening in real life.

Your point is a valid one, and it strikes out at the notion that the American Civil War could have been won at a stroke. Only through the long, grueling battle of attrition which it ended up becoming, where the North could fully employ it's crushing superiority in industry and population, could the war be finished.

I don't know very much about the ACW (hence my last few threads), but it's becoming clear to me that the war more or less had to play out the way it did.

There might have been some minor changes and it might have been prolonged, had the Confederates understood and emphasised that the main area of importance, was always the west. It is interesting to contemplate that Lee's position, was loyalty to Virginia. This is exactly the kind of devotion that might have helped the Union win the war. Lee's devotion to his native state, was indicative of the primary reason the southern states seceded-states rights. In the end however, it was also the one aspect that spelled their doom. There were many incidents of state government refusing to allow supplies to be used for the Confederate army, because they would only use it for their state militia's or state units. The lack of a strong central government that could develop and execute a single strategical plan probably was the key to the south's loss.

Lee fell into this same trap, and was probably more responsible for the the loss of Vicksburg than Joe Johnson, or John Pemberton. Had he supported Longstreet and Johnston's effort to relieve Pemberton, rather than attempt another northern adventure, Vicksburg might have been saved and if not, at least possibly retaken and Grant's nose bloodied. But, IMHO, it would have required a paradigm shift in the strategical thinking of the southern leaders including Lee. Lee might have been a tactical genius, but strategically, he was blinded. It has been pointed out that even had he captured Washington DC-highly unlikely in 1863- it would not have ended the war.

As you say, attrition was probably the only way the north was going to gain the ultimate victory.

[Kyle Holgate]

I visited the Antietam battlefield a bit over a month ago - there is nothing like scoping out the scene of a battle with the mark 1 eyeball!
Unless you have encircled the enemy as happened in several major battles in WW2 or perhaps trap a retreating force against a river or other natural obstacle an opposing force can just stop fighting and retreat any time they like. After Antietam I suppose the northern forces could have continued to nip at the southern army's heels but they'd have to be well organized and ready to exploit the southern forces retreat. Not gonna happen without a different general in charge. Wonder what Rommel would have done? Heh heh.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I read a description of the Battle of Antietam recently which claimed that McLellan could have won the Civil War for the Union if he'd completely destroyed Lee's army.

Setting aside the fact that McLellan couldn't have destroyed a weevil in a biscuit factory, do you think the war would have been over if Antietam had led to a complete Southern defeat? I'm talking the complete annihilation of The Army of Northern Virginia and the death or capture of Lee. It sounds too simplistic to me, but what do the rest of you think?


It's interesting to flip it the other way. In Harry Turtledove's massive alternative history, he has the Confederacy winning at Antietam/Sharpsburg. This gets France and England to recognize the Confederacy and lets them negotiate their peace. I'm not going any further with this nonsense other than to say that Antietnam was less of a turning point in the war than Gettysburg was. Winning at Antietnam doesn't end the war for anybody. Gettysburg/Vicksburg did. I am not going down this road again. Have fun everyone and Kristian, no offense meant here.

[old_pop2000]

It's interesting to flip it the other way. In Harry Turtledove's massive alternative history, he has the Confederacy winning at Antietam/Sharpsburg. This gets France and England to recognize the Confederacy and lets them negotiate their peace. I'm not going any further with this nonsense other than to say that Antietnam was less of a turning point in the war than Gettysburg was. Winning at Antietnam doesn't end the war for anybody. Gettysburg/Vicksburg did. I am not going down this road again. Have fun everyone and Kristian, no offense meant here.
One thing about Harry is that he really doesn't delve into how McClellan was supposed to win the battle. Was little Mac and Burnside supposed to change their personalities. Because, to win that battle, that is what we are asking of both of these men.

Had McClellan counterattacked with everything, in the afternoon when a gap in the center was penetrated by the 61st and 64th New York regiments due to a misinterpretation of an order by a Confederate regimental commander, the center would have been penetrated and the possibly the rest of the army would have either been crushed(hardly likely) or Lee would have had to move his divisions back quickly, possibly risking many being lost in the pell mell retreat across the Potomac.

But this, again, requires McClellan to change his personality and I have serious doubts that he would have.

[asnrobert]

One thing about Harry is that he really doesn't delve into how McClellan was supposed to win the battle. Was little Mac and Burnside supposed to change their personalities. Because, to win that battle, that is what we are asking of both of these men.

Had McClellan counterattacked with everything, in the afternoon when a gap in the center was penetrated by the 61st and 64th New York regiments due to a misinterpretation of an order by a Confederate regimental commander, the center would have been penetrated and the possibly the rest of the army would have either been crushed(hardly likely) or Lee would have had to move his divisions back quickly, possibly risking many being lost in the pell mell retreat across the Potomac.

But this, again, requires McClellan to change his personality and I have serious doubts that he would have.

I think this is the problem with many alternative history stories: they don't provide plausible accounts for how history could have been altered. For example I have a novel called 1901, by Robert Conrad, where the Germans invade NY to force the US to give up some of her overseas territories. Germany had in real life drawn up some plans for this, which meant it could have been an interesting story. But the author ruins it by simply having the German fleet and invasion force show up by surprise in Long Island Sound one morning. There is not the slightest attempt to address the German logistics problems- their fleet was built to operate in the Baltic and didn't have the range of their contemporaries, plus they had no advance bases, so even if they loaded their ships to the gunwales with coal, they'd still be running on fumes when the reached the eastern seaboard. Plus I don't see how they could sail all the way from Kiel to New York through major shipping lanes without being noticed by somebody. Plus the 6-7,000 mile distance would have been a logistics nightmare trying to keep the troops supplied- that supply line could easily be cut by the US fleet. Once that was done, mopping up what was left of the German army. Plus the author depicts the American public as a bunch of pacifists who want to negotiate a peace- I think given the actual attitude of Americans at the time, the reaction at the loss of the Maine would have paled in comparison to their reaction to an invasion on their soil.

[ksf1973]

It's interesting to flip it the other way. In Harry Turtledove's massive alternative history, he has the Confederacy winning at Antietam/Sharpsburg. This gets France and England to recognize the Confederacy and lets them negotiate their peace. I'm not going any further with this nonsense other than to say that Antietnam was less of a turning point in the war than Gettysburg was. Winning at Antietnam doesn't end the war for anybody. Gettysburg/Vicksburg did. I am not going down this road again. Have fun everyone and Kristian, no offense meant here.

Hard to take offense if I have no idea what you're talking about...;)

[old_pop2000]

Hard to take offense if I have no idea what you're talking about...;)


Possibly, you could elaborate on what you don't understand or don't know. I know we would all make an attempt to elaborate or provide links to assist. That's why the forum is here. I don't think the director wants anyone left out.

[old_pop2000]

I think this is the problem with many alternative history stories: they don't provide plausible accounts for how history could have been altered. For example I have a novel called 1901, by Robert Conrad, where the Germans invade NY to force the US to give up some of her overseas territories. Germany had in real life drawn up some plans for this, which meant it could have been an interesting story. But the author ruins it by simply having the German fleet and invasion force show up by surprise in Long Island Sound one morning. There is not the slightest attempt to address the German logistics problems- their fleet was built to operate in the Baltic and didn't have the range of their contemporaries, plus they had no advance bases, so even if they loaded their ships to the gunwales with coal, they'd still be running on fumes when the reached the eastern seaboard. Plus I don't see how they could sail all the way from Kiel to New York through major shipping lanes without being noticed by somebody. Plus the 6-7,000 mile distance would have been a logistics nightmare trying to keep the troops supplied- that supply line could easily be cut by the US fleet. Once that was done, mopping up what was left of the German army. Plus the author depicts the American public as a bunch of pacifists who want to negotiate a peace- I think given the actual attitude of Americans at the time, the reaction at the loss of the Maine would have paled in comparison to their reaction to an invasion on their soil.

This is one of the problems with alternative histories. But it is a difficult genre to write in and I acknowledge that. But sometimes you have to research and take apart the battles and events to find out the underlying reasons for the original failure. Then see what it would have taken to change the outcome. If it requires a change of personality, then that is the directioni of your alternative history. i.e. What if Mclellan had not been chosen to lead the AOP? Who could have been the alternative? Who is on the list of senior officers who could have replaced McDowell? How about Henry Halleck? See what I am talking about? If an aggressive federal general had been placed in command at Antietam, would he have taken advantage of the mistake in the center of the Confederate line. What if the officer in charge of the center had made a decision, on his own, to attack aggressively, how would history have changed? But it requires definite research.

[old_pop2000]

On this subject of alternative history, in Harry Turtledove's two books on Hawaii and the its possible invasion, he simply takes the events that occurred in real history and translates them into a sequence of events against Hawaii. Does he really believe that the US naval command would lack that depth of analysis, that they would not have approached the problem from a different angle. Had Hawaii fallen, wouldn't the US Naval command been directed to ensure the Pacific Coast was secure? They would have unleashed unrestricted submarine warfare, they would have retaken Midway very quickly, and then attacked the island with bombers. Would they have risked the few remaining carriers? Unknown. But I have serious doubts. They would have approached the Pacific war from the position of attrition. Attriting the modest amount of Japanese transports available, attriting the modest number of Japanese warships. They might have attacked the Solomons and attempted to distract the Japanese fleet and weaken it around Midway. There are many possibilities.

The point to make is that with a different set of circumstances, the US command would have reacted differently. In the archives, are there plans and scenarios tested prior to the war, about a possible loss of Pearl Harbor. If there are, why not examine them? What was the Navy's real possible courses of action, based on what was their real strategic options and their direction from the civilian government. This is how an alternative history should be approached. This is how the military approaches alternative history. They have always developed alternative scenarios in their planning.

I know I have gotten off of the main thrust of this thread, for that I apologize to the creator of it. I will leave those thoughts for all of you to consider.

[ksf1973]

Possibly, you could elaborate on what you don't understand or don't know. I know we would all make an attempt to elaborate or provide links to assist. That's why the forum is here. I don't think the director wants anyone left out.

Just responding to Ed's "no offense intended" comment to me. I can surmise that there was probably some sort of previous argument, and it got to a point where he doesn't wish to risk repeating it, but I don't know the details, thus it's hard to be offended.

[Ed Rotondaro]

One thing about Harry is that he really doesn't delve into how McClellan was supposed to win the battle. Was little Mac and Burnside supposed to change their personalities. Because, to win that battle, that is what we are asking of both of these men.

Had McClellan counterattacked with everything, in the afternoon when a gap in the center was penetrated by the 61st and 64th New York regiments due to a misinterpretation of an order by a Confederate regimental commander, the center would have been penetrated and the possibly the rest of the army would have either been crushed(hardly likely) or Lee would have had to move his divisions back quickly, possibly risking many being lost in the pell mell retreat across the Potomac.

But this, again, requires McClellan to change his personality and I have serious doubts that he would have.


Dennis:

I agree completely. The purported idea is that Mac doesn't recover Lee's orders that were wrapped in a bundle of cigars and is not aware of Lee's battle plans. So Lee crushes him. Still as you say it doesn't play out, mainly because Antienam was fought primarily as a defensive battle by Lee since the Army of the Potomac was able to to bring him to battle with superior numbers. And with what is priceless intel, Mac and Burnside still can't lead their troops to victory. Now if Grant and Sherman are in command and have that intel what happens then? I'm still not sure you'll get a battle of annhiliation as they were rare as you pointed out (unless an idiot like Hood was in command).

[Ed Rotondaro]

Hard to take offense if I have no idea what you're talking about...;)


Kristian:

What I meant was I have no problem with your post, it's just that the forums seem to recycle topics and some are what one would call "hardy perennials". In other words they crop up every year, quarter etc. Whether it's the Alaska class cruiser or advanced warning at Pearl harbor or what was the best fighter plane of WWII, these topics like zombies return from the dead, usually at the behest of newer members. Which is why I meant no offense to you for bringing up this one, I simply wasn't going to revisit old ground so to speak. I hope you understand what I mean here and do enjoy the debate with other members.:)

[ksf1973]

Ah, gotcha! In a similar vein over at the Matrix WitP forum (which I also frequent), we have the occasional F4F vs. Zero thread, Bismarck sunk vs. scuttled OT thread and best tank of WWII thread.

Should have figured it was old ground.:cool:

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ah, gotcha! In a similar vein over at the Matrix WitP forum (which I also frequent), we have the occasional F4F vs. Zero thread, Bismarck sunk vs. scuttled OT thread and best tank of WWII thread.

Should have figured it was old ground.:cool:

Kristian:

No problem sir, there was no way for you to have known what topics have been discussed in the past on the forums. Don't worry I'm sure a Leyte Gulf thread about who would have won a slugging match between Kurita's ships and Lee's battleline will once again surface LOL!

[old_pop2000]

Kristian:

No problem sir, there was no way for you to have known what topics have been discussed in the past on the forums. Don't worry I'm sure a Leyte Gulf thread about who would have won a slugging match between Kurita's ships and Lee's battleline will once again surface LOL!
To All:
I personally have no problem with rehashing an old topic especially if we have all done more reading and research or new information has become available. I would hope that we would take a more analytical approach, starting with an overview and a review of the real events. Just my take.

[Ed Rotondaro]

To All:
I personally have no problem with rehashing an old topic especially if we have all done more reading and research or new information has become available. I would hope that we would take a more analytical approach, starting with an overview and a review of the real events. Just my take.


Dennis:

I agree if a new book or some new data comes to light, then it is worth it to revisit a topic. That's generally how it happens anyway, one of us reads something new and shares it with the forum.

[Citadelvette]

Kristian:

No problem sir, there was no way for you to have known what topics have been discussed in the past on the forums. Don't worry I'm sure a Leyte Gulf thread about who would have won a slugging match between Kurita's ships and Lee's battleline will once again surface LOL!

Oh no, I've been found out I'd better find a new old topic!:D

[Ed Rotondaro]

Oh no, I've been found out I'd better find a new old topic!:D


Citadel:

Haven't you graduated yet?:D

[Citadelvette]

Just did in May now just a couples months of vacation/job searching.