Garibaldi accepts command of the Union Army

[Andrew Hudson]

There is some circumstantial evidence that at one point during the American Civil War, Lincoln , fed up with the inactivity of Maclellan, offered the command of the Union Army to Guiseppi Garibaldi but Garibaldi rejected the offer on the grounds that Lincoln was equivocal about slavery and wasn't abolitionist enough. OK I know its April 1st but this is after 12.00

What would have happened if he had accepted. Would the war have been won more quickly?

• The Guardian, Tuesday February 8 2000
• Rory Carroll in Rome

A frayed postcard in a Turin archive has revealed one of the most audacious gambles of the American civil war. Abraham Lincoln offered the command of the northern forces to Giuseppe Garibaldi, unifier of Italy and terror of the Pope. The US president, his forces hammered by the Confederate army, turned in desperation to Garibaldi, spawning one of the great what ifs of (...) (...)war. Abraham Lincoln offered the command of the northern forces to Giuseppe Garibaldi, unifier of Italy and terror of the Pope. The US president, (...)

[mailinutile2]

I would be living in a Granducate, instead of living in Italy

[ah-sue]

Those red shirts might make Union troops easier targets. But at least with an Italian in charge the general appearance of those troops would improve and they would have much nicer boots.

[mailinutile2]

He was certainly a very charismatic figure (although in 1861 this would be a bit mitigated by being claudicant), but he was not such a great general for european standards.
On the other hand, american warfare at the time was a bit below the european level, so he could be a good move
I do not know which impact could he give on the war, but I am worried of another thing:
Would 1860 Anglo-saxons accept the leadership of an italian?
Considering the prejudices on italian immigrants, I fear McClean, Custer & Co. would have done more to foil his orders rather that to carry on them

[Eurofed]

Originally Posted by mailinutile2

Would 1860 Anglo-saxons accept the leadership of an italian?
Considering the prejudices on italian immigrants, I fear McClean, Custer & Co. would have done more to foil his orders rather that to carry on them

Italian Risorgimento was quite popular in the Union (there were some militias that had adopted uniforms similar to redshirts in its honor), as it was its charismatic star general, Garibaldi, so I see no big problem in that regard.

[Fearless Leader]

It's not all that far fetched...but from what I read, Garibaldi volunteered his services at the outset of the war on the condition that abolitionism be made the chief goal of the campaign.

Let's have the POD be that the US Minister in Brussels, H.S. Sanford is a bit quicker on his feet. When confronted with Garibaldi's refusal to participate on account of Lincoln's hesitance to declare the goal of the war to be abolition, Stanton manages to woo Garibaldi and convince him that the restoration of the Union would do just that. Garibaldi is convinced and ships out to Washington where upon his arrival in late 1861 he's given the rank of Major General.

Initially he's assigned a fairly minor command, probably train up some new recruits, organize a Corps etc. McClellan's failure in the Peninsular campaign could mark Garibaldi's chance to make an impact. I'd have to do more research to see what exactly that impact would be...

[mailinutile2]

I think the main problem is that, even if an idealist, Garibaldi was an Italian.

Let's let aside the racial question and see the things from his point of view: would he accept such a thing?
Italy was far from being completed in 1860: Papal state in latium (with french troops supporting it), north-west belonging to Austria-hugary, Dalmatia likewise, shacky control on the newly acquired Naple's kingdom.
Even Garibaldi's birthplace (Nizza) was in foreogn (french) hands!

other problem is: would the new king of Italy, with his freshly-minted crown and his rather shaky throne let him go?
After the sicily adventure, Garibaldi's army had an almost-battle with the Pidemont Army, was shot in the leg, and was reclused in more-or-less prisony in an island near sardinia.
The problem was that G (like a lot of the most fervent supporters of italian unity) was also a Republican (in the sense of chase-away-the-king-and-proclame-a-republic), and even the Naple's kingdom was on the point of becoming an independent republic under him in 1860-1861.
I do not think that King Vittorio Emmanuele would have let him going loose (and having a leg injuried, a daring attempt to flee at night, caughting his jailers from the behind, was out of the question)

[Art]

Garibaldi had not been exiled to Caprera just yet. And all his efforts to unite Italy after the Thousand failed for various reasons. None were his fault, but a Garibaldi who goes off and smashes the army of Northern Virginia would have a LOT of political clout. And the funny thing was, he was a huge hero in Britain to everyone, including the nobility, since he was against nobility and for Republicanism all the way.

[usertron2020]

I'm only saying what I was taught in high school, that Garibaldi was initially offered a high command (Corps, or maybe the AotP), but he countered with: "No, I want full command of the entire Union Army". Of course, that was rejected. Garibaldi knew it would be. That's why he stipulated a price far too high for Lincoln to pay. Why did he do this?


I was told it was because Garibaldi had been warned that "mercenary soldiers" who were fantastically successful in the United States tended NEVER TO LEAVE AMERICA. As a merc from Spain working for the Tsar, say, there's only so much you can be awarded, mostly it is in the form of $$$. You are always seen as a "foreigner".

But in America? If Garibaldi is allowed to rise to command of the AotP, destroys Lee, takes Richmond, sweeps down the eastern seaboard, and links up with Grant and Sherman in the Deep South (Just as Anaconda originally was planned)? Before Garibaldi can get off his horse, he is being told Congress has voted him American citizenship! Oh, and by the way, New York Republicans want you to run against Horatio Seymour for the governor's seat in Albany! And every Italian-American in the US will hail Garibaldi as THEIR American Founding Father!

And back in Italy? Garibaldi has gone Native! He has betrayed his people! May his dear soul rot in Hell!

[Cornelius]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

I'm only saying what I was taught in high school, that Garibaldi was initially offered a high command (Corps, or maybe the AotP), but he countered with: "No, I want full command of the entire Union Army". Of course, that was rejected. Garibaldi knew it would be. That's why he stipulated a price far too high for Lincoln to pay. Why did he do this?

Mainly because when the offer came, the liberation of Rome seemend possible and Garibaldi would not leave Italy with such a possibility. So he asked a price that he knew could not be paid.

Originally Posted by usertron2020

I was told it was because Garibaldi had been warned that "mercenary soldiers" who were fantastically successful in the United States tended NEVER TO LEAVE AMERICA. As a merc from Spain working for the Tsar, say, there's only so much you can be awarded, mostly it is in the form of $$$. You are always seen as a "foreigner".

I'm doubtful about this. IIRC, there were many italian volunteers in the North army and most of them (well, those who survived) came back to Italy.

Originally Posted by usertron2020

But in America? If Garibaldi is allowed to rise to command of the AotP, destroys Lee, takes Richmond, sweeps down the eastern seaboard, and links up with Grant and Sherman in the Deep South (Just as Anaconda originally was planned)? Before Garibaldi can get off his horse, he is being told Congress has voted him American citizenship! Oh, and by the way, New York Republicans want you to run against Horatio Seymour for the governor's seat in Albany! And every Italian-American in the US will hail Garibaldi as THEIR American Founding Father!

I don't know if Garibaldi could be so succesful...Truth to be told he was far better that any other italian general and had a good record of victories.

Garibaldi takes the McClellan's place and crush Lee in less than a year, Lincoln survives and can guide USA through the reconstruction. It would be an interesting timeline... any takers?

[mailinutile2]

Originally Posted by Cornelius

I'm doubtful about this. IIRC, there were many italian volunteers in the North army and most of them (well, those who survived) came back to Italy.

There were many.
But they were both pro- and anti-garibaldi (a good slice of those emigrated from the naples kingdom were anti-)

Originally Posted by Cornelius

I don't know if Garibaldi could be so succesful...Truth to be told he was far better that any other italian general and had a good record of victories.
Garibaldi takes the McClellan's place and crush Lee in less than a year, Lincoln survives and can guide USA through the reconstruction. It would be an interesting timeline... any takers?

Afraid he was a general of the let-us-all-attack-and-they-will-break type.
That was good and proper in southern Europe 1860, but I do not have any idea about the american front condition.
Do not misunderstand me, he was a very charismatic general and a superb guerrilla-leader, and his assaults were more often successful than not; but he had an "infantryman" mentality and did not used an effective infantry-artillery coordination (on most of his campaigns he had almost no artillery, thus you cannot blame it on him).
Were repeater guns of some sort available in the seccession war?
If they were, I'm afraid he woud slaughter a lot of his own men

[Cornelius]

Originally Posted by mailinutile2

Afraid he was a general of the let-us-all-attack-and-they-will-break type.
That was good and proper in southern Europe 1860, but I do not have any idea about the american front condition.
Do not misunderstand me, he was a very charismatic general and a superb guerrilla-leader, and his assaults were more often successful than not; but he had an "infantryman" mentality and did not used an effective infantry-artillery coordination (on most of his campaigns he had almost no artillery, thus you cannot blame it on him).

I don't claim any expertise on Garibaldi's campaign, but he wasn't let-us-attack-and they-will-break general. Otherwise he wouldn't have become a "superb guerilla leader" .
And no, he usually didnt' coordinate artillery, cavalry and infantry. Happens when you don't have a lot of the former two .

But he was a charismatic leader, a man that could really inspire troops and accustomed to fight agaisnt odds. For certain aspects (mind you, only few) he was like Lee.

[mailinutile2]

Originally Posted by Cornelius

For certain aspects (mind you, only few) he was like Lee.

he was bearded, for example
Anyway, I think the Lee comparison is quite an apt one.
He was very skilled in obtaining good resuslts with relatively small armies. (smaller than the enemy's, that is)