1864- Sherman Defeated at Cassville

During the 1864 Atlanta Campaign, as Confederate General Joe Johnston retreated slowly towards Atlanta in the face of Union General William Sherman's advance, Johnston planned an ambush of the Union forces at the town of Cassville.

Using clever tactics, Johnston was able to concentrate two of his three corps against a Union force of two corps (Confederate corps were much larger than Union corps), in such a way as to pin the Union forces in the front while preparing to launch a devastating attack on the Union left flank. Had the attack gone off, about a fourth of Sherman's army could have been destroyed.

Unfortunately for the Confederates, the attack was ruined by the unexpected appearence of a Union cavalry force, which happened to bump into the attacking corps just minutes before the attack was to be launched. As it happened, this cavalry force was lost and not anywhere near where it was supposed to be.

Suppose, however, that the Union cavalry force had not gotten lost and the Confederate attack had gone off as planned. What might the results have been?

With a quarter of his army wrecked and Confederate morale soaring to new heights, could Sherman have continued the campaign against Atlanta? Would this victory have caused President Davis to agree to Johnston's repeated request that Nathan Bedford Forrest be sent to attack Sherman's supply lines? Could it have impacted the war in other theaters, and influenced the results of the 1864 elections in the North?

The CSA would still have the big numerical disadvantage, and I don't know whether the Yankees would be willing to let the Southerners go, after all the sacrifices they made. And I also don't know whether Johnston would've got NBF back - after all, even the best commanders in the CSA didn't always get what they demanded, even if they were right. But I don't know enough details.

A victory at Cassville would have made no difference in the end. As it was, Sherman suffered a very costly defeat leading up to the Battle of Atlanta at Kennesaw Mountain. Here the Confederates won a convincing victory, but as Max Sinister has pointed out, even with such a victory the Union still had many more troops to replace those lost.

Similarly, Hood, when he took over at Atlanta, attacked the Union at Peachtree Creek, killing Union general McPherson in the process of this one-off CSA victory. But next day Sherman counter-attacked, whilst the men in blue cried: "McPherson and revenge, boys. McPherson and revenge." Hood was henceforth driven from the battlefield after 30 minutes. Atlanta fell about a month later.

In truth any great victory for the CSA in 1864 is too little, too late. The CSA needs to do a numbr of things, much earlier in the war. The most improtant of which is not invading Kentucky at any point in time! If Kentucky remains neutral, throughout the war, then the CSA has a serious chance at surviving. Plus freeing the slaves wouldn't harm their survival chances either...

DMA said:

A victory at Cassville would have made no difference in the end. As it was, Sherman suffered a very costly defeat leading up to the Battle of Atlanta at Kennesaw Mountain. Here the Confederates won a convincing victory, but as Max Sinister has pointed out, even with such a victory the Union still had many more troops to replace those lost.

Click to expand...

It took the Yankees until September to take Atlanta IOTL. With such a decisive defeat as this, it would make the task vastly more difficult and dramatically change the political situation.

DMA said:

Similarly, Hood, when he took over at Atlanta, attacked the Union at Peachtree Creek, killing Union general McPherson in the process of this one-off CSA victory. But next day Sherman counter-attacked, whilst the men in blue cried: "McPherson and revenge, boys. McPherson and revenge." Hood was henceforth driven from the battlefield after 30 minutes. Atlanta fell about a month later.

Click to expand...

You're confusing the Battle of Peachtree Creek (July 20, 1864) and the Battle of Atlanta (July 22, 1864). Neither was a Confederate victory. In fact, both were serious Confederate defeats.

Anaxagoras said:

It took the Yankees until September to take Atlanta IOTL. With such a decisive defeat as this, it would make the task vastly more difficult and dramatically change the political situation.

Click to expand...

By all of one day. Hood evactuated Atlanta on Sept 1 after it was well known that he had no chance to hold onto it. So I missed by one day...

More importantly your overall premise completely ignores the professionalism of the Union forces out west at any time - let alone in 1864. They were simply superior to their eastern comrades-in-arms. Likewise their officers. You probably, under Sherman, had the best senior officers in 1864 than anywhere else at that time. They were certainly superior to Hood, & equal to if not better than Joe Johnston. But more importantly, they were equal to, if not better than, the various CSA corps & divisional commanders.

Anaxagoras said:

You're confusing the Battle of Peachtree Creek (July 20, 1864) and the Battle of Atlanta (July 22, 1864). Neither was a Confederate victory. In fact, both were serious Confederate defeats.

Click to expand...

Fair enough about the Battle of Atlanta/Battle of Peachtree Creek. But McPherson is still killed & I wouldn't claim that it's Union victory on the day in particular. The next day, however, granted the CSA is quickly defeated which I've already stated.

Nevertheless, here again, even with the death of a very gifted Union general, the Union was able to counter-attack & defeat Hood in about 30 minutes. That, in itself, speaks volumes as to the real differences between the two armies out west in 1864. In other words, Sherman's army could suffer several defeats in 1864, whether it be at Kennesaw Mountain, or elsewhere, losing veteran combat troops & top generals, & still win in the end; whilst the CSA army out west couldn't really suffer one defeat let alone a whole string of them.

As I said before, and POD for the CSA out west must take place very early in the ACW, otherwise they're in a pretty hopeless position regardless. I've said it many times before, the Union really didn't win the ACW through superior numbers, or even by defeating Lee in Virginia, the Union won thanks to their success in the western theatre. And that came about due to the stupid CSA invasion of Kentucky in 1861, thus ending its neutrality & putting into the Union camp, whilst simultaneously openning up the large western theatre for the Union to exploit at their will.

Without recognition from foreign governments, and aid, serious aid. The south was in trouble shortly after, oh.......... Ft. Sumpter. Its romantic and all to think about them winning, but only Turtledove could really make it happen.

The North had a balanced economy, and a mess of bodies that they were quite prepared to keep throwing into the fight until things went their way. Lots of immigrant bodies in particular.

The South had no realistic chance of victory, its a testament to its military leadership that they lasted as long as they did. Just sayin.

DMA said:

In other words, Sherman's army could suffer several defeats in 1864, whether it be at Kennesaw Mountain, or elsewhere, losing veteran combat troops & top generals, & still win in the end; whilst the CSA army out west couldn't really suffer one defeat let alone a whole string of them.

Click to expand...

But in this scenario, the Union army would suffer a defeat FAR more serious that the repulse they experienced at Kennesaw Mountain. Had the attack at Cassville gone off as Johnston planned, it is likely that a a quarter of Sherman's army would have been wiped out. I find it rather difficult to believe that this would have had no effect.

Anaxagoras said:

But in this scenario, the Union army would suffer a defeat FAR more serious that the repulse they experienced at Kennesaw Mountain. Had the attack at Cassville gone off as Johnston planned, it is likely that a a quarter of Sherman's army would have been wiped out. I find it rather difficult to believe that this would have had no effect.

Click to expand...

Well that's if the Union corps in question didn't conduct a fighting withdrawal. And that's if the Union troops themselves didn't panic as they are veterans at this point in the game. And that's if the Union troops don't have repeating rifles which, by itself, would increase their firepower by about a factor of five, meaning that this single US corps is actually about 50 000 troops (in ACW terms). And that's if Sherman didn't send, to the Union corps in question, immediate reinforcements & the battle turn into something akin to Shiloh...

But leaving that aside - even if Johnston was victorious in the manner suggested in this scenario, we're still talking, in 1864, too little too late. So Sherman may lose 10 000 troops. Compared to the casualties in the eastern theatre, that's chicken feed. Furthermore, at this stage of the game, not only would Sherman's army still be larger than his CSA counterpart, but those 10 000 lost troops will be quickly replaced within a month.

At best the CSA gains maybe an extra month's (or two) grace out west. But probably, & far more importantly, Johnston isn't replaced by Hood. As a result, Sherman has a tougher time, not just taking Atlanta, but also on his drive to the Sea through Georgia. Conseqentally you don't have Hood losing the plot, & more or less destroying the sole remaining main western CSA army, by charging off into Tennesse instead of facing Sherman.

However, the CSA still hasn't got the troops to offer a successful defence in both the western AND eastern threatres. As a result, the Union's superior numbers still come into play. Grant will conduct his war of attrition against Lee, & Sherman will still be on the loose out west. The outcome of the war may, in some details, be different to the OTL (say Sherman taking much longer to get to Savannah & may find himself stuck there), but the CSA is still defeated probably around the same time as the OTL.

As I've said before, if the CSA wants a chance of surviving the ACW, they must not, through their stupid invasion of Kentucky, open up the large western threatre, which they've got no chance of defending, once the Union's superior numbers come into play. By 1864, some 3 years since the invasion of Kentucky, not only has the CSA been booted out of Kentucky (& that state joining the Union because of the invasion), but they've lost the whole state of Tennesse, the CSA's largest city (New Orleans), most of Missisippi, lost Vicksburg (that's a huge defeat), Sherman is marching over Georgia, & not to mention that the CSA has been cut in two with three states, the most important of which being Texas, isolated. If, however, the western theatre is merely limited to the Missouri-Arkansas border, none of this will happen. And just as importantly, the CSA can deploy most of their army in northern Virigina turning that region into an impenetrable fortress (if Fredricksburg is anything to judge by). In doing so, Lee would succeed in his stratergy of making the War so dreadful, so hideous, that Lincoln would lose the 1864 elections & the ACW would be over some time thereafter.

DMA said:

At best the CSA gains maybe an extra month's (or two) grace out west. But probably, & far more importantly, Johnston isn't replaced by Hood. As a result, Sherman has a tougher time, not just taking Atlanta, but also on his drive to the Sea through Georgia. Conseqentally you don't have Hood losing the plot, & more or less destroying the sole remaining main western CSA army, by charging off into Tennesse instead of facing Sherman.

However, the CSA still hasn't got the troops to offer a successful defence in both the western AND eastern threatres. As a result, the Union's superior numbers still come into play. Grant will conduct his war of attrition against Lee, & Sherman will still be on the loose out west. The outcome of the war may, in some details, be different to the OTL (say Sherman taking much longer to get to Savannah & may find himself stuck there), but the CSA is still defeated probably around the same time as the OTL.

Click to expand...

This all assumes that in order to win the war, the Confederacy has to militarily defeat the Union. But that is a flawed assumption. The Confederacy did not have to win militarily...it could win POLITICALLY by causing Abe Lincoln (and the Republican Party) to lose the election of 1864. The scenario you posit above has a very good chance of causing the fall of Atlanta to be delayed until after the November election. If that happens, Lincoln is probably not re-elected, as in OTL, it was the fall of Atlanta, more than anything else, which sealed his victory over McClellan. If McClellan wins, in all likelihood a Congressional majority of Peace Democrats is elected with him. Even if McClellan wants to continue the war...which is questionable...the Peace Democrat majority in Congress will force him to the negotiating table. And since the Confederacy won't negotiate on the basis of a restored Union, the end result would be Confederate independence.

robertp6165 said:

This all assumes that in order to win the war, the Confederacy has to militarily defeat the Union. But that is a flawed assumption. The Confederacy did not have to win militarily...it could win POLITICALLY by causing Abe Lincoln (and the Republican Party) to lose the election of 1864. The scenario you posit above has a very good chance of causing the fall of Atlanta to be delayed until after the November election. If that happens, Lincoln is probably not re-elected, as in OTL, it was the fall of Atlanta, more than anything else, which sealed his victory over McClellan. If McClellan wins, in all likelihood a Congressional majority of Peace Democrats is elected with him. Even if McClellan wants to continue the war...which is questionable...the Peace Democrat majority in Congress will force him to the negotiating table. And since the Confederacy won't negotiate on the basis of a restored Union, the end result would be Confederate independence.

Click to expand...

I thought I pretty much covered this when I originally said (albeit not in detail):

DMA said:

And just as importantly, the CSA can deploy most of their army in northern Virigina turning that region into an impenetrable fortress (if Fredricksburg is anything to judge by). In doing so, Lee would succeed in his stratergy of making the War so dreadful, so hideous, that Lincoln would lose the 1864 elections & the ACW would be over some time thereafter.

Click to expand...

DMA said:

I thought I pretty much covered this when I originally said (albeit not in detail): "And just as importantly, the CSA can deploy most of their army in northern Virigina turning that region into an impenetrable fortress (if Fredricksburg is anything to judge by). In doing so, Lee would succeed in his stratergy of making the War so dreadful, so hideous, that Lincoln would lose the 1864 elections & the ACW would be over some time thereafter."

Click to expand...

Not really. While you do say that Lincoln losing the 1864 election would probably lead to CSA victory, you predicated your statement on a scenario where the South never invaded Kentucky and was able to concentrate most of it's army in Virginia. This is not really responsive to my point, which was that you were ignoring the impact a victory such as described by Anaxagoras at Cassville could have had in causing Lincoln to lose. You said, basically, that even if the victory had been won, it would have made no difference...to wit...

DMA said:

However, the CSA still hasn't got the troops to offer a successful defence in both the western AND eastern threatres. As a result, the Union's superior numbers still come into play. Grant will conduct his war of attrition against Lee, & Sherman will still be on the loose out west. The outcome of the war may, in some details, be different to the OTL (say Sherman taking much longer to get to Savannah & may find himself stuck there), but the CSA is still defeated probably around the same time as the OTL.

Click to expand...

My point was that even if the war had proceeded as per OTL up to May 18, 1864 (the date of the Battle of Cassville), it was still perfectly possible for the South to win politically by causing Lincoln to be defeated in the 1864 election, and a victory like the one Anaxagoras describes could have lead to that result.

robertp6165 said:

Not really. While you do say that Lincoln losing the 1864 election would probably lead to CSA victory, you predicated your statement on a scenario where the South never invaded Kentucky and was able to concentrate most of it's army in Virginia. This is not really responsive to my point, which was that you were ignoring the impact a victory such as described by Anaxagoras at Cassville could have had in causing Lincoln to lose. You said, basically, that even if the victory had been won, it would have made no difference...to wit...

Click to expand...

And I will continue to say that it would have made zero difference, to Lincoln's chances in the 1864 election, as a Union defeat at Cassville isn't going to change the overall Union success out west. Atlanta is still going to fall. Johnston is still going to be defeated as a result, albeit a month or two after the OTL. Sherman is still going to conduct his March to the Sea. The main difference is the timetable will be merely pushed back a month or two, but the end result overall is still the same - Union Victory.

robertp6165 said:

My point was that even if the war had proceeded as per OTL up to May 18, 1864 (the date of the Battle of Cassville), it was still perfectly possible for the South to win politically by causing Lincoln to be defeated in the 1864 election, and a victory like the one Anaxagoras describes could have lead to that result.

Click to expand...

I've got to respectively disagree. As stated previously, a CSA victory at Cassville is too little, too late. Sherman will simply regroup, gain reinforcements, then attack once again. And just as importantly, Sherman won't make the same mistake twice. And this is depite the fact that the Union army of Sherman's was arguably the best the Union (or the CSA for that matter) had, in 1864, & probably wouldn't suffer the defeat suggested in this scenario in the first place.

I would argue that all that happens, even in the highly unlikely event that Sherman did suffer such a reverse, instead of Atlanta falling 1 Sept, it falls on 1 November (& that's if Johnston can hold out for those two extra months which I completely doubt) a few days before the US Presidential elections. In other words, there would be nothing better, for Lincoln's re-election chances, than getting news of such an important Union victory on the eve of the elections. And as a result of Lincoln's re-election, nothing much overall changes other than Sherman has it a lot tougher in his advance to Savanah, so the Carolinas suffer a lot less than the OTL. Grant, though, still defeats Lee at Petersburg in 1865. Richmond falls the next day (or two), followed by Lee's surrender at Appomattox a day or two later...

And all this happens, not by what may or may not happen to Lincoln's election chances in 1864, but by the overall conduct of the war. The Union simply plays its superiority in numbers to its advantage. Grant conducts his war of attrition against Lee, knowing that the CSA will have to deploy most of its troops against him, whilst Sherman is basically given a free hand out west to do whatever he wants.

Sherman vastly outnumbers Johnston, but unlike in the eastern theatre, which more or less dictates positional warfare due to the topography, Sherman can conduct a war of manoeuvrer thanks to the vast distances involved & the lack of CSA troops avaliable to defend it. And in doing so, Sherman employs his advantage of superior numbers to the fullest.

Furthermore, when Sherman does something that's a clear disaster, that being Kennesaw Mountain (which took place after the aborted CSA Cassville attack), Sherman merely brushes it aside & pushes on. Considering, in this scenario, we can probably take it as granted that Kennesaw Mountain wouldn't have taken place, in lieu of a Battle of Cassville, we can expect Sherman to, again, brush off any defeat at Cassville & continue his advance on Atlanta albeit in a more cautious manner.