Largest problem with John Bell Hood is theat he is one of the best military examples of the Peter Principle: In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence. To count on him to effectively command an army is near ASB - and to give him some credit, the pathetic soul knew it.

IIRC, a lot of Hood's issues late war were due to his medications. A single lucid moment at Spring Hill is all required for his part in this, in that thereafter he can proceed exactly as IOTL in that he goes to Nashville and then entrenches while doing nothing else. After Schofield's destruction and the first inklings of disaster in Georgia reach Washington, it's likely Lincoln, Grant, etc will follow through with replacing Thomas with Logan with orders to immediately attack. At that point, no matter the qualities of Logan or Hood, dismounted cav and green infantry against entrenched veterans of equal numbers is not a ticket to success. Thereafter, slipping off into Kentucky is an obvious strategic choice, otherwise the Army of Tennessee gets used to help clear out the remaining Union garrisons now largely cut off.

Hood taking Nashville probably means he lets Cleburne lead the battle and stays home sick/wounded/etc. Chattanooga falling with encirclement of the Union forces does not mean the war necessarily ends early as another Union force can be moved into the area before all of Tennessee is lost, but it will likely extend the war and reinvigorate the South. Without a victory on Union soil I do not see Europe intervening, not unless there is a grand defeat in Virginia with Washington either in Confederate hands or besieged and its fall appearing imminent.

In the aftermath of Second Manassas, the British were preparing to intervene until Sharpsburg happened. In 1863, the Roebuck Motion was on the table and wasn't withdrawn until Gettysburg was learned of. The complete destruction of a Federal Army, somewhere in the vicinity of 40,000 strong, would be the largest victory to date of either side in the conflict and would definitely reignite interest of the European powers. Further, there are no forces that can be transferred to blunt further Confederates offensives in the aftermath; historically Washington had already detached elements of the Army of the Potomac for the relief effort. The AotP can't spare much more because Lee in the fall of 1863 was showing signs of and actually considering a movement into Maryland and the AotP was still recovering from Gettysburg. What was detached historically is also massively outnumbered by the Confederate forces in theater now.
 
IIRC, a lot of Hood's issues late war were due to his medications.
The theory that Hood was not lucid is debunked by Hood's doctor's journal, which confirms that Hood stopped taking opiate based pain medication well over a year before Franklin. He wasn't on opiates or laudanum. The original source we have for Hood being on laudanum actually comes from a Richard Ewell biography in the 1940s.
 
Given that blacks would be fighting for the south. Even if in such low number as a few 100 to a few 1,000. Would this help in any way with how blacks would be treated in post-war south? Even if the south was pro-slave nobody who saw a black man in gray fighting along side whites can say they lack any courage. It may not be all that much better but with a longer war the south may have used blacks and if so could help with how they are treated.

I think it depends on the longevity of the conflict after their combat introduction and had widespread it is. Of particular note is the fact the Confederate legislation called for racially integrated units with pay equal with that of White soldiers; neither of which the Union did.

One idea I've often played around with in the past is to have the Civil War be a Proto-World War I; sort of like the late Robertp6165's work on the subject.

Basically, almost everything was there tech wise to fight a World War I style war. Tanks? Vulcanized rubber was invented in 1848 and steam powered wagons were not exactly uncommon. Granted, given the available weapons these "Tanks" would function more like self propelled guns, but the similarities are there. Gas warfare? The tech to do such was there and the idea was seriously considered. Small arms? Prussians had bolt action weapons since the 1830s and there was experimentation in the United States. Ammunition? The French had invented the first effective metallic cartridge in the 1840s. Machine guns? First Mitrailleuse was invented in 1851, and the Gatling gun was likewise in 1861. Airplanes? George Cayley's research made such very possible. Rifled breech loading artillery had also emerged in the 1850s as well.

As far as industry goes, Jared has outlined an 1850s plan by Planters to turn Birmingham, Alabama into a manufacturing hub earlier than than occurred historically. Such would not completely make up the industry difference between the two sides, but it would prevent it from becoming a one sided affair. One big limiting factor for both sides will be the lack of the Haber-Bosch Process, which allowed for mass nitrate production during World War I.

Basic idea is the war in the East grinds down into trench warfare pretty much as soon as the Armies start becoming effective and realize the impacts of the new technology, probably in 1862. In the West, the sheer size of the front keeps mobile warfare going but its incredibly costly. By 1863/1864, the Confederates are forced by necessity to begin conscription of Blacks and the war drags on into 1866 or so before finally ending. Years in the trenches at Centreville and at battles such as Nashville, Chattanooga, etc on equal terms does a lot to change racial opinions, particular with the development of an "Us vs them" mentality with regard to the Yankees by the Southerners of both races.
 
Last edited:
The theory that Hood was not lucid is debunked by Hood's doctor's journal, which confirms that Hood stopped taking opiate based pain medication well over a year before Franklin. He wasn't on opiates or laudanum. The original source we have for Hood being on laudanum actually comes from a Richard Ewell biography in the 1940s.

Thanks for the correction.
 
A European intervention, particularly on the part of the British, ends the war in a matter of months if not weeks as the Union runs out of gunpowder and soon thereafter lead.

The Confederacy had smaller stocks of gunpowder and lead than the Union. The Confederacy faced worse naval odds, worse numerical odds, and a worse difference in manufacturing than the Union would face in a war with Britain.

And the Confederacy lasted 4 years, not months or weeks.
 
The Confederacy had smaller stocks of gunpowder and lead than the Union. The Confederacy faced worse naval odds, worse numerical odds, and a worse difference in manufacturing than the Union would face in a war with Britain.

And the Confederacy lasted 4 years, not months or weeks.

The Confederacy also had a smaller military and was able to maintain it's smaller base with imports from the British; something the Union can't do if they end up in war with the British.
 
The Confederacy had smaller stocks of gunpowder and lead than the Union. The Confederacy faced worse naval odds, worse numerical odds, and a worse difference in manufacturing than the Union would face in a war with Britain.

And the Confederacy lasted 4 years, not months or weeks.

Yes however had the British entered the war on the side of the south all the gunpowder and whatever else is not going to help them much. Unless I'm missing something the British should have way more manpower given their colonies and the US isn't a superpower in 1861-1865 at best it's a regional power. So now you have the south and now one of big powers entering into a war two years old. Even if the south fall like in OTL the US is going to be far too busy rebuilding to do much of anything of note. In this timeline I don't see the US gaining Alaska so that doesn't help them any.

Now I could be wrong but at any rate the US is going to keep eyes on them for some time post war. Win or lose.
 
Last edited:

Anaxagoras

Banned
Hood taking Nashville probably means he lets Cleburne lead the battle and stays home sick/wounded/etc.

Cleburne was only a division commander, though. If Hood were somehow incapacitated, command would have fallen to Alexander Stewart, who was the ranking corps commander. Confusingly, Ben Cheatham's commission as a major general predated that of both Alexander Stewart and S.D. Lee, but Stewart and Lee had subsequently been promoted to lieutenant general and Cheatham had not. Adding to the confusion, Stewart's and Lee's commissions as lieutenant general dated from the same day (June 23, 1864, if anyone cares), but Stewart's commission as a major general predated that of Lee, so that should take precedence.
 
Top