ACW WI: RR Campaign Cancelled

What if the Red River Campaign, and the Union resources allotted to it, were instead used for a campaign to capture Mobile, Alabama? Would this result in an early capture? How would this affect Banks, Porter, Taylor, and Smith? Would this speed up the conclusion of the Civil War? Discuss.

To elaborate: The Red River Campaign was supposedly ordered by Lincoln and Halleck because of the fear of French troops marching up from Mexico and joining Confederate troops in Texas, and then using the Red River to stage an attack against Union troops. Now, this is complete bollocks IMHO, so the POD would be that Lincoln and/or Halleck realize this and decide instead for a push against Mobile.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Cancelling the Red River campaign and moving against Mobile would have had a substantial impact, because the reinforcements the Confederate Army of Tennessee received from the Mississippi/Alabama department in mid-May (amounting to about 15,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry, IIRC) would have instead been tied down defending Mobile. This, in turn, would have allowed for a much more rapid Union advance against Atlanta.
 
How would Banks do against whoever was in command of the Confederate Army in Mobile? Or would he be replaced by a more capably commander? How would the faster Union capture of Atlanta affect the whole war? Would the war be over by election time?

I wonder how well Lincoln would do in an 1864 election where the war is already over.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
How would Banks do against whoever was in command of the Confederate Army in Mobile? Or would he be replaced by a more capably commander? How would the faster Union capture of Atlanta affect the whole war? Would the war be over by election time?

Well, Banks wasn't exactly a military genius. If he's in charge, I would expect the Confederate to maintain control of Mobile, giving us history geeks another Civil War campaign to argue about. If he's replaced by a more capable officer, then the city might fall. Not sure how this would impact the overall war, though, since the Union capture of the Bay in August pretty much ended its military usefulness.

The main result of all this, as mentioned above, would be that about 20,000 men the Confederate Army of Tennessee had IOTL would be tied down in southern Alabama, and this would probably mean that Atlanta falls in late June or early July, rather than early September.

I wonder how well Lincoln would do in an 1864 election where the war is already over.

Probably better than IOTL.
 
To elaborate: The Red River Campaign was supposedly ordered by Lincoln and Halleck because of the fear of French troops marching up from Mexico and joining Confederate troops in Texas, and then using the Red River to stage an attack against Union troops. Now, this is complete bollocks IMHO, so the POD would be that Lincoln and/or Halleck realize this and decide instead for a push against Mobile.

The real reason for the Red River Campaign was nothing to do with any supposed fear of the French. The real reason was money.

Union factories needed Confederate cotton. They weren't able to get it, for obvious reasons. This fueled a very significant underground market in which Union speculators traded with the Confederates to get the cotton, while Union authorities winked and turned a blind eye, enabling certain unscrupulous Northerners to get rich by supporting the Confederate war effort. Solution? Send a Union army to take control of one of the most productive cotton-growing regions in the Confederacy. And while you're at it, capture intact thousands of bales of cotton which the Confederacy has stockpiled in central Louisiana.

FOR BALES
(Sung to the tune of "When Johnny Comes Marching Home Again")

We all went down to New Orleans
For Bales! For Bales!
We all went down to New Orleans
For Bales, says I!
We all went down to New Orleans
To get a peek behind the scenes
And we'll all drink stone blind,
Johnny fill up the bowl.

We thought when we got in the Ring
For bales! for bales!
We thought when we got in the Ring
For Bales, says I!
We thought when we got in the Ring
Greenbacks would be a dead sure thing
And we'll all drink stone blind,
Johnny fill up the bowl.

Our Ring went up with baggage and rope
For Bales! For Bales!
Upon the Blackhawk with baggage and rope
For Bales, says I!
Up Red River with baggage and rope
Looking to make a ton of soap
And we'll all drink stone blind,
Johnny fill up the bowl.

But Taylor and Smith with ragged ranks
For Bales! For Bales!
But Taylor and Smith with ragged ranks
For Bales, says I!
Taylor and Smith with ragged ranks
Burned up the cotton and whipped ole Banks
And we'll all drink stone blind,
Johnny fill up the bowl.

Our Ring came back and cursed and swore
For Bales! For Bales!
Our Ring came back and cursed and swore
For Bales, says I!
Our Ring came back and cursed and swore
We got no cotton at Grand Ecore
And we'll all drink stone blind,
Johnny fill up the bowl.

Now let us all give praise and thanks
For Bales! For Bales!
Now let us all give praise and thanks
For Bales, says I!
Let us all give praise and thanks
For the victory won by General Banks
And we'll all drink stone blind,
Johnny fill up the bowl.

Banks' campaign, while it was unsuccessful in capturing the cotton, did harm the Confederacy in that it forced them to burn thousands of bales which might have been traded to Northern speculators for gold or for vital war supplies. So if there is no Red River campaign, the Confederate armies are somewhat better supplied in late 1864 and 1865. Probably not enough to make much difference to the final outcome, but could possibly extend the war by a month or two.
 
Last edited:
The real reason for the Red River Campaign was nothing to do with any supposed fear of the French. The real reason was money.
Just going by Wikipedia.
Probably not enough to make much difference to the final outcome, but could possibly extend the war by a month or two.
Why are yours and Annies predictions complete opposites? IMHO, more supplies means nothing without the manpower to use them. So if a Mobile Siege hampers a Confederate war effort farther North and allows a faster march on Atlanta, I think it wouldn't extend the war. Sure, there might be a few more Confederates with money in their pockets, and a few more guns around, but...
 
Why are yours and Annies predictions complete opposites? IMHO, more supplies means nothing without the manpower to use them.

A large part of the reason why the Confederacy, at the end of the war, didn't have enough manpower to continue past April of 1865 was that constant lack of supplies was contributing to massive desertion from the ranks. There were other reasons why men deserted, of course. But the inability of the Confederate government to feed and clothe the men was certainly one of those reasons. If they sell that cotton, some of those problems go away. And when those problems go away, desertion goes down. Now there are more men available to hold the line for a month or two more.

So if a Mobile Siege hampers a Confederate war effort farther North and allows a faster march on Atlanta, I think it wouldn't extend the war. Sure, there might be a few more Confederates with money in their pockets, and a few more guns around, but...

Except now you're tying down an army besieging what is essentially a worthless target. Farragut shut Mobile down through naval action alone in the summer of 1864. The city itself had no real military value. That's why the Confederacy didn't devote major resources to defending it when it came under siege in 1865 and instead sent what men it had left to the Carolinas to face Sherman. Unless you're positing that the Confederacy is going to assign more men to defend the city at the time of the Atlanta campaign...which is quite unlikely, given that Atlanta had FAR more military value...then the whole operation is a waste.

Banks did more good in Louisiana forcing the Confederates to burn the cotton at Grand Ecore than he would have done sitting outside Mobile.
 
Top