American Civil War: WI Hood Was Successful at Spring Hill?

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Incident at Spring Hill during the Franklin-Nashville Campaign in November of 1864 has often been held up as one of the great WIs of the American Civil War. Through a combination of bad luck, miscommunication, and sloppy administrative work, the Confederates lost an opportunity to attack and possibly cut off the Union force of General Schofield. Some have even suggested that Schofield might have been destroyed or forced to surrender, although I am highly skeptical of this.

But what if Hood had succeeded in routing Schofield's force? Thomas was still building up his forces at Nashville, and even without Schofield's men (who eventually escaped to Nashville after defeated the Rebels at Franklin), Thomas would have been more than a match for Hood in terms of combat power.

On the other hand, if Hood succeeded at Spring Hill, the AoT would have avoided the slaughter at Franklin and would have maintained a high level of morale and combat effectiveness into December of 1864. This, certainly, would have changed the equations at the time.

Any takers?
 
The Incident at Spring Hill during the Franklin-Nashville Campaign in November of 1864 has often been held up as one of the great WIs of the American Civil War. Through a combination of bad luck, miscommunication, and sloppy administrative work, the Confederates lost an opportunity to attack and possibly cut off the Union force of General Schofield. Some have even suggested that Schofield might have been destroyed or forced to surrender, although I am highly skeptical of this.

But what if Hood had succeeded in routing Schofield's force? Thomas was still building up his forces at Nashville, and even without Schofield's men (who eventually escaped to Nashville after defeated the Rebels at Franklin), Thomas would have been more than a match for Hood in terms of combat power.

On the other hand, if Hood succeeded at Spring Hill, the AoT would have avoided the slaughter at Franklin and would have maintained a high level of morale and combat effectiveness into December of 1864. This, certainly, would have changed the equations at the time.

Any takers?

Well, first of all, I think you are dismissing the surrender option somewhat lightly. The road junction at Spring Hill was seen by the Union commanders on the scene as absolutely vital, and if it had been seized by the Confederates, Schofield's army would have been essentially trapped with no place to go. They would have had few options, and none of them good ones.

The loss of Schofield's command..which numbered 20,000 men...would have changed the whole dynamics of the Tennessee Campaign.

--At Nashville in OTL...with Schofield safely in hand...the Union Army numbered less than 60,000. The Confederate Army numbered a little over 30,000 (they had detached a force under Forrest to operate near Murfreesboro, which meant the Confederates had a little less than 30,000 on the field at Nashville itself).

--A Confederate victory at Spring Hill means no Battle of Franklin. So they have over 6,000 more troops at Nashville, and the Union has 20,000 less. The numbers are very nearly even at that point.

--Pat Cleburne and five other experienced Confederate generals are still alive at Nashville, and another six are unwounded and in good health.

--The Army of Tennessee's morale, rather than being shattered by Hood's incompetence and disastrous defeat at Franklin, is running very high. The men have great confidence in their commander, and Hood himself has confidence in himself and his army.

So if the Battle of Nashville took place at the same time as in OTL, the result might have been very different.

However, I don't think Nashville does take place as per OTL. Thomas refused to attack the Confederates until he was absolutely certain of victory. He spent weeks marshaling his forces and building his strength up until he felt he was ready (indeed, General Grant was so impatient with Thomas about this that he actually was in the process of replacing him when the battle occurred). There is no way that Thomas is going to mount an attack on Hood's positions outside Nashville with nearly even numbers going into the battle. So...assuming Hood follows the same strategy as he did in OTL and puts Nashville under siege...one of two things happen.

1) Thomas continues building his forces and eventually attacks, perhaps in January 1865. Or...

2) Grant replaces Thomas with John A. Logan, who has orders to attack immediately, which Logan does. Given the relative evenness of the forces involved, and the much higher morale of the Confederate forces, the battle could go either way.

However, I would argue that a Hood who has been victorious at Spring Hill probably won't follow the same strategy he did in OTL. Hood's was extremely depressed after the twin debacles of Spring Hill and Franklin, and essentially became convinced that defeat was inevitable. It sapped his will to fight and made him indecisive. He put his army into entrenchments outside Nashville, retreated into this headquarters, and basically did nothing. That won't be the case here. He might well do as Grant feared he would do, slip around Nashville, and into Kentucky.

The Lincoln Administration will likely demand that Grant detach troops from around Richmond and send them west to deal with Hood. This might delay the conclusion of the war in the East, maybe even long enough for significant numbers of black troops to reach Lee's army, which would bolster the Confederate defenses there and delay the conclusion even more.

Of course, in the end, it won't mean much. Lincoln's re-election in November 1864 meant the Union would fight on, regardless. Even with a string of unbroken good fortune in 1865, I just don't think the Confederacy had four more years of fight left in it. So in the end, the war ends the same way...but a lot more people are dead.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Well, first of all, I think you are dismissing the surrender option somewhat lightly. The road junction at Spring Hill was seen by the Union commanders on the scene as absolutely vital, and if it had been seized by the Confederates, Schofield's army would have been essentially trapped with no place to go. They would have had few options, and none of them good ones.

I would think that the Union commanders would abandon their wheeled transport and strike out over rough country, completely scattering if necessary, before considering the surrender option.

All the other points you raise in your post are quite on the money.
 
I would think that the Union commanders would abandon their wheeled transport and strike out over rough country, completely scattering if necessary, before considering the surrender option.

No army ever did that. Why would Schofield suddenly do it? It would mean abandoning not only all their ammo supplies but also the entire artillery train and all the food, and if they did that, what emerged afterward...assuming the army could be gotten together again at all...wouldn't be an army anymore, it would be a mob. For all intents and purposes, it's no better than the surrender option.
 

The Sandman

Banned
Or, alternatively, not having his confidence shattered at Franklin, Hood charges straight at the defenses of Nashville and gets the AoT torn to pieces there instead.

Because Hood's also on a bit of a timetable; if he doesn't crush Thomas at some point then awkward questions might be asked about why he decided to just let Sherman loot and burn his way through Georgia while the AoT went on its field trip.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
No army ever did that. Why would Schofield suddenly do it? It would mean abandoning not only all their ammo supplies but also the entire artillery train and all the food, and if they did that, what emerged afterward...assuming the army could be gotten together again at all...wouldn't be an army anymore, it would be a mob.

That would be an undesireable scenario, but certainly more desireable than being herded into Confederate prisoner-of-war camps, don't you think?

Or, alternatively, not having his confidence shattered at Franklin, Hood charges straight at the defenses of Nashville and gets the AoT torn to pieces there instead.

I think the decision to attack at Franklin was a rash one made in anger as a result of the fiasco at Spring Hill. I don't think much of Hood's tactical abilities, but I'm fairly certain than even he would have held back from assaulting Nashville's defenses.

Because Hood's also on a bit of a timetable; if he doesn't crush Thomas at some point then awkward questions might be asked about why he decided to just let Sherman loot and burn his way through Georgia while the AoT went on its field trip.

But what if he attempted to sidestep Thomas and move north into Kentucky, thereby cutting Thomas off from his sources of reinforcement and supply?
 
That would be an undesireable scenario, but certainly more desireable than being herded into Confederate prisoner-of-war camps, don't you think?

Well, that's assuming that being herded off to a POW camp was the only option. Hood could have, and probably would have, disarmed and paroled them. This would have removed them from the campaign as effectively, and it would have meant he wouldn't have had to detach combat troops to escort them to a POW Camp. And it also would have relieved the Confederacy of the burden of feeding them.
 
You can talk about your Clementine,
And sing of Roselle,
But General Hood of Georgia,
Played Bloody H*** in Tennessee.
 
No army ever did that. Why would Schofield suddenly do it? It would mean abandoning not only all their ammo supplies but also the entire artillery train and all the food, and if they did that, what emerged afterward...assuming the army could be gotten together again at all...wouldn't be an army anymore, it would be a mob. For all intents and purposes, it's no better than the surrender option.

I think you'll find that Soult did exactly that after the Battle of Oporto in 1809. His supply lines back to Spain had been cut, so he struck out across country. He lost a lot of men and of course all his wheeled transport, but he got his army out.
 
I think you'll find that Soult did exactly that after the Battle of Oporto in 1809. His supply lines back to Spain had been cut, so he struck out across country. He lost a lot of men and of course all his wheeled transport, but he got his army out.

I was referring to ACW armies, a great many of which, on both sides, were faced with surrender during the war. None of them ever did what Anaxagoras suggested. Indeed, I only know of one instance where such an option was even considered...which was by Robert E. Lee at Appomattox. And he rejected it.

There is nothing in Schofield's background or career which would indicate that such an option would have seemed attractive to him. And given the fact that surrender to Hood's army probably meant parole rather than prison, there's even less reason to think so.
 
Top