Atlanta Campaign Utter Failure

Anaxagoras

Banned
If Sherman fails to capture Atlanta, it is at least possible that the result would be Confederate independence (especially if the cause is a dramatic battlefield defeat at a place like Cassville or Peachtree Creek). The pro-peace Copperheads were in the ascendancy in the Democratic Party at the time, as demonstrated by their control of the platform writing at the convention and the nomination of George Pendleton for VP. If the Democrats had won the elections in 1864, it seems to me unlikely that whomever the new Democratic president was would be unable to resist the pressure from the pro-peace elements within his own party to enter into a cease-fire. And if that happened, there would have been insufficient political will to resume the fighting when negotiations for reunion with the South had failed (which they surely would have). The Democrats wouldn't have won the election unless they had made the decision that the war was not worth fighting, whereas the Republicans would no longer see the war as worth fighting since emancipation would have been dropped as a war aim.
 
I think the Republicans, by and large, are still going to be for continuing "Union". The most radical abolitionists, not so much, but not the party on the whole.
 
If Atlanta is still in Confederate hands on election day, 1864, then it's probably better than even money that McClellan would win. Best case scenario for the CSA at this point in the war is the lost of Tennessee, Virginia north of the Rappahanock, and southeastern Lousiana (the Union has held the mouth of the River up to Baton Rouge since summer 62 and aren't giving it up), though perhaps the North lets them keep the Indian Territory. Other "minor" but strategic territories such as the Virginia end of the Delmarva and the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas would also remain in US hands.

My biggest question is what happens between the elction of McClellan and his inauguration the following March? Will the outgoing Lincoln administraion and Army leadership go for an all-out victory drive on all fronts to try to settle the issue before the Copperheads take over? If Lincoln decides to respect the will of the elctorate and orders the Army to stand and hold on all fronts, could some commands disobey and continue the fight against orders?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
My biggest question is what happens between the elction of McClellan and his inauguration the following March? Will the outgoing Lincoln administraion and Army leadership go for an all-out victory drive on all fronts to try to settle the issue before the Copperheads take over? If Lincoln decides to respect the will of the elctorate and orders the Army to stand and hold on all fronts, could some commands disobey and continue the fight against orders?

It depends on the specific POD. If the Atlanta Campaign has failed because of a disastrous Union defeat (i.e. Sherman's army being smashed at Cassville and forced to retreat in disarray back towards Chattanooga), then there is likely no chance of bringing the war to a successful conclusion between November 1864 and March 1865. If, on the other hand, McClellan wins the election and the Southerners are clearly holding onto their military positions by their fingernails, then Lincoln will probably decide to continue the war in full force, not only because he would want to do so anyway but because doing so would place McClellan in a position where he would have little alternative but to continue the war after assuming office.
 
If Atlanta is still in Confederate hands on election day, 1864, then it's probably better than even money that McClellan would win. Best case scenario for the CSA at this point in the war is the lost of Tennessee, Virginia north of the Rappahanock, and southeastern Lousiana (the Union has held the mouth of the River up to Baton Rouge since summer 62 and aren't giving it up), though perhaps the North lets them keep the Indian Territory. Other "minor" but strategic territories such as the Virginia end of the Delmarva and the Florida Keys and Dry Tortugas would also remain in US hands.

I think the best case for the Confederacy is even worse than that. By 1864, the Union controls much of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama as well. If the Union strategy changes from "crush the entire Confederacy and win the war" to "secure as much Confederate territory as possible" than all three of those states and Louisiana is basically lost.

The problem for the Confederacy is that their forces are more or less pinned at needing to hold Richmond and Atlanta. The Union, however, can redeploy lots of forces elsewhere and reassign competent commanders to other theatres.

I don't see the Union allowing any state that the Mississippi River flows through to be part of the Confederacy. Furthermore, given the high level of pro-Unionist support in northern Alabama, I don't see Washington giving that up; and with Mobile likely to fall to Union troops too then the entire state can be held.

It's even possible that a real effort be made to secure Texas given the high level of Unionist support in certain areas of Texas. The more the Confederates drag out peace negotiations (or McClellan simply does not push peace), the likelier the more vulnerable areas of the Confederacy will fall to the Union even if a redoubt around Richmond and Atlanta preserves Confederate power east of the Appalachias.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I think the best case for the Confederacy is even worse than that. By 1864, the Union controls much of Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama as well. If the Union strategy changes from "crush the entire Confederacy and win the war" to "secure as much Confederate territory as possible" than all three of those states and Louisiana is basically lost.

But if the independence of the Confederacy is acknowledged, why would the Union want said territory? If the population is granted political equality, you'll have significant white pro-slavery representation in the federal government once again. If they disenfranchise former Confederates in those territories, then you'll have a never-ending guerrilla war - Mosby's Confederacy times a hundred.

As for Louisiana in particular, the Union didn't control the state except within the range of gunboats on the Mississippi River. In early 1864, the Confederates smashed the Union army when it tried to take over the western part of the state.
 

iddt3

Donor
But if the independence of the Confederacy is acknowledged, why would the Union want said territory? If the population is granted political equality, you'll have significant white pro-slavery representation in the federal government once again. If they disenfranchise former Confederates in those territories, then you'll have a never-ending guerrilla war - Mosby's Confederacy times a hundred.

As for Louisiana in particular, the Union didn't control the state except within the range of gunboats on the Mississippi River. In early 1864, the Confederates smashed the Union army when it tried to take over the western part of the state.
Why take it? Well for one in much of the areas held the population of unionist. The second reason is to criple their rival to the maximum extent possible. I don't see a confederacy that doesn't control New Orleans lasting all that long, even if it does manage a peace settlement.
 

Dialga

Banned
I think the best the CSA could hope for at this point was a draw. Then they'd just be setting themselves up for another war 10-20 years down the road.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
I think the best the CSA could hope for at this point was a draw. Then they'd just be setting themselves up for another war 10-20 years down the road.

It's conventional wisdom on AH.com that the United States would eventually try to reconquer the Confederacy, but I have never seen a convincing argument fir this belief.
 
It's conventional wisdom on AH.com that the United States would eventually try to reconquer the Confederacy, but I have never seen a convincing argument fir this belief.

And what exactly would a convincing argument be? Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it isn't plausible.
 
But if the independence of the Confederacy is acknowledged, why would the Union want said territory? If the population is granted political equality, you'll have significant white pro-slavery representation in the federal government once again. If they disenfranchise former Confederates in those territories, then you'll have a never-ending guerrilla war - Mosby's Confederacy times a hundred.

As for Louisiana in particular, the Union didn't control the state except within the range of gunboats on the Mississippi River. In early 1864, the Confederates smashed the Union army when it tried to take over the western part of the state.

First, there would be a significant Unionist population in all those states. Somewhere between a third and a half of whites if you count die hard unionists with moderates who reluctantly voted for secession and would easily be reconciled with return to the union. Once you add in freed blacks, unionists would make up the majority.

Second, a lot of slaves in those areas will already have been seized as contraband by the Union army or emanicpated under the Emanacipation Proclamation. There is still going to be a very good chance slavery will be outlawed right out as in OTL at some point. At the very least, the Free States will continue to dominate the Senate and House. Even if complete abolition does not happen, virtually all other anti-slavery measures are going to pass.

Third, the Union is going to want to control the Mississippi River no matter what. Any peace agreement is going to give the Union that control especially with Union troops all over that river. I'm sorry, but by 1864, the Confederacy has gotten its ass kicked. They've certainly fought bravely and managed to achieve stalemate in Virginia, but in the western theatre it's been complete disaster despite a few victories. Losing half the country has consequences. The Confederacy will not be able to keep most of the west.

Fourth, the Red River campaign failed because Nathaniel Banks was a political general with low military skill. He was choosen because Grant wanted the real military leaders assigned to more vital objectives. If the war situation changes that there is stalemate in the east so that secondary objectives becomes more important, assigning a competent commander - Sherman, Thomas, even Rosecrans - will lead to dramatically different results. I don't doubt the ability of the Union armies to conquer all of Louisiana if that becomes a priority.

Fifth, the threat of Confederate guerillas are overrated. Once peace is negotiated and the war ends, there won't be Jon Mosbys or Nathan Bedford Forrests waging their own independent war. If they are outside the Union borders, they go back to their homes and work on their own farms or businesses for personal prosperity. If they are inside the Union borders, they reconcile with the new regime and work on their own farms or businesses for personal prosperity. Anyone who still wants to wage their own private war will be caught and hung just like any other criminal bandit/murderer.

Sixth, I'm sure there will be some population transfers between the Union and Confederacy just like there was between the newly independent colonies and loyalist Canada. Unionists in North Carolina, Georgia and other states will probably go to the Union, while die hard slavers will leave the Union areas for the Confederacy.

Seventh, the Union is going to have all these ex-slaves on their hands. They are also going to expect continued escaped slaves from the Confederacy crossing over into the Union. Having one or more Deep Southern states allows some place for those blacks to live so that they don't travel into the northern states.

The simple fact is that the Union has very good reasons to want to keep Confederate territory it has conquered/liberated. There are important strategic and economic reasons, a desire to keep as many southern Unionists as possible, wanting to do something for the ex-slaves they already have, and the need to show to the northern public that the war served some purpose.

Any peace will need to be negotiated, and the Confederacy won't have much leverage. Even if there is a stalemate right outside of Richmond and Atlanta, they have still lost control over much of the territory they claim, and have little other advantages to compensate. What possibly can the Confederates offer in return for New Orleans? Whatever peace Jefferson Davis signs is going to see huge losses for the Confederacy.

As much as a poor battlefield commander McClellan is, he is an effective organizer and strategist, and repudiated the Democratic defeatist position and intended to keep fighting. Even if he becomes convinced complete victory is impossible, he not only has all the territory already controlled by the Union, but any additional lands taken between his inauguration and that realization. And once peace negotiations begin, I'm assuming there is no armistice so the Union army is still active and can win even more victories in the West to achieve better claim to the states McClellan wants to keep.
 
Top