Better CSA Performance in the West During Civil War

tenthring

Banned
I'm not a Civil War buff, but my general impression is that the war was lost in the West. By the time Vicksburg happens it is difficult to see the CSA having any chance of winning.

Are there any existing timelines that have better CSA performance in the west.
 

Yun-shuno

Banned
I'm not a Civil War buff, but my general impression is that the war was lost in the West. By the time Vicksburg happens it is difficult to see the CSA having any chance of winning.

Are there any existing timelines that have better CSA performance in the west.
I wouldn't know I should though, the civil war in the west was far more cavalry based. I would imagine the north had similar advantages as they did elsewhere.
 
Spring 1862 is the time to look at to adjust the war in the West; since A.S. Johnston's orders to fortify Nashville were ignored by the governor, Grant's capture of Forts Henry and Donnelson with their garrisons basically turned over all of TN to the Union. If Buell's army is besieging Nashville, and the Fort Donnelson garrison got out like Johnston instructed, Grant would be up against ~60,000 Confederates, with his 45,000 guys caught totally by surprise on the western bank of the Tennessee River. Leave Beauregard with some guys to shield Memphis -> Corinth -> Vicksburg, then take the bulk of the army from Corinth -> Mobile -> Chattanooga by rail, and strike north into Kentucky. Pull Buell off of Nashville, have Breckinridge and the Orphan Brigade scoop up some Kentucky recruits, buy time for the rear echelon guys to fortify key points, and whip Buell in the Bluegrass state, since unlike OTL, the Kentucky offensive would have a single commander, instead of having forces in different departments.
 

tenthring

Banned
Let's say that the west goes better in 1862. Doesn't need to be something major like taking Kentucky. Just make it so the major Confederate cities and Mississippi River don't get taken. Less casualties. What does 1863+ look like?
 
The Confederates would be getting more supplies from abroad; OTL, once Vicksburg fell, there was nothing linking Mexico -> Texas -> Confederate interior, so all their foreign supplies had to come from blockade runners. Also would put them in a better domestic supply situation, being able to get Texan cattle across the Mississippi and to the principle field armies. Serious political pressure on the Lincoln administration as long as the Confederates have the Mississippi, by far the largest artery of international commerce in the U.S., stopped up.

If Lee's 1863 offensive cripples the AotP as badly as in real life or quite possibly worse, he can make sure Chattanooga stays in Confederate hands and Atlanta is properly shielded by sending two divisions west to hold it until winter 63-64. If Chattanooga is in Confederate hands in fall 1864, they have a good chance of winning the war; the ground in East Tennessee is way too hard and rocky to dig proper siege trenches in the winter, and here's tons of high ground for Confederate to fortify. TN sort of draws invaders in two directions; the Mississippi draws them through Memphis to Corinth, while the Cumberland pulls them toward Chattanooga. Inversely, the axes of advance northwards are generally convergent around Nashville.

What matters most of all, though, is Grant IMO. If he suffers a serious defeat, like being separated and destroyed on the west bank of the Tennessee River, and gets exiled to Minnesota to fight Native Americans, then I don't think the Union can win in the Western Theatre. Rosecrans is good, but I don't think it happens without Grant, Sherman, Sheridan, and Thomas at the helm. Henry and Donnelson, Shiloh, Vicksburg, Chattanooga: great prizes each, but Grant lost 35,000 men taking all of them, quite cheap by Civil War standards. Duking it out with Confederates north of Nashville doesn't advance Union objectives one jot, and is sure to run up a much steeper butcher's bill.
 
Top