Harrisburg was actually very tough to take. Not only was there was a sizable Union force defending it but the Confederates were on the wrong side of the Susquehanna River. Without taking a bridge it would be very hard to try to cross such a wide river while under fire. The Union took up the planks on the iron bridge at Wrightsville, and the bridges around Harrisburg were covered by the emplacements around Camp Hill. It would have taken a major effort by Ewell's Corps to capture the hills overlooking Harrisburg, and the bridges. They still might not be able to cross, but they could've shelled at least part of the city.
Confederate Illinois?
- Thread starter JWQ
- Start date
- Status
While we are in the same discussion of a southern Illinois secession. I think it would have to be a northwest conspiracy turned rebellion .
Suppose of all went well in 1862 for the confederacy under different leadership
suppose of Shiloh was a Confederate victory becauseBeauregard was ordered to defend New Orleans.
And what if the historical confederate victories where more meaningful such as larger armies destroyed thanks to lee having to all of Jackson’s advice Yes it’s possible!
1862 border state invasion(Kentucky, Maryland,Had pea Ridge been successful Missouri too) confederates almost took Kentucky that is true . Frankfurt Kentucky is not far away from Louisville . Brag they most incompetent confederate general instead of continuing to block Buell from getting to Kentucky it asking for Smith to come as reinforcements because a battle looked possibly.
Brag withdrew And didn’t even run away to didn’t even runto Louisville where the Yankees needed to Re-supply there depleted stores .
In Maryland Had Confederates stayed in Frederick they could have won instead of being defeated at sharpsburg Antietam . I’m saying this because of geography. The union would’ve been defeated but it would not have been catastrophic and they could easily retreat back to Pennsylvania. Confederate forces could’ve already Marched on Annapolis and possibly even before Frederick.
Especially if they had more meaningful victories but it’s also true that only elements of the army of the Potomac were in Frederick ay
i’m curious to when Lincoln would sign The emancipation proclamation? making a northwest rebellion possible in 1863 but most likely 1864.
i’m not sure about the long run for Kentucky how long will be able to hold it but in the short term it’s at least good.
Horses,railroads, essential supplies in Louisville,
Possible striking distance for raids possible striking distance for raids and sending weapons to copperheads in case they rebel.
Use Kentucky as a buffer zone .
I have to disagree on fighting at Frederick in September 1862. Lee had sent Jackson to take Harpers Ferry, so he wouldn't have had as many troops has he had at Antietam. The Battle would've taken place maybe on the 13th, or 14th, and McClennan would have his whole army there. What makes you think the Union would've suffered a major defeat? As it was Lee was lucky not to have suffered a complete disaster at Antietam, why would he have done better at Frederick? Any units that marched on Annapolis would run a big risk of being cut off, and destroyed.
I have to add that if Beauregard was sent to defend New Orleans there is no battle of Shiloh. Albert Sydney Johnston wouldn't have had enough men to attack Grant with. New Orleans would probable still have fallen, because the Union Fleet could have destroyed the city, if it didn't surrender.
Last edited:
JWQ
Gone Fishin'
lee had divided his armyAnd a cautious McClellan didn’t use the lost order to his benefit.
well obviously if I didn’t make it clear anyway.Beauregard would be the defense commander placed before 1862 in 1861 instead of Mansfield Lovell as the
at the latest Shiloh would end on April 7 I f they destroyed grants army before Buell reinforced Grant . Confederates actually did have more troops until Don Carlos arrived. Even if he arrived a few days could make such a difference believe it or not . If the original plan was executed grant possibly could have been killed and perhaps Sherman too.
They possibly could send enough troops to defend New Orleans after Shiloh,because New Orleans wasn’t taken till may 1st .
Anyway it would he’s so much wiser if they had instead of stretched out the force is too thin to try to defend everywhere under Jefferson Davis military policy.
Bit instead Under a better defense stratagem defend Select key areas for defenses and pool those resources.
Jefferson Davis is worthless as a president. I would argue the best picks for a confederate leader would be Howell Cobb’s,but he really didn’t want the Job.
honestly I came up with that conclusion why he would become a better president on my own even before I read Cloptons alternative history book. It does make logical sense why the president of the constitution convention might not be a bad pick for official president
Back in Shiloh the union army did not know they would have victory until Bulls army came . Beauregard and his subordinate help delay the March in actual history and it reduced there troops effectiveness without rations for that day .
During Shiloh General Sherman said this the rebels don’t scare grant. Now they scare me! Let’s see if this battle had occurred with all CSA troops available . They could have possibly destroyed Grant had a couple days difference was there.
y I’m making a alternative history that really points out the mistakes of the confederacy in my factbook
The creole messed up Johnston's original plan and delayed the march from Corinth to Shiloh.
back In Maryland little Mac at Antietam had his troops attack peace meal at the enemy.(Instead of attacking the enemy using his entire forces. But If Lee chose to use the geographic advantage stay in Fredrick don’t divide his forces it would be wiser for Jackson to stay with the rest of the army . . By the time the army of the Potomac would’ve Meet Lee at Frederick not even all of the Army of the Potomac was even there just elements present. The secret messag would not have been found,because union soldiers found the encampment. The victory would not be decisive per say I don’t think.
Anyway I’m glad we had a reasonable conversation even though we disagreed. Previous post the people Couldn’t believe basically that the union ran away at bull run . Though I did mention Though I did mention Don’t watch Jackson save the day with reinforcements. Many of them also did not know that at that time the union did not have many fortifications around DC . By Young Napoleons leadership DC would have impregnable Fortifications.
Last edited:
JWQ
Gone Fishin'
Howell Cobb’s president of the confederate revolution
This alternative history explains the possibility that the Confederates could’ve won the Civil War. His alternative history furthermore is more pro confederate so this might not be for your taste. The author is not that pro confederate actually. At anything he is a copperhead
www.alternatehistory.com
Alternatively you could change events in Missouri instead. Governor Jackson supported secession and tried mustering militiamen to raid the arsenal at St. Louis, which would have given the Confederacy several thousand muskets and ammunition. If Jackson had acted more quickly, or Fremont et. al less quickly, the secessionists could have captured it and potentially held onto St. Louis enough for some more sympathizers in southern Illinois to escape across the river and take up arms. I doubt, however, it would be enough to see southern Illinois secede or really contribute more than a few regiments worth of volunteers. Definitely the secessionists holding onto St. Louis would have greater ramifications than the volunteers from Illinois, but who knows how a few extra regiments may have turned the tide at Pea Ridge, Columbus, Henry/Donelson, etc.
- Status