Could the Union have won the first Battle of Bull Run in 1861?

Given your tactic is to ignore whatever someone else adds to the thread, that list must be pretty long.

I see that there is no chance of actually discussing the issue with you, as actually looking at the situation would take effort you are unwilling to make.

Say hello to my ignore list.
 
If the Union had won this battle, there would have been no Civil War - the Rebellion of 1861 is more likely. They win Bull Run, and persue the broken ANVA as soon as the Union reserves meet up with the main force. They march into Richmond soon after, and the war is literally won and done by Christmas.

My personal favorite way to do this is for the bullet that killed General Bee kills Stonewall Jackson instead. Prior to Stonewall rallying the troops, Bee was ready to order his troops to pull back - Stonewall takes the shot that mortally wounded Bee, the order to pull back would have been given soon after, likely leading to a rout.
 
Nice POD.

I don't think it would have been that easy, but I agree that pursuing the Confederates to de facto destruction and going to Richmond was possible. Not likely, but possible. There just wasn't anyone in that army who had the drive to make it happen.

If the Union had won this battle, there would have been no Civil War - the Rebellion of 1861 is more likely. They win Bull Run, and persue the broken ANVA as soon as the Union reserves meet up with the main force. They march into Richmond soon after, and the war is literally won and done by Christmas.

My personal favorite way to do this is for the bullet that killed General Bee kills Stonewall Jackson instead. Prior to Stonewall rallying the troops, Bee was ready to order his troops to pull back - Stonewall takes the shot that mortally wounded Bee, the order to pull back would have been given soon after, likely leading to a rout.
 
Nice POD.

I don't think it would have been that easy, but I agree that pursuing the Confederates to de facto destruction and going to Richmond was possible. Not likely, but possible. There just wasn't anyone in that army who had the drive to make it happen.

Smash the Army of Northern Virginia, and you give them the drive.
 
The troops, yes, but not the commanders. I see McDowell and his subordinates of being the type who would complain to Lincoln "Wahhh... we're disorganized. We need new equipment. How will we supply ourselves on an advance to Richmond. What if there are new enemies out there? We're not ready."

In the Civil War, that's a familiar story. McClellan and Joe Johnston would tell it every day.

The simple fact that if they got moving the next day, there would be no effective resistance in front of them would not occur to that lot.

Smash the Army of Northern Virginia, and you give them the drive.
 
In the Civil War, that's a familiar story. McClellan and Joe Johnston would tell it every day.

The simple fact that if they got moving the next day, there would be no effective resistance in front of them would not occur to that lot.

Of course that goes both ways. One of the more reasonable ways to seriously hurt the Union would be for the Army of Northern Virginia to move on Washington immedeietely after Bull Run.
 
Even if the Confederate forces manage to rally at Richmond so that it does not fall, the Confederates have more or less lost the entire northern half of Virginia permanently. What ends up being permanently occupied? The Rappahannok or York River basins?

Combined with the losses in western Virginia, that pretty much gives the Union control of the Shenandoah Valley as well. Virginia just lost its breadbasket in the summer of 1861. There's going to be a lot of hungry people.

I'm sure McDowell will need to take a few days to get the army in proper order, but combined with a huge morale of the Union troops who just won the first battle and demands from Lincoln, the Army of the Potomac will have to move forward. It's just a matter of where it stops - just north of Richmond, at Richmond, all the way to the border of North Carolina? It's all a matter of how much of Virginia is lost.

A worst case scenario would be that only a partial rally is made of the Confederate forces when McDowell arrives outside Richmond, and he easily disperses them leading to a second Union victory. Dissertion becomes rampant and the entire Confederate army in Virginia melts away. Not only is Virginia recovered by the Union, a move into North Carolina is made. Significant population of North Carolina defects making most of that state recoverable for the Union. By end of spring 1862, almost the entire Upper South is recovered. By the end of 1862, the war could be over. Not the most likely scenario, but potentially possible.
 
I'm sure McDowell will need to take a few days to get the army in proper order, but combined with a huge morale of the Union troops who just won the first battle and demands from Lincoln, the Army of the Potomac will have to move forward. It's just a matter of where it stops - just north of Richmond, at Richmond, all the way to the border of North Carolina? It's all a matter of how much of Virginia is lost.
Because the Confederate army is utterly crushed as an army, unlike the OTL reverse scenario?

Even if it routs off the field, McDowell has seven companies of cavalry. That's not enough to keep the pressure on, which means that it can reform and confront him again.

This really does need to be faced, rather than the idea of the Army of Shenandoah and Army of the Potomac (the term Beauregard's force) being so scared they run as soon as they see blue (as it were).

Add in the fact several of Beauregard's brigades are probably unengaged or lightly engaged on that day (those not involved in the fighting OTL), which means that even if the rest rout he can form some sense of a rear guard - just as McDowell did with troops not in the fighting for his army OTL - and it gets more difficult.

Certainly the Confederates pushing back would be rather hard, but gobbling them up has issues that a Grant or Thomas would be no slower to acknowledge.
 
If the Union had won this battle, there would have been no Civil War - the Rebellion of 1861 is more likely. They win Bull Run, and persue the broken ANVA...

Some extra reading is needed here. The Confederate force at First Bull run was the Army of the Potomac. (Yes, it was the only Confederate army named for a river.) It was renamed the Army of Virginia somewhat later. It wasn't named the Army of Northern Virginia until Lee took command in 1862.
... as soon as the Union reserves meet up with the main force. They march into Richmond soon after, and the war is literally won and done by Christmas.

There are several problems with this scenario. The Union Army of Virginia (as it was then named) was in no condition to pursue anybody. There were some uncommitted troops in good order, but the bulk of the army was exhausted, hungry, and spread all over the place. Thousands of men were separated from their commands.

This was a green army; only a handful of its officers and non-coms had any experience with marching and camping. It had next to no cavalry.

Furthermore, the Union quartermaster service was not prepared to supply an army marching a hundred miles south.

Finally, while the left wing of the Confederate army would have been shattered, the right wing would have withdrawn intact. Many of the men routed in the battle would rally to the army, if for no other reason than to get something to eat. Walking home to Georgia or Texas wasn't an option.

Civil war armies were remarkably resilient. For instance, at the battle of Winchester in 1862, Jackson's Confederate force attacked with a big numeric advantage and routed Banks' Union force, chasing them all the way to the Potomac. Yet when Banks finally rallied his force, he still had three-quarters of his men.

So the military probability is that after a week or so, the Union army would be regrouped and start to march south. They would come up against the regrouped Confederate army, probably at Fredericksburg, which is the direct route to Richmond. The Union would have an edge in numbers, but they would have to force an opposed river crossing, and then push the Confederates off the high ground further back. If they succeeded, the Confederates would fall back to the North Anna for another stand on favorable ground.

If the Union drove the Confederates back from there, and from Hanover Court House, they could get to Richmond - at which point they have to besiege a city that would be well fortified.

Somehow I doubt that this campaign would just be a march against no effective resistance.

However, as I noted elsewhere, the war might indeed have ended quickly, because an embarrassing defeat in the first major battle would deflate all the enthusiasm whipped up by the Fire-Eaters, leading to a political collapse of the CSA.
 
Because the Confederate army is utterly crushed as an army, unlike the OTL reverse scenario?

It is very unlikely but not impossible IMO. The CSA is only months old and in this scenario has been no great sacrifices , no glorious victory and one shattering defeat. Its ties are considerably weaker than later. At this point more of the troops are likely to feel fighting it isn't worth it than later.
 
It is very unlikely but not impossible IMO. The CSA is only months old and in this scenario has been no great sacrifices , no glorious victory and one shattering defeat. Its ties are considerably weaker than later. At this point more of the troops are likely to feel fighting it isn't worth it than later.

Oh certainly. But I suspect something can be held together, and even "just" the OTL unengaged brigades are maybe twelve thousand infantry.

Hardly nothing.
 
Oh certainly. But I suspect something can be held together, and even "just" the OTL unengaged brigades are maybe twelve thousand infantry.

Hardly nothing.

If there's fragments of the Confederate Army still trying to put up a fight while the states fall all over themselves to back off from secession that would turn the situation into a long, bloody slog for the Union Army. In the end the rebellion would fizzle out but odds are it would inspire future tension and turmoil.
 
If there's fragments of the Confederate Army still trying to put up a fight while the states fall all over themselves to back off from secession that would turn the situation into a long, bloody slog for the Union Army. In the end the rebellion would fizzle out but odds are it would inspire future tension and turmoil.

Why? If the states back off from secession the most likely scenario is that it goes down in history as "The slaveholder's revolt"and dies a quick death.
 
Yeah. The only way you're getting the army putting up a fight is the soldiers aren't feeling "okay, had our adventure, back to home and hearth." - which seeing their states scramble to rejoin the Union will inspire.

I'm not sure the CSA would collapse from a single battle though. Even if the Confederates are utterly routed, we are talking stubborn people.
 
Because the Confederate army is utterly crushed as an army, unlike the OTL reverse scenario?

Even if it routs off the field, McDowell has seven companies of cavalry. That's not enough to keep the pressure on, which means that it can reform and confront him again.

This really does need to be faced, rather than the idea of the Army of Shenandoah and Army of the Potomac (the term Beauregard's force) being so scared they run as soon as they see blue (as it were).

The Union Army didn't manage to rally until it reached Washington which is about 25-30 miles away. A similar retreat would mean the earliest rally would be around the Rapphannock assuming they just don't keep fleeing until Richmond. Furthermore, the Union at least was one army going back to one place. The Confederates had two forces, and it's unlikely they will retreat in the same direction.

What does Patterson's Union army does after he hears of the victory? If Johnston's Army is still relatively intact, so is Patterson's. The Shenandoah is lost, and you have the chance Patterson will link up with McDowell.

Confederate pursuit of the Union Army was hurt by squabbling between Beauregard and Johnston. McDowell does not have a divided command. There's no reason he can't mount some kind of pursuit. Even a light pursuit might cause a lot of damage. How many Confederate soldiers will simply desert and go back home rather than form their lines? What if a premature rally allows the Union to get a second victory?

I think there can be a wide range of opinion of what would happen and how bad it would mean. But looking at the map, it's hard for me to see the Confederates not losing a significant amount of Virginia even if Richmond is held (which is definitely plausible). With some bad luck, which is very possible, it could be far worse.
 
The Union Army didn't manage to rally until it reached Washington which is about 25-30 miles away.

Ignoring the parts that did retreat in some form of good order (largely those not really engaged - assuming the like, we have several brigades for Beauregard).

A similar retreat would mean the earliest rally would be around the Rapphannock assuming they just don't keep fleeing until Richmond. Furthermore, the Union at least was one army going back to one place. The Confederates had two forces, and it's unlikely they will retreat in the same direction.

I don't see why being nominally two armies means they'll break in two separate directions.

What does Patterson's Union army does after he hears of the victory? If Johnston's Army is still relatively intact, so is Patterson's. The Shenandoah is lost, and you have the chance Patterson will link up with McDowell.

Confederate pursuit of the Union Army was hurt by squabbling between Beauregard and Johnston. McDowell does not have a divided command. There's no reason he can't mount some kind of pursuit. Even a light pursuit might cause a lot of damage. How many Confederate soldiers will simply desert and go back home rather than form their lines? What if a premature rally allows the Union to get a second victory?

McDowell has a green, disorganized army with seven companies of cavalry (which could be fended off by Stuart, Radford . . .) and division commanders who are largely inept.


I think there can be a wide range of opinion of what would happen and how bad it would mean. But looking at the map, it's hard for me to see the Confederates not losing a significant amount of Virginia even if Richmond is held (which is definitely plausible). With some bad luck, which is very possible, it could be far worse.

I'm not really sure on how much the Union can significantly "secure" Virginia here. It has troops temporally present, but not enough to really hold down the area and chase the rebels.
 
On the question of whether McDowell's army could have mounted a post-victory pursuit: some people :rolleyes: are determined to ignore whatever anyone else says and insist "it's impossible, it's impossible, it's impossible," even though these same people think Johnston's and Beauregard's Confederates, who would serve as our model for what a green army could do in the wake of a win at Bull Run, could have pursued McDowell back to Washington.

I'll state this one more time, just to make it crystal clear: neither McDowell nor any of his senior subordinates would have even thought of ordering a pursuit. Like their opposite numbers in the Confederate army, at Bull Run there was no one of senior rank with the ruthless aggression to push aside the difficulties and plow forward, no one who would think that keeping the initiative and giving the aggressive a try was better than doing nothing. You can' construct a scenario where enough people get killed or wounded to put such a person in charge without beheading the army -- either army, really.

But as for the larger question of whether it was possible? The overwhelming majority of historians who have voiced an opinion on the matter think that the Confederates could have mounted a pursuit to the Potomac, which was some 30 miles away. Given that the differences in quality between the equally green armies were minute, a point proven by how close run that battle was and countless studies since then, the idea that the Federals couldn't attempt at least as much is an exercise in willfully capricious judgement. And that makes it automatically invalid.

Some people :rolleyes: are also very eager to brush aside the issue of command, and to that I will ask this one simple question: what do you think might have happened if you could wave your magic wand and put a Grant, Sherman, Lee, Jackson, or Sheridan in command... of either army. Or even a Rosecrans or Early? Do you think they would have sat their twiddling their thumbs the next day? Hell no -- regardless of circumstances, they would have pursued. Some of those guys would have started their pursuit in the wee hours of the morning, before sunrise.

Maybe it would have worked, and maybe it wouldn't, but this is what separates the better commanders from the lesser ones: when faced with a glittering opportunity of an enemy on the run, they don't stop to regroup and pull up their logistical tale -- instead, they get going and go after them!

And this is why I say if the posters who fret about it and say it was impossible would have made decent aides on McClellan's staff. They would have fit right in! :D In this way, you can literally see how the command tent of a McClellan or Johnston must have operated, because here we have people who are under no pressure whatsoever, and they are so blinded by the problems that they can't see the opportunities and actively argue against reaching for gold.
 
Top