CSA Capital stays as Montgomery, what effects on CSA

Wow, someone actually discussing the POD? Whodathunkit.

Anyway, an SC capital is unlikely because SC was always considered to be too radical even by the other Southern states. Having the convention in Montgomery, the capitol in Montgomery, and then the capitol in Richmon was a way of ensuring most Southerners that the people they thought were crazies weren't in charge. It's the same reason why, when the North finally went free soil, the elected Lincoln instead of Garrison.

Since the POD refers to a Western capital, so would putting the capital in either Atlanta or Chattanooga have the same effect (and Garrison was not in the running in 1860, you mean Chase).

"If Sidney Johnston is no general, then we have no general." - Jefferson Davis.

Putting the Confederacy's capital into his hands would be enough to merit being considered "stupid". Though it might see more supplies and troops to some extent, it won't change that Sidney Johnston was no general.

And that he's facing two competent desk generals with the first and second-best US generals under them......in the same theater the CS capital's in. Poor Confederacy. :(
 
"If Sidney Johnston is no general, then we have no general." - Jefferson Davis.

Putting the Confederacy's capital into his hands would be enough to merit being considered "stupid". Though it might see more supplies and troops to some extent, it won't change that Sidney Johnston was no general.

AS Johnston won't reach the Confederacy until August of 1861. If TTL spurs earlier clashes in the West, then Johnston may not end up being put in overall command of the "Western Department." In fact, TTL, I doubt there would be a Western Department. The CSA gov probably has a more Western outlook so it probably doesn't lump the whole place into one department.
 
AS Johnston won't reach the Confederacy until August of 1861. If TTL spurs earlier clashes in the West, then Johnston may not end up being put in overall command of the "Western Department." In fact, TTL, I doubt there would be a Western Department. The CSA gov probably has a more Western outlook so it probably doesn't lump the whole place into one department.

Actually, given how little of the West the CSA would be able to afford giving up, there would still be a Western Department but the war in the West would start with the politicization of the 1864 campaigns for the Confederacy. As this yokes the Army of Tennessee right out of the starting gate with intrigue from Chattanooga/Atlanta, as opposed to by the time of the Atlanta Campaign.

This naturally is only a bigger help for Generals Grant and Thomas, and if McClellan becomes General-in-Chief he'll want to help his good buddy Buell whose army is so naturally poised to strike overland for the capital of the Confederacy......
 
AS Johnston won't reach the Confederacy until August of 1861. If TTL spurs earlier clashes in the West, then Johnston may not end up being put in overall command of the "Western Department." In fact, TTL, I doubt there would be a Western Department. The CSA gov probably has a more Western outlook so it probably doesn't lump the whole place into one department.

The CSA not lumping it into one department is a step towards one of Davis's favored forms of military bungling. And he'll still give Johnston the most important position he can because that's how highly he sees him.
 
Since the POD refers to a Western capital, so would putting the capital in either Atlanta or Chattanooga have the same effect (and Garrison was not in the running in 1860, you mean Chase).

The comment I responded to was about South Carolina, if you look back.

I know Garrison wasn't running. South Carolina wasn't in contention for the capitol of the Confederacy.
 
The CSA not lumping it into one department is a step towards one of Davis's favored forms of military bungling. And he'll still give Johnston the most important position he can because that's how highly he sees him.

I agree that splitting the West into multiple departments could make things worse for the South given Davis' propensities. You seem to think that I am trying to act as an advocate for the South, trying to think of things that will make things better for them. Some of y'all are acting as advocates one way or the other, but I'm not. I'm just trying to take the POD seriously and game out what will happen.

Of course Davis will give Johnston an important position. That's not the point. The point is that y'all are assuming that given a pretty major theater-shifting POD, the appointment of generals will go almost exactly as in OTL. That's nuts. In OTL, Davis would have appointed Johnston to command of the Army of N. Va. if he could have, but Johnston got on the scene too late. The same dynamic might play out in TTL. What Davis wants to do isn't the only factor, even for Davis.
 
The CSA not lumping it into one department is a step towards one of Davis's favored forms of military bungling. And he'll still give Johnston the most important position he can because that's how highly he sees him.

A form that will be magnified with the intrigue that would happen with a western Confederate capital right next to the biggest Unionist chunk in the South.

The comment I responded to was about South Carolina, if you look back.

I know Garrison wasn't running. South Carolina wasn't in contention for the capitol of the Confederacy.

I was agreeing with you and simply noting a different place for the Confederate capital if not Richmond.
 
I agree that splitting the West into multiple departments could make things worse for the South given Davis' propensities. You seem to think that I am trying to act as an advocate for the South, trying to think of things that will make things better for them. Some of y'all are acting as advocates one way or the other, but I'm not. I'm just trying to take the POD seriously and game out what will happen.

Of course Davis will give Johnston an important position. That's not the point. The point is that y'all are assuming that given a pretty major theater-shifting POD, the appointment of generals will go almost exactly as in OTL. That's nuts. In OTL, Davis would have appointed Johnston to command of the Army of N. Va. if he could have, but Johnston got on the scene too late. The same dynamic might play out in TTL. What Davis wants to do isn't the only factor, even for Davis.

I don't think it's nuts to assume that if General McClellan becomes general-in-chief he'd still be recalled to go to Washington, while Generals Halleck and Buell receive their OTL Departmental Boundaries. If anything, given McClellan liked Buell I could see the Army of the Ohio benefiting greatly from that friendship in this specific scenario, while the Army of the Potomac still needs to defend Washington, DC, and capture the major logistical and industrial center that is Richmond, Virginia.

The need to defend Washington will remain consistent no matter how things operate in the West, and Halleck and Buell will still outrank the later generals who actually won the war. It is extremely unlikely for the first major offensive in Virginia to turn into a decisive victory for either side, and that in turn means that the Confederacy will start the war better able to menace Washington than the USA can menace Chattanooga/Atlanta.

However in this case, Lincoln's goal of capturing East Tennessee jives with overall US strategy, and Buell, a very Halleck type of general if a bit more inclined to actually fight, has his own Grant in one George Thomas, the best defensive general on either side and a sledgehammerer (by comparison Grant is a jackhammerer) on offense. So Buell's career might reflect that of Henry Halleck and George Thomas might end up taking over Grant's role, with fewer overall battles but much more decisive characteristics in the short term to those battles.
 
I agree that splitting the West into multiple departments could make things worse for the South given Davis' propensities. You seem to think that I am trying to act as an advocate for the South, trying to think of things that will make things better for them. Some of y'all are acting as advocates one way or the other, but I'm not. I'm just trying to take the POD seriously and game out what will happen.

If you mean me...then its because the kind of questions you're asking are from the "could this come off better than OTL" angle, or seeming to be so.

Of course Davis will give Johnston an important position. That's not the point. The point is that y'all are assuming that given a pretty major theater-shifting POD, the appointment of generals will go almost exactly as in OTL. That's nuts. In OTL, Davis would have appointed Johnston to command of the Army of N. Va. if he could have, but Johnston got on the scene too late. The same dynamic might play out in TTL. What Davis wants to do isn't the only factor, even for Davis.

The problem is that there's not a whole lot of reason to have Virginia generals in the West or vice-versa. Individual exceptions, yes. But the reasons Polk got an assignment aren't going away here, for instance.
 
I was agreeing with you and simply noting a different place for the Confederate capital if not Richmond.

Gotcha. I don't know if Atlanta works any more than Montgomery does. Just as the Lower South thought South Carolina was too radical, the Upper South generally thought the Lower South was too radical. That's why the capitol was moved to Richmond OTL. I just don't think Chattanooga works, though. Its something of a backwater in a Unionist area. No important Confederate constituency is bought off by it. Nashville might work, though as a western city it doesn't have the cultured aristocratic mystique that was so vital to Southern self-conceptions, however imaginary in practice. New Orleans, possibly, but it was too foreign for most of the South and pretty far away.

Assuming that all the states join as in OTL, the most likely alternative to Richmond is probably Montgomery, just because it was already the capitol. I can see a widespread consensus that it should be moved somewhere to the upper south but just have it never quite get done under the press of events. What kind of events could happen prior to May 1861 that would distract the Confederate government? Dunno, maybe a more aggressive and energetic naval action somewhere? Some free lance plundering down the Mississippi?
 
If you mean me...then its because the kind of questions you're asking are from the "could this come off better than OTL" angle, or seeming to be so.

The questions I'm asking seem like that because they aren't 'every change means a total Union wank, woot!' angle. I'd like to see a more successful Union,* but I'd like to get there via a careful historical route, not a fanboi route.

*Sorta. I expect that if the Union is much more successful, it butterflies Emancipation. That could well happen in TTL.
 
Gotcha. I don't know if Atlanta works any more than Montgomery does. Just as the Lower South thought South Carolina was too radical, the Upper South generally thought the Lower South was too radical. That's why the capitol was moved to Richmond OTL. I just don't think Chattanooga works, though. Its something of a backwater in a Unionist area. No important Confederate constituency is bought off by it. Nashville might work, though as a western city it doesn't have the cultured aristocratic mystique that was so vital to Southern self-conceptions, however imaginary in practice. New Orleans, possibly, but it was too foreign for most of the South and pretty far away.

Assuming that all the states join as in OTL, the most likely alternative to Richmond is probably Montgomery, just because it was already the capitol. I can see a widespread consensus that it should be moved somewhere to the upper south but just have it never quite get done under the press of events. What kind of events could happen prior to May 1861 that would distract the Confederate government? Dunno, maybe a more aggressive and energetic naval action somewhere? Some free lance plundering down the Mississippi?

Putting that backwater in a Unionist state might actually work somewhat from the propaganda point of view (in a neener-neener-boo-boo type of propaganda, that is) and Chattanooga like Richmond is a center of railroads and industry. Also a fairly older city by 1860s standards, not as young as Montgomery or Nashville.

I think what might work is if Virginia's governor pursues more radical policies to bring Virginia into the Confederacy immediately after Lincoln's call for troops, without offering a move to Richmond. The Confederacy could justify the move to Chattanooga as a peacetime justification and for instance promise a capital in Richmond after the war akin to how the US capital in the Revolutionary War was Philadelphia and the first US capital was actually New York. They could use that precedent to justify the idea and keep Virgina in line.

Regardless of how that plays out, the Confederacy has only 100 miles to go to Washington, the USA has a lot more than that to get to Chattanooga.
 
The questions I'm asking seem like that because they aren't 'every change means a total Union wank, woot!' angle. I'd like to see a more successful Union,* but I'd like to get there via a careful historical route, not a fanboi route.

*Sorta. I expect that if the Union is much more successful, it butterflies Emancipation. That could well happen in TTL.

It's not a *total* Union wank. For one thing the CSA has an actual advantage in its capital being much further away than the US one, it gives it an ability to minimize success of the Western armies more fully than IOTL. Too, the CSA has the corresponding advantages of hostile terrain and ability to utilize guerrilla warfare in said terrain against any US strikes overland to Chattanooga.
 
The questions I'm asking seem like that because they aren't 'every change means a total Union wank, woot!' angle. I'd like to see a more successful Union,* but I'd like to get there via a careful historical route, not a fanboi route.

*Sorta. I expect that if the Union is much more successful, it butterflies Emancipation. That could well happen in TTL.

The problem is that the CSA's situation is so bad thanks to its dearth of anything like competent senior leadership (military or even worse political), it would be hard for it to do better than OTL.

A change that makes the CSA's worst army responsible for defending the capital in the theater with the best Union generals...is not going to end well. And the reason for the AoT being formed as it was is in place regardless of the location of the capital.
 

<br><br>Derailing the thread to this extent because you can't concede a simple point is not okay. Either contribute to the topic or stay out.

<br><br>
Snake Featherston said:

This isn't a thread to debate the morality of the Confederacy. Your giant line-by-line posts aren't doing anyone any good, since he's not going to respond fairly and no one else is going to read them. Don't contribute to the derail.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Would Lee actually be in charge of the Union armies? I always thought that the idea of him leading Union forces was something that Lost Causers would blather on about just to show off how OMGAMAZING!!1! Bobby Lee was (in their eyes).

Further, how would Lee have fared against Rebel commanders? I always got the sense that Lee was a mediocre general and just godawful at offensive campaigns.

Lee was offered one of the three slots for Major-General on the basis of his engineering expertise. He would command the defences of Washington, whilst Fremont and McClellan also had their respective departments.

Lee is, by Hattaway and Jones, an average general. If you put numbers into Lanchester equations then the result is most generals of both sides cluster around Lee in terms of ability.

Of Lee's opponents, the numbers indicates McClellan was 30% better than Lee , Meade and Pope were equal to Lee and Burnside, Hooker and Grant were all ca. 30% worse than Lee.
 
Lee is, by Hattaway and Jones, an average general.

For the 20th time, that is not what Hattway and Jones concluded - they concluded he took average casualties while winning more than average. It's bad enough you misquote but when you're still doing it years later, it's downright ridiculous.

Of Lee's opponents, the numbers indicates McClellan was 30% better than Lee , Meade and Pope were equal to Lee and Burnside, Hooker and Grant were all ca. 30% worse than Lee.

Looking at raw percentages, Grant is the only Union general to inflict a higher percent of casualties on Lee than Lee inflicted on the Union.
 
Top