Feasibility of a late 1862 Confederate reconquest of New Orleans

As written on the tin.

IOTL Lee conducted the invasion of the north which culminated in Antietam battle (and the Declaration of Emancipation :D). Imagine that Davis vetoes this operation and mandates an effort to reconquer New Orleans before november mid term northern elections using part of Lee forces.

I know, New Orleans is not exactly the next stop after Richmond but Butler forces are quite limited and you don't need to move south the whole NVA.

Possible? impossible (if so why?)

If successful it would be a real shock for the north possibly ending up with a non-administration friendly House and a better evaluation of confederate chances on part of the british and french governments.
 
Last edited:
Short answer: Impossible.

Why?
  1. Lee would never agree to send AoNV troops west; he sees the Eastern Theater as the best place to win.
  2. New Orleans is extermely vulnerable to naval bombardament (this is why they surrendered in the first place). Any troops reoccupying New Orleans would be vulnerable to attack from Union naval squadrons.
  3. The CSA would have to divert troops from other duties, specifically the defense of Vicksburg from Grant; this would not happen. Davis valued Vicksburg far more than New Orleans.
The only way the CSA would even consider such an idea is if they were somehow able to take control of the Mississippi from the Union Navy; and that would require ASB support.
 
Short answer: Impossible.

Why?
  1. Lee would never agree to send AoNV troops west; he sees the Eastern Theater as the best place to win.
  2. New Orleans is extermely vulnerable to naval bombardament (this is why they surrendered in the first place). Any troops reoccupying New Orleans would be vulnerable to attack from Union naval squadrons.
  3. The CSA would have to divert troops from other duties, specifically the defense of Vicksburg from Grant; this would not happen. Davis valued Vicksburg far more than New Orleans.
The only way the CSA would even consider such an idea is if they were somehow able to take control of the Mississippi from the Union Navy; and that would require ASB support.

Reality is different -- The Civil War, for the Confederacy, was lost in the WEST -- Vicksburg was more important than Gettysburg for the defeat of the south. Atlanta Falling compensated for the exhausting draw of the Wilderness-to-Petersburg battles.

While New Orleans is unlikely, a relief of Vicksburg would have been a better play in the long run
 
I think they could DO it, but it would fuck up their defensive strategy elsewhere and probably have near disastrous consequences in the North.

Their only best bet is to win the battle in the East and send some squadrons racing to New Orleans, but then it depends on how well it is defended. Maybe if they can tell the guys in Texas they are coming, a light fast army (JEB maybe) could co-ordinate and take it. Holding it may be a different matter tho!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Breckinridge almost recaptured Baton Rouge, which would have been a stepping stone to recapture New Orleans. The operation failed primarily because Breckinridge was counting on the support of the CSS Arkansas (really a far-sighted combined arms operation by Breckinridge, especially for a guy who had no military training) and the engines of the Arkansas failed at the critical moment. If the Arkansas had not seen its engines fail, Baton Rogue might have fallen back into Confederate hands and it might help negate Union naval superiority if an effort were made to recapture the Big Easy.
 
Reality is different -- The Civil War, for the Confederacy, was lost in the WEST -- Vicksburg was more important than Gettysburg for the defeat of the south. Atlanta Falling compensated for the exhausting draw of the Wilderness-to-Petersburg battles.
Exactly; all of Lee's brilliant success was for naught as long as the Union armies were advancing in the west.

While New Orleans is unlikely, a relief of Vicksburg would have been a better play in the long run
Actually, it doesn't have to get that far; if the Confederates had moved more quickly, they could have contained Grant when he landed on the east shore of the Mississippi. The terrain south of the town is ideal defensive terrain.

The thing was through most of the Vicksburg campaign, the Confederates had relative numerical parity with the Federals. The biggest problem was the lack of aggressive leadership. General Joe Johnston's performance was particularly pathetic (it didn't help that he wanted to abandon Vicksburg).
I think they could DO it, but it would fuck up their defensive strategy elsewhere and probably have near disastrous consequences in the North.
Precisely; recapturing New Orleans would require troops needed to hold the Federal armies moving towards Vicksburg and Chattanooga....and losing these towns would be far worse as we saw IOTL.

The simple fact is that recapturing New Orleans would be a waste of time as long as the Union Navy controlled the Mississippi.
 
I see extremely interesting ideas to turn Champion Hill into a worse version of Waterloo...

Pemberton decides to do his utmost for the confederacy and falls down a flight stairs breaking his neck. A better officer (easy, practically any officer in Vicksburg :D) follows Johnston advices and does an encouter battle with all the available forces at Champion Hill. At the worst moment, the relief force [1] arrives from east on the back of unionists. Grant manages somehow to extricate himself from the pincer but has to fall back to the Missisipi.

Vicksburg gets a reprive until let's say autumn 1863 but, most important, Grant is cashiered [2].

In 1864 Lee has to confront with at worst Sherman and at best Meade. If Sherman remains in his place, there is still Atlanta but, unless Meade has pinned down Lee, there is no march to the sea. If Sherman goes east, the move to Atlanta is less incisive than IOTL. I see decent possibilities for a situation on the ground undecided enough for people to vote McClellan in 1864.

[1] Blucher counterpart, made up by Johnston force plus eastern reinforcements.
[2] Grant decision to move inland without a shred of line of communication was based on the gamble that the confederates would behave idiotically (something that happened ITOL). If they had behaved differently, an audacious action (what a reckless gamble is called when you win) would have turned into an disastrous decision (what the same reckless gamble is called when you lose).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Pretty much impossible; given the

Pretty much impossible; given the realities of the correlation of forces in the west in late 1862 - the US had about 150,000 troops in the field, not counting garrisons, lines of communications, etc, as compared to maybe ~120,000 among the rebel commands, PLUS naval supremacy - it's just not in the cards.

It is worth considering that not only did Breckinridge loose against Williams at Baton Rouge in 1862, but Floyd et al had lost to Grant and Foote at Henry/Donelson, McCown lost to Pope at Island Number 10, AS Johnston lost to Grant and Buell at Shiloh, Van Dorn lost to Rosecrans at Corinth, and Bragg and Kirby Smith lost to Buell at Perryville...

Not exactly a drumroll of victory for the CSA in the West in 1862.

Best,
 
So, summing up, New Orleans is in the hands of whoever controls the Missisipi (i.e. unionists unless space pterandons are involved) and Grant maneuver is unstoppable.

Thanks a lot to all people who contributed to this thread.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes to whoever controls the Mississippi; not necesarilly

So, summing up, New Orleans is in the hands of whoever controls the Missisipi (i.e. unionists unless space pterandons are involved) and Grant maneuver is unstoppable.

Thanks a lot to all people who contributed to this thread.

Yes to whoever controls the Mississippi; not necesarilly that Grant's maneuvers were unstoppable - they were stopped at Chickasaw Bluffs, after all.

But having said that, the US held all the cards in the West from the spring of '62 onwards, and that had a lot to do with US Grant and the partnership he built with the USN, under Foote and continuing through with Davis, Farragut, Porter, etc.

Pretty difficult for the rebels to overcome that...

If the question is what could the rebels have done differently in the west? There are a lot of potential answers.

Keep Polk from invading Kentucky to start with...

Best,
 
If the question is what could the rebels have done differently in the west?

Aim a little higher :D.

My pet CSA wank relies upon two items, both taking place in the west:

  1. on Nov 7th 1861, during Belmont battle, an unknown confederate soldier aims a little higher and general Ulysses Grant enters ACW history as the first union general KIA.
  2. in particulary gloomy Nov 1861 day, the melancholia [1] of general William Sherman becomes so severe that he commits suicide [2].
With two tiny butterflies I have removed the two best union generals of the war. An undecided/stalemated situation on the ground on election day 1864 is more than likely, propelling McClellan to the White House.

[1] AKA depression.
[2] IOTL he did consider killing himself.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
No, you can get Kearny and Reynolds or Grant and Sherman

Aim a little higher :D.

My pet CSA wank relies upon two items, both taking place in the west:

  1. on Nov 7th 1861, during Belmont battle, an unknown confederate soldier aims a little higher and general Ulysses Grant enters ACW history as the first union general KIA.
  2. in particulary gloomy Nov 1861 day, the melancholia [1] of general William Sherman becomes so severe that he commits suicide [2].
With two tiny butterflies I have removed the two best union generals of the war. An undecided/stalemated situation on the ground on election day 1864 is more than likely, propelling McClellan to the White House.

[1] AKA depression.
[2] IOTL he did consider killing himself.


Not all four.

Much less Sedgwick and Stevens.

Best,
 
What about Thomas?

Thomas, Sheridan and other are solid generals but their actions are not studied even today in military academies, Grant's and Sherman's ones are.

I am not even remotely positing a victory on the battlefield for the confederacy, I am positing a slower, more costly replay of OTL ACW, with a ground situation on Election Day 1864 comparable to let's say winter 1863-1864/early spring 1864. The war weary north does not re-elect Lincoln and the new president agrees the indipendence of what remains of the confederacy, not all original states. The southerners do not press their luck and accept (fire eaters can always dream of a better outcome in Episode 2 :D).

The real strategic objective of the north, getting the whole Missisipi under union control to prevent a land-locked Middle West, is accomplished as soon as Vicksburg falls.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Thomas, Sheridan and other are solid generals but their actions are not studied even today in military academies, Grant's and Sherman's ones are.

Actually, for a long time, Thomas's victory at Nashville was the only Civil War battle studied in European military academies. And contrary to what you say, it is still studied today.
 
All right.

Do we agree that Grant and Sherman did contribute somehow to Union war effort?

If so, do we agree that removing them from the war would have somewhat slowed down/hampered Union war effort and corresponding results?

If so, do we agree that therefore the Dec 1861-Jul 1864 (fall of Atlanta) 32 months span would have been a bit longer?

Does anybody find ASB-ish a delay of maybe 10%? 3/4 months more? i.e. Atlanta still in confederate hands on Nov 8th, 1864 :D?

I am gathering data about the 1864 election and my preliminary calculations show that the results might have been easily different, not a crushing democratic victory mind you, but still more electoral votes than Lincoln (and this is the only thing that matters in a first past the post voting system).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
US general officers KIA...

Sorry, your response is a tad too cryptic. More info?

Chance is just that, but still...

Everybody is a fugitive from the law of averages when on active service, but the number of general officers who do so has to be less than "all."

As it was, just in 1861-62, the US lost five major generals (Kearny, Stevens, Reno, Richardson, and Mansfield) KIA or MW, plus CF Smith due to a non-combat injury; add in Lyon in '61 as a BG who was certainly on his way up, and some of the other BGs (Bayard, Rodman, Thomas Williams, etc.) who were lost in the first couple years of the war, and that's a pretty impressive chain of command...

Best,
 
Top