Anaxagoras
Banned
If Joe Johnston had remained in command of the Army of Tennessee in July of 1864, would the Confederacy have been better off, worse off, or would it have made no difference?
One name I would NOT put forward is James Longstreet. I would neither trust him in an army command nor especially in command of a department. Despite his brilliance under Lee and in corps command in general, he failed at Knoxville against the North's worst remaining general. Plus, if Lee had listened to Longstreet on the Second and Third Days of Gettysburg (regarding maneuvering around the Union Left), the South would most likely have lost the war in that battle.![]()
If Joe Johnston had remained in command of the Army of Tennessee in July of 1864, would the Confederacy have been better off, worse off, or would it have made no difference?
One name I would NOT put forward is James Longstreet. I would neither trust him in an army command nor especially in command of a department. Despite his brilliance under Lee and in corps command in general, he failed at Knoxville against the North's worst remaining general. Plus, if Lee had listened to Longstreet on the Second and Third Days of Gettysburg (regarding maneuvering around the Union Left), the South would most likely have lost the war in that battle.![]()
I'm voting for no difference. At this point, the Confederate chances of anyone defeating Sherman decisively enough to do any good are slim.
And I've been over arguments on what Joe may or may not have intended before and don't have anything new to add to them, so I'm going to give him a break.
Whatever can be said for Johnston preserving his army, if Sherman takes Atlanta (either earlier or not much later), that has the effects it did on the North that its fall did OTL, and the Confederacy certainly isn't in any shape for four more years.
I knew you'd been on Civilwartalk but I didn't know you were Elennsar.This thread http://civilwartalk.com/threads/reomoving-johnston-at-atlanta.6428/ may be interesting - I was (don't post there any more) Elennsar if it matters.
And as far as successfully defending Atlanta long enough for Lincoln to win the election goes, I dont believe that just doing that would be enough for the War to end and the Confederacy achieve its independence, because I dont think McClellan was fool enough to end a war that his side was winning and was instead far more likely to have a short armistice where he offered humiliating terms to the Confederates that he knew they would reject so he could restart the war and claim the credit for winning it, immortalizing him as the President who restored the Union.
Not to mention that for some reason independent command saw a much less people-savvy Longstreet than dependent command - his quarrel with McLaws seems almost out of the blue given his Virginia record.
Elfwine said:More on the subject: http://civilwartalk.com/threads/was...on-in-the-atlanta-campaign.10260/#post-125204
I strongly recommend anyone who wants to look at that site read what trice has to say on various things. 'specially when he disagrees with me.
And as far as successfully defending Atlanta long enough for Lincoln to win the election goes, I dont believe that just doing that would be enough for the War to end and the Confederacy achieve its independence, because I dont think McClellan was fool enough to end a war that his side was winning and was instead far more likely to have a short armistice where he offered humiliating terms to the Confederates that he knew they would reject so he could restart the war and claim the credit for winning it, immortalizing him as the President who restored the Union.
Albert Castel, in Decision in the West, makes the following three points about McClellan winning the election.
A) The people would have elected McClellan because they had become discouraged and determined that continuing the war was not worth the cost in lives and treasure.
B) McClellan would have owed his election to the Peace Democrats and would have had great difficulty resisting the political pressure to implement a cease-fire.
C) Many Republicans would have seen it as pointless to continue the war with McClellan as President, since the abolition of slavery would no longer be a Union war aim.
Putting the three together, a ceasefire is a near-certainty and it would have been political difficult, if not impossible, to resume hostilities once negotiations to restore the Union had failed (and they would have failed).
I knew you'd been on Civilwartalk but I didn't know you were Elennsar.
I trust you are/were the Nytram there.
If so, I must say that it is as much a pleasure to talk with you here as it was there, for all that we disagree very strongly on Joe Johnston.
Yes that was me, with the same username there as here. It was fun debating with you back there even though we didn't really agree on much, same here the times we've contributed to the same threads.
You are too kind.
I hope you agree that posting those threads from the civilwartalk site helps here - I think what you and Trice had to say there is well worth reading when it comes to weighing alternate outcomes (although it would be better for the Confederacy were Joe not up against the wall with the choices being fight or forfeit).
It has always been my belief that Johnston would continue to operate in front of Sherman's army and try to delay his advance or strike in a counter-offensives somewhere when the Federals overstretched themselves or made a mistake or fell for one of his feints - such as he attempted at Cassville and actually did at Bentonville - but the Federal superiority at the time was such that I would still expect him to be driven to the gates of Sevannah if not the city itself before turning North and heading into the Carolina's.As relates to this thread:
What you think Joe Johnston would do* when Atlanta falls (as it most likely will, given the various obstacles in Joe's way even if he commits wholeheartedly to fighting for it)?
Hood's Tennessee campaign is about as out of character for Joe as physical cowardice would be, but asssuming his army is even in the same shape as the OTL AoT that's still too significant a force to simply tell to return to their homes.
* Yes, Davis being Davis is likely to relieve him, but I'm wondering what you think Joe would make of the situation - not what Davis would want.
Not a problem. Just thinking that you said some stuff worth reading the there, so I hope other people in this thread take advantage of the threads to learn more.They certainly do have relevance to the issue at hand, but not have read those thread in a long time and not remembering what exactly I said there I couldn't comment on specifics.
With Johnston retaining command, therefore, I expect the western and southern theaters to be contested for longer than they were with Hood and the Army of Tennessee up near Franklin and Nashville instead of in front of Sherman. Lee would probably still surrender before Johnston but Johnston's army may be significantly stronger than the 30,000 odd man army he built in North Carolina in OTL, meaning that either Grant will get the chance to march against and engage Johnston in the Carolina's - in tandem with Sherman chasing Johnston from the south - or Davis will hate Johnston even more for surrendering a larger undefeated army than he did in otl.