Lee's army surrenders 1862

[Nytram01]

While Thomas didn't have the patience of Job, he must have had something close to it. He spent the first three years under the command of the three of the slowest of the slow. Those were Henry Halleck, who took something like three months to march his army twenty miles from Shiloh to Corinth. Then he moved on to serving under DC Buell, who was very much of the McClellan school of warfare, or the "the slower I move, the less likely it is I will fight a bloody battle". And if these two weren't bad enough, Thomas got stuck fighting under William Rosecans. Somehow I doubt that if Thomas could put up with these three that George McClellan himself would cause

Thomas to either request a transfer, or stick his foot in his mouth.
Unfortunately, Thomas probably also wouldn't say anything that would insprie Lincoln to remove McClellan any earlier either. If however Thomas earns a reputation in the East, and does his whole rock thing at one of the Manassases(what is the correct plural of Manassas anyway?) its likely that instead of restoring McClellan, Thomas might get the command just before Antietam.

Which is an interesting prospect, as Lee and Thomas had served together before the war.

Thomas comes across to me as a man very much like Lee himself. He was a man of duty and honor who didn't care for politics and suffered in silence. He was a slow deliberate commander himself but would he, when realising that McClellans army was the most prepared of any union army of the entire war to crush the ANV, become frustraited and annoyed with the Virginia Creepers ridiculesly slow progress?

I dont believe that Thomas would have complained to anyone of high rank or in any position of power. He may have complained to officers beneath him in his own chain of command.

Perhaps if Thomas had been present at the second Manassas and held his posistion against the combined attacks of Stonewall and Longstreet as the AOTP retreated from Virginia then his stock may have raised higher sooner and perhaps he would have taken control after Antietam and McClellans failure to capitolise but would Abraham Lincoln and the politician in Washington become frustraited with his slow and diliberate apporach?

 

[Nytram01]

Nytram1,

Three words: John Bell Hood. The CSA did have a great leader of men in the western theatre and all he did was destroy the last CSA army in the theatre. If A.S. Johnston survived to lead men into more attacks like those at Shiloh the CSA would simply lose the western theatre all the more rapidly.

The South's only chance was to employ a Fabian strategy that inflicted as many casulties on Union forces as possible and the best way to do that was to coax and/or lure the Union into attacking entrenched/fortified positions.

An aggressive/offensive strategic plan could do that; CSA armies manuevering into positions that the Union could not ignore. However, an aggressive/offensive operational or tactical plan would only add to CSA casulty lists and casulties were one of the many things the CSA could not afford.

Bill

Major difference between Hood and A.S. Johnston...Davis. Jeff Davis maintained the belief that Johnston could have won the CSA the western theatre right up until his death. Davis would have backed Johnston if he said he could have conquered heavon and hell that's how much stock Dais held in Johnston.

Clearly however Davis was not the only man who held A.S.Johnston in such high regards. He recieved many promotions in the US army and was Commander of the US Army Department of the Pacific when the Civil war broke out.

Johnston was only involved in the early stages of the war and almost beat Grant at Shiloh until night fell and he got wounded. Perhaps that is why he is held in such high regards. So he didn't have the best judgement in who could be generals but he was a very respected and able general, whether he was good enough to beat Grant will always be in debate.

Another main difference between Hood and Johnston is that Hood was commanding the army of Tennessee after Davis was forced to remove his favorite Braxton Bragg and had the unenviable task of trying to rally soldiers to a rapidily fading causes while A.S. Johnston was commander of the Army of Mississippi at the begining of the War when confidence and morale was high.

Johnstons death was felt by the Confederates in the West as much as Jacksons death was felt by the Confederates in the East. In that sense he was irriplacable.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Major difference between Hood and A.S. Johnston...Davis. Jeff Davis maintained the belief that Johnston could have won the CSA the western theatre right up until his death.

Nytram1,

Davis thought the CSA could win the war too, that's how much weight we should place on Davis' opinions.

Clearly however Davis was not the only man who held A.S.Johnston in such high regards. He recieved many promotions in the US army and was Commander of the US Army Department of the Pacific when the Civil war broke out.

There were dozens of men who were thought of as good, bad, or indifferent prior to the war and who proved to be very different during the war. Opinions and reputations changed drastically after four years of the feces impinging the rotary ventilation device. A.S. Johnston died before any determination could be made as to his abilities as a commander. That's why people still, falsely, think of him as a good commander and a great leader of men, he died before anything could actually be proved one way or another.

You want to claim that Johnston was a good general and a great leader of men. All I'm saying is that neither ability was actually proven during his brief time in the war. He could have been great, he could have been good, and he could have been a bum. We don't know what he could have been had he lived. We do know he favored the attack and the attack would have simply killed more CSA soldiers sooner.

... after Davis was forced to remove his favorite Braxton Bragg...

Yet another reason not to completely trust Davis' opinions. Davis didn't think he was a better general than nearly all of his generals, Davis knew his was a better general than most of his generals. This arrogance was displayed by his micromanagement and playing favorites, both of which cost the CSA dearly.


Bill

 

[Nytram01]

Nytram1,

Davis thought the CSA could win the war too, that's how much weight we should place on Davis' opinions.

There were dozens of men who were thought of as good, bad, or indifferent prior to the war and who proved to be very different during the war. Opinions and reputations changed drastically after four years of the feces impinging the rotary ventilation device. A.S. Johnston died before any determination could be made as to his abilities as a commander. That's why people still, falsely, think of him as a good commander and a great leader of men, he died before anything could actually be proved one way or another.

You want to claim that Johnston was a good general and a great leader of men. All I'm saying is that neither ability was actually proven during his brief time in the war. He could have been great, he could have been good, and he could have been a bum. We don't know what he could have been had he lived. We do know he favored the attack and the attack would have simply killed more CSA soldiers sooner.

Bill

While the odds were against them the CSA could have won the War so I do not agree with your scorn of Davis' opinion of that subject.

Admittedly Davis favored men in the Army, some were justified like Lee but some like Bragg weren't and Johnston is a difficult thing to claim because as you said he didn't get the chance to prove himself.

You may be forgetting that both Lee and Jackson favored attack and they are the most celebrated Generals of the entire war. Just because Johnston was facing a Union General who favored attack as well doesn't mean that he would have lost, I admit it probably favored Grant more than Johnston to attack simply because he had more men and supplies but it doesn't mean that a victory for Grant would be assured.

As I recall Grant had a habit of throwing hundreds of men against well constructed defenses so I admit someone like Longstreet was more suited to facing Grant but Grant also can't really be call a great strategist, he was good but in an equal encounter with Lee of Jackson, the best strategists of the war, he probably would have lost.

Could Johnston have been as good as Jackson or Lee? Could he have been good enough to defeat or even hold Grant? Who knows?

And again the morale issue cannot be ignored. Johnston death was a major blow to Confederate morale as he was concidered by many, not only Davis, to be one of if not the, finest generals in the Confederacy at the time of his death, two months before the rise to prominence of Lee.

I believe that he would have at least held Grants advance in the West. If perhaps he was injured at Shiloh and taken out of service for a while then perhaps as 'Dixie Victorious' says he may have come back and shocked Grant, who was used to facing conservative generals, with a series of vicious attacks and driven him back north.

 

[Bill Cameron]

Admittedly Davis favored men in the Army, some were justified like Lee but some like Bragg weren't and Johnston is a difficult thing to claim because as you said he didn't get the chance to prove himself.

Nytram1,

Exactly, he didn't get the chance to prove himself and, in the one chance he did have, he failed.

You may be forgetting that both Lee and Jackson favored attack and they are the most celebrated Generals of the entire war.

And they frittered away the most precious commodity the CSA had; men, in offensives that had no real strategic aim. Offensives whose only real strategic result helped the Union. Celebrated, but faulty.

As I recall Grant had a habit of throwing hundreds of men against well constructed defenses...

Grant had the men to spare and the CSA did not.

Grant also can't really be call a great strategist...

Opening the Mississippi? Familiar with the Vicksburg campaign at all? How about realizing that Richmond wasn't the goal but Lee's army was and then hanging onto that army like a pitbull depsite everything Lee could do and everything the AOP slugs couldn't? Sure, Grant wasn't a great strategist at all. He just won the war is all.

... Lee of Jackson, the best strategists of the war...

As I wrote above, Lee and Jackson were lousy strategists because they never had a coherent or rational strategic plan. Lee's fixation on Virginia to the exclusion of all the other theatres, theatres where his nation lost the war, and Lee's fixation on the attack which cost his nation far more than it cost his foes, calls Lee's strategic 'genius' into great question.

Operationally, running rings around the AOP slugs, Lee and Jackson were absolutely brilliant. Strategically, they didn't have a clue as to how to actually win the war and, like Davis, never even examined the problem.

Could Johnston have been as good as Jackson or Lee? Could he have been good enough to defeat or even hold Grant? Who knows?

Precisely. No one can know, so hold off on awarding those laurels.

And again the morale issue cannot be ignored.

It was a romantic age, they boo-hooed all the time. Both sides lost 'irreplacable' men and 'heros' every day of the week for four years. Each and every death was a 'huge tragedy' and each of those dead men could have whipped X, beat Y, and done Z if only they hadn't died.

Don't confuse a culture's excessive and maudlin sentimentality with the actual facts. Johnston died before he showed much and what he did show wasn't that much anyway.


Bill

 

[Nytram01]

Nytram1,

Exactly, he didn't get the chance to prove himself and, in the one chance he did have, he failed.

He died. He didn't fail because when he was alive and in battle he was winning. He was injured and died and when command fell upon Beauregards sholders Beauregard stuttered, failed and retreated.

Opening the Mississippi? Familiar with the Vicksburg campaign at all? How about realizing that Richmond wasn't the goal but Lee's army was and then hanging onto that army like a pitbull depsite everything Lee could do and everything the AOP slugs couldn't? Sure, Grant wasn't a great strategist at all. He just won the war is all.

I did not say Grant wasn't a good strategist but he wasn't a great strategist. Grants strategies more often than not involved throwing hundred of men aginst his opponants until he overwealmed them. A strategy which while sucessful againt Lee's depleated force at the end of the war would have resulted in him being routed and defeat by Lee had he face the Virginian general at any time before Gettysburg.

And point of fact politician in Washington knew that Lee's army was the main thing they had to defeat to beat the CSA. It didn't take a great or even good strategist to figure that out.

As I wrote above, Lee and Jackson were lousy strategists because they never had a coherent or rational strategic plan. Lee's fixation on Virginia to the exclusion of all the other theatres, theatres where his nation lost the war, and Lee's fixation on the attack which cost his nation far more than it cost his foes, calls Lee's strategic 'genius' into great question.

When Lee took over his offensive strategies pushed McClellan out of Virginia and destroyed Popes army. When he invaded the north the first time his strategies were overridden by the loss of his orders which led to him being caught at Antietam. His and Jacksons offensive strategies ((added to the defensive brilliance of Longstreet)) then defeated Brunside and Hooker. At Gettysburg however he lost control of Longstreets and Ewell corps and his strategy suffered because of it. When in complete control of his army and no unforseen events happened Lee's strategies gained Victory.

Admitted he wasn't overly concerned with the rest of the CSA but mainly for the reason that had he managed to defeat the Union Army protecting Washington then he could have marched into the capitol and ended the war at that point and in the Maryland campaign he would have done so had his orders not been found by Unionists.

Operationally, running rings around the AOP slugs, Lee and Jackson were absolutely brilliant. Strategically, they didn't have a clue as to how to actually win the war and, like Davis, never even examined the problem.

I dont agree with this. Lee knew how to win the war. It is generaly accepted that had the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia beated the Union Army in the north and either entered Washington or threatened it then that would brought the War to an end that way.

It was a romantic age, they boo-hooed all the time. Both sides lost 'irreplacable' men and 'heros' every day of the week for four years. Each and every death was a 'huge tragedy' and each of those dead men could have whipped X, beat Y, and done Z if only they hadn't died.

Don't confuse a culture's excessive and maudlin sentimentality with the actual facts. Johnston died before he showed much and what he did show wasn't that much anyway.


Bill

I am not denying that Johnston didn't do much in the Civil War during his life what I am saying is that when he was alive he was concidered one of the best generals in the Confederacy, even if he hadn't proved it, and after his death the Western theatre never recovered. Whether through Davis' own opinion of there being nobody equal to Johnston or not he wasn't really replaced in the west and the generals sent to replace him never got the western forces as united as Johnston had them which concidering that Johnston didn't really have them that untied is quite dreadfull.

 

[violadog]

perhaps he would have taken control after Antietam and McClellans failure to capitolise but would Abraham Lincoln and the politician in Washington become frustraited with his slow and diliberate apporach?

I don't believe that would be a problem. Let's look at Thomas' one independent command at Nashville. True, Thomas' stalling near cost him his command (by nearly I mean his replacement was already on his way). But Thomas was waiting with a reason. First, he knew that further reinforcements for his odds and sods where already under way from Mississippi. And then Thomas waited because of an ice storm. Then, once he judged his army ready, and weather clear, Thomas attacked.
Now, in the East, he would probably judge the Army of the Potomac ready for battle a lot earlier that George McClellan, and as long as he considers the army fit, I think Thomas would continue to push Lee as hard as he could.

 

[Derek Jackson]

What is the Political reaction in the South? Would there be a faction that would accept reunion by December 31 1862 in exchange for no interferance with slavery?

How much difference would such a victory make to Northern Politics? I assume Repbulicans would do better than in OTL in the mid term elections.

If the South fights on for how long can they manage? I am assuming that Richmond would fall sometime between the fall of 1862 and the Summer of 1863.

How does the 1864 election look if the North has won, and will Southern states take part and if so under what franchise?

 

[Nytram01]

I don't believe that would be a problem. Let's look at Thomas' one independent command at Nashville. True, Thomas' stalling near cost him his command (by nearly I mean his replacement was already on his way). But Thomas was waiting with a reason. First, he knew that further reinforcements for his odds and sods where already under way from Mississippi. And then Thomas waited because of an ice storm. Then, once he judged his army ready, and weather clear, Thomas attacked.
Now, in the East, he would probably judge the Army of the Potomac ready for battle a lot earlier that George McClellan, and as long as he considers the army fit, I think Thomas would continue to push Lee as hard as he could.

I agree fully that Thomas would be prepared to push Lee to any extreme so long as he deemed his force ready for such a conflict but concidering that the Eastern theatre was the most high profile and deemed the most important at the time and that the North was demanding sucess after the failings of McClellan and Pope would Washington allow Thomas the time and space he needed to catch and defeat Lee's army?

Here is perhaps a possible scenario following the idea of Thomas assuming command of the AOTP; imagine that by some chance Lee and the ANV stands against Thomas and the AOTP at Fredericksburg with the same strength in men as in the OTL. How does Thomas change the Battle from Burnsides confrontation? Could he gain sucess against the strong Confederate defenses where Burnside could not?

 

[Nytram01]

What is the Political reaction in the South? Would there be a faction that would accept reunion by December 31 1862 in exchange for no interferance with slavery?

I imagine that the deep south would be the most plausable states that might accept this outcome but chances are that the Southern States, with the anger of the supposed 'usurping of power' by the North and pride from the victories of the east still fresh in their minds, would be far more violent in submission at this time than when the war ended in the OTL mainly due to the fact that they would not have lived through the hard years of war that they did in OTL.

How much difference would such a victory make to Northern Politics? I assume Repbulicans would do better than in OTL in the mid term elections.

Lincoln and his party would probably win the elections with no trouble what so ever.

If the South fights on for how long can they manage? I am assuming that Richmond would fall sometime between the fall of 1862 and the Summer of 1863.

They would be able to manage until Grant takes Vicksburg which concidering the fact that the Union could focus on the western theatre with the ANV gone would happen in a much shorter time-frame.

How does the 1864 election look if the North has won, and will Southern states take part and if so under what franchise? .

The southern States would be under rule by the Union military and probably would not be allowed to 're-enter' the Union for a good few years yet, so chances are that only the northern states would take part in the 1864 elections.