Longer US Civil War?

If there had been no attempts at keeping cotton from the European mills, instead a rush to export and gain hard currency before the blockade got effective, combined with the Mosquito fleet working better with Fort Jackson and Fort St Phillip, meaning Farragut does not capture New Orleans, how much longer would the US Civil War be?

The CSA will have some more currency for imports and probably some better access to credits in Europe due to this, they will keep New Orleans (a major city, industrial site, population center) and probably have a better riverine fleet. Mississippi is closed for the Union from the south and they will have to fight their way from the north.

How much longer does the US Civil War last because of this?
 

jahenders

Banned
I would suspect it would extend by just a 3-6 months. If Farragut's attack didn't work, another attack would have been made within a few months. This time, the city would take severe damage and probably be administered more harshly thereafter.

The additional currency and supplies the South might gain during this time would be helpful, but wouldn't have a significant effect overall.

The delay in taking New Orleans would delay various river operations, but they'd still happen. The troops in the West would still be tied up in the West and those in the East likewise.

Assuming the delays at New Orleans cause a 3-6 month delay in the West, it might effect US elections, but likely not enough. One other effect it would likely have is in keeping Grant in the West longer. So, Meade would retain the Army of the Potomac for a few more months.
 
If there had been no attempts at keeping cotton from the European mills, instead a rush to export and gain hard currency before the blockade got effective, combined with the Mosquito fleet working better with Fort Jackson and Fort St Phillip, meaning Farragut does not capture New Orleans, how much longer would the US Civil War be?

The Mosquito Fleet working better does not change the facts that they were inferior in quantity, quality, and leadership to the Union Fleet. Nor the fact that Union naval forces at the mouth of the Mississippi had been blockading the river for nearly a year. Even if they somehow inflicted enough damage that Farragut couldn't sail past them to New Orleans, Confederate forces cannot prevent a second Union attack from the south and probably only delay the fall of New Orleans by a couple months. This would have no significant effect on the theater, the Union didn't fully secure the Mississippi River until over a year later.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The problem with the idea of a longer American Civil War is that if the Union is not close to victory in the fall of 1864, the Northern public will probably vote out the Lincoln administration and place an administration favorable to peace in office. Either way, the war ends in 1865.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
There's no reliable evidence the US would vote against the war

The problem with the idea of a longer American Civil War is that if the Union is not close to victory in the fall of 1864, the Northern public will probably vote out the Lincoln administration and place an administration favorable to peace in office. Either way, the war ends in 1865.

There's no reliable evidence the US would vote against the war in November of 1864, however; there's nothing resembling Gallup in 1864, and given the obvious abilities of the party in power to maintain itself in power, the "war weariness" meme is just that.

Given the examples of the 1862 mid-terms and the 1864 election, the idea there was some untapped majority of eligible voters ready to give the rebels their independence via a "peace policy" is a trope of astronomical proportions. Even McClellan, running against Lincoln, couldn't come up with that and ran on a "war" platform.

And nothwithstanding anything else, the military realities on the ground by the autumn of 1864 means the US controls more of the terrtory nominally claimed by the rebellion than the Richmond government did...

Sort of difficult to claim victory when western Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, New Mexico, most of Arkansas, and substantial parts of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were under US control.

See:

civilwar-1864.jpg


Note this map pre-dates Atlanta...

Best,
 
Actually, considering how badly decimated the Confederate States became from it early on and considering the massive drain on manpower and resources it became for both sides, I'm kinda surprised it lasted as long as it did.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Remember, most of 1861 was spent in mobilization

Actually, considering how badly decimated the Confederate States became from it early on and considering the massive drain on manpower and resources it became for both sides, I'm kinda surprised it lasted as long as it did.

Remember, most of 1861 was spent in mobilization by both sides, other than in the border states and the first significant amphibious operation by the USN and AUS team, the landings at Port Royal (TW Sherman).

Although the phrase "Across Five Aprils" is correct, realistically it was the spring of 1862 before major operations really commenced, and it is a pretty clear sucession of US victories in the West, on the Mississippi, and around the coasts from there on; the only theater where the rebels ever held their own was northern Virginia.

Thirty-six months, essentially, from Shiloh to Appomattox, which given the distances involved, is pretty fast, all things considered.

The width of the state of Tennessee is the same distance, roughly, as the Franco-German borderlands; Tennesse, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia are roughly the same square mileage as France. How long did it take the Germans, without allies, to conquer, occupy, and annex all of France in the Nineteeth Century, again?

Oh wait, they never did.;)

There's a reason Sheridan et al thought the Franco-Prussians were playing at war in 1870-71.

Best,
 
There's a reason Sheridan et al thought the Franco-Prussians were playing at war in 1870-71.

Best,

They chewed through 170k deaths in ~10 months, the ACW chewed through 625-850k in 49. I don't know who it was that was playing at it rather than really doing it...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Interestingly enough, if one accepts the

They chewed through 170k deaths in ~10 months, the ACW chewed through 625-850k in 49. I don't know who it was that was playing at it rather than really doing it...


Interestingly enough, if one accepts the larger estimates for casualties in the Civil War, the month by month figures average out to be 17,000.

Although the criticism from Sheridan and the other observers, I think, was that for the gains rolled up by the Germans, the cost in blood was significantly higher than what it needed to be and what - in the observers' opinions - the U.S. Forces of 1863-65 would have achieved.

Certainly from he point of the contested geography, they had a point. After the Napoleonic conflicts, ere was not one in Europe where the scale of the land campaigns matched what was fought over in the Civil War until 1914.

Best,
 
Last edited:
They chewed through 170k deaths in ~10 months, the ACW chewed through 625-850k in 49. I don't know who it was that was playing at it rather than really doing it...

I'm not sure about the context, but Sheridan might have been referring to the fact that the Franco-Prussian War was a more limited conflict for more limited ends (changing the balance of power, small territorial adjustments) whereas the US Civil War was total in the sense that the USA had to totally defeat all of the armed forces of the CSA in order to reunite the country.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Pretty much bang on...

I'm not sure about the context, but Sheridan might have been referring to the fact that the Franco-Prussian War was a more limited conflict for more limited ends (changing the balance of power, small territorial adjustments) whereas the US Civil War was total in the sense that the USA had to totally defeat all of the armed forces of the CSA in order to reunite the country.

Pretty much bang on... Which speaks to the idea of resources expended per gain, essentially.

The Americans fought a total war from 1861-65, and on a continental scale; the Europeans really did after 1815 and before 1914.

Best,
 
Interestingly enough, if one accepts the larger estimates for casualties in the Civil War, the month by month figures average out to be 17,000.

Although the criticism from Sheridan and the other observers, I think, was that for the gains rolled up by the Germans, the cost in blood was significantly higher than what it needed to be and what - in the observers' opinions - the U.S. Forces of 1863-65 would have achieved.

Certainly from he point of the contested geography, they had a point. After the Napoleonic conflicts, ere was not one in Europe where the scale of the land campaigns matched what was fought over in the Civil War.

Best,

From the little bit that I read about the Franco-Prussian War, it seems that the French and the Prussians/Germans had to learn for themselves some of the same lessons that soldiers for the USA and CSA had learned a few years earlier. There was one battle where the Prussians launched a massive frontal assault reminiscent of Fredericksburg or Pickett's Charge, and predictably suffered huge casualties. Fortunately for them, the French suffered very heavy casualties in another part of the battle and withdrew.

Re: the scale of the land campaigns, though, surely you are referring to 19th century European wars, since the geographic scale of the fighting in WWII, especially the eastern front, was as great or greater than the US Civil War, and I think that even the Eastern front in WWI rivaled it- to say nothing of numbers of combatants, which were much higher in both world wars.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes, I meant in the Nineteenth Century

From the little bit that I read about the Franco-Prussian War, it seems that the French and the Prussians/Germans had to learn for themselves some of the same lessons that soldiers for the USA and CSA had learned a few years earlier. There was one battle where the Prussians launched a massive frontal assault reminiscent of Fredericksburg or Pickett's Charge, and predictably suffered huge casualties. Fortunately for them, the French suffered very heavy casualties in another part of the battle and withdrew.

Re: the scale of the land campaigns, though, surely you are referring to 19th century European wars, since the geographic scale of the fighting in WWII, especially the eastern front, was as great or greater than the US Civil War, and I think that even the Eastern front in WWI rivaled it- to say nothing of numbers of combatants, which were much higher in both world wars.

Yes, I meant in the Nineteenth Century; call it 1815 to 1914.

Good point on the tactical lessons. Wolseley's Pocket Book, his unofficial guide for officers, has some pretty clearly Civil War-inspired lessons in it.

best,
 
Top