McClellan in Grey - AKA The Lion of New Orleans

[67th Tigers]

*sigh* Once again...

Again, I've told you before you'll have to read a lot of books. This is one of them if you want to understand that arena. Don't expect me to spoon feed you, because I know you'll just sick it up and cry.

If you want to understand the workings of Washington then you have to read quite a lot on it, starting with the above book.

 

[67th Tigers]

That figure and his plan involving 273,000 men will stick in my head forever as examples of how the ACW could have been lost.

Yes, and I remember how we lost the 2003 Iraq invasion. Apparently the use of overwhelming force tend to make you lose wars.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Yes, and I remember how we lost the 2003 Iraq invasion. Apparently the use of overwhelming force tend to make you lose wars.

Evidently you cannot give Grant credit for using overwhelming force in using two army groups to crush the CSA, nor do you appreciate the degree to which overwhelming force in the Overland and Petersburg Campaign went to win the USA the Civil War. I guess overwhelming force doesn't count when it's Grant, eh?

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Again, I've told you before you'll have to read a lot of books. This is one of them if you want to understand that arena. Don't expect me to spoon feed you, because I know you'll just sick it up and cry.

If you want to understand the workings of Washington then you have to read quite a lot on it, starting with the above book.

Cut out the insults. This is your last warning to debate with civility in this thread.

 

[usertron2020]

Cut out the insults. This is your last warning to debate with civility in this thread.

Thank you. And you have my own apologies for losing my temper.

 

[Nytram01]

The claim that Georgia was foreordained to run red with blood if Grant were in charge. If it were so, he would have endorsed Thomas's judgement more and if the Army of Tennessee survived Resaca the Atlanta Campaign would be over before September by far. Georgia would not have run red with blood, and Grant's reliance on headlong assaults and casualties despite his seeking big battles were lower than some generals rated far higher than his.

So it was simply the terminology I used that you object to and not my actual argument.

So, McClellan the poor land general is going to negate the results of a primarily naval victory how? He can improve the defenses all he'd like, it was Admiral Farragut, not General Butler who won the Battle of New Orleans.

As I recall there was no battle for New Orleans. After failing to take Forts Jackson and St. Philip Farragut bypassed them and Mansfield Lovell abandonned New Orleans without a fight due to the city's weakness to bombardment from naval vessels. Giving McClellan an opportunity to change and strengthen the New Orleans defenses pre-war - even if only to put another line of defenses between the city and the forts - could hold the Federals back longer. But, as I said in my original post, I am alomst totally ignorant of the geography of the region so my ideas may not be feasable.

 

[usertron2020]

As I recall there was no battle for New Orleans. After failing to take Forts Jackson and St. Philip Farragut bypassed them and Mansfield Lovell abandonned New Orleans without a fight due to the city's weakness to bombardment from naval vessels. Giving McClellan an opportunity to change and strengthen the New Orleans defenses pre-war - even if only to put another line of defenses between the city and the forts - could hold the Federals back longer. But, as I said in my original post, I am alomst totally ignorant of the geography of the region so my ideas may not be feasable.

The key to holding New Orleans is the river. In many ways, the city is the anti-Vicksburg, at least in an age when you have steam-driven ships. Had the British steamships in 1814/15, Sir Edward Pakenham would have emerged from the battle an earl and Jackson would be forgotten (who would be on the $20?). With much of the city below sea level, it meant that shellfire could rake the city right down the main thoroughfares of town.

No way do the locals allow the most beautiful city in the South (in America) to be destroyed. The peaceful Fall of New Orleans was really a blessing for North AND South, in the end. I don't see how any mid-19th century feats of engineering can overcome that, really. But I'm open to arguments.

 

[Snake Featherston]

So it was simply the terminology I used that you object to and not my actual argument.

No, it was the actual argument as there would have been one big battle around Dalton and then Grant goes east and bitch-slaps Lee into a siege as per OTL.

As I recall there was no battle for New Orleans. After failing to take Forts Jackson and St. Philip Farragut bypassed them and Mansfield Lovell abandonned New Orleans without a fight due to the city's weakness to bombardment from naval vessels. Giving McClellan an opportunity to change and strengthen the New Orleans defenses pre-war - even if only to put another line of defenses between the city and the forts - could hold the Federals back longer. But, as I said in my original post, I am alomst totally ignorant of the geography of the region so my ideas may not be feasable.

There was a naval battle, and the troops there were sent to re-inforce Sidney Johnston in the lead-in to Pittsburgh Landing. Little Mac would have the all-free-black militia, and how the avowedly pro-slavery Confeds would accept a Northern-born general in charge of an all-black defense force......

 

[Elfwine]

Not much of a battle, though more from the Confederate ironclads being somewhere between unfinished and useless than anything else.

The only one I remember doing anything is Manassas. And that was more sad than significant.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Not much of a battle, though more from the Confederate ironclads being somewhere between unfinished and useless than anything else.

The only one I remember doing anything is Manassas. And that was more sad than significant.

Had they been, Farragut's risky scheme might have failed, leaving the CSA with its largest and wealthiest port and changing the Western war quite a bit.

 

[Elfwine]

Had they been, Farragut's risky scheme might have failed, leaving the CSA with its largest and wealthiest port and changing the Western war quite a bit.

Yeah. Potentially not enough to win the war, quite easily enough to cause some significant consequences.

 

[Snake Featherston]

Yeah. Potentially not enough to win the war, quite easily enough to cause some significant consequences.

For one thing it means a longer Mississippi campaign, and one that looks very different. Sure, Memphis and Nashville have fallen but the CSA has its largest port, protected by those monster ironclads.......this I might note gives the CS navy a proper base, and a means to ensure more safety for the blockade runners, amplifies the problems of the US Navy, and ensures the troops allotted to the Mississippi River campaigns can't be used elsewhere any faster than IOTL.

 

[usertron2020]

For one thing it means a longer Mississippi campaign, and one that looks very different. Sure, Memphis and Nashville have fallen but the CSA has its largest port, protected by those monster ironclads.......this I might note gives the CS navy a proper base, and a means to ensure more safety for the blockade runners, amplifies the problems of the US Navy, and ensures the troops allotted to the Mississippi River campaigns can't be used elsewhere any faster than IOTL.

But did New Orleans have proper naval drydocks?

 

[Snake Featherston]

But did New Orleans have proper naval drydocks?

It had the closest thing to them once Norfolk falls, and it will. New Orleans would primarily be a major blockade-running port, unless this produces a Union tendency to super-ironclads.

 

[Nytram01]

No, it was the actual argument as there would have been one big battle around Dalton and then Grant goes east and bitch-slaps Lee into a siege as per OTL.

By my actual argument, if you look, was that Grant was a better, more aggressive general than Sherman who was far more likely to fight big battles than Sherman which would result in a higher casualty rate than came out of Georgia in OTL during Johnston's tenure in command - especially if Johnston's army was not caputed or destroyed in battle near Dalton/Resaca.

I used the phrase "Georgia would run red with blood" as an exageration for effect. You took that to mean more than I intended.

As I said earlier in the thread, simply sending a greater force through Snake Creek Gap does not guarentee victory. Hood's entire Corps was at Resaca within a day of the AotT's attempt to march through it and that's enough force to delay a Federal advance long enough for Hardee's Corps to get back from Dalton and Polk to arrive from Rome. If Hood's Corps is only delaying the Federal advance then Johnston wont hang around for Grant to get all three of his armies through the gap.

Al in all the point I was trying to make is that the accusation levelled against Johnston for the OTL Atlanta Campaign - that he didn't attempt to fight - would not exist had he fought Grant instead of Sherman.