northern victory at first battle of bull run.

what if the North had won the first battle of bull run in the american civil war? how would things go? would the civil war be shorter?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
As was the case IOTL, the impact of the First Battle of Manassas, no matter which side won, was more symbolic than anything else. The Union army would likely be too disorganized to push on towards Richmond and, in any case, there were plenty of favorable defensive positions between Manassas and Richmond. But the pure symbolism of the thing would have several knock-on effects. A Union victory would certainly dishearten the South. IOTL, the victory at First Manassas solidified Confederate resolve and told them that they really could pull off what their effort to create a slave-holding republic of their own.

One would certainly expect that it will be considerably easier for the Federals to secure the border states. Britain and France might not be willing to grant the Confederacy the status of a belligerent, as they did IOTL. Unionist activity in East Tennessee would probably be considerably greater. The value of Confederate bonds would be less than it was IOTL.

IOTL, the series of Confederate disasters in the first half of 1862 nearly brought the South to ruin. It was sustained largely by the solidification of morale that had been earned in 1861, mostly at Manassas. Without that to start from, the steady encroachments of Union forces along the Atlantic Coast and down the western rivers would collapse Confederate morale altogether. Furthermore, since a Union victory at Manassas might butterfly away the advent of George McClellan, we might see a more aggressive Union campaign in Virginia in 1862, resulting in the fall of Richmond.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
A rather nasty outcome I could see is a Union assumption that this will be an easy war. The reason this would be a problem is that it delays or diminishes the scale of the Union build up - and that has a number of potential knock on effects:

1) Lack of rifles. Without the huge orders of OTL some of the rifle manufacturers might have gotten started with actual proper production later - and it might not have been seen as necessary to purchase hundreds of thousands of European weapons if it looks like being a war on the same scale as the Mexican-American War.
2) Later call-up and training. This means that the Union army regiments put into the line are either fewer in number, less well trained, or both.

The scale of this effect is debatable and it has to contend with others. But it may be a rather inimical side effect for the Union's war effort.


...but then again I'm one of the people who thinks that if one side of the ACW had adopted modern musketry practice then that side would have won (no ifs, ands or buts) unless the other side copied them quite promptly. So that might serve as a good driver - the CSA loses Bull Run, then decides it needs to do this professionally and imports expertise from somewhere like France or the UK. (Not Prussia, Prussia has not yet started intensive musketry training).
Result: A Confederate army, smaller than OTL but with a slightly better economic base behind it, which can outshoot a Union army of twice the size and kill over twice the range.
Even if the Union catches up by 1863, 1862 isn't going to go well for the Union.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
First Manassas was in July, 1861, which gives

what if the North had won the first battle of bull run in the american civil war? how would things go? would the civil war be shorter?

First Manassas was in July, 1861, which gives the US a solid four months of campaigning to follow; if the victory results from McDowell gettting his entire 35,000 men into action (historically, only about 18,000 actually moved south of Bull Run, which puts the "rebel victory" trope into perspective), the realities of mid-Nineteenth Century infantry tactics (as demonstrated by the British on battlefields stretching from the Redan to Rangiriri to Ridgeway, or the rebels at Liberty and Hoover's gaps) are that casualties will be high, whether on the offensive or defensive...

So McDowell's forces will have to reorganize and be reinforced, although the US does have Mansfield's garrison force in Washington (~6,000) and Patterson's force in the Shenandoah (~11,000), and the closest source for the rebels are their forces around Richmond and southeastern Virginia, who have to keep an eye on the US forces at Fortress Monroe and Hampton Roads; likewise, this comes after Lincoln's May call for an additional 11,000 regulars and 42,000 3-year-volunteers, and coincides with Congresses' approval of 500,000 3-year-volunteers (note this coincides roughly with the number of long arms in the US arsenals, not with troops, in April, 1861), so the contention the US was somehow unwilling to make use of their demographic and industrial and economic advantages over the rebels is incorrect.

As Anaxgoras points out, their are multiple solid defensive lines between Centerville and Richmond, of course; and given JE Johnston's historical decision to evacuate the Centerville position in 1862 when McClellan even threatened an advance, it's a safe bet the rebels will be withdrawing south after a lost 1st Manassas and may not stop short of the Rappahanock or Rapidan.

An Overland Campaign analogue in 1861 is challenging for the US, largely because of the issues inherent in a mobilization, but the US forces - even under McDowell - are presumably capable of grinding forward, river line by river line, before winter sets in...

It's an interesting point of departure in terms of command, of course; this predates Lee's ascension (he's assigned to Western Virginia), so he's not even in the mix - although depending on which of the rebel commanders is seen as responsible for the defeat (Johnston or Beauregard) it's possible Lee may be called in (since this also predates his defeat at Cheat Mountain); another possibility is AS Johnston, although he'd barely made it to rebel territory in Texas by the summer of 1861.

The US divisional commanders under McDowell and Patterson in this period include Tyler, Hunter, AJ Porter, Heintzelman, Runyon, Miles, Cadwalader, Dix, Keim, Sanford, and Mansfield, among others. McClellan is in West Virginia but has yet to win much of anything...

Interesting point of departure, and certainly more plausible than most dealing with the Civil War in 1861.

Best,
 
Last edited:
what if the North had won the first battle of bull run in the american civil war? how would things go? would the civil war be shorter?

The main effect would be moral.

The Union army in Virginia was not capable of a long opposed march to Richmond, even if the Confederate army had been routed.

However - as of July 1861, the Confederacy was still a very tentative proposition. Few Southerners had really committed much to it yet. As time passed, the CSA acquired more substance - more actual operating agencies, a longer history of operations, and more involvement by more people in those operations. Bull Run insured that the CSA would have several more months of formation, and convinced many skeptics that the CSA would survive.

The victory at Bull Run was a huge psychological boost; it seemed to confirm the Fire-Eater rhetoric about "gallant Southern gentlemen" easily whipping any number of "pasty-faced" Yankees. Eventually that image was dispelled, but by that time the CSA had "worked in" enough that it was not going to dissolve.

If instead the Union forces win, with "gallant Southern gentlemen" fleeing in humiliating rout, and prisoners paraded through the streets of Washington, that rhetoric is exploded. Many fence-sitters and reluctant rebels will turn against the CSA cause. Kentucky neutrality falls quickly, and the state declares for the Union. Unionist sentiment revives in many areas, and soon there could be proposals to rescind secession, which might even take hold. A lot of people could decide that it was time to get out of the secession experiment before anything else happened, and easy reunion was still possible.
 
Last edited:
Top