They're probably going to have an armistice. This is probably going to remain in place until the next Confederate-American war.
Official "Did the Confederacy Have a Chance to Win the American Civil War?" Thread
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
They're probably going to have an armistice. This is probably going to remain in place until the next Confederate-American war.
How can a despot feel with the Free
Form, be ready to do or die!
Form in Freedom’s name and the Queen’s
True we have got—such a faithful ally
That only the Devil can tell what he means.
Form, Form, Riflemen Form
Ready, be ready to meet the storm!
Riflemen, Riflemen, Riflemen form!
Pam has just started a massive fortification programme to stop French naval attacks ( 43 forts around Portsmouth alone).
The French have demanded Britain revokes the right of political asylum on the trumped up grounds that someone had tried to blow up Napoleon with British assistance. Look noone was ever convicted ok.
The National and Constitutional Defence Association is recruiting riflemen to fight of the French.
Its by no means a hostile official relationship and where there is a community of interest Britain and France can work together but French recognition = interference in the internal affairs of a friendly ( to Britain) power in a part of the world where Britain has spent the last 50 years keeping other Europeans out.
by a Buonoparte!
Form, be ready to do or die!
Form in Freedom’s name and the Queen’s
True we have got—such a faithful ally
That only the Devil can tell what he means.
Form, Form, Riflemen Form
Ready, be ready to meet the storm!
Riflemen, Riflemen, Riflemen form!
Pam has just started a massive fortification programme to stop French naval attacks ( 43 forts around Portsmouth alone).
The French have demanded Britain revokes the right of political asylum on the trumped up grounds that someone had tried to blow up Napoleon with British assistance. Look noone was ever convicted ok.
The National and Constitutional Defence Association is recruiting riflemen to fight of the French.
Its by no means a hostile official relationship and where there is a community of interest Britain and France can work together but French recognition = interference in the internal affairs of a friendly ( to Britain) power in a part of the world where Britain has spent the last 50 years keeping other Europeans out.
by a Buonoparte!
One of the other planks is repatriation of POW, what happens when the boys come back from Andersonville?
The issue on the 64 election meme is that the assumption is Lincoln Loses McClellan makes peace
That's not the Dems actual position. Their position is Peace on the basis of a restored Union, which is not the position of the CSA.
Even an armistice in place, with or without the revictualling of fortresses? what's the status of Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia all of whom have just voted in the election.
Its not as simple as McClellan wins ergo the CSA becomes independent.
The issue on the 64 election meme is that the assumption is Lincoln Loses McClellan makes peace
That's not the Dems actual position. Their position is Peace on the basis of a restored Union, which is not the position of the CSA.
Even an armistice in place, with or without the revictualling of fortresses? what's the status of Tennessee, Louisiana, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia all of whom have just voted in the election.
Its not as simple as McClellan wins ergo the CSA becomes independent.
IIRC, the French actually wanted to intervene, or at least acknowledge the CSA, but refused to do so without Britain joining them.
TFSmith121
Banned
It's worth noting the British and Spanish were both part of the initial
It's worth noting the British and Spanish were both part of the initial European coalition against the Mexicans in 1860, which was coached as something much more limited than what the French actually sought; when it became clear what the French were aiming at, the British and Spanish pulled out, and the Spanish commander made a point of telling his government the French were going to lose...
There's also the point that the French and British had been alligned against the Russians and Chinese, but were never willing to place their troops/forces under each other's command, so it was hardly an actual alliance...
In addition, the French bore the greater percentage of the butcher's bill in the major campaign against the Russians, and certainly paid a lot in China, and they didn't get much more than legitimacy for LN's regime out of it. No real territorial gains, for example; so one wonders how willing the French would have been to become involved in yet another campaign alligned with the British.
Finally, the historical realities of the Mexican intervention are such that the available French military and naval forces were actually pretty limited; ~40,000 European troops (as opposed to Mexican loyalists) and naval deployments that even against the Mexicans - who had no navy - didn't make any difference in the question of defeat or victory for the French.
The French and Spanish were certainly aware the US was unable to act against their interests in the Americas because of the Civil War, and tried to take advantage of that reality (Mexico and the Dominican Republic, respectively) but it is worth noting both efforts failed, and pretty quickly once the US was able to turn its attention to these situations; the realities are such that neither power was going to intervene against the US on their own, obviously.
Best,
It's worth noting the British and Spanish were both part of the initial European coalition against the Mexicans in 1860, which was coached as something much more limited than what the French actually sought; when it became clear what the French were aiming at, the British and Spanish pulled out, and the Spanish commander made a point of telling his government the French were going to lose...
There's also the point that the French and British had been alligned against the Russians and Chinese, but were never willing to place their troops/forces under each other's command, so it was hardly an actual alliance...
In addition, the French bore the greater percentage of the butcher's bill in the major campaign against the Russians, and certainly paid a lot in China, and they didn't get much more than legitimacy for LN's regime out of it. No real territorial gains, for example; so one wonders how willing the French would have been to become involved in yet another campaign alligned with the British.
Finally, the historical realities of the Mexican intervention are such that the available French military and naval forces were actually pretty limited; ~40,000 European troops (as opposed to Mexican loyalists) and naval deployments that even against the Mexicans - who had no navy - didn't make any difference in the question of defeat or victory for the French.
The French and Spanish were certainly aware the US was unable to act against their interests in the Americas because of the Civil War, and tried to take advantage of that reality (Mexico and the Dominican Republic, respectively) but it is worth noting both efforts failed, and pretty quickly once the US was able to turn its attention to these situations; the realities are such that neither power was going to intervene against the US on their own, obviously.
Best,
NamelesStatistic
Banned
A bit of an aside here, but how did the US manage to so successfully quash separatism after the war? I mean I know there are still big divides between the red states and the blue states today, and there are still people that like putting up the Confederate flag on their houses, but there really has never been any sort of real threat of the South rebelling again. Indeed many of the most outspokenly patriotic Americans (at least as represented in mass media) come from former Confederate states. Despite the continued cultural divide between Northern and Southern states in the 20th century on all sorts of issues I always wondered how the US was able to engineer a powerful loyalty to the Union and the idea of "America" in a region that had fought such a bloody and bitter conflict in what is still (from a historical perspective) in the not-to-distant past? Indeed I always found it weird how we see today strong secessionist movements in places like Scotland which was brought into Union peacefully and further back in history whereas there never is a real push for modern secession in the modern Southern States, which were held in Union by force. In a way (at least to an outsider) it seems like lots of Americans hate and want to change "America the government" but the vast majority across all regions and political stripes seem to be loyal to the idea of "America the state". Even deeply disaffected people in the US like those armed militia guys in Oregon may hate and distrust the elected US government but they still claim to be "Americans". Anyone have some insight into this sort of unique social cohesion that is in the US?
NOTE: I know there are some really small scale movements in places like Texas for secession, that occasionally pop up on the news (ie. petitions being passed around) but these really are never close to the scale that is a real threat to US national unity.
NOTE: I know there are some really small scale movements in places like Texas for secession, that occasionally pop up on the news (ie. petitions being passed around) but these really are never close to the scale that is a real threat to US national unity.
I agree with you. Furthermore, between the election and the elected officials taking office.
IF McClellan wins, he doesn't take office for months. Do enough "Peace" Democrats win their elections to overtake the number of Republicans and "War" Democrats in the houses of congress?
Would Lincoln declare an armistice if he lost the election? I don't think so. Between election time and the new congress in January, there are two months of campaigning. If Lincoln loses the election because the battles not taking place or lost, there will be other battles during those months which should produce one or more Union victories.
And, as said by others, it's doubtful that the South would agree with the "Peace" plank in the Democratic platform.
Thank you,
MrBill
TFSmith121
Banned
It's actually even worse than that for the "McClellan wins!" meme
It's actually even worse than that for the "McClellan wins!" meme; inauguration day was March 4, 1865 ... Lee surrendered at Appomattox April 9.
Even McClellan couldn't fumble the ball Grant and Sherman had in play.
Best,
It's actually even worse than that for the "McClellan wins!" meme; inauguration day was March 4, 1865 ... Lee surrendered at Appomattox April 9.
Even McClellan couldn't fumble the ball Grant and Sherman had in play.
Best,
Last edited:
From what I've read, a lot of it was the fact that the US had to 'fill in the blanks' in the western territories... a lot of people shifted around, moved west, moved south, etc. The US went from a fairly isolationist inward looking nation to one that looked outward a lot more, which seemed to have soaked up a lot of the bad feelings...
Possible Earlier PoDs
The consensus opinion I have found, after reading many Civil War threads over the past n years, is that if McClellan wins the election due to an 1864 PoD, the Union will still be restored, because by the time he actually takes office the war will be so close to being won that he cannot reasonably keep up a "Peace with Separation" stance.
In line with that, I say a PoD earlier in the war is required, compared to the Atlanta-Mobile-Shenandoah suggestions or the Early-taking-Washington suggestions of the last several pages. If the course of the war changes earlier on, the Confederacy can get a better chance of surviving.
The first possibilities to come to mind (there are many others) include:
-----------
Fort Donelson. Grant and company will still take the fort. However, if Floyd and Pillow act even a smidgen less incompetently than they did historically, the Confederates do not surrender. Recall in OTL that their first breakout attempt was very successful in disrupting Grant's siege line, the Confederates withdrew of their own (commander's) volition and were not forced back, and even once the line was reestablished some thousand troops still escaped with Forrest. If the Confederates make *any* effort to hold the line open once they have got it, the whole of the 10,000 troops escape.
These troops will join A.S.Johnston in his concentration of forces. With 10,000 extra men at alt-Shiloh Johnston/Beauregard have the chance (not a certainly, but easily a coin flip) of severely roughing up if not destroying large chunks of Grant's army. The resulting better numerical balance, plus Grant being disgraced, gives the Confederates a fighting chance to survive until March 1865.
Glendale. Also known as Day 6 of the 7 Days. McClellan was busy moving his forces southward to their 'final' position at Malvern Hill, but today they were slowed at a bottleneck where several roads came together at Glendale. Several Union divisions were hard-pressed by Longstreet and half the Confederate army from the west. Meanwhile elements of the VI (I think) corps defended approaches from the north across White Oak Swamp. These men were severely outnumbered by Jackson with the other half of the Confederate army, but for unexplained reasons (possibly extreme tiredness due to lack of sleep) Jackson never strongly pressed the attack. If Jackson acted *remotely* with his usual aggressiveness he would easily have pushed the Union defenders back and come up behind the main Union line at Glendale (as detailed in the "What If?" anthology").
This force, consisting of around half of the Army of the Potomac, would then be surrounded and outnumbered by Confederates. Any large proportion of them that do not surrender will escape only by being routed completely. Depending on exactly how many troops are lost, and how disorganized the Confederates are in victory, Lee may press his advantage, and may have a non-negligible (though still small) chance of overrunning the new Union line at Malvern Hill. If Lee, burdened by the prisoners, holds off and lets McClellan escape, this is even better, as McClellan is thoroughly disgraced, morale in the AotP plummets with Confederate morale rising in proportion. Force-wise, this frees Lee much more quickly to move to northern Virginia to counter the threat from John Pope when it appears, and with possibly fewer (or no) reinforcements from the AotP at alt-2nd Bull Run, Lee may have a numerical superiority, able to score another large prisoner haul there. The resulting closer numerical balance heading into late summer of 1862 gives the Confederates a fighting chance in the Maryland Campaign.
Stones River. In OTL, Bragg nearly managed to swing his attack entirely clockwise around Rosecrans' lines, trapping the Union army against Stone's River. Rosecrans held Bragg off of his 1 supply line by the skin of his teeth using at one point his Engineer Brigade and reinforcements arriving just in time from his opposite flank fording the river. All of this was made possible by Rosecrans' presence in person to get these troops to the right spot in time. If Rosecrans is impeded in *any* way, the Confederate advance can get around the Union flank.
The Confederates do not have enough men to completely encircle the Union line. Nevertheless, they will clearly have the better tactical and strategic position and no reason to retreat (which Bragg was loathe to do in OTL after fighting a considerably worse battle). With the numerically and qualitatively superior Confederate cavalry running amok everywhere between Stone's River and Nashville, the onus is on Rosecrans to attack and break the Confederate's lines to reestablish his supply line. This attack will *probably* be successful, but not without costing the Union far more men proportionally than the Confederates will suffer. In turn, Rosecrans retires to Nashville to rest and refit, and Rosecrans' aura of greatness (which he did have, believe it or not, in OTL having never suffered a true defeat, and against often superior Confederate numbers no less, until Chickamauga) will be shattered. Already on the ropes with the administration, Halleck/Stanton/the rest will be even slower than OTL to resupply Rosecrans' army (if they don't replace him entirely), so he starts the Summer 1863 campaign with fewer men, worse supplies, and all the way back at Nashville. Even if he can make any progress at that point, Confederate reinforcements coming for alt-Chickamauga are fighting further north and can hold a line at or north of Chattanooga, preserving the rail line and East Tennessee while they are at it.
Chickamauga. The Confederates got a victory at this battle anyway, but they could not significantly destroy the Union army, which was what was required at this point. However, as I have detailed in a past thread (https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=4400374#post4400374), if John Bell Hood is *not wounded* at the height of his breakthrough in OTL, the Confederate advance maintains its cohesion. It is eminently possible to capture a third of Rosecrans' force, and kill/wound/put out of action another third, while Bragg suffers no more than OTL casualties.
With only ~20,000 defenders against a revitalized and sky-high-morale Confederate army, Rosecrans cannot hold Chattanooga for more than a couple of days. After Bragg re-secures the city, he can stop and wait for Longstreet's/Johnston's supplies to catch up to their troops. With an actual victory, and Bragg having 'listened' to his subordinates in seizing the city, there is no October mutiny. A *slightly* more harmonious Confederate high command actually fortifies Lookout Mountain and beyond against a time when Rosecrans/other Union commander returns, having learned their lesson since August and unlike OTL being in a position to actually do something about it. If Grant is put in charge of a concentration of forces to oppose Bragg, he is starting many miles further west, and with 20,000 fewer troops. If Longstreet is kept with the Confederate army, it is entirely possible that Grant can have a signal defeat attacking strong Confederate positions. If Longstreet is absent in East Tennessee, he now actually has time (and a somewhat more cooperative Bragg sending supplies) to make a real campaign to re-take Knoxville. Whichever scenario plays out, it is unlikely at best that Atlanta will fall before the 1864 elections, and if it does fall in time for a Democrat's inauguration there will not be time for a Union advanced *past* the city.
---
Give me time; I'll think of some more if required.
The consensus opinion I have found, after reading many Civil War threads over the past n years, is that if McClellan wins the election due to an 1864 PoD, the Union will still be restored, because by the time he actually takes office the war will be so close to being won that he cannot reasonably keep up a "Peace with Separation" stance.
In line with that, I say a PoD earlier in the war is required, compared to the Atlanta-Mobile-Shenandoah suggestions or the Early-taking-Washington suggestions of the last several pages. If the course of the war changes earlier on, the Confederacy can get a better chance of surviving.
The first possibilities to come to mind (there are many others) include:
-----------
Fort Donelson. Grant and company will still take the fort. However, if Floyd and Pillow act even a smidgen less incompetently than they did historically, the Confederates do not surrender. Recall in OTL that their first breakout attempt was very successful in disrupting Grant's siege line, the Confederates withdrew of their own (commander's) volition and were not forced back, and even once the line was reestablished some thousand troops still escaped with Forrest. If the Confederates make *any* effort to hold the line open once they have got it, the whole of the 10,000 troops escape.
These troops will join A.S.Johnston in his concentration of forces. With 10,000 extra men at alt-Shiloh Johnston/Beauregard have the chance (not a certainly, but easily a coin flip) of severely roughing up if not destroying large chunks of Grant's army. The resulting better numerical balance, plus Grant being disgraced, gives the Confederates a fighting chance to survive until March 1865.
Glendale. Also known as Day 6 of the 7 Days. McClellan was busy moving his forces southward to their 'final' position at Malvern Hill, but today they were slowed at a bottleneck where several roads came together at Glendale. Several Union divisions were hard-pressed by Longstreet and half the Confederate army from the west. Meanwhile elements of the VI (I think) corps defended approaches from the north across White Oak Swamp. These men were severely outnumbered by Jackson with the other half of the Confederate army, but for unexplained reasons (possibly extreme tiredness due to lack of sleep) Jackson never strongly pressed the attack. If Jackson acted *remotely* with his usual aggressiveness he would easily have pushed the Union defenders back and come up behind the main Union line at Glendale (as detailed in the "What If?" anthology").
This force, consisting of around half of the Army of the Potomac, would then be surrounded and outnumbered by Confederates. Any large proportion of them that do not surrender will escape only by being routed completely. Depending on exactly how many troops are lost, and how disorganized the Confederates are in victory, Lee may press his advantage, and may have a non-negligible (though still small) chance of overrunning the new Union line at Malvern Hill. If Lee, burdened by the prisoners, holds off and lets McClellan escape, this is even better, as McClellan is thoroughly disgraced, morale in the AotP plummets with Confederate morale rising in proportion. Force-wise, this frees Lee much more quickly to move to northern Virginia to counter the threat from John Pope when it appears, and with possibly fewer (or no) reinforcements from the AotP at alt-2nd Bull Run, Lee may have a numerical superiority, able to score another large prisoner haul there. The resulting closer numerical balance heading into late summer of 1862 gives the Confederates a fighting chance in the Maryland Campaign.
Stones River. In OTL, Bragg nearly managed to swing his attack entirely clockwise around Rosecrans' lines, trapping the Union army against Stone's River. Rosecrans held Bragg off of his 1 supply line by the skin of his teeth using at one point his Engineer Brigade and reinforcements arriving just in time from his opposite flank fording the river. All of this was made possible by Rosecrans' presence in person to get these troops to the right spot in time. If Rosecrans is impeded in *any* way, the Confederate advance can get around the Union flank.
The Confederates do not have enough men to completely encircle the Union line. Nevertheless, they will clearly have the better tactical and strategic position and no reason to retreat (which Bragg was loathe to do in OTL after fighting a considerably worse battle). With the numerically and qualitatively superior Confederate cavalry running amok everywhere between Stone's River and Nashville, the onus is on Rosecrans to attack and break the Confederate's lines to reestablish his supply line. This attack will *probably* be successful, but not without costing the Union far more men proportionally than the Confederates will suffer. In turn, Rosecrans retires to Nashville to rest and refit, and Rosecrans' aura of greatness (which he did have, believe it or not, in OTL having never suffered a true defeat, and against often superior Confederate numbers no less, until Chickamauga) will be shattered. Already on the ropes with the administration, Halleck/Stanton/the rest will be even slower than OTL to resupply Rosecrans' army (if they don't replace him entirely), so he starts the Summer 1863 campaign with fewer men, worse supplies, and all the way back at Nashville. Even if he can make any progress at that point, Confederate reinforcements coming for alt-Chickamauga are fighting further north and can hold a line at or north of Chattanooga, preserving the rail line and East Tennessee while they are at it.
Chickamauga. The Confederates got a victory at this battle anyway, but they could not significantly destroy the Union army, which was what was required at this point. However, as I have detailed in a past thread (https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=4400374#post4400374), if John Bell Hood is *not wounded* at the height of his breakthrough in OTL, the Confederate advance maintains its cohesion. It is eminently possible to capture a third of Rosecrans' force, and kill/wound/put out of action another third, while Bragg suffers no more than OTL casualties.
With only ~20,000 defenders against a revitalized and sky-high-morale Confederate army, Rosecrans cannot hold Chattanooga for more than a couple of days. After Bragg re-secures the city, he can stop and wait for Longstreet's/Johnston's supplies to catch up to their troops. With an actual victory, and Bragg having 'listened' to his subordinates in seizing the city, there is no October mutiny. A *slightly* more harmonious Confederate high command actually fortifies Lookout Mountain and beyond against a time when Rosecrans/other Union commander returns, having learned their lesson since August and unlike OTL being in a position to actually do something about it. If Grant is put in charge of a concentration of forces to oppose Bragg, he is starting many miles further west, and with 20,000 fewer troops. If Longstreet is kept with the Confederate army, it is entirely possible that Grant can have a signal defeat attacking strong Confederate positions. If Longstreet is absent in East Tennessee, he now actually has time (and a somewhat more cooperative Bragg sending supplies) to make a real campaign to re-take Knoxville. Whichever scenario plays out, it is unlikely at best that Atlanta will fall before the 1864 elections, and if it does fall in time for a Democrat's inauguration there will not be time for a Union advanced *past* the city.
---
Give me time; I'll think of some more if required.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Some war weariness.
IOTL, sure. But what if we are talking about alternate history, where the situation might have been different?
Oh great, he has returned.
Either put up a scenario for us to examine or stop crapping.
TFSmith121
Banned
Maybe some time travelers with automatic weapons
Maybe some time travelers with automatic weapons will show up.
Best,
Maybe some time travelers with automatic weapons will show up.
Best,
first, you didn't specify that when you started the thread
secondly, if someone honestly wishes to rate the chances of the South having a chance OR not of winning (by whatever means victory is determined), then anything more than handwaving it requires some kind of reasonable scenario from the 'well maybe that could work' to 'improbable but not impossible series of events that butterflies into Southern survival and or victory that doesn't require the impossible"
gut feelings are nice, but they can be wrong all too frequently. So when well respected main stream historians like Shelby Foote (a Southerner no less) thinks that the South didn't have a chance in hell, the burden of proof of coming up with a reason why the South wins is a pretty big hurdle and so some reasonable explanation when discussing it seems in order.
I see... except no... obviously since people have been doing nothing but talking about scenarios for pages, clearly you failed to communicate effectively with you audience, which is rule number 1 in writing.
While you made your views known, the fact that you posted it in an interactive thread, of which you are not in control of, means that you have no control over the content.
The answer 'because its alternate history and thus the improbable or implausible could happen' isn't good enough for many in this forum.
So there you have it. Statements like "it would have been obvious to a child' impress no one. Especially not in this forum where pages are written on whether the patently silly could have happened (referring the the US conquering Europe in 1945 thread in the post 1900 forum)
Not having a go at Tegy but I will point out the leap of faith being made.
Breakout from Donelson. Well not so much. What has actually happened is a 1-2 mile gap has been created by pushing back, not routing, a portion of a much superior army which is currently sitting on your right flank wit CF Smiths unengaged division some two miles in your rear. You have been fighting since 9 am the point of decision is around midday its February and darkness is when?
For this to be anything other than a total rout you need to figure out how a semi trained collection of militiamen and militia officers march at night on unfamiliar roads far enough and fast enough to evade a superior number of pursuers, all the way to Nashville. Which then translates into something at Shiloh that somehow discredits Grant more that OTL ( where he is basically fired).
Glendale. Porter Alexander calls it a missed opportunity. Well yes but an opportunity to launch an attack across a deep stream into the face of a full Union corps with a superior artillery. Whether you cross the river via a bridge or via fords does not make much difference. I am sure there are instances but I can’t think of one where an AoP corps was pushed out of a positon by a frontal attack.
Stones River. The CSA flank attack comes nowhere close to being successful. It temporarily routs part of McCooks command but only part, Sheridan and Davis both maintain order long enough ( to be fair Sheridan maintains order period, he withdraws to resupply ammunition). Any flank attack is dependent on the attacking force being able to move further faster than the defender can establish a gun line. Just about every battle of the ACW, in the west in particular. has a hells half acre, slaughterpen, hornets nest where the defenders stand and fight, for hours.
And in the end whats the scenario? Rosecrans is replaced, and the Tullahoma campaign starts in a different place. So Thomas vs Bragg, hows that going to work out.
In order to for the confederates to do these things you have to change the capabilities of the armies. Either the Rebels are much, much better than they were or the Union are much, much worse. Given that they come from the same culture, use the same weapons, methods doctrine that ain’t going to happen.
The only way you get decisive battles in the 19th century outside colonial battles is when one side has an unengaged Prussian Army steam into their flank.
Breakout from Donelson. Well not so much. What has actually happened is a 1-2 mile gap has been created by pushing back, not routing, a portion of a much superior army which is currently sitting on your right flank wit CF Smiths unengaged division some two miles in your rear. You have been fighting since 9 am the point of decision is around midday its February and darkness is when?
For this to be anything other than a total rout you need to figure out how a semi trained collection of militiamen and militia officers march at night on unfamiliar roads far enough and fast enough to evade a superior number of pursuers, all the way to Nashville. Which then translates into something at Shiloh that somehow discredits Grant more that OTL ( where he is basically fired).
Glendale. Porter Alexander calls it a missed opportunity. Well yes but an opportunity to launch an attack across a deep stream into the face of a full Union corps with a superior artillery. Whether you cross the river via a bridge or via fords does not make much difference. I am sure there are instances but I can’t think of one where an AoP corps was pushed out of a positon by a frontal attack.
Stones River. The CSA flank attack comes nowhere close to being successful. It temporarily routs part of McCooks command but only part, Sheridan and Davis both maintain order long enough ( to be fair Sheridan maintains order period, he withdraws to resupply ammunition). Any flank attack is dependent on the attacking force being able to move further faster than the defender can establish a gun line. Just about every battle of the ACW, in the west in particular. has a hells half acre, slaughterpen, hornets nest where the defenders stand and fight, for hours.
And in the end whats the scenario? Rosecrans is replaced, and the Tullahoma campaign starts in a different place. So Thomas vs Bragg, hows that going to work out.
In order to for the confederates to do these things you have to change the capabilities of the armies. Either the Rebels are much, much better than they were or the Union are much, much worse. Given that they come from the same culture, use the same weapons, methods doctrine that ain’t going to happen.
The only way you get decisive battles in the 19th century outside colonial battles is when one side has an unengaged Prussian Army steam into their flank.
Anaxagoras
Banned
I think it is. Every single event of history was, technically speaking, improbable or implausible. If we lived in an ATL in which the Confederacy won, you would be asserting with equal force that the North never had a chance to win, what with the South's advantage of being on the strategic defensive and being a more militaristic society.
frlmerrin
Banned
What of the destruction of the Green Banner Army?
What was it about Solfernio that you found indecisive?
Hakodate?
Pavón?
Tuyutí?
Also if we look at the early 19th Century we find more decisive battles than you can throw a stick at.
Further your statement is profoundly illogical as you point out at least one decisive battle of the 19th century only to exclude it from consideration - I found that profoundly bizarre.
In summary your assertion is wrong.