Turning Point - a (slightly) more sucessful CSA in 1862

I recently read the biography of Jefferson Davis - The Man and His Hour by Wiliam C. Davis, which I found quite interesting. So it appears as if even Jeff Davis knew from the beginning that it was a lost cause for the south (hence his reluctancy to support secession before MI seceeced) but he got carried away by the early sucesses the Confederates had on the battlefield (especially First Bull Run / Manassas) - like so many others of his fellow Southerners.

The one thing that i noted is that after 1861, the first three major turning points occured, namely:

- Loss of New Orleans in May 1862
- Confederate Invasion of Kentucky in September 1862 (known as the The Heartland Campaign June-October 1862)
- The Antietam Campaign in September 1862

All of those happend in 6 months and in one campaign season, so they took a heavy toll on the hope for Southern Independence, in retrospect I think the year 1862 spelled doom for the Confederacy, it foreshadowed the ultimate outcome of the war.

An earlier point would be the the Invasion of Kentucky in September 1861 (Polk's blunder), however this would probably require an Union invasion first (but would possibly avoid Shiloh later on) and is one of the options in my other post here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/ahc-kentucky-in-the-confederacy.445420/

Map: Territory held by the CSA end of 1861: https://etc.usf.edu/maps/pages/2900/2935/2935.gif
Map: Western Theater: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ACW_Western_Theater_Overview.png

Turning points: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_point_of_the_American_Civil_War

I did not include the death of Albert Sidney Johnston in April 1862, because I think it's diffcult to estimate how much his generalship would change the situation (Jeff Davis lost much hope due to the death of his friend).

So, what would happen, if the CSA avoided those ealy failures?

To clarify, I do not think that it would change the eventual outcome of the war. At best, the war will be prolong for a couple of months, since the Union will have to conquer more territory later on, and it will be thus bloodier for both sides.
 
Last edited:
Well, the greatest mistake the Confederacy made (besides attacking Fort Sumter) was violating the neutrality of Kentucky and Missouri. Everything pretty much snowballed from there since it opened more fronts for the Union. Of course, the downside for the Confederacy is butterflies. If the Union doesn't violate the neutrality of Kentucky and Missouri, that means the more competent generals from the West will be in the East. That means Grant would be in Virginia much earlier. But if Confederate forces aren't as spread out, then the war becomes a bit more unrecognizable.

But let's say the CSA doesn't lose New Orleans when it does, but at a later date. This wouldn't quite be a major blow for the Union because it would force them to attack again. Of course, you'd have to avoid Albert Sidney Johnston from leaving New Orleans nearly defenseless for his campaign in Tennessee to plausibly account for a failed Union attack on New Orleans. The Confederate invasion of Kentucky could have gone better than it did, but it also could have gone worse since we are talking about Braxton Bragg here. But certainly, at a best case scenario, the Confederacy taking Kentucky and putting the pro-Confederate government in power would have been significant. The Antietam Campaign has been done to death in AH and when you consider that George McClellan still nearly blew it for the Union, you can see why it keeps coming up. But say you're only changing the outcome of Antietam? Robert E. Lee still needs to retreat back into Virginia because casualties still would have been heavy and the Union still would have prevented the ANV from achieving its objectives in the overall campaign. But it certainly would get McClellan removed from command much sooner and it would have completely damaged his political ambitions.

So for each of these scenarios, let's consider best case scenario.

1) The Confederacy gets a moral victory for holding New Orleans and holds onto a major port for a while longer. But the Union is going to try again since capturing New Orleans is vital to taking control of the Mississippi River. More forces will be committed to the campaign and you'll probably see an interesting Union campaign unfold for control of New Orleans. But this also means troops would be diverted from other fronts, which could help the CSA slightly in other areas. However, since New Orleans had enough troops to repulse the Union attack, the Union has likely been far more successful in Tennessee than in OTL. I can't see this helping the CSA much at all even in the best case scenario.
2) You can take it, but can you hold it? This is the problem the CSA had throughout the war. They could take territory, but couldn't hold it. Grant is likely put in command to drive the CSA from Kentucky, leaving someone else in command for taking Vicksburg. Sure it helps the CSA since it opens Kentucky up to recruitment, but it's not the end of the world for the Union either. This could buy the CSA some time down the road, so this does help to some extent.
3) If the ANV achieves military victory at Antietam, it would be because McClellan managed to really screw things up. He didn't move fast enough after getting the ANV's battle plans and still managed to let the ANV escape in OTL. This would be an embarrassing defeat for McClellan that spells the end of his military career. But this likely would come at great cost, so Lee would need to retreat south into Virginia once again. This scenario might help efforts to get international recognition from Britain and France, but my thoughts would be a more significant victory would be needed. Flip a coin on this one.
 
Top