Which Civil War TL idea should I do?

TFSmith121

Banned
Anderson had very real health issues, however;

The idiot ball one is less plausible I would grant; honestly I would see it as more likely for the Union to have more competent people appointed (maybe with the exception of Fremont) rather than any of the truly bad candidates. Of course, if an equally competent person is there, everything still goes roughly as OTL probably. The only reason I would propose Hunter for the more radical war one is because he's one of the only competent generals to both promote emancipation and be fairly high ranking in 1861 (he was briefly given command of the west after all, and I guess Grant and Hunter in Missouri could be another interesting one but I digress). Your point about McClellan is valid, although Wool had at least commanded the Chihuahua expedition in the Mexican War. Another person I could see being given a higher command is Robert Anderson. Which variant of all of these seems most feasible in your opinion?


Anderson had very real health issues, however; and his Kentucky connections presumably did not make his choice simple, either.

Hunter is one of the few abolitionists in the prewar army, so for a "radical" war he is the obvious early choice, but given his record in Virginia, again, I just don't think he could handle a large force, period. He would have been an excellent choice for the USCTs, however; kind of surprising he didn't end up with them, actually. He'd already had his shot and failed, I suppose.

My personal favorites for US high command in '61 for a more effective war effort are:

1) Blair as secretary of war, rather than Cameron; Blair was a West Pointer, knew Washington, and was a completely committed Unionist, of course. He's not a radical, obviously, but if you're looking for a 1861 US victory, he's the one in terms of Cabinet shifts. Bring Stanton in early as an undersecretary to firm up the efficiencies in the department;

2) Keep Scott as general-in-chief; he was the most able strategist on the continent and, if his "unofficial" mission to France in '61 is any indication, physically was hardly the gout-ridden cripple he is portayed as; give him a very able chief of staff (AA Humphreys is my favorite) and some obvious swaps/improvements/additions in the bureaux (get Mordecai to come back, somehow), and Headquarters, USA is in good shape - need someone to replace Scott in Paris, but Bonaparte would be my choice there, or Tom Lee (have to get him to come back, however);

3) Give JKF Mansfield the Army of Northeastern Virginia, rather than McDowell; as inspector general, Mansfield knew the army inside and out, had Scott's confidence, and was a fighter; his strategy for the '61 campaign is likely to be much simpler than McDowell's and thus more likely to force at least a draw against Johnston and Beauregard. Give him McDowell as chief of staff, and Kearny as chief of cavalry with the field army (Cooke can get the bureau equivalent). Also, replace Patterson - Wool might be a good choice; he has experience in independent command and is a professional. If Scott does fade physically in '61, Mansfield is well-placed to replace him as g-in-c.

4) McClellan gets West Virginia, TS Sherman Port Royal; for Kentucky, if Anderson is unable to take command, beg William Butler to come back to the colors - he's old, but he's a veteran and knows the state, so until Polk invades, he is far less likely to cause an incident than anyone else. Give Butler someone sharp (WT Sherman?) as chief of staff. For Kansas, Hunter makes as much sense as anyone; Sumner in California, to be replaced by Wright as soon as possible; Sumner comes back to understudy Mansfield and move up if JKFM replaces Scott. Try and get Doniphan to come back for New Mexico; failing that, Fremont (or Canby) can do it.

5) Missouri - Keep Harney in command; the "gentleman's agreement" made sense when the US forces were minimal and Price was in the field but not committed yet; give Halleck to Harney as chief of staff and Lyon as the field commander, but beef Lyon's forces up as much as possible, with Sheridan as his chief of staff. Obviously, it is hindsight, but keep Grant exactly where he is; he is by far the best man of the bunch, north or south, but no one knows it yet.

6) Prepare the North Carolina (Burnside) and New Orleans expeditions - Butler would not be my first choice for a field command; he could be a good JAG, however; same for Banks as PMG, rather than a field command.

Anyway, that's my rundown for an "early" US victory; it still may not come - everyone is very green in the summer of '61 - but the odds are higher with the above than otherwise, certainly.

If you've read BROS, you've seen some of the above, obviously.;)

Best,
 
Last edited:
Another idea I'd been knocking around was the war starting significantly earlier, with shots fired at the Mt. Vernon Arsenal in Alabama (which would be around January 1861). Would that significantly handicap the Confederacy in your opinion, and who would the military commanders probably be in such a scenario? And I am reading BROS btw.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
That's interesting - Buchanan is still president; Scott is

Another idea I'd been knocking around was the war starting significantly earlier, with shots fired at the Mt. Vernon Arsenal in Alabama (which would be around January 1861). Would that significantly handicap the Confederacy in your opinion, and who would the military commanders probably be in such a scenario? And I am reading BROS btw.


That's interesting - Buchanan is still president; Scott is g-in-c; January, 1861 means that only six states have officially seceded - South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and Louisiana, and they have yet to create anything approximating a national government. Texas is still officially in the union, Fort Sumter has yet to occur, and Lincoln hasn't even been inaugurated, which means the Upper South, from North Carolina across to Arkansas, is still in the union.

The fall-out from active hostilities in January really depends on what happens between the Alabama militia and Reno's Ordnance detachment; Reno was a (West) Virginian, and the odds would presumably be very much against any sort of prolonged resistance - unless the rebels do something truly insane and massacre unarmed men, I'm not sure even more than a pro-forma resistance would make a huge difference.

As far as field commanders go, the problem is the US still has to mobilize, and Buchanan refused to do much of anything along those lines before Lincoln took office.

Please let me know what you think of BROS; I appreciate the input, trust me.

Best,
 
For the arsenal, certainly the Confederates wouldn't massacre unarmed men, but let's say a Union soldier has a sleepless night and sees Confederates scaling the walls, I wouldn't be surprised to see some gunfire and a few soldiers killed or wounded on either side- and that would be quite an incident. As for BROS, I will say this, it's quite different from 67th Tigers' take on the topic.;)
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It's an interesting point; it may not be enough to

For the arsenal, certainly the Confederates wouldn't massacre unarmed men, but let's say a Union soldier has a sleepless night and sees Confederates scaling the walls, I wouldn't be surprised to see some gunfire and a few soldiers killed or wounded on either side- and that would be quite an incident. As for BROS, I will say this, it's quite different from 67th Tigers' take on the topic.;)

It's an interesting point; it may not be enough to prevent Texas' secession (presumably Twiggs is still a traitor) but the upper South states may hesitate...

I think it still takes Lincoln in the White House to mobilize, and that runs the risk - even with an incident in Alabama - of the Upper South states (or at least some of them) moving forward with secession.

Well, I appreciate the comment on BROS:cool: - glad to see I passed that bar. Anything specific?

Best,
 
Last edited:
Anyone else have ideas on a Jan. start to the Civil War? I'm unsure even whether more or less states would secede. Interestingly, the Mt. Vernon capture itself was before Alabama seceded, so violence wouldn't even have a states' rights justification in this case...
 

TFSmith121

Banned
That makes it very interesting:

Anyone else have ideas on a Jan. start to the Civil War? I'm unsure even whether more or less states would secede. Interestingly, the Mt. Vernon capture itself was before Alabama seceded, so violence wouldn't even have a states' rights justification in this case...

Alabama is in a state of insurrection, but Tennessee is not... send Bull Sumner there with the 1st Dragoons and invite the 1st Alabama Militia to put up or shut up?

They may blanch; it took South Carolina to fire the first shot, after all...

The above still requires Buchanan to act like Jackson, which seems like a stretch, however.

Best,
 
Another idea for an different start to the civil war; if the bombardment of Ft. Sumter is delayed by even a week, the first action will be Henry Wise's extralegal seizure of Norfolk Navy Yard and Harper's Ferry by Virginia militia a few days later. Repeating the actions of John Brown won't exactly help in persuading the upper south states to secede, although whether any of them would remain in the Union is unclear.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Certainly a possibility; the US still needs time to

Another idea for an different start to the civil war; if the bombardment of Ft. Sumter is delayed by even a week, the first action will be Henry Wise's extralegal seizure of Norfolk Navy Yard and Harper's Ferry by Virginia militia a few days later. Repeating the actions of John Brown won't exactly help in persuading the upper south states to secede, although whether any of them would remain in the Union is unclear.

Certainly a possibility; the US still needs time to mobilize, however, which I think pretty much requires Lincoln in the White House to pull the trigger, so to speak.

And ultimately you're edging back to a "how can the US do better in 1861" question, I think.

Best,
 
Yeah. The problem is, both sides are simply too cautious and unused to large scale war, for there to be many opportunities for major success. A January outbreak of war would probably just make things worse for the Union, in giving the south more time to organize unimpeded. Militarily then, for the south to collapse that early, Richmond would have to fall; so either some kind of successful Bull Run campaign, or Big Bethel turning into an early advance on the peninsula. While Mansfield, et al. certainly help, they would take time (and also end up infringing on BROS a bit much).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yep; both sides needed to mobilize, and of course,

Yeah. The problem is, both sides are simply too cautious and unused to large scale war, for there to be many opportunities for major success. A January outbreak of war would probably just make things worse for the Union, in giving the south more time to organize unimpeded. Militarily then, for the south to collapse that early, Richmond would have to fall; so either some kind of successful Bull Run campaign, or Big Bethel turning into an early advance on the peninsula. While Mansfield, et al. certainly help, they would take time (and also end up infringing on BROS a bit much).

Yep; both sides needed to mobilize, and of course, mobilization requires someone (Lincoln) to order it in the US and someone (Davis) to actually make it happen for the rebels. All of which takes time.

Mobilization also forces the upper South to chose, and creates the forces that actually "can" provide an incident, like Polk's incursion into Kentucky, to bring things to a head.

If someone is looking for an "early" civil war, 1832 is really my favorite as the "most" likely (although still not very); the issues and players are all vastly different, of course.

Thanks for the kind thoughts re BROS; trying to finish the current section among various other responsibilities.

Best,
 
One alternative that would handicap the C.S.A.- if Georgia, or more likely Alabama have a narrow Cooperationist majority, then there are calls for a southern convention, and more importantly, those states don't secede, leaving the would-be Confederacy cut in half for the time being. With no real chance to organize before the 2nd wave of secession (whenever that happens), the Confederacy is almost certainly going to be bowled over if the Union does a fast enough offensive. Could that work?
 
Top