TFSmith121
Banned
Anderson had very real health issues, however;
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,
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: