Who would've been a better General to lead the Confederate Nex Mexico campaign?

H.H Shelby apparently had a bunch of blunders so what general could've lead the force better and eventually could've lead them all to California and capture it's gold and silver?
 
Leading them all to California is a very tall order even for a superb leader. You are looking at 700 miles from the nearest point they reached in NM over some very forbidding terrain.

But actually conquering California is an order of magnitude more difficult. Frankly, California can probably on its own stand off any invasion.
 
H.H Shelby apparently had a bunch of blunders so what general could've lead the force better and eventually could've lead them all to California and capture it's gold and silver?


Someone who makes RE Lee look like Ambrose Burnside on a bad day. Anything short of that is doomed. I don't care who they send the CSA is completely screwed. It had about as much chance at taking NM as the Moon.
 
H.H Shelby apparently had a bunch of blunders so what general could've lead the force better and eventually could've lead them all to California and capture it's gold and silver?

Realistically? Nobody. It was a fools errand from start to finish and its only realistic chance of success would have come from the Union forces being distracted somewhere else, and there's not exactly any Confederate territory on the border of California to distract them.

Sibley and Richmond would have been better off had the men sent either stayed home, and would have gotten the same result if they took all the supplies and men who were lost and floated them out into the Gulf of Mexico and sunk them.
 
His second in command, colonel Thomas Green is a great option. He commanded the confederate forces well at Valverde (since Sibley was passed out drunk) and went on to perform very well in Louisiana (bayou teche and red river). But there is the problem of rank as he was only a colonel at the time of NM campaign though you could change that I guess.

Richard Taylor would also maybe be a good option. He proved to be more than capable of fighting with limited men and resources and was all around a superb general. He was promoted to Birgadier general in October 1861 iotl.

Not sure about taking California, but I think a different general could do better than sibley, maybe actually capturing fort Craig and holding Sante Fe for longer, then turning back southwest and defeating the California brigade. Most likely would have to withdraw eventually though if the war continues.
 
Last edited:
His second in command, colonel Thomas Green is a great option. He commanded the confederate forces well at Valverde (since Sibley was passed out drunk) and went on to perform very well in Louisiana (bayou teche and red river). But there is the problem of rank as he was only a colonel at the time of NM campaign though you could change that I guess.

Richard Taylor would also maybe be a good option. He proved to be more than capable of fighting with limited men and resources and was all around a superb general. He was promoted to Birgadier general in October 1861 iotl.

Not sure about taking California, but I think a different general could do better than sibley, maybe actually capturing fort Craig and holding Sante Fe for longer, then turning back southwest and defeating the California brigade. Most likely would have to withdraw eventually though if the war continues.

How, exactly, can they beat the California brigade which would outnumber them greatly, particularly after having to fight Canby who you would expect to be able to deal at least some damage? IF by some miracle you could beat them how can you beat their reinforcements? Every time the CSA attacked Union territory it got its butt kicked.
 
How, exactly, can they beat the California brigade which would outnumber them greatly, particularly after having to fight Canby who you would expect to be able to deal at least some damage? IF by some miracle you could beat them how can you beat their reinforcements? Every time the CSA attacked Union territory it got its butt kicked.
What would you like, me to choose a hypothetical battlefield and then give you some troop movements? Small armies have managed to defeat larger and better equipped ones before. Not that the California brigade was much larger though, because it was only around 2,300 troops, and the total confederate forces for the New Mexico campaign were almost 2,600, which even when accounting for loses and possible garrison for fort Craig would likely leave them with anywhere from 1,900-2,000 men which is not a large disparity.

As for Canby, he did pretty badly at Valverde, taking nearly 4x the casualties as the Confederates. Not that he was a bad general, because he diefenitly wasnt.

I never suggested that New Mexico could be held indefinitely, only longer.
 
What would you like, me to choose a hypothetical battlefield and then give you some troop movements? Small armies have managed to defeat larger and better equipped ones before. Not that the California brigade was much larger though, because it was only around 2,300 troops, and the total confederate forces for the New Mexico campaign were almost 2,600, which even when accounting for loses and possible garrison for fort Craig would likely leave them with anywhere from 1,900-2,000 men which is not a large disparity.

As for Canby, he did pretty badly at Valverde, taking nearly 4x the casualties as the Confederates. Not that he was a bad general, because he diefenitly wasnt.

I never suggested that New Mexico could be held indefinitely, only longer.

When added to the troops already there they would be. Unless they wipe out the Union troops to the last man without taking huge casualties themselves, which is pretty unlikely they will be heavily outnumbered when the California Brigade arrives.
 
H.H Shelby apparently had a bunch of blunders so what general could've lead the force better and eventually could've lead them all to California and capture it's gold and silver?

Plenty of Confederate commanders could have done better than Sibley, but taking California might have been beyond even Khalid ib Wald or Subutai.

Considering Confederate logistics, the march from New Mexico to California would probably have a lot in common with Hannibal crossing the Alps - half the Confederate troops dead. Unlike Hannibal, there wouldn't be any equivalent of the Gallic allies that replaced his depleted ranks - only a few dozen Californians joined the Confederate army. Over 15,000 Californian served in the Union Army, so a Confederate expeditionary force in California would probably have to win multiple battles outnumbered 5-to-1 or worse.

The smartest thing Sibley did in the whole campaign was not marching west to California.
 
Steven Kearny managed to get a small force across the 'Colorado Desert' to California in 1847, tho capturing the place depended on US forces already arrived via the coast, and local rebels favoring the US.
 
Top