WI: Confederate Sherman

Saphroneth

Banned
The western part wasn't though and that could have been pushed back as could have been the Homestead Act. It also doesn't change the fact the quickest way to end the draft riots up north is to have Southern soldiers wreck havoc there. The stronger party can get away with it , the weaker one will merely piss off the stronger one. Also the South simply didn't have the logistical capacity to take a major Northern city and never even tried.
The CSA wasn't trying to take a major Northern city, at least I don't think so. They were trying to make the North consider the price too high.

This is doable - and, in fact, treating CSA soldiers as treasonous and executing their leaders in job lots is the best possible way for the CSA to end up independent. It's exactly how to get a vicious guerilla war and for the Union to lose all legitimacy in the eyes of the South.

Of course, it'd pretty much tear the CSA to shreds - think, say, Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion.


Anyway, as for the transcontinental railroad - yes, the western end can be pushed back. But my point is basically that it was already the case that the Union couldn't spare enough manpower to do all the things they wanted to do, so some tradeoffs are going to quickly become more and more necessary.

Example - they were still producing a food surplus, but if they take too many more men from the fields that will reverse itself and the economic situation of the Union will become worse. If they do what OTL Britain in WW2 did and rely on foreign produced munitions to a greater degree (by moving people from factories to the front) then, again, their economic situation gets worse.
 
Sherman as a Confederate general does not do much to the overall war. If anything the Union takes a few more months to win, and if Lee does not have a surrender in the same fashion as OTL then guerillas become a real concern. Sherman was not a great tactician, but leaving Hood alone made some sense - Hood was a brawler who was fantastic in tactical situations *when under the right strategist*. Like Sherman he was not nearly so good when left to his own devices.

If you want a more impressive coin-toss of loyalty which would make more sense and might have a larger impact try Union Major General and Quartermaster of the Army Montgomery C Meigs - of Georgia. If he defects it will not win the war for the South but it gives them more staying power and supplies.

A Confederate victory is not quite ASB and the ramifications could be disasterous. California made it clear before the war that they might not stay, Mormon territories were certainly thinking of going their own way, and the Pacific Northwest was still thinly settled, potentially up for grabs. Texas might not stay Confederate and secede with a border at the Sabine or even Mississippi, perhaps going as far west as the former Republic of Texas claims to the Rio Grandest or even Colorado River and the Indian Territory. Watch the UK play these states off of each other, perhaps with New England eventually going it's own way too. North America becomes a chessboard for European players.
 
Despite having multiple times the South's manpower the North only raised twice as many soldiers for one example.

For good reason. The North ran into problems getting volunteers in 1863 (hence the draft) and that wasn't exactly popular. Nor could the North endlessly strip men away from industry.

These aren't resources which can be mobilized in mere months either, and trying to do a crash mobilization would most likely be ruinous in monetary and political terms.
 
It's my understanding that Sherman actually liked the South and was offered a commission in the CSA and turned it down because he was a big law and order type and viewed secession as treason. So, if Sherman is Sherman then it wouldn't have mattered where he was born/raised, he would still have stayed with the Union.

This would be a more realistic place to start. He was working in the South at the start of the war. He liked the South. Give him a more realistic reason to side with the South (bios of John Pemberton and Patrick Cleborne might be good inspiration). For example what if he loves his AU wife more than he loves the Union? Lee, for example, also saw secession as treason, but couldn't fire on his "country" of Virginia.

There are possiblities.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
You may want to read up on the Sherman and Ewing families

What if William T. Sherman's parents moved to the south shortly after he was born, and he became a Confederate general?

You may want to read up on the Sherman and Ewing families; Sherman's father was born in Connecticut and deeply involved in Ohio politics and his foster family, the Ewings, were as well - which is a large part of why WT was fostered by the Ewings, as were his siblings.

There's nothing beyond authorial caprice to suggest anything otherwise...

What's your object? To give the rebellion a better combat commander in the west? To force the U.S. To keep Grant there, or pass the Western Command to someone else?

Best,
 
For good reason. The North ran into problems getting volunteers in 1863 (hence the draft) and that wasn't exactly popular. Nor could the North endlessly strip men away from industry.

These aren't resources which can be mobilized in mere months either, and trying to do a crash mobilization would most likely be ruinous in monetary and political terms.

The South had a problem getting volunteers a year earlier and the North would far more easily find volunteers if the South tries burning down US towns and cities.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The South had a problem getting volunteers a year earlier and the North would far more easily find volunteers if the South tries burning down US towns and cities.
Except that you keep bringing up this idea of the South burning down US towns and cities.

First, doesn't that mean that if the North burned down CSA towns and cities then there'd be a Southern recruitment surge?
Second, I for one am mainly taking issue with the idea the Union had one hand behind its back and should have raised another million or so men.
 
Except that you keep bringing up this idea of the South burning down US towns and cities.

First, doesn't that mean that if the North burned down CSA towns and cities then there'd be a Southern recruitment surge?
Second, I for one am mainly taking issue with the idea the Union had one hand behind its back and should have raised another million or so men.

I was responding to an earlier post which stated that was precisely what the South should have done.

There was a surge of recruitment, the problem is that the North was much bigger than the South and so it didn't matter. The North certainly could have raised more men. Whether it would have been wise or not is subject to debate.

I would argue the South overmobilized. It didn't leave enough men to grow crops, produce salt or many other things needed to run a military. They arguably would have done better with less soldiers and more farmers. The soldiers would have been better fed and the civilian population more supportive in the long run.
 
While it is true that he was offered a prostion within the CSA, his main concern was for his family. If he thought he could have taken care of his family as good or if not better within the South he may well have stayed. In 1860 he, along, with many others didn't think there was going to be a war at all. In fact he wanted nothing to do with any war, for the North or South, he could well have moved back to California, if he could. He respected the rights of states he went as far as making sure the any US weapons were put into the hands of Mississippi government and not a rabble that wanted to grab them and only joined the North because of the pressure, more or less, put upon by his brother.
Really, as far as I make out 50% wanting to keep out of the way of it all, 30% joining the North because of his family, and would have had only 20% chance of joining the South and then only if he thought it would be best for his family.
How good a solider he would have made, he would have made a bigger impact, for the South if he had been chief quartermaster, or some such.
 
Top