WI Major Confederate Victory In Kentucky, October 1862?

[Anaxagoras]

Suppose that, for whatever reason (maybe pure dumb luck, or perhaps Polk falls off his horse, hits his head, and dies) the Confederate army under Braxton Bragg wins a decisive victory against the Union army under Don Carlos Buell when it invades Kentucky in the fall of 1862. By "major", assume a Second Manassas level victory, in which the Union army is routed and flees towards Louisville in total disorder, leaving the Confederates in control of central and eastern Kentucky.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Not much. The manpower lost in a Kentucky loss is trivial compared what losing the Army of the Potomac would do to their army. South still loses, although it might take some thought to figure out the details of how they lose.

 

[water123]

If this is tied with victories in the East (the front that actually mattered up until ~1863), it could have meant that if the Union was forced to the negotiating table, they could be forced to give up some or all of Kentucky, depending on what else happens there. The issue is that the CSA would have to be fundamentally different to gain more territory than it held IOTL.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

But he said ONLY Kentucky...

 

[dandan_noodles]

The main goal of the Kentucky campaign was creating an opening to liberate Nashville; once it's back in Confederate hands, they're going to have a lot more operational flexibility (most campaigns post Henry and Donelson had Nashville as their objective point), and would likely capture large stocks of supplies; Nashville became the largest US depot of the entire war. Taking Nashville could also threaten to unravel Grant's communications along the Mississippi and the Memphis and Ohio railroad.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

The main goal of the Kentucky campaign was creating an opening to liberate Nashville; once it's back in Confederate hands, they're going to have a lot more operational flexibility (most campaigns post Henry and Donelson had Nashville as their objective point), and would likely capture large stocks of supplies; Nashville became the largest US depot of the entire war. Taking Nashville could also threaten to unravel Grant's communications along the Mississippi.

What do you mean liberate Nashville? The South were the rebels remember, the word would be "gain control of" or perhaps "retake." Only the North can do liberation, although in practice they probably did burning and destruction instead. Nashville got off easy, I guess later on in the war the North weren't willing to be so nice.

Grant has enough manpower to put Nashville under siege and starve them out again. He just marches north, get a wagon load of food, go back to Nashville 3 months later, big some trenches, and wait for the outnumbered South to try to attack him.

 

[dandan_noodles]

What do you mean liberate Nashville? The South were the rebels remember, the word would be "gain control of" or perhaps "retake." Only the North can do liberation, although in practice they probably did burning and destruction instead. Nashville got off easy, I guess later on in the war the North weren't willing to be so nice.

Grant has enough manpower to put Nashville under siege and starve them out again. He just marches north, get a wagon load of food, go back to Nashville 3 months later, big some trenches, and wait for the outnumbered South to try to attack him.

No one cares.

That depends on Grant getting to Nashville and putting it under siege before the Confederates attack his army; without a secure line of supply, laying siege is a tricky proposition, to say the least; furthermore, there was a simultaneous offensive by Confederate armies in Northern Mississippi, which would complicate Grant striking north from the Memphis/Corinth area.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Grant has enough manpower to put Nashville under siege and starve them out again. He just marches north, get a wagon load of food, go back to Nashville 3 months later, big some trenches, and wait for the outnumbered South to try to attack him.

Even assuming you're right, it would still be a disaster for the Union, because it would mean the end of the effort to capture Vicksburg.

 

[dcharleos]

What do you mean liberate Nashville? The South were the rebels remember, the word would be "gain control of" or perhaps "retake." Only the North can do liberation, although in practice they probably did burning and destruction instead. Nashville got off easy, I guess later on in the war the North weren't willing to be so nice.

Grant has enough manpower to put Nashville under siege and starve them out again. He just marches north, get a wagon load of food, go back to Nashville 3 months later, big some trenches, and wait for the outnumbered South to try to attack him.

I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't Grant be the one attacking entrenched positions?

 

[Alex Zetsu]

No one cares.

That depends on Grant getting to Nashville and putting it under siege before the Confederates attack his army; without a secure line of supply, laying siege is a tricky proposition, to say the least; furthermore, there was a simultaneous offensive by Confederate armies in Northern Mississippi, which would complicate Grant striking north from the Memphis/Corinth area.

Grant outnumbered the South, an attack on him was doomed to fail unless his men routed. He had enough powder and bullets to fight a few battles if Nashville was lost, and he'd probably know at least a week before it fell, and he'd head north to an alternate supply dump the moment he knew his preferred one (Nashville) was about to fall.. You can lay a siege without a secure line of supply if you brought enough food and ammo, in that event you only need occasional porting parties, not a full fledged supply train. That's why I said he goes North first, then packs the wagons, and then goes to Nashville. Once recapture, no more than 3,000 should be needed to defend it/

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I'm not sure I understand. Wouldn't Grant be the one attacking entrenched positions?

No, he just surrounds Nashville and wait for the South to relieve it.

 

[dcharleos]

Why would the Confederates consent to being surrounded?

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Why would the Confederates consent to being surrounded?

What do you do when outnumbered 3 to 1? Fight then in an open field, or get surrounded and wait for allies to rescue you? Of course, the Army of Tennessee (which was bigger than Grant's army and it alone outnumbered Southern manpower in this sector) would probably loan a few units to Grant since he's retaking their supply dump too.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Grant outnumbered the South, an attack on him was doomed to fail unless his men routed. He had enough powder and bullets to fight a few battles if Nashville was lost, and he'd probably know at least a week before it fell, and he'd head north to an alternate supply dump the moment he knew his preferred one (Nashville) was about to fall.. You can lay a siege without a secure line of supply if you brought enough food and ammo, in that event you only need occasional porting parties, not a full fledged supply train. That's why I said he goes North first, then packs the wagons, and then goes to Nashville. Once recapture, no more than 3,000 should be needed to defend it/

Grant's supply base was at Memphis, not Nashville. The army using Nashville as its supply base was Buell's.

 

[Anaxagoras]

What do you do when outnumbered 3 to 1? Fight then in an open field, or get surrounded and wait for allies to rescue you? Of course, the Army of Tennessee (which was bigger than Grant's army and it alone outnumbered Southern manpower in this sector) would probably loan a few units to Grant since he's retaking their supply dump too.

I think you're a bit confused. The "Army of Tennessee" was a Confederate force, not a Union force. If you're thinking of the "Army of the Tennessee" (named after the river, not the state), you're incorrect; it was Grant's army.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

OK, great that works better. He goes to camp, packs, and then goes to Nashville. Someone implied Nashville was his base by talking about unraveling.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I think you're a bit confused. The "Army of Tennessee" was a Confederate force, not a Union force. If you're thinking of the "Army of the Tennessee" (named after the river, not the state), you're incorrect; it was Grant's army.

Tensasse of the Tennasee... man, these are confusing.

 

[Anaxagoras]

OK, great that works better. He goes to camp, packs, and then goes to Nashville. Someone implied Nashville was his base by talking about unraveling.

So the effort to capture Vicksburg is abandoned, thereby ruining Union efforts in the Western Theater of Operations for the foreseeable future.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Eh, you can look at it that way.

I think the North had a 25% chance of holding Nashville even with a bull run in Kentucky, which means almost nothing changed.

 

[Anaxagoras]

By fixating on Nashville, we're ignoring Kentucky. If Bragg's army did win a major victory and ended the year in control of much of the state, the consequences would be enormous. The South had Lexington and Bardstown only briefly IOTL. ITTL, they might be able to keep them over the winter. If the Confederate state government is actually in place for a few months (as opposed to a matter of days), they might have more success in recruiting Kentuckians into the Confederate army, especially as the victory over Buell will have persuaded many people to get off the fence.