WI Major Confederate Victory In Kentucky, October 1862?

Given Bragg's options to attack from Kentucky (or lack there of) and the rail network, it's almost a nonfactor really. I have no idea why Lincoln wanted it so badly when manpower, tactical deposition, railroad network, and supply capability don't justify it being hugely important. His options of supply are looting or never advancing past Lexington. The South's manpower situation isn't improved even if we assume many eager recruits (unlikely given the state voted in people who were unionists). So if Kentucky has no effect on Nashville, I'm not seeing this really significant.
 
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.
They could also improve their chances on that score by bringing along Breckinridge and the Orphan Brigade; convincing Kentuckians to rally to the colors is going to be easier when the colors in question are actually there, along with the (3rd, but only if you count Lincoln and Davis) most famous Kentuckian in the US.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
They could also improve their chances on that score by bringing along Breckinridge and the Orphan Brigade; convincing Kentuckians to rally to the colors is going to be easier when the colors in question are actually there, along with the (3rd, but only if you count Lincoln and Davis) most famous Kentuckian in the US.

They were on their way IOTL when Bragg elected to abandon the state. In fact, they were literally a few miles from the Tennessee-Kentucky border when they received orders to turn back. ITTL, Breckinridge and his Kentuckians would have arrived and spent considerable time in the state, which would surely have helped establish a much more solid Confederate presence.
 
As I said, the manpower in the state isn't going to make much of a difference. Unless the Kentucky victory messes up something for the North, the loss of the state itself is only a political loss, that can easily be recaptured.
 
They were on their way IOTL when Bragg elected to abandon the state. In fact, they were literally a few miles from the Tennessee-Kentucky border when they received orders to turn back. ITTL, Breckinridge and his Kentuckians would have arrived and spent considerable time in the state, which would surely have helped establish a much more solid Confederate presence.
Huh, I remember hearing they were in Baton Rogue for most of the campaign; did they not transfer with Bragg when he made the shift from Tupelo to Chattanooga?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Huh, I remember hearing they were in Baton Rogue for most of the campaign; did they not transfer with Bragg when he made the shift from Tupelo to Chattanooga?

They initially remained in Van Dorn's department and had just fought the Battle of Baton Rogue. Breckinridge was fervently trying to get to Kentucky, but Van Dorn had tried to keep his brigade (one of the best in the army) in his department. It took some time before Breckinridge finally got permission to leave, which meant that it was too late for them to reach Kentucky before Bragg had begun his retreat out of the state.
 
Get Kirby and Bragg to play nice. Turn the inauguration of the shadow governor into a well-guarded Confederate event and cut off the Louisville and Nashville railway. You really need two victories in quick succession, one to throw the Union off balance and ideally another to force their hand to move out of Nashville. Solution might be to invade southern Indiana (governor Morton is *really* unpopular for several reasons) or southern Illinois (Cairo, Mt Vernon, and Carbondale are friendly). News of this will cause real panic and might cause morale in the Union Illinois units to tank without a tangible victory to counter. Lincoln also noted that if Kentucky were held by the Confederacy he might have had to negotiate...
 
I told you, the loss of Kentucky is less than what Lincoln thinks it would be material wise. They still have Louisville, Nashville, and the East of the state. Bragg would need a supply line to attack Indiana. The railroads under Southern Control after our POD is inadequate, unless you want to live off the land. Except you can't live off the land like medieval army since the land doesn't contain gunpowder!
 

ben0628

Banned
Nashville and Central/Western Tennessee can't be held by the South post Fort Donelson due to the union brown water navy controlling the deep parts of the Tennessee river.

I personally don't not see the Trans-Mississippi campaign being altered by Confederates in Eastern Kentucky. However by seizing this part of Kentucky, Eastern Tennessee and Georgia are safe from the Union while West Virginia and parts of South Western Pennsylvania can be raided by Confederate cavalry.

A victory in Kentucky butterflies Chickamauga and Chattanooga which means Grant never saves the army of the Cumberland (said victory is what finally earned him the position of commander of Union forces). So Grant possibly never gets sent east which means by 1864 Lee is holding Meade at the Rappahannock and out west the war is in a stalemate. We could potentially see Lincoln losing the 1864 election.
 
Nah. I don't think the cavalry can reach Pennsylvania without "sticking their nose too far" and getting chopped off. West Virginia probably but... so what?

Chattanooga is butterflied away, but that shouldn't matter. The Army of the Cumberland wasn't the largest block of Northern forces, it's just another few thousand to replace. Meade is no Grant, Sickles, or Hooker, but by this point the Army of Northern Virginia is weakening with every pitched battle.

Unless you can turn a Kentucky Victory into a Nashville capture, I don't think the outcome changes. North wins.
 
I told you, the loss of Kentucky is less than what Lincoln thinks it would be material wise. They still have Louisville, Nashville, and the East of the state. Bragg would need a supply line to attack Indiana. The railroads under Southern Control after our POD is inadequate, unless you want to live off the land. Except you can't live off the land like medieval army since the land doesn't contain gunpowder!

Kentucky has one of the larger sources of nitrates at Mammoth Cave and the railroad connecting Louisville and Nashville is one of the key means of supplying Nashville and Buell. Kentucky also has a great deal of industry in comparison to many other Southern states and gives the Confederacy a clearly defined border along with additional access to southern West Virginia. Indiana had a Democratic legislature that Morton could not convene without many of his measures being struck down, spending a lot of time trying to force just enough over to get a quorum. Bragg has a supply route via the Cumberland Gap although it is not the best. If Perryville turns out worse for the Union the only defenses of Louisville are clerks and maybe after a few days some fresh troops from Illinois or Indiana. Letting troops run amok on otherwise clearly Union soil and potentially threatening to cut the Union in half will force a redistribution of troops to show their turf can be defended. Maybe not enough to win the war or force European intervention but enough to make 1863 much more interesting.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Hm. October isn't a period the Union is exactly free of problems elsewhere - McClellan's army was in bad shape due to lack of supplies, and was being rebuilt after Antietam.

A major Confederate victory in the West changes the priority order. I could see a delay in the reconstitution of the AotP as a result of that, and that would in turn mean that the events of McClellan's final campaign and (especially) his relief might well be quite different.
 
McClellan's army wasn't exactly in ideal shape after Antietam, but it was better than Lee's. Lee was almost out of cannonballs and his men had been forced off the field, and most of the units at sunken lane lost organization after that. McClellan had a good 1/3 of his cavalry completely uncommitted and rested, waiting for the final attack that never came. And even winded cavalry can cause trouble on an army that had been forced to quit the field, with many units in disarray. Plus his camp was nearby and there were supplies there. It's not like he was going to need more than a week's worth of supplies when he's that close to DC.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Plus his camp was nearby and there were supplies there. It's not like he was going to need more than a week's worth of supplies when he's that close to DC.
Ah, you didn't know. McClellan's resupplies after Antietam (specifically his camp equipment, cold weather clothing and shoes) got misdirected to the Washington garrison and stayed stuck there for a month. The problem wasn't fixed until the end of October, pretty much, and in addition a bout of Foot and Mouth paralyzed McClellan's transport arm for much of October.

In addition, a significant fraction of McClellan's army OTL was brand new units that needed to be trained up.
 
Why does McClellan get the blame for "the slows" when half the time he's missing army stuff one would reasonable expect any division, much less an army, to have?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Why does McClellan get the blame for "the slows" when half the time he's missing army stuff one would reasonable expect any division, much less an army, to have?
Because he was a Democrat, pretty much.

Okay, it's more complicated than that. Part of it actually plays into one of the key "storylines" of the American culture, which is that the over-educated professional is useless compared to the talented amateur. So McClellan falls into the role of the over-educated professional, and is also the man to blame when wondering why the Union didn't win the war in 1862.
The other side of the coin is how Lincoln is lionized, and if you do that then McClellan has to get the blame for a lot of the screw-ups which really reside with the Administration as far as blame goes.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Nashville and Central/Western Tennessee can't be held by the South post Fort Donelson due to the union brown water navy controlling the deep parts of the Tennessee river.

Well, wait a minute. During the Franklin-Nashville campaign in 1864, the Confederates were able to post artillery upriver from Nashville that cut the city off from river transport. Indeed, when Union gunboats attempted to drive off the rebel guns, they received a severe beating for their pains. This didn't matter much in the grand scheme of things (the bridge and railroad to the north provided for all Thomas's supply needs), but it does show that the Confederates might have been able to block easy Union movement on the Tennessee River.
 
Top