WI: P.G.T Beauregard given command of New Orleans at the begging of the ACW?

Saphroneth

Banned
It wasn't. Full stop. Do more critical research, there's plenty of a print footprint about it.
The reason the British at least viewed the Emancipation Proclamation as hypocritical was that it was spun as a huge thing that was totally super-abolitionist, whereas most of the European press viewed it as being basically "you can't own slaves unless you're a Lincoln supporter".
 
I think we need to keep in mind a few things here if Beauregard gets command of New Orleans at the very beginning.

1) Fort Sumter is delayed/altered.
2) Bull Run has a different commander (Johnston only commanded Shedendoah forces).
3) Beauregard In charge of forces in Louisiana means Bragg starts out with a different military position.
4) Shiloh is butterflied.

Agree on # 4.

The POD allows for Beauregard to be put in charge of New Orleans after the Sumter bombardment, after the war has started. There is enough time.

JE Johnston was senior to Beauregard and was the overall commander at Bull Run/ Manassas. Since he arrived on the battlefield late, he mostly deferred to Beauregard. But he did make one intervention that turned out to be critical. Beauregard wound up getting the credit for the win. The battle goes much the same way if Johnston is there from the start.

I don't see how where Bragg starts is relevant. Did he do anything really critical before Shiloh?
 

ben0628

Banned
Agree on # 4.

The POD allows for Beauregard to be put in charge of New Orleans after the Sumter bombardment, after the war has started. There is enough time.

JE Johnston was senior to Beauregard and was the overall commander at Bull Run/ Manassas. Since he arrived on the battlefield late, he mostly deferred to Beauregard. But he did make one intervention that turned out to be critical. Beauregard wound up getting the credit for the win. The battle goes much the same way if Johnston is there from the start.

I don't see how where Bragg starts is relevant. Did he do anything really critical before Shiloh?

Bragg started the war in charge of New Orleans otl. In this scenario we have to move him.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Bragg started the war in charge of New Orleans otl. In this scenario we have to move him.

Why? The OP does not specify that this change takes place at the very start of the war? What's to say it doesn't happen around, say, October of 1861?
 
Would this butterfly away Shiloh? It was Beauregard's idea, and amassing the army for the Shiloh attack weakened Confederate defenses throughout the West, including New Orleans.

This would definitely butterfly away Shiloh. Without that concentration, Confederate forces in Tennessee, northern Mississippi, and northern Alabama are probably defeated piecemeal and the Confederacy is cut in two along the rail lines instead of the Mississippi River. Beauregard would probably be tasked with trying to recover this, and once he and his troops are gone New Orleans would fall anyway.
 

ben0628

Banned
This would definitely butterfly away Shiloh. Without that concentration, Confederate forces in Tennessee, northern Mississippi, and northern Alabama are probably defeated piecemeal and the Confederacy is cut in two along the rail lines instead of the Mississippi River. Beauregard would probably be tasked with trying to recover this, and once he and his troops are gone New Orleans would fall anyway.

So A.S. Johnston couldn't come up with the idea of massing the Confederate army in the west by himself? It doesn't seem like something that hard to figure out.

Let's say Johnston does and the Western Theater goes more or less the same but New Orleans under Beauregard isn't captured. This would mean Grant would have to go through both Vicksburg and Port Hudson to reach New Orleans and control the entire Mississippi (which would take until 1864 probably due to extra campaigns). How would this effect the Confederate war effort if the west was connected to the east for an extra year?
 
So A.S. Johnston couldn't come up with the idea of massing the Confederate army in the west by himself? It doesn't seem like something that hard to figure out.

Let's say Johnston does and the Western Theater goes more or less the same but New Orleans under Beauregard isn't captured. This would mean Grant would have to go through both Vicksburg and Port Hudson to reach New Orleans and control the entire Mississippi (which would take until 1864 probably due to extra campaigns). How would this effect the Confederate war effort if the west was connected to the east for an extra year?

AS Johnston was pretty out of his depth as a theater commander, the main impetus for the massing an army to attack Grant before he linked up with Buell came from Beauregard. Johnston might try it, but any delay means it won't happen before Buell joins Grant, plus without forces from New Orleans, Johnston would be badly outnumbered. This change will not delay the Confederacy being cut in two until 1864, it should cut the Confederacy in two a year early because all of the east-west rail lines in the Confederacy would probably be in Union control by summer of 1862. The fall of New Orleans would only slightly delayed until Beauregard and his troops are ordered north to try to reconnect the Confederacy. Vicksburg might actually fall sooner than in OTL.
 
whereas most of the European press viewed it as being basically "you can't own slaves unless you're a Lincoln supporter".

IOW , the Europeans really didn't get it

1) Lincoln used his commander in chief powers for the EP and that was pushing it as is. It was of questionable legality. Slavery was legal in the US at the time and slaves were considered property then and the US government was going to seize them without compensation which makes it very dubious legally. The only real defense he could use that could possibly fly at the time is that he was taking away property from the enemy so he can't use it against the Union. He can't use that argument in regards to loyal states.
2) He needed to win the war first . If he didn't win the war nothing he said about slavery or anything else would matter. His writ would not run where most of the problem was.
3) After Jan 1, 1863 the Union Army was gong to be an army of liberation if the South did not capitulate. Once that happened, if the war was won the vast majority of slaves would be freed because the vast majority lived in the Middle and Deep South.
4) The most likely thing to happen in the long run was what happened in real life. With slavery basically destroyed in the Deep South due to the Union Army it would be gravely weakened in the Border States. That made it much more likely that slavery would be abolished altogether.
 
AS Johnston was pretty out of his depth as a theater commander, the main impetus for the massing an army to attack Grant before he linked up with Buell came from Beauregard. Johnston might try it, but any delay means it won't happen before Buell joins Grant, plus without forces from New Orleans, Johnston would be badly outnumbered. This change will not delay the Confederacy being cut in two until 1864, it should cut the Confederacy in two a year early because all of the east-west rail lines in the Confederacy would probably be in Union control by summer of 1862. The fall of New Orleans would only slightly delayed until Beauregard and his troops are ordered north to try to reconnect the Confederacy. Vicksburg might actually fall sooner than in OTL.

AS Johnston was out of his depth, period. His entire Civil War career was one of failure. He loses Henry and Donnellson , quickly gives up most of Western Tennessee and then dies at Shiloh doing a job meant for a brigadier general.
 
Top