WI the Confederacy didn't invade Kentucky?
- Thread starter DMA
- Start date
No,
Bragg just didn't or wasn't able to realize the fact that with the number of troops he had, he probably couldn't "invade and annex" Kentucky. If he had thought of this as a giant raid it probably would have gone much better.
It wasted troops and only slowed down the Union a little bit. Combined with other Confederate failures, it seriously hurt the Confederacy's chances.
This is off of the top of my head though, so I'll probably come back to you.
Bragg just didn't or wasn't able to realize the fact that with the number of troops he had, he probably couldn't "invade and annex" Kentucky. If he had thought of this as a giant raid it probably would have gone much better.
It wasted troops and only slowed down the Union a little bit. Combined with other Confederate failures, it seriously hurt the Confederacy's chances.
This is off of the top of my head though, so I'll probably come back to you.
I don't believe he is asking about this 1864 invasion but the one on Columbus Ky in 1861.
This is great stuff. A couple of things came to my mind -
Without the major campaigns in the west, would the skill of Grant and Sherman and the others be discovered and utilized in the east?
Also, how would the situation change if the Confederates stuck to a purley defensive strategy, causing no Sharpsburg or Gettysburg?
Without the major campaigns in the west, would the skill of Grant and Sherman and the others be discovered and utilized in the east?
Also, how would the situation change if the Confederates stuck to a purley defensive strategy, causing no Sharpsburg or Gettysburg?
Thanks for the compliments
Now if the Western Theatre is nothing like the OTL, as per my thesis here, Shiloh is actually never fought...
Thanks Brian
Well I kind of accept that they are eventually, but they won't have the experience or confidence as per the OTL. More to the point, if they never are discovered, then the Eastern Front is even more so in favour of Lee & the ANV IMHO.
Then we'll probably see more battles like Fredricksburg. Having said that, I don't think Lee would want to remain completely defensive. He'll want to have the occasional foray north if, for no other reason, to keep his opposition guessing & wrong-footed.
Last edited:
MrP
Banned
Most interesting, old boy.
Three things spring to mind:
1) Was A. S. Johnston really all that? Everything I've read says that he was believed to be the best thing since sliced bread. But when he actually got into a battle (Shiloh), he fluffed it badly by failing to plan properly. I fear he'd attempt something as strategically sound and tactically unwise in the West ITTL, leaving someone else to take over.
2) If you can keep New Orleans for the South somehow, that'll free up troops who IOTL had to sit there awaiting a Federal attack. That improves the South's position all round.
3) I'm not totally convinced that the North would avoid violating Kentuckian neutrality. If they spend a couple of years beating their heads against a crappier front, then it'd make sense to outflank it. Though I concede this will have wider implications.
Incidentally, I disagree with the idea that Britain and France and the CSA would be needed to ensure Southern independence. See Tielhard's latest for a fuller exposition of why. But that's irrelevant to this scenario, so I'll keep schtumm!
Damned nice analysis, all in all!
Three things spring to mind:
1) Was A. S. Johnston really all that? Everything I've read says that he was believed to be the best thing since sliced bread. But when he actually got into a battle (Shiloh), he fluffed it badly by failing to plan properly. I fear he'd attempt something as strategically sound and tactically unwise in the West ITTL, leaving someone else to take over.
2) If you can keep New Orleans for the South somehow, that'll free up troops who IOTL had to sit there awaiting a Federal attack. That improves the South's position all round.
3) I'm not totally convinced that the North would avoid violating Kentuckian neutrality. If they spend a couple of years beating their heads against a crappier front, then it'd make sense to outflank it. Though I concede this will have wider implications.
Incidentally, I disagree with the idea that Britain and France and the CSA would be needed to ensure Southern independence. See Tielhard's latest for a fuller exposition of why. But that's irrelevant to this scenario, so I'll keep schtumm!
Damned nice analysis, all in all!
Last edited:
I hate to add to it but we really aren't supposed to post here. These threads are reserved for the timeline itself and discussion should be moved elsewhere.
That's the whole point really, a place to read timelines without the comments.
I do like the timeline though
That's the whole point really, a place to read timelines without the comments.
I do like the timeline though
MrP
Banned
I hate to add to it but we really aren't supposed to post here. These threads are reserved for the timeline itself and discussion should be moved elsewhere.
That's the whole point really, a place to read timelines without the comments.
I do like the timeline though
Oops-a-daisy! That'll teach me to use New Posts rather than checking the fora. I never thought to look!
Oh naughty us. Actually, previously, we couldn't make comments here but now we do, which seems odd...
I do like the timeline though
Thank you kindly
Before we all get booted...
Thank you kindly
He may not have been that fantastic, but he was certainly good. He ceratinly caught Grant by the short & curlies at Shiloh - that much is certain. And Grant's win there was probably due to his death. IMHO Johnston would have been an asset to the CSA in future endeavours, even if he made a mistake here or there.
I agree. But even if they remained in New Orleans to ward off Union raids, here or there, the manpower & resources from other regions, freed from defence or occupation, would have more than made up for them.
Well it's probably fair to say that whoever invaded first probably meant that Kentucky would have declared for the other. Considering, thus, the fact that Kentucky finally become Union, meant its resources were immediately available for Union forces out West. Likewise the majority of Kentuckians fought for the Union. Reverse that & the Western Theatre may soon become stagnate. Lincoln feared this & far more, in the OTL, so I ran with this.
Well I'm not convinced. But, more to the point, I don't think there's any chance that either the UK &/or France would help the CSA whilst slavery was a chief institution of that country. So as you say it's irrelevant
Thank you kindly again
Most interesting, old boy.
Thank you kindly
He may not have been that fantastic, but he was certainly good. He ceratinly caught Grant by the short & curlies at Shiloh - that much is certain. And Grant's win there was probably due to his death. IMHO Johnston would have been an asset to the CSA in future endeavours, even if he made a mistake here or there.
I agree. But even if they remained in New Orleans to ward off Union raids, here or there, the manpower & resources from other regions, freed from defence or occupation, would have more than made up for them.
Well it's probably fair to say that whoever invaded first probably meant that Kentucky would have declared for the other. Considering, thus, the fact that Kentucky finally become Union, meant its resources were immediately available for Union forces out West. Likewise the majority of Kentuckians fought for the Union. Reverse that & the Western Theatre may soon become stagnate. Lincoln feared this & far more, in the OTL, so I ran with this.
Incidentally, I disagree with the idea that Britain and France and the CSA would be needed to ensure Southern independence. See Tielhard's latest for a fuller exposition of why. But that's irrelevant to this scenario, so I'll keep schtumm!
Well I'm not convinced. But, more to the point, I don't think there's any chance that either the UK &/or France would help the CSA whilst slavery was a chief institution of that country. So as you say it's irrelevant
Damned nice analysis, all in all!
Thank you kindly again
Last edited:
I do not think that anyone would have paid much attention to Grant in a world were he eventually actually lost ground,with Bowling Green and some other Kentucky towns in Confederate hands,and lost 25000 troops when they surrendered,essentially(for a month or two) leaving the way open to invade Ohio(although the Confederates regard this as too extreme,and dont act on it,aside from advancing through and holding a good part of Kentucky before the Unionists manage to build a new Western army)I have Sherman being killed,too,not unlikely,being a sort of Union Stonewall Jackson as he was.If A.S Johnston lived,things would gone a lot better for the CSA.The Confederacy needed time to discover its not-terrible Western generals,and I can see Davis appointing the Texan overall Commander of Confederate forces west of the Appalachians.Nathan Bedford Forrest would have risen through the ranks to become one of the leading Western generals also,moving from just a cavalry colonel to general of Confederate forces in Kentucky and Tennesee.Joseph E.Jonhson,Kirby Smith also would have increased in importance.Awful ones like Pemberton(the guy who lost Vicksburg)and Braxton Bragg,John Baylor,John Bell Hood and Bearegard would have been moved away to something less important or dismissed altogether.
That probably would have been a great idea.Lee could have stayed on the defensive and allocated more troops to more widely defend Kentucky, and the ports like New Orleans,to prevent any sustained or substantial penetration into Confederate territory.The Confederacy had only to defend itself successfully for a limited period of time to convince the North to simply give up and go into negotiations.Lees invasions of the North were stupid ideas.They wasted ridiculously large numbers of supplies and troops that were badly needed to stop Grant.Well,by modern standards Confederate losses were quite light.But cpmpared to things like Vicksburg and the various fort defensive battles on the Atlantic coast,they were very large.What Lee should have done is defend northern Virginia and pay more attention to defending Kentucky and Tennesee.Then,defend the coasts more vigorously with more serious town garrisons and a bigger Confederate Navy.Further,the New Mexico campaign should have been executed more vigorously,if say Albuquerque and Tucson came under Confederate control,there would be nothing to stop a Confederate cavalry campaign through a comparatively very lightly defended West.That would have provided the same aweinspiring show of force the invasions of the North provided,without severe,setpiece battle defeats.Sometimes I wonder what the strategic objective of the Maryland and Pennsylvania campaigns were.Maryland had a considerable Confederate element(making up somewhere around 15-25 percent of the population)but it was never enough to bring the state over to the CSA.It was,in essence,a Northern state.Pennsylvania,of course,
..If taking Washington was the objective,than it still was a bad strategy.taking Washington was possible but very difficult.The Confederates would have sustained the same(maybe worse?)attritional weakining that they took in OTL.Through the Civil War,you can see that,except towards the end of the war,whenever the Confederates were on the defensive in the Eastern Theater,they were winning decisive victories.Things like Manassas,Charlotteville,and Fredericksburg,come to mind.And they werent pyrihhic victorys,with the Confederates slowly being beaten down.If he had continued on this strategy,he would have won eventually.
Last edited:
Unless the South got a Home Run, they were doomed by thier agrarian/ non-industrial economy. The North had a balanced economy, and alot more bodies.
I'll be the first person to say that they had better soldiers and leaders, but the old saying still stands to this day, "Quality is a wonderful thing, but quantity has a beauty all its own"
If the Civil War was fought and graded on principles, and the dedication of its soldiers, the South would've won in a year and a half. JMO
I'll be the first person to say that they had better soldiers and leaders, but the old saying still stands to this day, "Quality is a wonderful thing, but quantity has a beauty all its own"
If the Civil War was fought and graded on principles, and the dedication of its soldiers, the South would've won in a year and a half. JMO
Thats partially true.What Im saying is they allowed themselves to be defeated really badly in some cases in the west,while Lee was squandering resources in the invasion of the North.The worst strategic blunder for the Confederacy could be the invasion of Kentucky,but truly,they made a lot of bad decisions in the Western theater.The western generals the Confederacy had sucked outside of a few superb ones like A.S Johnston,Nathan Bedford Forrest.The Franklin-Nashville campaign has to go down as one of the worst military campaigns in history,a complete disaster for the Confederates.Same way Jacksons Valley Campaign goes down as one of the best.If they had made just a few different decisions,they could have held the line in Tennesee,and would have won the war,since the Union wasnt getting anywhere punching through Northern Virginia.
Had some reasoning behind it (the population was split, the Ohio River would have made a wonderful border) but not enough resources to git 'er done.