I don’t see Europe getting involved, except by diplomatic pressure.
A Southern victory at Antietam may had brought Maryland into the War. That’s if the State was allowed by it’s occuping Unionist troops.
No. I would have fought for the confederacy in the war of southern independence, but the norths manpower would have won out. Lee did amazing considering that his plans were stolen.
A victory at Sharpsburg would have been great indeed considering the small size of the ANV compared to Little Mac’s Army of the Potomac. Let us not forget there were reserves left behind to cover Washington. Would marching and besieging the capital been enough? Possibly, but with the remnants of the beaten army numbers would have been staggering still. Even after a victory I believe Lee would have had no choice but to pull back to Virginia. Any idea of foreign intervention was probably only fancy.
In 63 Lee’s ANV was stronger and more motivated, but again I doubt victory could have Been achieved.
The war was won and lost in the West. Too much ground was lost in 62 and63 prior to Missionary Ridge, then subsequently by Hood.
I wonder if Atlanta’s fall and Hood’s mistaken strategy of abandoning what was left of the Confederate South was the last chance of victory. A war weary North and a new, non Republican, government may have, but it was now beyond that.
Is it possible that victory was impossible because of the South’s reluctance to acknowledge the importance of the(vast)West and the power of a defensive strategy?
Did they have any more Peach Schnapps left? That is the true question!
Replacing Bragg earlier.
The Army of Tennessee was every bit as good as ANV, but it was poorly led. Whenever it attacked, and it always did, it broke its counterpart, The Army of the Cumberland. Bragg would not heed his officers demands, instead withdrew, leaving ground his men had won. (Only time he did right was Perryville as he was vastly outnumbered.)
All the West needed was a commander worthy of its hard hitting army.
I believe Longstreet could have held Virginia, if Lee had allowed himself to leave his beloved Virginia if no other candidate had been available.
The problem was Davis and too much politics.
If the West had held, from as early as Henry and Donelson, the East would have even stronger. We will never know if an old soldier like AS Johnson could have helped the situation.
Am sorry to introduce AS Jo at the end of my argument, but he was the 1st Western Co. I suspect he would not have adapted and grown in to the great tactician needed in the West. He was Davis’ 1st choice and an example of the politics I mentioned, being Davis’ West Point hero.
I think highly of Jo Jo, but again his Western experience (64)is one(good) retreat after another. Might he have made a better 62/3 commander? I think so. As long as Old Bory was not close by, as Jo Jo was bullied by his grandiose and non sensical plans.
The South was a victimof its early victories: Its early heroes(Bory.)I admit his Charleston posting was perfect.
I suppose it is a case of the South not knowing when to advance and when to hold back. Kirby Smith’s Kentucky expedition would have met with greater success if properly coordinated with Bragg. Problem was petty jealousies, of course both sides suffered from this: Grant and Halleck, but Lincoln was able to detach himself and Davis could not.
A year later than Grant, Lee was made CinC. Too late.
Politics.
@wittman:
A victory at Sharpsburg would have been great indeed considering the small size of the ANV compared to Little Mac’s Army of the Potomac. Let us not forget there were reserves left behind to cover Washington. Would marching and besieging the capital been enough? Possibly, but with the remnants of the beaten army numbers would have been staggering still. Even after a victory I believe Lee would have had no choice but to pull back to Virginia. Any idea of foreign intervention was probably only fancy.
In 63 Lee’s ANV was stronger and more motivated, but again I doubt victory could have Been achieved.
The war was won and lost in the West. Too much ground was lost in 62 and63 prior to Missionary Ridge, then subsequently by Hood.
I wonder if Atlanta’s fall and Hood’s mistaken strategy of abandoning what was left of the Confederate South was the last chance of victory. A war weary North and a new, non Republican, government may have, but it was now beyond that.
Is it possible that victory was impossible because of the South’s reluctance to acknowledge the importance of the(vast)West and the power of a defensive strategy?
Another question, in discussion of the War in the West, how would a Confederate victory at Pea Ridge have changed the War in the West? And how did the death of Albert Sidney Johnston effect the Confederate high command?
Am I helping with your homework?
Cooking lunch, so give me an hour. Am thinking.
The key to the Transmississippi was St Louis. A victory at Pea Ridge, and it could easily have been one, would have led to a march Northward. It was too late for Missouri to join the Confederacy and too far to the key objective. Van Dorn’s men were unsupplied, and he was not Sherman in a hostile Georgia, so even if he had got there he would not have had the strength to take it. Northern supply by river was the norm,so St Louis would have held on.
And there’s the rub, the TM was bisected by too many East/West rivers. The North could roam at will.
I think Van Dorn took his small army across the Mississippi and joined, as ordered I believe, Bory’s larger one. Was he under orders to do so whether or not he won? Cannot remember.
Point is again, the South could not afford to give up the advantage of a defensive strategy and also did not need to. The North had to come to it.
Have to go, but enjoying this. ( I am a very poor typist and is hard on a phone.)
How exactly were the rebels supposed to win?
Lee was lucky his entire army wasn’t destroyed
mac was a idiot
Lee may have been a tactically brilliant commander, although accepting battle outnumbered and with a river at your back seems a little suspect, but his strategic plan was flawed
Lee also wanted to continue the fight the next day,but his generals talked him out of it
Every time Lee attacked in the north he got his ass kicked
He should have stayed on the defensive strategically
Let me ask you a couple of questions. How do you think the war could have been won in the West? How do you think this victory could have helped the East?
As I recall, the furthest the Confederacy ever got in the West was Glorietta Pass – and their expeditionary force had to retreat all the way back to its starting point when the local Federal forces destroyed their supply wagons. I can’t remember what the point of the expedition was, but I think it was inspired by a vague notion that reaching the Pacific would somehow persuade Washington to recognize southern independence.
Cromwell: Forrest is an excellent example of misuse by superiors to the detriment of all. Possibly it was jealousy or West Point arrogance of his education, but a massive waste of talent.
He found an escape route out of Donelson. Those 16000 prisoners could not be replaced at a time when the lines in the West were overstretched. It was the start of the slippery slope.
As for Longstreet, he was certainly sulking at Gettysburg and the delays on the 2nd day were to be costly. He was feeling overlooked and unappreciated. But the eve of battle was not the time to show it. Lee needed his Warhorse. It is easy to blame him.
I admire his steadfastness and as the war wore on a defensive giant like him would have made Virginia run red with Union blood.
Lee would have bettered Grant and Sherman in the West.
Still haven’t talked about AS Johnston!
I know many think Lee should have stayed on the defensive strategically. Doesn’t that thinking have the South’s only chance of independence by political means? Most of the South’s most powerful leaders had a military education, and first thought was to win by a show of force.
@wittman:
and the delays onAS Johnston!
…On the battlefield, Johnston was my type of general, similar to the Lee of 1864 and 1865. …I believe Shiloh to be quite a masterpiece on Jonhston’s part.
AS Johnston was a fine example of an Texan. :-)
I think the south would have lost no matter what they did
however if they hadn’t invaded the north and conserved those resources and produced a few more cold harbors they might have forced lincoln from office
hold in the east the west is where they needed to be aggressive
they just didn’t have the resources similar to the germans problem with russia
they were fortunate the north was incompetently led in the early years of the war
Hi Cromwell. Sorry you are unwell. I have been thinking about AS Jo, so would love to know your thoughts. Piling 20000 in to Donelson seems a mistake. The South showed itself a great offensive force when wielded aggressively. I would like to know if Donelson was his idea. The 2 forts were the key to Tennessee; Nashville could not be held once they fell. And that was a great loss morally and economically.
Shiloh was his well conceived plan to regain the initiative and did catch Grant napping. Like Chancellorsville the plan was to push the enemy in to the river, before reinforcements arrived.
Unfortunately, green troops cannot always make the necessary manoeuvres. Attacks could not be coordinated. Grant was saved by Buell’s arrival.
Gettysburg. I have no problem with the plan. Invasion was right. The north had been punished for entering the Wilderness. ( I am trying to imagine it.)Their commander was soon to be replaced, confidence was high and desertions non existent. It probably felt like payback. I wonder how much hope was placed in relieving pressure on the Mississippi too.
The 1st 2 days were victories, but costly as usual.(Hood, Barksdale etc.)
The 3rd. Effectively only a handful of fresh brigades to use. Longstreet should have been heeded. Lee could have disengaged. But where to? Had to be Virginia. The gamble had failed.
Meantime the West was being lost. The war with it. You know my thoughts:leave Longstreet to hold with 7 divisions and the cavalry. Lee take 2 (Chickamauga earlier) and take over Bragg’s fantastic army…
@wittman:
Replacing Bragg earlier.
The Army of Tennessee was every bit as good as ANV, but it was poorly led. Whenever it attacked, and it always did, it broke its counterpart, The Army of the Cumberland. Bragg would not heed his officers demands, instead withdrew, leaving ground his men had won. (Only time he did right was Perryville as he was vastly outnumbered.)
All the West needed was a commander worthy of its hard hitting army.
I believe Longstreet could have held Virginia, if Lee had allowed himself to leave his beloved Virginia if no other candidate had been available.
The problem was Davis and too much politics.
If the West had held, from as early as Henry and Donelson, the East would have even stronger. We will never know if an old soldier like AS Johnson could have helped the situation.
Definitely! Bragg was our worst general BY FAR!
Agreed. So I find it so ironic and I am sure you find it annoying, that some military installations are named after him, including your famous one in NC.
I do believe the South would have won the War had it gained a victory at Antietam. With that said, I don’t know how serious the South was to attacking Washington prior to 1864. Without a push to Washington, I don’t see the South winning the war. To defend the South, it was being invaded by a foreign power. An aggressive campaign against Washington was against the very nature why the South formed in 1861. It wished to be left alone, not puruse an offensive war.
So, yes, winning the war with a push to Washington after an Antietam victory. However, in 1862, such push violated the very nature of the Southern Confederacy.
To the alpha males, Monday night quarterbacks, and sincere historians who will tell me about Jubal Early’s march on Washington in 1864, I say this-What was Jubal Early going to do to Washington with his meager force? How was Jubal Early going to breach the defenses of Washington in 1864? How was Jubal Early going to escape capture short of a supposed rescue by the rest of the ANV?
And, please no one tell me Maryland was a northern state. One, it’s beneath the Mason Dixon. Two, it was a slave state. Three, Lincoln imprisoned thousands of people and suspended the legislature at the beginning of the war to ensure Maryland’s obedience.
Sincere historians feel free to disagree. Alpha males and rude people stay away.
Maryland was a border state. It was neither North or South, but it never declared independence from the Union.
There were slaves in Maryland, and the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Maryland, allowing slavery in the state even after it was put into order. To say it was a Southern state is saying that the capital of the US was in the Confederacy.
The Mason-Dixon line is an easy grade school way of dividing the North and the South, but it’s a little more complicated than that. It’s not like the 38th Parallel.
I also gotta ask, why do you feel the need to end a lot of your posts with stuff like “Sincere historians feel free to disagree. Alpha males and rude people stay away?”
“And, please no one tell me Maryland was a northern state.” That statement sounds rather rude and like one an alpha male might make. The whole paragraph before that too. You just know better than anyone else and can’t be convinced otherwise?
Not trying to start anything, but I’m just curious as to why you feel the need to write that as often as you do. Most people on here are pretty civil about things.
