Topic: American Civil War

[Union General]

Oh it was Meade? I thought it was Hooker for some reason...

Yes, Meade was at the least competent, if not great.

Exactly. He knew to hold back at Gettysburg. If he HAD counterattacked after Pickett's charge, the Army of the Potomac would be crushed. The Confederate forces had run out of long-range artillery in the preliminary bombardment, but had PLENTY of canister rounds left.... Fear the giant shotgun shells.
Though the 1st Corps did send regiments around to flank the advancing Confederates... I'd personally have sent more troops to encircle and trap them. Many prisoners would be taken. The advance already took well over 50% casualties...

-The General

-The General

[t12161991]

Pickets charge is probably in the top 10 defining moments of our history, because it basically decided Gettysburg.

[Union General]

Pickets charge is probably in the top 10 defining moments of our history, because it basically decided Gettysburg.

Which also decided the war in the East. The war in the West was already pretty much ours. 

-The General

[Gustavus Magnus]

I don't know that I agree with either of the last two statements.

I think Gettysburg was probably decided on the second day when the Rebels failed their attempt at turning the flank and by Lee stubbornly refusing to continue a flanking move the next day.  Pickett's Charge had virtually no chance of success and even if by some miracle, had managed to force a breach in the middle, Lee had no remaining forces to exploit an opening.  More Union forces were arriving and the battle might have continued another day.  Or Meade would have predictably retreated toward Washington and Lee wouldn't have been in position to pursue.  Even if Meade had fled north, Lee could not have taken Washington, which was heavily defended in terms of troops and forts.

I don't know that Gettysburg was the deciding battle in the east either.  If Lee wins at Gettysburg, he still has to limp back to Virginia and get ready for the next round and the war resumes as it had the first couple of years.

I think there were three factors that tipped the scales absolutely.
1.  Sherman's capture of Atlanta in '64 and further advance to the sea that prevented further men and material from reaching Lee.
2.  Grant's campaign starting in the Wilderness that wore Lee's army down by attrition
3.  Lincoln's determination that nothing was going to stop him from reuniting the country

Had Sherman failed and Grant been repulsed with massive losses, then McClellan might have had a better chance to beat Lincoln in the '64 election.  A Democratic victory by someone willing to let the war end without reunification was the only thing that could save the South at that point.

[Gustavus Magnus]

Oh, I also don't agree with the statement "He knew to hold back at Gettysburg. If he HAD counterattacked after Pickett's charge, the Army of the Potomac would be crushed" either.

A counterattack against Lee wouldn't have to be made by a mad charge across open ground in the center.  A large flanking move would have been better.  Or better still, allow Lee to start to withdraw and then attack his rearguard while sending additional troops around to intercept the head of his column.

The one strategy that the generals of the American Civil War should have learned from the Napoleonic wars was the one that they seemed to understand or practice the least.  Grant finally figured it out at the end.
Napoleonic armies were rarely destroyed on the battlefield.  They were destroyed in the pursuit.  McClellan didn't pursue after Antietam and Meade failed to pursue after Gettysburg.  In either case, a proper pursuit could have destroyed Lee's army once and for all.

[Feanor Fire Heart]

If Lee had won the war, how demoralized would the north have been?  and when would the europeans intervene?

[Gustavus Magnus]

France wasn't going to intervene.  At that point, they had their hands full in Mexico.
England wasn't going to intervene because of the issue of slavery.

It has been mentioned earlier that had the South succeeded, it would have been terrible for them in the long run.  The North would have turned into an industrial giant and the South would have been struggling and likely would have had more problems with the issue of slavery later on.  I think it would have been highly likely that some states like Texas would have split from the Confederacy at some point.

[Inarticulate]

Well considering Britain (England isn't the entire country) was making the South ships, I'd say that it would be quite likely France and Britain would've intervened. Also if that one year had a bad cotton crop in Egypt and India, Then its likely Britain and France would've gone in.

[jlutin]

Or better still, allow Lee to start to withdraw and then attack his rearguard while sending additional troops around to intercept the head of his column.

The one strategy that the generals of the American Civil War should have learned from the Napoleonic wars was the one that they seemed to understand or practice the least.  Grant finally figured it out at the end.
Napoleonic armies were rarely destroyed on the battlefield.  They were destroyed in the pursuit.  McClellan didn't pursue after Antietam and Meade failed to pursue after Gettysburg.  In either case, a proper pursuit could have destroyed Lee's army once and for all.

That was the missed opportunity after Gettysburg.  Push Lee while he was retreating and attempt to get between him and the quick roads to Richmond and at the same time threaten his capital from a different direction (Naval assault/landing/campaign).

[t12161991]

Well considering Britain (England isn't the entire country) was making the South ships, I'd say that it would be quite likely France and Britain would've intervened. Also if that one year had a bad cotton crop in Egypt and India, Then its likely Britain and France would've gone in.

Not after Antietam. The risk was simply too great. As well, that's when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which was the sort of thing Britain and France had been pushing for for a while.

[Inarticulate]

Ah yes, all this was happening before Antietam. If 1863(? - cba to wiki) had been a bad cotton crop, then europe would most probably have intervened to save their mills.

[HoS]

If I had been a regular infantryman, I think I would have preferred the .58 caliber 3 band Enfield.  I know some reenactors who have them and the rifle is incredibly accurate for a muzzleloader. 

Thats my weapon and I love it ; beautiful and beautifully accurate.

[t12161991]

Ah yes, all this was happening before Antietam. If 1863(? - cba to wiki) had been a bad cotton crop, then europe would most probably have intervened to save their mills.

Antietam was late 1862.

[Gustavus Magnus]

I don't think the British or French would have gone to war considering the slave trade was abhorent to both nations.  They were aware that nearly half the population (over 3 million out of 8 million) of the South were slaves. 

Even if there had been terrible cotton crops in India and Egypt in 1863, the South wouldn't have been in control of much of their cotton fields.  New Orleans was captured in April 1862, the Mississippi River was already controlled by the North by mid '63 and Sherman was in Atlanta by May '64.  Also, there were crop failures in Europe in 1860 through 1862 and the North was sending huge amounts of grain to Europe.  I think Britain would have been more concerned about a shortage of food than a shortage of cotton.

What would have Britain done anyway?  The US had sea going ironclads by then and the British navy did not.  The US had an effective blockade and no major port would have been open so an attempted seaborne invasion would have been risky.

The British used about 250,000 troops in Crimea.  Even if they had been able to land half that amount in Virginia or the Carolinas, they would have had major problems with keeping them supplied as the South already had issues with supplying and feeding their own troops.  The US army was about 2 million strong at that point and had Britain invaded, the size of the Army undoubtedly would have gone up.

Even if the British more seriously considered attacking, they had to know by that time that the war would end faster without their help than with it so it would have been better for them to stay out and let the South collapse.

[Inarticulate]

Britain, in fact had the second ironclad in the world, HMS Warrior. About 10 times the displacement of Monitor.

And a land war would probably not have been the European's strategy. Much easier to supply the confederates with the cannon, artillery and food needed to fight, as well as advisors. While then blockading the north with combined navies.

Oh and lets not forget that Britain owned Canada. Rather easy walk from Canada into the heartland of the union.

(Edit: Changed a little wording)

Second Edit: And several Union states still legally allowed slavery. The reason for the war before the Emancipation Proclamation was not about slavery really. Lincoln just used the freeing of the slaves as an excellent way to win.

[Gustavus Magnus]

I hadn't completely forgotten the HMS Warrior or the HMS Black Prince but they both had sails and were not completely engine driven ships.  I think their armor would have been largely effective against any cannons used by the US Navy but I'm not sure it would have protected against ramming or mines.

Even the British could have broken a blockade at Savannah or Charleston, the US military would have then made seizing the city a priority.  Supplies couldn't have been landed on the Virginia coast as it was already in possession by Union troops.

Rather an easy walk?  What would be the purpose of invading from Canada?  This didn't work for Burgoyne in 1777 so why would it work in 1864?  The army would have to travel a long way to get to any city of any importance and would be harrassed constantly and would have an impossibly long supply line through enemy territory.

Going to war against the US would have been incredibly costly with a very low chance of success.  Even if all of the things you suggest were to happen, it wouldn't increase the flow of cotton going to Britain for some time, if ever, so there really would be no point in even attempting such a idea.  They were very wise to stay out.

[Feanor Fire Heart]

the flow of cotton

does that make the south "Harkonen" and the North "Atreides?" 

[Inarticulate]

Sorry mate, but I completely disagree with you.

New England isn't exactly that far from Canada now, is it? Imagine if Boston and New York had fallen to the British?

And Warrior was much faster than Monitor, on engines alone. Over double its speed with sails too. Was also armed with 10 7 inch guns and 4 40 pounders, one shot, one kill on a Monitor class. (I realise the Monitor class wasn't the only ironclad type used by the Union Navy, but its a benchmark).

You realise this was the time of Britain's complete supremacy on the global scene (sadly lost, I lament), population levels on par with the US and a much more efficient and advanced manufacturing sector.

And lets not forget the French.

I don't think the Union would've lasted long

[Feanor Fire Heart]

why does it seem everything erupts into an Anglo-centrism and American-centrism pissing contest. 

[Inarticulate]

I really didn't need to go out of my way to do it. The conversation came to how the south could've won, and Europe came up and said it could've been likely if cotton crops had been bad in the British Empire, forcing them to back the Confederacy in order to keep its textile industry working. Gustavus then stated that Britain would not have done much in the war, and I countered with that they would. Its a debate, not a pissing contest.

[Feanor Fire Heart]

nah im just noticing a trend in the back table haha. not just this thread.

[t12161991]

You're forgetting a few things- the North had a gigantic industrial base, and you bet it would have been expanded rapidly had the need been there. The North's population was roughly 2/3 of the UK this true, but there are definite logistical factors that swing in the North's favor.

There's the whole patriotism thing that would have come into play. Britian would have followed a similar strategy to that of the American Revolution, coastal dominance. The problem is now the territory they would need to control stretches much further inland- they wouldn't be able to maintain their supply chain.

Cotton was available from other sources. One bad year of harvest doesn't mean that they'd commit to a war they weren't anywhere near sure of winning.

[Inarticulate]

Well, they almost went to war over the random Trent Affair.

Edit: And it wouldn't be AWI 3, the South would still be the main player. Germany has showed us that a war can't be fought on two fronts when you have a naval blockade in effect.

[t12161991]

Trent was when tensions hadn't had time to ease though. You lot were still being sore loosers.

 

[Gustavus Magnus]

France didn't want to go to war with the US for the same reasons the British didn't.  Slavery being first.  Also, France was busy in Mexico trying to keep their Austrian friend in power and even without fighting a war in the US, they couldn't manage to keep Maximillian from getting getting overthrown by 1867 and that was fighting against mostly militia in a country with almost no industry.

Even if the HMS Warrior and the HMS Black Prince were the greatest ships on the sea and could defeat the larger monitor class ships, they were still only two ships.  And "unsinkable" ships have a Murphy's Law of their own that usually causes them to sink when they shouldn't and usually in a catastrophic fashion.

Even if the British could hold a port like Savannah open to land supplies, the North had already cut the South into parts and getting cotton to the port would have been difficult.  The British army certainly wasn't capable of recapturing all of the South.   Landing in Boston or New York wouldn't have done anything either but get a British army encircled once they landed.  They would have been quickly besieged as every militia or volunteer unit within 200 miles would have been on their way.  And the same Irish immigrants who rioted in New York over the draft would have been clamoring at recruitment offices to sign up.

Even the northern Demcrats who were in favor of ending the war with the South wouldn't have been able to ignore or forgive the capture of a US city.  If the US didn't give up in 1814 when the British burned the White House, why would we quit if the British took Boston or New York?

My next question is how long would it have taken the British to prepare an army for invasion?  They didn't have a large standing army in Britain and probably wouldn't have been able to strip many units from India as they had just been reorganizing the army after the 1857 Mutiny.  Even after Haldane came up with the idea of the BEF following the Boer Wars, the British only had about 70,000 troops available for deployment in 1914.  My point is that it would have taken considerable time for the British to raise an army and by that time, the South would have already been defeated or would have been so close to defeat that outside intervention wouldn't have mattered.