I, too, subscribe to American Battlefield Trust & support their work. I appreciate these collabs, Garry Adelman is a national treasure! Having fought as an infantryman in Iraq, my thoughts are with Garry on this one. The character and personality of leaders makes the conflict what it is, and Lee would have not fundamentally changed his command style despite temporarily sending Longstreet's Corps west.
I think any collaboration between Little Wars TV and American Battlefield Trust, is an absolute treat for the rest of us. The pairing is YouTubian Gold.
I have to agree with Greg. Despite Lee's aggressive nature, even he would have realized that the loss of his best Corps Commander, Jackson, combined with the re-assignment of 12,000 troops to the West, would preclude a full scale invasion of the North. Instead, I believe that Lee would have detached Stuart with most of the cavalry, and sent them across the Potomac on a raid and recon mission, with the intent of creating chaos and panic, thus keeping the Union forces off balance. Meanwhile, Lee, with the remainder of the ANV, would have taken up strong defensive positions in Northern Virginia. Once Grant was defeated and the troops returned to Lee's command, perhaps then he would launch a full scale invasion of the North. Thanks for the videos, guys!
Or Grant would have done what he did in real life to whatever roadblocks the Confederates put in front of him. He would adapt and conquer Longstreet as he did everyone else.
Sorry Greg, I'm with Garry on this, Lee's character is the critical factor. To me, Lee seems to have been determined to end the war in a decisive battle, what he was hoping to achieve at Gettysburg. With the Army of the Potomac in turmoil, he was probably keen to seize the initiative. I think that's why he wanted to keep Longstreet's Corps with his army, and even if he was forced or persuaded to send those troops west, he would have still invaded the North. With hindsight we can see that Greg's suggestion was a much better strategy, I just don't feel that Lee would have followed it.
I agree Lee probably would have invaded the north. Keep in mind Lee needed supplies badly and he needed to relieve pressure on Virginia and Richmond. Though without Longstreet I think Lee would have been more defensive in his invasion and a battle on northern soil might not have been as devastating to Lee because of it I still think Lee goes north.
I think you are spot on with your analysis. Lee was well aware that the longer that war went on, the less likely there would be a favorable outcome. He was looking for that knockout blow (that never came). When Robert E. Lee had his mind set on something it not much of anything was going to change it as we saw at Malvern Hill and at Gettysburg. Although the idea of Robert E. Lee being forced to be a little more cautious with his northern invasion (without Longstreet or Jackson) sounds like it would have been beneficial to someone playing Monday morning quarterback.
Regardless of how Lee would have acted he needed to go north to relieve pressure on Virginia. The state was being stripped of all resources "food and grain" so something had to change and Lee knew it.
I'm 100% with Greg on this one. We have a Confederate war council that has calmly analyzed the situation and wants Vicksburg relieved. We have the Pennsylvania campaign imploding with Lee's own personal Waterloo moment and we have the well established fact that Jeb Stuart's role was minimalized at a critical juncture in the war. Would Lee have still invaded the north? Almost certainly. That man could be as stubborn as a tick under a worn saddle blanket; however, if Lee had less to work with in PA, he might not have acted so hastily without his proper intelligence. Wars revolve around turning points - and this was clearly one of them. In my opinion.
They key is how would the Union have reacted to the move? Even a small threat to Johnston might have curtailed any adventurous ideas, even with reinforcements from the Eastern theater.
I remember reading a book narrating the battle and surrounding context of Chancellorsville. Lee's army was under supplied and they foraged out the area around Fredericksburg that it became dangerous to remain. Either fall back to defend Richmond against siege or swing around and invade/raid the north again were the options he considered. I certainly think he would have did the same as he did historically but he might've been more hands on with Hill or Ewell but the disaster of the third day would have been a lot less severe in the fact that he had less men he could throw at the federals and so less men to lose.
I'd be interested in seeing a replay of the Vicksburg operational game with different chance cards being drawn. Does the club ever repeat the same scenario to try out other "what if's"? Seems that game was not time or space consuming and could be restaged easily. I'd like to see what Keith would have done second time around. Or if Miles and Mark had swapped sides with Keith. Great videos on the Vicksburg campaign!
I think Mr Adelman's point that 'taking two divisions away from Lee doesn't change who he was' is an important one. Lee at this point was very determined to invade the North and having fewer troops wouldn't have changed his mind about that. He may have been more cautious though, or waited longer to launch the campaign.
I agree with Gary, in that Lee would have sent a strike north to stir the pot and threaten Washington. The Union was in panic mode after Chancellorsville.
According to _Hymns of the Republic_ the author states that Lee was planning an invasion of the North in the spring of 1864 and only didn’t do it because Grant struck first.
Even with the loss of Jackson, Lee saw two victories in Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. His blood was up and determined to strike the enemy a blow that would so embarrass the Union, Maybe enough to sue for peace. It's the very reason Lee didn't free up Longstreet. Lee considered Virginia his nation and wouldn't realize the loss of Vicksburg as a deeper cut than the defeat at Gettysburg until he couldn't get Texans anymore. I think Lee in '63would still push somewhere, but I think it is far more entertaining to think Lee setting a trap for a Union offensive.
I definitely agree with Greg on this. Yes, it would have been possible for the USA to match the CSA reinforcements going to Mississippi, but those would then be troops unavailable for offensives elsewhere, which confers a benefit. Even delaying the fall of Vicksburg by a few months, and forcing more resources to spent on its capture, is far better than the results that historically occurred by going galavanting off to PA.
true but they didnt know this. thats like asking if the usa in ww2 shouldnt have just sent their units to russia in 1942 instead of north africa for the torch landings. the brits were stalemating in egypt, and choking the supply of rommel. the soviets were fighting for their lives in russia. what could their generals have done with 40,000 american soldiers and their equipment while stalingrad raged on? even if you argue they would have been sent to a spot where the fighting was less intense, that could have freed up an enormous amount of russian manpower for stalingrad, which could have resulted not just in the win, but a massive counterattack if things go a certain way. Who is to say if this wouldnt have ended the war faster? So arguing its better than the historical event for a what-if needs to take into account the ideas at the time. Lee thought the best idea was to go on the attack, the union was disorganized in the east, and went with it thinking he would win.
I got to agree. The war IMHO came down to defeating Lincoln in the election of 1864. If that happened, then the winner would let the Confederacy continue to exist on some basis. It could have happened if the Confederacy had held its own in all theaters for another year, defeating all attempts to divide the Confederacy along the Mississippi and dominate another Confederate state, namely VA. I think Lee's strategy was wrong. It wasn't a national strategy at all.
Agree that Vicksburg relief would only have delayed the inevitable. Lee's desire to strike a decisive blow would always put the Confederates at risk of a loss or pyrrhic victory they could ill afford. Once the French and British decided not to intervene, then the Union victory was only a matter of when.
When you look at the Gettysburg campaign, Lee's main attack was twice commanded by Longstreet, his old war horse. Without him there and with Jackson lost, I think Lee would have been forced to do what he had to later in the war during the overland campaign, personally commanding troops and placing regiments in the field. Either that or he would have needed Stuart to command an infantry corps as he did in the Wilderness for a while. So my guess for Lee would be: Yes, he invades the north, yes, he forces a battle, but in the battle he is shot and wounded because he needs to be so much closer to the front to manage the increasingly leaderless Army of Northern Virginia. After that, who knows what happens. Maybe his men fight much harder and win a surprising victory. Maybe they run, and it's a worse version of Gettysburg. Either way, without Lee I guess the war ends sooner, no matter what happens at Vicksburg.
I agree with Garry. The fundamental problem the Confederates faced at Vicksburg was one of competing philosophies and vision. Johnston wanted to unite the Army of Vicksburg and the Army of Tennessee but, in his own words, he was too late arriving in the theater to make that difference. Davis was committed to defending places not understanding that those places couldn’t withstand the resulting siege. Grant had command of three corps in theater and access to more. He was far enough away from Washington that he could work with better freedom. I’d point out two other issues. Johnston’s and Pemberton’s cavalry, including Forrest, were engaged in chasing after a diversion. To make a difference they’d have to have the prescience to make a different choice. Timing is also key. Catching Grant after he crossed the river with enough of a force would change the trajectory, though maybe not the outcome. But even with a cavalry force and additional reinforcements from the east at the right moment, Johnston wasn’t yet there, and Grant and Porter have control of the Mississippi and the Louisiana side of the river.
Always couldn't have understood how great generals produced such amazing results? Napoleon lost at Waterloo because the Duke had a engineers map of the terrain IE he knew about the reverse slope to protect his infantry. In the Shenandoah valley was mapped 7' long roll with a foot wide. Every house, river, bridge, Ford, forest, road, crossroads! The ability to out maneuver, hit and run raids, escape across rivers was a tactical advantage that couldn't be overcome by brilliant general ship! Appearing in the rear, cutting lines of communication, capturing supplies as needed, stinging raids that caused casualties, fresh mounts were things that couldn't be overcome. All the while being a supply hub of the Confederacy, grain, cattle, horses were all products provided from the valley !
I tend to agree with Mr. Adelman. The Federals could have quite easily matched the Confederate reinforcement- as indeed the 9th. Corps joined Grant later anyway. I think Johnstone's general lack of aggression would have drained any CS effort of any offensive impetus. Now if Lee himself had gone there... but that's a whole other argument!
Once Haynes' Bluff was captured by Grant, he had Lauman's division up in Tennessee, and in the actual events they were already arriving 13-20 May. Other formations could have been sent down fairly quickly (what was historically the formations put together under Kimball's provisional division that historically arrived on June 3rd). Grant does all he can to hold Haynes' Bluff, where he can reenforce and supply a much larger army than he could during the winter. There's also Nathaniel P. Banks' army which was going to Port Hudson, but having him involved may not be worth it for the Union, and least of all, Grant.
After watching the Vicksburg campaign by battlefield trust, the union caught the confederates on open ground without field fortifications then won every battle there. Would the confederate reinforcements had mattered?
Lee was an aggressive commander. If he had made plans to travel up the Valley and hit the union in or around Harrisburg, he would have done so. However, he would have modified his plans by keeping a tight rein on his remaining units.. I'm looking at you, JEB Stewart.
Great to hear and see Mr. Adelman using the correct plural form of y'all, which is, ta da: all y'all. 🙂 But to the point, I have to say that I'm on the side that says Lee was hoping for one final battle, a battle of annihilation that would force an immediate peace. Add to it, he understood Johnston's character. Those two never worked together, and the reason is more than egos in conflict. I think Lee knew what Johnston had accomplished and projected what he was able to achieve as an army CIC. Lee did know his fellow officers pretty well. Granted, Lee's great victories were won defending Virginia soil. Therefore if he'd gone on the defensive, he probably would have prevailed against the Union Army. But he had demonstrated (at Antietam) a belief that to win the war, the ANV had to defeat the Union army on its own soil. The wisdom of Lee's strategy can be argued. Would Lincoln have been forced to sue for peace if Lee had succeeded in MD or PA? Lee thought so. I am not sure. Lee didn't go for another very likely victory on the defensive in VA; he went for broke in PA.
Love this type of roleplay history and look forward to the playthrough. Hypothetically if you get a grand confederate victory at Vicksburg with Longstreets help, then what do you do with Vicksburg and what does this army do afterwards. Can New Orleans be taken or Chattanooga with this army while holding Vicksburg against the next Army? Not much that can be done to gain a production or manpower advantage to change the war at this time, but it would still be interesting to hear your ideas and what you would try to do after the battle to gain as much as possible with these forces.
Longstreet's Corp was laying seige to Uion base at Suffolk VA in the spring of 63. When I lived there my neighborhood was just inside inside Confederate lines and the fortifications the Union attacked just before the end of the siege was still standing in a remote conor of our housing area.
Main strategic problem of the South was the advantage of Yankee logistics. That determined Lee's efforts to have a decisive battle. It looks very similar to the japanese dilemma about how to conduct the conflict with the U.S. in 1940's. But there is one more case: what were Grant's calculations in front of reinforcing Pemberton by some southern forces incoming west.
No question logistics were not a Confederate strength. The rail network in particular was a hot mess, with indirect routes and plagued by delays and breakdowns.
Thanks for the video. Well I think that this probably wouldn't have prevented the fall of Vicksburg. Your wargame stopped before that could be decided. The one thing that is certain is that there would not have been a "Pickett's Charge".
I am sort of surprise that you guys failed to mention of the Siege of Port Hudson, LA, (May 22 - July 9, 1863), which was also critical to controlling the Mississippi River and the Battle of Helena, AR, (July 4, 1863), which was an attempt by the CSA to relieve Vicksburg by assaulting one of the major US supply points for the Vicksburg's siege. Had General Banks' been successful in taking Port Hudson sooner, his army was supposed to support Grant's at Vicksburg, like wise, had the CS struck at Helena sooner, and won, there may have been no need for Longstreet go Vicksburg (maybe even shifted towards Port Hudson instead.)
I agree with Gary although greg's point makes strategic sense, it doesn't mean that lee and johnston would have adhered to it. Lee was going to move north if anything to seek out supplies and also had an air of invincibility about himself and his army after chancellorsville. Maybe he is more cautious and avoids a massive battle like gettysburg but the idea of him running into an encounter battle on northern soil that gets out of hand and sucks in mroe and more units is actually very likely whether it took place at gettysburg or somewhere else. As for Vicksburg, if Johnston had been more aggressive and had more men at the right time, that could surely have made a difference but hard to imagine what it would have taken to convince Grant to give up the seige although it could have temporarily frustrated him
Personally, I don't think Johnston would have done anything differently at Vicksburg. As the saying goes, a leopard doesn't change its spots. Lee would have still invaded the north with or without Longstreet. He seemed determined to move north regardless of the forces available to him. As for Mr. FJ Hooker, after Chancellorsville, it seemed like Hooker lost his nerve. So I think he would of been replaced, but maybe not as quickly as he was because he was planning on moving across the river again before Lee moved north.
I think little wars should play out Longstreet's scenario where Longstreet and Johnson converge on Bragg in middle Tennessee. A Chickamauga in middle Tennessee might have recaptured Nashville. Ok is Bragg so maybe not. But try it anyway.
"Taking stock of the high turnover of senior officers in early summer, Lincoln removed Hooker and replaced him with John Reynolds. The Army of the Potomac mounted a new offensive against the Rappahannock line, culminating in the five-day meat grinder at Mine Run, whose casualties exceeded that of Fredericksburg. Lee's local counterattacks were hampered by poor command and control, leading to the costly repulses at Unionville and Raccoon Ford. Buford's Raid, launched at about the same time and to devastating effect following the death of Stuart, became the compelling factor in forcing Lee to establish a new defensive position on the North Anna, with Reynolds shadowing him but taking no further action that year as his army consolidated from the year's bloodletting. Despite a determined defensive effort at Vicksburg forced by Grant's bull-headed advance on the city, the US Navy and the grinding effects of the siege took their toll on Longstreet's overall command, finally compelling him to surrender to his old friend in September. Rosecrans outmaneuvered the Bragg out of Tennessee in and with Chattanooga firmly in hand a month later, both sides prepared for the inevitable spring advance on Atlanta. Unimpressed by the results of Halleck and Reynolds, Lincoln promoted Grant to overall command that winter."
Yeah, I agree with Gary and most of the comments that Lee still launches a more limited invasion of the north, if for no other reason then to keep "those people" disbalanced and prevent them from reinforcing grant. However, Grant would probably be reinforced by troops from Rosecrans's dormant army, and Joe Johnson's lack of aggression would leave the terms largely equal and the outcome similar.
Would Hooker have been replaced had Lee not invaded the north? I seem to remember he offered resignation over a disagreement with Halleck over troops at Harpers Ferry while the AoP moved north in pursuit of Lee. I know Hooker wasn’t liked in Washington for the most part, especially after Chancellorsville, but was he certain to be removed had Harpers Ferry not become an issue?
I think that the important factor not being considered is that the American Civil War was the Union's to lose. The comprehensive superiority they enjoyed in manpower, economics, logistics, and international relations meant that the only chance for Lee is chasing the spectre of a decisive battle - and that battle MUST come not only in 1863, but early enough in the campaign season for him to exploit the victory enough to force a negotiated peace.
What I never understood was why Longstreet and two experienced divisions went down south in the spring of 63 for 'foraging duty', when Lee faced an army of well over 100,000 men in the Fredricksburg-Chancerlorsville area. It seems like they could have scrounged up non-combatants for the foraging job. And even if they did have to have Hood and Picketts men doing that job, WHY send Longstreet with them. Two of the remaining divisions who remained with Lee were Longstreets men (McLaws and Anderson). Why send away a valuable guy like Longstreet when combat would soon be imminent? When Jackson was killed Lee didn't even have a top subordinate for weeks after the battle of Chancellorsville.
I tend to agree with Greg on this. Lee followed up as he thought the time was ripe and was unaware Hooker had been sacked. I doubt Johnston would have done much with Longstreet but as mentioned if the Rebs were equal on manpower who knows. To me it should have been contigent on using them to relieve Vicksburg. Honestly Lee woukd have probably harassed the Union to hide the weakness and Meade woukd have tried to consolidate his command, hes no Grant or Sherman etc. Kudos Greg
I think we need to ask ourselves in what scenario does Lee send these two divisions. Does he release these divisions in time to actually arrive Vicksburg prior to its surrender. In doing so, Lee would anticipate a Union countermove therefore he would almost be forced to do some offensive action just to keep the Army of the Potomac preoccupied and not send more troops Westward, perhaps less of a campaign and more like Jubal Early's raid in 1864. Adding two divisions also seems unlikely to break the siege especially in the later stages when Pemberton's men were not in any condition to launch an offense from inside the encirclement. In short I am not sure that the result would be any different regardless of what the South had done.
In MS he Confederates best chance would be to unite their forces--Pemberton, Johnston, and Longstreet and attack Grant as he was marching on Jackson, MS. The Confederates would have an over whelming advantage in manpower, and could have destroyed or greatly weakened Grant. Otherwise, Grant will eventually take Vicksburg.
What is often overlooked is that the Aemy of Northern Virginia was starving! Lee's main objective was to forage among the rich Pennsylvania farms. (See book: "Lee's Retreat From Gettysburg". Probably would still have invaded, but avoided battle. Would 2 Divisions have helped in the West, well Johnston was still Johnston!
I think the point of wether or not to send the two divisions west is wether you intend the Gettysburg campaign to be a decisive blow or merely a disruptive raid. In both cases there is a Battle of Gettysburg but only in the first case is there a point to keep engaging the Union army once scale of the battle becomes clear - in fact in case two getting the Union army to scramble and commit at Gettysburg is already the goals of the campaign done and accomplished, because in doing so they have already had to abandon any pre-planned, major offensive any time soon. That means Gettysburg, while the high point of the campaign, instead of a major Battle, remains an indecisive conclusion of a minor sideshow. The main events of the season are in the West. Now, Lee doesn't strike me as a character who would allow himself to be sidelined. This is what I believe to be the main motivation behind the historical course of events. But we presuppose that in case two he agrees to sent the divisions, and at least in my head these two can be reconciled only if Lee goes and takes command from Pemberton and Johnston - possibly with Johnston being sent over to Virginia to temporarily take command there and lead the Gettysburg campign in Lee's stead. Quite a considerable amount of leadership juggling, but bear with me. At that point the Vicksburg campaign would come to a much bigger, much more desperate and bloody major battle at some point instead of the historical scenario which could go either way. Possibly with Grant also receiving further reinforcements due to the Union noticing all the shuffling around on the Confederate side, and recreaing the whole Gettysburg scenario in the East. Even at best, though, preserving Vicksburg is not a war winning victory. After that either Lee goes back East and history resumes with the fall of Vicksburg at best delayed a year, or Lee stays in the West and the Confederacy tries to lead an offensive campaign there in an attempt to roll up the Union from the flanks. But... it just sounds like a crazy plan that could never have worked, so probably not that. Which basically makes the send the divisions west question one of shall we try to force a decisive battle in the East (historical), or shall we double down on the defensive strategy that's been slowly failing the Confederacy since the secessions and hope for the international climate to shift before it's too late. I kinda understand why Lee went the historical way.
I think despite if the relief to Vicksburg was a success or the battle of Gettysburg never happened, although it might be close, the confederacy was doomed to fail and one maim tributing factor is that while the rebels one many victories, most often they were of great tactical importance to carry on another day to fight whilst though the union took many beatings, strategically they had the advantage. The union for most of the war was focusing on strategic plans and battles to win and wear down the confederates. Which is also why I think Robert e Lee made his attempts to invade the north because he was aware of this situation and attempted to turn that tide as best he could. If the relief attempts were a success more than likely the war would've dragged on another year anyway especially because Grant was a general who did not back down and used all he had to do just that to Lee's army, wearing them down all the way up to Appomattox courthouse.
I think Confederates needed quick end anything dragging on was always going to favour union. Being able to sue for peace outside Washington may have been their only hope. Not sure that was possible but feels same as Nazi invasion of Russia. Each year longer was always going to favour Russia
I think I agree with the notion that Vicksburg would have fallen anyway, but I also think Lee wouldn't have attacked because he would not have thought he had the numbers. In an alternate universe I think we would be sitting here saying 'what would of happened if Lee got his way and marched North to take DC with those two divisions?' and their would be a lot of people who would be saying that was the confederates missed opportunity that Vicksburg was doomed so if Lee had marched while the Union was disorganised he could have taken DC and won the war.
I agree with the first guy. I don't see any of Garry's scenarios playing out like he believed. No Gettysburg and Johnston not using Longstreet as he could or should.
If and this is a huge suppositional if.... Longstreet remained in command of the divisions sent operating more or less as his own command.... he might have aggressively probed at the besieging forces.... Perhaps forcing Grant to offer some form of reactionary effort to contain Longstreet's forces. Which if less than ably lead, by Grants subordinates might have developed into an attritional affair... The Union could withstand such an effort militarily.... however politically and through public opinion could have weakened the overall Union position in 1863. Could Longstreet"s Corp break the siege? Perhaps. Briefly.... Could easily alter the command structure of the Western theater of the Union forces if Grant and his forces are forced to relinquish the siege. One would also assume that the siege would be restored again following Longstreet's return to the east. Which in effect would perhaps lengthen the war by a few more months, but the outcome was written on the wall from the firing upon Fort Sumter...
I agree with agree with Garry. Lee still invades the North to suit his strategic needs. If the timeline stays the same the Army of Northern Virginia fights the first days Gettysburg battle and wins. Longstreet was not engaged in real life anyway. Maybe then Lee backs off toward Cashtown/Chancellorsville without Longstreet’s troops available. The CSA victory probably would have forced the Union Army to attack putting them on a position as Greg stated on the offense with ground of Lee’s choosing. Could end up very bad for the North. As far as Vicksburg Longstreet’s Corps would not have changed the outcome. Grant would have to be killed to release the strangle hold on Vicksburg. If that happened you would have Sherman, not better for the Confederates. The Union was set up to fight both toward and and around Vicksburg. Vicksburg falls.
While the historical record indicates that Lee wanted to raid Union territory and take the war away from Virginia, it's clear enough- from both Lee's after- action report and Longstreet's memoirs- that Lee intended to utilize defensive tactics and maneuver the AotP into attacking the AoNV, and to then defeat that attack decisively. What should be asked here is whether Lee would have moved north not only with two fewer divisions, but without either Jackson or Longstreet to assist him in what would have been a complicated plan of campaign. Despite Lee's ingrained aggressiveness, this is a question that likely can't be accurately answered. There is a reasonable possibility that Postmaster General Reagan's idea (to leak a false intention to invade Union territory while the Confederates instead stockpiled supplies around Richmond to withstand a worst- case scenario of a six- months long siege) just might have been adopted.
Lee’s attack into PA wasn’t about territory, it was about food. The cattle that Lee brought back from Gettysburg fed the Army of Virginia for 2 years. Without that the the Confederates couldn’t have continued in 1864, at least not in Northern VA
If Lee detaches two of Longstreet's divisions and sent them west in the Spring of 63 I'm just not too sure they would have made it to Vicksburg. More likely they would have run into Rosencrans' Federals right as Tullahoma was ramping up. All these pieces are moving at the same time, absolutely. Would Bragg be told to hold off until Hood and Pickett showed up? I don't think there is an argument about what 2 divisions added to Bragg's Army would mean in the Tullahoma campaign. Question is, how much would that slow Longstreet down in getting to Vicksburg to assist Johnston and Pemberton.
A very fair point Wayne! Most of the talk in Richmond that spring was about sending troops to Bragg over Johnston as an indirect way to relieve Vicksburg. I think that would have utterly failed to deter Grant.
For many good reasons at this stage of the war it would make little difference whether Longstreet’s 2 Divisions go West or remain East. For the first year or 2 of the war both sides’ MAIN strategy was to either - North attack and gain Richmond or South until mid-war onward and take Washington and the war would be virtually over for both victor and vanquished. But it was only until later after the Peninsular Campaign that the focus shifted for North particularly Grant and Sheman who rightly realised unlike previous Northern commanders; forget taking Richmond, rather it was ALL about defeat the South’s army and civilian’s will to fight. And the South By mid-war Lee must know he cannot defeat the North’s army, nor take Washington’s (by then) strong defenses, even if he won at Gettysburg - he just has not got the forces to win such further ambitions. Rather he must realise to prolong the war long enough that the North particularly their civilian populous loses the will to fight and realises the need to negotiate to uphold Southern States terms and thus Lincoln would lose his initial pre-war main ambition of retaining a United States or America. In that case I do not think Longstreet’s 2 divisions going West or staying East would make any difference to Lee’s and importantly the South’s overall Grand Strategic plan of prolonging the war at all costs, at the expense whether they could dream Jackson still alive tactically winning or losing any battle in the West or the Eastern theatre of operations. Lee must know that even if the South Wins or loses in the West or East, his overall Strategy is not winning battles, he cannot for losing too many commanders and resource. Spread Rebel armies West or concentrate forces East, win or lose battles - ALL he can ONLY do by this time is whatever it takes - PROLONG the war as long as his overall inferior man-power/resource can hold out.
I see Greg's point and while it does have merit I lean toward Garry's take. Other than losing Jackson at Chancellorsville Lee was riding a wave of success and sending Longstreet to Mississippi wouldn't have stopped him from invading the North. Lee may not have been quite as aggressive but he would have been seeking a victory on "those people's" soil.
What an interesting question! I wonder how much the Union cavalry would have played in this scenario: they were used improperly at Chancellorsville. We know that Brandy Station was in June of 1863, but could they have a more significant role if Lee did send two divisions out West.
The problem wasn't which Corp was sent where. The problem was Lee himself. I think he would have moved North without Longstreet. I also think he would have given battle at Gettysburg. Without Longstreet's Corp Lee would have lost to an even greater degree. I'm no expert but from a few accounts it doesn't look like Lee was a good attacker at all. Lee on the attack had a two step process: 1. Formulate a plan. 2. Let her rip. 3. Hope his subordinates can take the field. For example on the second day of Gettysburg he either didn't or couldn't exercise much control over his units once the attack started. The plan wasn't at all suitable for his hands-off approach either. The attack would start at the south of the Union line with each unit making contact in turn. The plan was carefully prepared and would work if NOTHING WENT WRONG anywhere on the line. If one unit got delayed the next unit would advance without support. Which would cause further problems. Obviously, this was bound to happen but Lee didn't have the command and control needed to make the necessary adjustments. At the end of the day the two divisions meant to attack the northern most part of the line did so late in the day. Without support. Also, without specific orders to do so from Lee. The commanders just did it on their own. With even fewer men at his disposal Pickett's charge would have been an even worse idea but I wouldn't have been surprised if Lee tried it anyway. After all it was a bad decision in the first place and he went forward.
Why do you think Meade would have been in command? Hooker was only relieved because he tendered his resignation due to frustration of interference by Washington in evacuating Harper's Ferry. That's not a given if Lee doesn't invade the North.
Agree with Greg but Johnston wouldn't have used them adequately. Lee would have been on the defensive using his cavalry under Stuart to keep the eastern Union forces busy
Grant would have learned of Longstreet heading his way in plenty of time to set a trap for Johnstone. Vicksburg would have fallen in any case. Lee would have probably sent a letter of resignation to Davis in protest. As it was Lee had a difficult time gathering troops for his sorte into Pennsylvania. Harvey Hill meanly held onto one of Pickett's brigades for example. Why Lee didn't just order that brigade north is still a mystery. As for Johnston, his force was under equipped and his logistic train was a mess. He was little better off when Longstreet did come west and he had to deal with Bragg and that ultimately led to Longstreet leading his corps back to Virginia. In the end Lee fought until he was forced to surrender after months of pointless bloody battles and sieges to the bitter end.
I need to check this again but I believe at this time in the war D.H. Hill and southern Virginia are not in Lee's area of responsibility, and so if Richmond approved the brigades retention in that area then Lee couldn't do much about it.
Not easy to say... if the two divisions had ultimately led to a replacement of Grants, things would probably have turned out differently. The war would then have lasted longer, presumably with the same end result. We wargamer would have lost 'Gettysburg', a battle that has some cultural significance, and not just because of the Lincoln speech. Is there some ACW Gamer who hasn't thought about gaming 'Gettysburg'? Presumably Lee had launched a different kind of invasion, but being outnumbered never deterred him. The South could only hope for a short-term military exhaustion of the North to win. Waiting would not have been an option. I think he knew that in the long run the South would lose the war.
Lee sends troops away before Chancellorsville? Might delay, but not prevent the fall of Vicksburg. Would Lee and Hooker engage in battle as Hooker goes south? A weaker Lee still prevail in a central Virginia campaign location? He pulled off Chancellorsville with stronger forces. A battered Lee and battered Hooker would still have the same motives, Lee to defeat the AoP and move north to try to relieve pressure on Vicksburg and put pressure on .Maryland and Pennsylvania. But can he do it? Hooker on the interior lines, stronger forces, better supplies, etc and he, if lucky can get between Lee and his escape routes. Lee really can't afford to have Hooker get below him. Lee goes to Harrisburg (or tries, I doubt he gets across the Susquehanna), he won't get a significant force out with him. If he gets to Baltimore, I suspect he gets trapped there and loses everything. Assumes Jackson survives. Without both Jackson and Longstreet? I think we see a Petersburg style siege but north of Richmond. The North will still be able to use the James to it's advantage, and squeeze Davis and the capitol out to the west. the Confederacy can't get all it needs through Wilmington for very long After Chancellorsville? No Jackson? After Vicksburg falls and Lincoln lets Grant move his forces overland to Mobile? Lee is still probably going to go north, with Vicksburg taken the Confederacy is really on the short end of the stick. Lee has to get to Washington and/or eliminate the AoP. Both almost impossible. Grant plays holy hell in the west because the South has nowhere enough troops to counter him. Neither England or France will ally with the South. Queen Victoria and most of the government are basically abolitionists. Britain recently suffered through the Crimean War and nobody wants another overseas war. No Chancellorsville? Lee is still on the exterior.
Hm, I am not well-studied enough to really comment on Lee's character insofar as his likelihood of strategic attack after losing 2 divisions, vs the Union circumstance and where Lee felt the war was going. So I'm going to just use my own postulation here. If the deciding factor in sending the 2 divisions to Vicksburg was Lee acceding and being persuaded, then I think he likely goes on the attack. If the deciding factor was being ordered to send them by Jackson and so they went, the result is more likely, but still unclear if he sits back and defends. My reasoning is thus. Lee as the preeminent Confederate general has a good idea of the strategic situation for the Confederacy and knows its under attack from every side except Virginia in spring and summer of 1863. So how to end the war if its going badly, without surrender? you have to change the mindset of the opposing leadership to one where they also want the war to stop. Whether this is due to attrition, or a belief that they cannot win, doesnt really matter in this instance. What matters is what Lee's plan is to cause that state. Lee likely knows they wont win an attritional war after 2 years of fighting and every federal army he defeats just being reconstituted later with more men and material than the confederates could ever hope for on their side. So that leaves taking out Lincoln or his public support. That means invading the North. The only way I see Lee not taking this approach is if he believes he doesnt have the forces to do it now, but might later. After all, I dont think a General can count on foreign diplomacy to intervene as a shield and save the confederacy, so he has to plan for a win. As the most successful confederate general, closest to the problem (lincoln), he has to find a way to apply pressure. That means attack if the odds are not too disfavorable. Perhaps *HOW* he conducted the campaign in pennsylvania or maryland would be different, but looking at it, I dont think he would have relinquished those troops if he thought he needed them to save the confederacy. And I wont insult him by saying that he didnt know the strategic outlook for the south and the direction it was headed.
I think Lee would have held his own in Virginia - creating mischief for Federals but not a full blown invasion of the North on the scale of Gettysburg. As for the divisions being sent west, I feel they would have been wasted as the commanders in the West - Johnston and Bragg were weak. If under better leadership, veterans from the ANV would have given Grant problems.
It's romantic to believe if the confederates had saved Vicksburg the war could have had a different outcome, but be realistic, the Union by this time of the war had figured a lot of things out and was imposing it's will.
My understanding of Lee was that he had the same mind set of the Germans in WWI. They thought the decisive blow would come on the Western Front, and were relatively unmoved in that regard. Lee was the same. A decisive blow was going to happen in the East, and they (or perhaps Lee and Davis specifically) desperately wanted a Northern invasion to prove the Confederacy was worth supporting by foreign powers. Lee could've won all the defensive battles he wanted. Until the South won a massive victory on Union Soil, most of Europe wasn't going to be interested in meddling. Well, except France. Louis Napoleon apparently really wanted a War with the Union, but that's another story.
because Lee wanted to go on the offensive around the time of Gettysburg and wanted Longstreet, and his 13,000 men with him when he marched into Pennsylvania. He was able to stand detaching Longstreet to Chickamauga because Lee realized he would never be able to mount an offensive campaign and was content on being on the defensive.
I think Chancellorsville still would of happened but maybe Jackson would of been more cautious, I hope and Hooker would of been gone still as Meade would need time to reorganize and get his footing with the Army of the Potomac but had 2 divisions been sent; the Union would of scrambled more troops to fight them and I think Vicksburg fall would of been prolonged.
I don't think it would have made much of a difference, it might have taken the federals a little longer to take Vicksburg. It's like I have always said, if the south was to win the war they would have to win by the end of 1862 before the great manpower advantage of the north could come to bare. But hind sight being 20/20 the south thought they could out last the north with a primarily defensive war that we know today was never going to work.
Johnston just never got it together. In my reaction I don’t think Johnston with Longstreet Pickett and Hood would have linked with Pemberton. He didn’t seize initiative when he was in command in 61 and was pushed back to within site of Richmond when he had Longstreet before. He didn’t even like Longstreet so I’m sure drama would have existed. Do I think Lee goes north without his Jackson who died AND Longstreet? Wow that would have been daring! Who’s he got then? Ewell Hill and Stuart as his corps commanders ? While running an invasion ? That just doesn’t sound good at all. I could see him needing the food but if he got got for a big stakes battle with ewell hill and Stuart executing his aggressive plans I think we’d be talking about even more why didn’t ewell take that hill discussions all over. Greg mentioned Chancellorsville well Lee might not have had Longstreet there but he has Jackson and that’s the key to 62’s success to 63’s failure. They had the ideal partnership. I just don’t know what Lee could have done without his his right arm his left and probably his best division commander. The army of no Virginia was just decimated in regards to leaders by summer of 63.
Give us the British Expeditionary Corps at Gettysburg 'what if'. It never would have happened of course but it would make for a very close battle IMO and fascinating game
Lee would not be able to launch his campaign against the Union at Gettysburg. This is vital for the Confederates to attack so they could get supplies for the winter.
In the long term I don’t think it would’ve made much difference to the historical outcome. The Union had more man power to draw on than the Confederacy.
Lee Lucked out Hooker waa wounded at Chancellersville. Butterfield was ready to commit the full 2nd half of the union army. A better scenario is, what if Butterfield committed the rest of the Union Army at Chancellorsville and Hooker not said pull back.
Vicksburg was most likely doomed no matter what, unless the Confederates could have some how drawn Grant away from Vicksburg by threatening his supply lines. Any strategy that would have required Confederates to get within range of the guns on board those Naval gunships would not have ended well for the Confederates. Joseph E. Johnston was arguably good on the defensive, but he never showed much when it came to aggressive tactics or strategies. The only way I see Johnston being of much benefit here is if he could have forced Grant to have attacked him on grounds of his own choosing and whooped him pretty good that way. Longstreet was pretty damned effective as subordinate (especially under Lee), but he seemed to be far less effective with independent command. If we are going to play Monday Morning Quarterback and and engage in what ifs, would've could'ves and should'ves I would much rather do it with an able bodied and sound minded Stonewall Jackson. I think he could have done quite well operating independent command west of the Appalachians or elsewhere. The idea of Nathan Bedford Forrest's cavalry working in conjunction with an army under Jackson sends a shiver down my spine. I may be living in the Confederate States of America had that collaboration ever took place. I believe that pair could have had Sherman and/or Grant whistling Dixie.
Please tell me you will run an American Revolution campaign like the Pyrrhic campaign you ran last year. Maybe put the world back the right way round? 😉
This all feels like a prelude to a operational and tactical wargame for the American Civil War... I still love rewatching that Pyrrhic war game.
I, too, subscribe to American Battlefield Trust & support their work. I appreciate these collabs, Garry Adelman is a national treasure! Having fought as an infantryman in Iraq, my thoughts are with Garry on this one. The character and personality of leaders makes the conflict what it is, and Lee would have not fundamentally changed his command style despite temporarily sending Longstreet's Corps west.
I think any collaboration between Little Wars TV and American Battlefield Trust, is an absolute treat for the rest of us. The pairing is YouTubian Gold.
I have to agree with Greg. Despite Lee's aggressive nature, even he would have realized that the loss of his best Corps Commander, Jackson, combined with the re-assignment of 12,000 troops to the West, would preclude a full scale invasion of the North. Instead, I believe that Lee would have detached Stuart with most of the cavalry, and sent them across the Potomac on a raid and recon mission, with the intent of creating chaos and panic, thus keeping the Union forces off balance. Meanwhile, Lee, with the remainder of the ANV, would have taken up strong defensive positions in Northern Virginia. Once Grant was defeated and the troops returned to Lee's command, perhaps then he would launch a full scale invasion of the North. Thanks for the videos, guys!
Jackson was inferior to Longstreet, highly overrated because of his death,
Or Grant would have done what he did in real life to whatever roadblocks the Confederates put in front of him. He would adapt and conquer Longstreet as he did everyone else.
Sorry Greg, I'm with Garry on this, Lee's character is the critical factor. To me, Lee seems to have been determined to end the war in a decisive battle, what he was hoping to achieve at Gettysburg. With the Army of the Potomac in turmoil, he was probably keen to seize the initiative. I think that's why he wanted to keep Longstreet's Corps with his army, and even if he was forced or persuaded to send those troops west, he would have still invaded the North. With hindsight we can see that Greg's suggestion was a much better strategy, I just don't feel that Lee would have followed it.
I agree Lee probably would have invaded the north. Keep in mind Lee needed supplies badly and he needed to relieve pressure on Virginia and Richmond. Though without Longstreet I think Lee would have been more defensive in his invasion and a battle on northern soil might not have been as devastating to Lee because of it I still think Lee goes north.
I think you are spot on with your analysis. Lee was well aware that the longer that war went on, the less likely there would be a favorable outcome. He was looking for that knockout blow (that never came). When Robert E. Lee had his mind set on something it not much of anything was going to change it as we saw at Malvern Hill and at Gettysburg. Although the idea of Robert E. Lee being forced to be a little more cautious with his northern invasion (without Longstreet or Jackson) sounds like it would have been beneficial to someone playing Monday morning quarterback.
Regardless of how Lee would have acted he needed to go north to relieve pressure on Virginia. The state was being stripped of all resources "food and grain" so something had to change and Lee knew it.
Spread thin and stay alive longer OR find the point for the final, crushing blow? Lee was looking to win the WAR.
Agreed.
Very nice collaboration, 2 of my favorite channels, very cool
Always great to see Gary
I'm 100% with Greg on this one. We have a Confederate war council that has calmly analyzed the situation and wants Vicksburg relieved. We have the Pennsylvania campaign imploding with Lee's own personal Waterloo moment and we have the well established fact that Jeb Stuart's role was minimalized at a critical juncture in the war. Would Lee have still invaded the north? Almost certainly. That man could be as stubborn as a tick under a worn saddle blanket; however, if Lee had less to work with in PA, he might not have acted so hastily without his proper intelligence. Wars revolve around turning points - and this was clearly one of them. In my opinion.
They key is how would the Union have reacted to the move? Even a small threat to Johnston might have curtailed any adventurous ideas, even with reinforcements from the Eastern theater.
I remember reading a book narrating the battle and surrounding context of Chancellorsville. Lee's army was under supplied and they foraged out the area around Fredericksburg that it became dangerous to remain. Either fall back to defend Richmond against siege or swing around and invade/raid the north again were the options he considered.
I certainly think he would have did the same as he did historically but he might've been more hands on with Hill or Ewell but the disaster of the third day would have been a lot less severe in the fact that he had less men he could throw at the federals and so less men to lose.
I'd be interested in seeing a replay of the Vicksburg operational game with different chance cards being drawn. Does the club ever repeat the same scenario to try out other "what if's"? Seems that game was not time or space consuming and could be restaged easily. I'd like to see what Keith would have done second time around. Or if Miles and Mark had swapped sides with Keith. Great videos on the Vicksburg campaign!
I agree. The card draw in that particular playing of the game was huge. A less impactful card draw might result in a very different game and outcome.
Great stuff, love the what-ifs
Us too!
I think Mr Adelman's point that 'taking two divisions away from Lee doesn't change who he was' is an important one. Lee at this point was very determined to invade the North and having fewer troops wouldn't have changed his mind about that. He may have been more cautious though, or waited longer to launch the campaign.
I agree with Gary, in that Lee would have sent a strike north to stir the pot and threaten Washington. The Union was in panic mode after Chancellorsville.
And would have kept Jeb Stuart on a shorter leash.
According to _Hymns of the Republic_ the author states that Lee was planning an invasion of the North in the spring of 1864 and only didn’t do it because Grant struck first.
This is great! Excellent video!
Even with the loss of Jackson, Lee saw two victories in Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. His blood was up and determined to strike the enemy a blow that would so embarrass the Union, Maybe enough to sue for peace. It's the very reason Lee didn't free up Longstreet. Lee considered Virginia his nation and wouldn't realize the loss of Vicksburg as a deeper cut than the defeat at Gettysburg until he couldn't get Texans anymore. I think Lee in '63would still push somewhere, but I think it is far more entertaining to think Lee setting a trap for a Union offensive.
I definitely agree with Greg on this. Yes, it would have been possible for the USA to match the CSA reinforcements going to Mississippi, but those would then be troops unavailable for offensives elsewhere, which confers a benefit. Even delaying the fall of Vicksburg by a few months, and forcing more resources to spent on its capture, is far better than the results that historically occurred by going galavanting off to PA.
true but they didnt know this. thats like asking if the usa in ww2 shouldnt have just sent their units to russia in 1942 instead of north africa for the torch landings. the brits were stalemating in egypt, and choking the supply of rommel. the soviets were fighting for their lives in russia. what could their generals have done with 40,000 american soldiers and their equipment while stalingrad raged on? even if you argue they would have been sent to a spot where the fighting was less intense, that could have freed up an enormous amount of russian manpower for stalingrad, which could have resulted not just in the win, but a massive counterattack if things go a certain way. Who is to say if this wouldnt have ended the war faster?
So arguing its better than the historical event for a what-if needs to take into account the ideas at the time. Lee thought the best idea was to go on the attack, the union was disorganized in the east, and went with it thinking he would win.
I got to agree. The war IMHO came down to defeating Lincoln in the election of 1864. If that happened, then the winner would let the Confederacy continue to exist on some basis. It could have happened if the Confederacy had held its own in all theaters for another year, defeating all attempts to divide the Confederacy along the Mississippi and dominate another Confederate state, namely VA. I think Lee's strategy was wrong. It wasn't a national strategy at all.
Agree that Vicksburg relief would only have delayed the inevitable. Lee's desire to strike a decisive blow would always put the Confederates at risk of a loss or pyrrhic victory they could ill afford. Once the French and British decided not to intervene, then the Union victory was only a matter of when.
I am persuaded by Greg's arguments in this case. I REALLY hope we'll see it played out on this very channel sometime soon
When you look at the Gettysburg campaign, Lee's main attack was twice commanded by Longstreet, his old war horse. Without him there and with Jackson lost, I think Lee would have been forced to do what he had to later in the war during the overland campaign, personally commanding troops and placing regiments in the field. Either that or he would have needed Stuart to command an infantry corps as he did in the Wilderness for a while. So my guess for Lee would be: Yes, he invades the north, yes, he forces a battle, but in the battle he is shot and wounded because he needs to be so much closer to the front to manage the increasingly leaderless Army of Northern Virginia. After that, who knows what happens. Maybe his men fight much harder and win a surprising victory. Maybe they run, and it's a worse version of Gettysburg. Either way, without Lee I guess the war ends sooner, no matter what happens at Vicksburg.
I agree with Garry. The fundamental problem the Confederates faced at Vicksburg was one of competing philosophies and vision. Johnston wanted to unite the Army of Vicksburg and the Army of Tennessee but, in his own words, he was too late arriving in the theater to make that difference. Davis was committed to defending places not understanding that those places couldn’t withstand the resulting siege. Grant had command of three corps in theater and access to more. He was far enough away from Washington that he could work with better freedom. I’d point out two other issues. Johnston’s and Pemberton’s cavalry, including Forrest, were engaged in chasing after a diversion. To make a difference they’d have to have the prescience to make a different choice. Timing is also key. Catching Grant after he crossed the river with enough of a force would change the trajectory, though maybe not the outcome. But even with a cavalry force and additional reinforcements from the east at the right moment, Johnston wasn’t yet there, and Grant and Porter have control of the Mississippi and the Louisiana side of the river.
Always couldn't have understood how great generals produced such amazing results? Napoleon lost at Waterloo because the Duke had a engineers map of the terrain IE he knew about the reverse slope to protect his infantry. In the Shenandoah valley was mapped 7' long roll with a foot wide. Every house, river, bridge, Ford, forest, road, crossroads! The ability to out maneuver, hit and run raids, escape across rivers was a tactical advantage that couldn't be overcome by brilliant general ship! Appearing in the rear, cutting lines of communication, capturing supplies as needed, stinging raids that caused casualties, fresh mounts were things that couldn't be overcome. All the while being a supply hub of the Confederacy, grain, cattle, horses were all products provided from the valley !
Yes...Master historian Garry...
I tend to agree with Mr. Adelman. The Federals could have quite easily matched the Confederate reinforcement- as indeed the 9th. Corps joined Grant later anyway. I think Johnstone's general lack of aggression would have drained any CS effort of any offensive impetus. Now if Lee himself had gone there... but that's a whole other argument!
Once Haynes' Bluff was captured by Grant, he had Lauman's division up in Tennessee, and in the actual events they were already arriving 13-20 May. Other formations could have been sent down fairly quickly (what was historically the formations put together under Kimball's provisional division that historically arrived on June 3rd). Grant does all he can to hold Haynes' Bluff, where he can reenforce and supply a much larger army than he could during the winter. There's also Nathaniel P. Banks' army which was going to Port Hudson, but having him involved may not be worth it for the Union, and least of all, Grant.
After watching the Vicksburg campaign by battlefield trust, the union caught the confederates on open ground without field fortifications then won every battle there. Would the confederate reinforcements had mattered?
Lee was an aggressive commander. If he had made plans to travel up the Valley and hit the union in or around Harrisburg, he would have done so. However, he would have modified his plans by keeping a tight rein on his remaining units.. I'm looking at you, JEB Stewart.
Always good!
a what if special order 191 was not found would be very interesting
Great to hear and see Mr. Adelman using the correct plural form of y'all, which is, ta da: all y'all. 🙂
But to the point, I have to say that I'm on the side that says Lee was hoping for one final battle, a battle of annihilation that would force an immediate peace. Add to it, he understood Johnston's character. Those two never worked together, and the reason is more than egos in conflict. I think Lee knew what Johnston had accomplished and projected what he was able to achieve as an army CIC. Lee did know his fellow officers pretty well.
Granted, Lee's great victories were won defending Virginia soil. Therefore if he'd gone on the defensive, he probably would have prevailed against the Union Army. But he had demonstrated (at Antietam) a belief that to win the war, the ANV had to defeat the Union army on its own soil.
The wisdom of Lee's strategy can be argued. Would Lincoln have been forced to sue for peace if Lee had succeeded in MD or PA? Lee thought so. I am not sure. Lee didn't go for another very likely victory on the defensive in VA; he went for broke in PA.
Love this type of roleplay history and look forward to the playthrough. Hypothetically if you get a grand confederate victory at Vicksburg with Longstreets help, then what do you do with Vicksburg and what does this army do afterwards. Can New Orleans be taken or Chattanooga with this army while holding Vicksburg against the next Army? Not much that can be done to gain a production or manpower advantage to change the war at this time, but it would still be interesting to hear your ideas and what you would try to do after the battle to gain as much as possible with these forces.
Longstreet's Corp was laying seige to Uion base at Suffolk VA in the spring of 63. When I lived there my neighborhood was just inside inside Confederate lines and the fortifications the Union attacked just before the end of the siege was still standing in a remote conor of our housing area.
Dagumit. Now I have another dang channel to follow. (Thanks Garry)
You absolutely should check out the Trust! They have fantastic content
@@LittleWarsTV I've been watching them for years. That's how I found my way here.
I agree with Mr. Adelman too!
Main strategic problem of the South was the advantage of Yankee logistics. That determined Lee's efforts to have a decisive battle. It looks very similar to the japanese dilemma about how to conduct the conflict with the U.S. in 1940's. But there is one more case: what were Grant's calculations in front of reinforcing Pemberton by some southern forces incoming west.
No question logistics were not a Confederate strength. The rail network in particular was a hot mess, with indirect routes and plagued by delays and breakdowns.
Thanks for the video. Well I think that this probably wouldn't have prevented the fall of Vicksburg. Your wargame stopped before that could be decided. The one thing that is certain is that there would not have been a "Pickett's Charge".
I am sort of surprise that you guys failed to mention of the Siege of Port Hudson, LA, (May 22 - July 9, 1863), which was also critical to controlling the Mississippi River and the Battle of Helena, AR, (July 4, 1863), which was an attempt by the CSA to relieve Vicksburg by assaulting one of the major US supply points for the Vicksburg's siege. Had General Banks' been successful in taking Port Hudson sooner, his army was supposed to support Grant's at Vicksburg, like wise, had the CS struck at Helena sooner, and won, there may have been no need for Longstreet go Vicksburg (maybe even shifted towards Port Hudson instead.)
nice video
I agree with Gary although greg's point makes strategic sense, it doesn't mean that lee and johnston would have adhered to it. Lee was going to move north if anything to seek out supplies and also had an air of invincibility about himself and his army after chancellorsville. Maybe he is more cautious and avoids a massive battle like gettysburg but the idea of him running into an encounter battle on northern soil that gets out of hand and sucks in mroe and more units is actually very likely whether it took place at gettysburg or somewhere else. As for Vicksburg, if Johnston had been more aggressive and had more men at the right time, that could surely have made a difference but hard to imagine what it would have taken to convince Grant to give up the seige although it could have temporarily frustrated him
Personally, I don't think Johnston would have done anything differently at Vicksburg. As the saying goes, a leopard doesn't change its spots. Lee would have still invaded the north with or without Longstreet. He seemed determined to move north regardless of the forces available to him. As for Mr. FJ Hooker, after Chancellorsville, it seemed like Hooker lost his nerve. So I think he would of been replaced, but maybe not as quickly as he was because he was planning on moving across the river again before Lee moved north.
I agree about Johnston.
I think little wars should play out Longstreet's scenario where Longstreet and Johnson converge on Bragg in middle Tennessee. A Chickamauga in middle Tennessee might have recaptured Nashville. Ok is Bragg so maybe not. But try it anyway.
"Taking stock of the high turnover of senior officers in early summer, Lincoln removed Hooker and replaced him with John Reynolds. The Army of the Potomac mounted a new offensive against the Rappahannock line, culminating in the five-day meat grinder at Mine Run, whose casualties exceeded that of Fredericksburg. Lee's local counterattacks were hampered by poor command and control, leading to the costly repulses at Unionville and Raccoon Ford.
Buford's Raid, launched at about the same time and to devastating effect following the death of Stuart, became the compelling factor in forcing Lee to establish a new defensive position on the North Anna, with Reynolds shadowing him but taking no further action that year as his army consolidated from the year's bloodletting.
Despite a determined defensive effort at Vicksburg forced by Grant's bull-headed advance on the city, the US Navy and the grinding effects of the siege took their toll on Longstreet's overall command, finally compelling him to surrender to his old friend in September. Rosecrans outmaneuvered the Bragg out of Tennessee in and with Chattanooga firmly in hand a month later, both sides prepared for the inevitable spring advance on Atlanta.
Unimpressed by the results of Halleck and Reynolds, Lincoln promoted Grant to overall command that winter."
A fun read and not at all implausible. Enjoyed this version of events!
Yeah, I agree with Gary and most of the comments that Lee still launches a more limited invasion of the north, if for no other reason then to keep "those people" disbalanced and prevent them from reinforcing grant. However, Grant would probably be reinforced by troops from Rosecrans's dormant army, and Joe Johnson's lack of aggression would leave the terms largely equal and the outcome similar.
Would Hooker have been replaced had Lee not invaded the north? I seem to remember he offered resignation over a disagreement with Halleck over troops at Harpers Ferry while the AoP moved north in pursuit of Lee. I know Hooker wasn’t liked in Washington for the most part, especially after Chancellorsville, but was he certain to be removed had Harpers Ferry not become an issue?
I think that the important factor not being considered is that the American Civil War was the Union's to lose.
The comprehensive superiority they enjoyed in manpower, economics, logistics, and international relations meant that the only chance for Lee is chasing the spectre of a decisive battle - and that battle MUST come not only in 1863, but early enough in the campaign season for him to exploit the victory enough to force a negotiated peace.
What I never understood was why Longstreet and two experienced divisions went down south in the spring of 63 for 'foraging duty', when Lee faced an army of well over 100,000 men in the Fredricksburg-Chancerlorsville area. It seems like they could have scrounged up non-combatants for the foraging job. And even if they did have to have Hood and Picketts men doing that job, WHY send Longstreet with them. Two of the remaining divisions who remained with Lee were Longstreets men (McLaws and Anderson). Why send away a valuable guy like Longstreet when combat would soon be imminent? When Jackson was killed Lee didn't even have a top subordinate for weeks after the battle of Chancellorsville.
Can't wait to see the wargaming show you surely are preparing right now...
I tend to agree with Greg on this. Lee followed up as he thought the time was ripe and was unaware Hooker had been sacked. I doubt Johnston would have done much with Longstreet but as mentioned if the Rebs were equal on manpower who knows. To me it should have been contigent on using them to relieve Vicksburg. Honestly Lee woukd have probably harassed the Union to hide the weakness and Meade woukd have tried to consolidate his command, hes no Grant or Sherman etc. Kudos Greg
I think we need to ask ourselves in what scenario does Lee send these two divisions. Does he release these divisions in time to actually arrive Vicksburg prior to its surrender. In doing so, Lee would anticipate a Union countermove therefore he would almost be forced to do some offensive action just to keep the Army of the Potomac preoccupied and not send more troops Westward, perhaps less of a campaign and more like Jubal Early's raid in 1864. Adding two divisions also seems unlikely to break the siege especially in the later stages when Pemberton's men were not in any condition to launch an offense from inside the encirclement. In short I am not sure that the result would be any different regardless of what the South had done.
Great map there. Where is it from?
In MS he Confederates best chance would be to unite their forces--Pemberton, Johnston, and Longstreet and attack Grant as he was marching on Jackson, MS. The Confederates would have an over whelming advantage in manpower, and could have destroyed or greatly weakened Grant. Otherwise, Grant will eventually take Vicksburg.
What is often overlooked is that the Aemy of Northern Virginia was starving! Lee's main objective was to forage among the rich Pennsylvania farms. (See book: "Lee's Retreat From Gettysburg". Probably would still have invaded, but avoided battle. Would 2 Divisions have helped in the West, well Johnston was still Johnston!
More importantly.Grant would still be Grant and he would still have Sherman as his right hand man.
I think the point of wether or not to send the two divisions west is wether you intend the Gettysburg campaign to be a decisive blow or merely a disruptive raid.
In both cases there is a Battle of Gettysburg but only in the first case is there a point to keep engaging the Union army once scale of the battle becomes clear - in fact in case two getting the Union army to scramble and commit at Gettysburg is already the goals of the campaign done and accomplished, because in doing so they have already had to abandon any pre-planned, major offensive any time soon. That means Gettysburg, while the high point of the campaign, instead of a major Battle, remains an indecisive conclusion of a minor sideshow. The main events of the season are in the West.
Now, Lee doesn't strike me as a character who would allow himself to be sidelined. This is what I believe to be the main motivation behind the historical course of events. But we presuppose that in case two he agrees to sent the divisions, and at least in my head these two can be reconciled only if Lee goes and takes command from Pemberton and Johnston - possibly with Johnston being sent over to Virginia to temporarily take command there and lead the Gettysburg campign in Lee's stead. Quite a considerable amount of leadership juggling, but bear with me. At that point the Vicksburg campaign would come to a much bigger, much more desperate and bloody major battle at some point instead of the historical scenario which could go either way. Possibly with Grant also receiving further reinforcements due to the Union noticing all the shuffling around on the Confederate side, and recreaing the whole Gettysburg scenario in the East. Even at best, though, preserving Vicksburg is not a war winning victory.
After that either Lee goes back East and history resumes with the fall of Vicksburg at best delayed a year, or Lee stays in the West and the Confederacy tries to lead an offensive campaign there in an attempt to roll up the Union from the flanks. But... it just sounds like a crazy plan that could never have worked, so probably not that. Which basically makes the send the divisions west question one of shall we try to force a decisive battle in the East (historical), or shall we double down on the defensive strategy that's been slowly failing the Confederacy since the secessions and hope for the international climate to shift before it's too late.
I kinda understand why Lee went the historical way.
I think despite if the relief to Vicksburg was a success or the battle of Gettysburg never happened, although it might be close, the confederacy was doomed to fail and one maim tributing factor is that while the rebels one many victories, most often they were of great tactical importance to carry on another day to fight whilst though the union took many beatings, strategically they had the advantage. The union for most of the war was focusing on strategic plans and battles to win and wear down the confederates. Which is also why I think Robert e Lee made his attempts to invade the north because he was aware of this situation and attempted to turn that tide as best he could. If the relief attempts were a success more than likely the war would've dragged on another year anyway especially because Grant was a general who did not back down and used all he had to do just that to Lee's army, wearing them down all the way up to Appomattox courthouse.
I think Confederates needed quick end anything dragging on was always going to favour union. Being able to sue for peace outside Washington may have been their only hope. Not sure that was possible but feels same as Nazi invasion of Russia. Each year longer was always going to favour Russia
I think I agree with the notion that Vicksburg would have fallen anyway, but I also think Lee wouldn't have attacked because he would not have thought he had the numbers. In an alternate universe I think we would be sitting here saying 'what would of happened if Lee got his way and marched North to take DC with those two divisions?' and their would be a lot of people who would be saying that was the confederates missed opportunity that Vicksburg was doomed so if Lee had marched while the Union was disorganised he could have taken DC and won the war.
I agree with the first guy. I don't see any of Garry's scenarios playing out like he believed. No Gettysburg and Johnston not using Longstreet as he could or should.
If and this is a huge suppositional if.... Longstreet remained in command of the divisions sent operating more or less as his own command.... he might have aggressively probed at the besieging forces.... Perhaps forcing Grant to offer some form of reactionary effort to contain Longstreet's forces. Which if less than ably lead, by Grants subordinates might have developed into an attritional affair... The Union could withstand such an effort militarily.... however politically and through public opinion could have weakened the overall Union position in 1863. Could Longstreet"s Corp break the siege? Perhaps. Briefly.... Could easily alter the command structure of the Western theater of the Union forces if Grant and his forces are forced to relinquish the siege. One would also assume that the siege would be restored again following Longstreet's return to the east. Which in effect would perhaps lengthen the war by a few more months, but the outcome was written on the wall from the firing upon Fort Sumter...
I agree with agree with Garry. Lee still invades the North to suit his strategic needs. If the timeline stays the same the Army of Northern Virginia fights the first days Gettysburg battle and wins. Longstreet was not engaged in real life anyway. Maybe then Lee backs off toward Cashtown/Chancellorsville without Longstreet’s troops available. The CSA victory probably would have forced the Union Army to attack putting them on a position as Greg stated on the offense with ground of Lee’s choosing. Could end up very bad for the North.
As far as Vicksburg Longstreet’s Corps would not have changed the outcome. Grant would have to be killed to release the strangle hold on Vicksburg. If that happened you would have Sherman, not better for the Confederates. The Union was set up to fight both toward and and around Vicksburg. Vicksburg falls.
While the historical record indicates that Lee wanted to raid Union territory and take the war away from Virginia, it's clear enough- from both Lee's after- action report and Longstreet's memoirs- that Lee intended to utilize defensive tactics and maneuver the AotP into attacking the AoNV, and to then defeat that attack decisively.
What should be asked here is whether Lee would have moved north not only with two fewer divisions, but without either Jackson or Longstreet to assist him in what would have been a complicated plan of campaign. Despite Lee's ingrained aggressiveness, this is a question that likely can't be accurately answered.
There is a reasonable possibility that Postmaster General Reagan's idea (to leak a false intention to invade Union territory while the Confederates instead stockpiled supplies around Richmond to withstand a worst- case scenario of a six- months long siege) just might have been adopted.
Lee’s attack into PA wasn’t about territory, it was about food. The cattle that Lee brought back from Gettysburg fed the Army of Virginia for 2 years. Without that the the Confederates couldn’t have continued in 1864, at least not in Northern VA
I feel like I'm in Van Hagar territory! Best of both worlds!
If Lee detaches two of Longstreet's divisions and sent them west in the Spring of 63 I'm just not too sure they would have made it to Vicksburg. More likely they would have run into Rosencrans' Federals right as Tullahoma was ramping up. All these pieces are moving at the same time, absolutely. Would Bragg be told to hold off until Hood and Pickett showed up? I don't think there is an argument about what 2 divisions added to Bragg's Army would mean in the Tullahoma campaign. Question is, how much would that slow Longstreet down in getting to Vicksburg to assist Johnston and Pemberton.
A very fair point Wayne! Most of the talk in Richmond that spring was about sending troops to Bragg over Johnston as an indirect way to relieve Vicksburg. I think that would have utterly failed to deter Grant.
If Lee had Jackson he would have sent Longstreet. Jackson in Pennsylvania would have been a much different outcome.
For many good reasons at this stage of the war it would make little difference whether Longstreet’s 2 Divisions go West or remain East.
For the first year or 2 of the war both sides’ MAIN strategy was to either - North attack and gain Richmond or South until mid-war onward and take Washington and the war would be virtually over for both victor and vanquished. But it was only until later after the Peninsular Campaign that the focus shifted for North particularly Grant and Sheman who rightly realised unlike previous Northern commanders; forget taking Richmond, rather it was ALL about defeat the South’s army and civilian’s will to fight. And the South By mid-war Lee must know he cannot defeat the North’s army, nor take Washington’s (by then) strong defenses, even if he won at Gettysburg - he just has not got the forces to win such further ambitions. Rather he must realise to prolong the war long enough that the North particularly their civilian populous loses the will to fight and realises the need to negotiate to uphold Southern States terms and thus Lincoln would lose his initial pre-war main ambition of retaining a United States or America.
In that case I do not think Longstreet’s 2 divisions going West or staying East would make any difference to Lee’s and importantly the South’s overall Grand Strategic plan of prolonging the war at all costs, at the expense whether they could dream Jackson still alive tactically winning or losing any battle in the West or the Eastern theatre of operations. Lee must know that even if the South Wins or loses in the West or East, his overall Strategy is not winning battles, he cannot for losing too many commanders and resource. Spread Rebel armies West or concentrate forces East, win or lose battles - ALL he can ONLY do by this time is whatever it takes - PROLONG the war as long as his overall inferior man-power/resource can hold out.
I see Greg's point and while it does have merit I lean toward Garry's take. Other than losing Jackson at Chancellorsville Lee was riding a wave of success and sending Longstreet to Mississippi wouldn't have stopped him from invading the North. Lee may not have been quite as aggressive but he would have been seeking a victory on "those people's" soil.
What an interesting question! I wonder how much the Union cavalry would have played in this scenario: they were used improperly at Chancellorsville. We know that Brandy Station was in June of 1863, but could they have a more significant role if Lee did send two divisions out West.
Garry is everywhere
The problem wasn't which Corp was sent where. The problem was Lee himself. I think he would have moved North without Longstreet. I also think he would have given battle at Gettysburg. Without Longstreet's Corp Lee would have lost to an even greater degree. I'm no expert but from a few accounts it doesn't look like Lee was a good attacker at all.
Lee on the attack had a two step process:
1. Formulate a plan.
2. Let her rip.
3. Hope his subordinates can take the field.
For example on the second day of Gettysburg he either didn't or couldn't exercise much control over his units once the attack started. The plan wasn't at all suitable for his hands-off approach either. The attack would start at the south of the Union line with each unit making contact in turn. The plan was carefully prepared and would work if NOTHING WENT WRONG anywhere on the line. If one unit got delayed the next unit would advance without support. Which would cause further problems. Obviously, this was bound to happen but Lee didn't have the command and control needed to make the necessary adjustments. At the end of the day the two divisions meant to attack the northern most part of the line did so late in the day. Without support. Also, without specific orders to do so from Lee. The commanders just did it on their own.
With even fewer men at his disposal Pickett's charge would have been an even worse idea but I wouldn't have been surprised if Lee tried it anyway. After all it was a bad decision in the first place and he went forward.
I think I could better concentrate on your narrative if the music was lower in volume at the beginning ….. just me tho. All good tho with info.
Only one way to settle this question-- wargame it.
Why do you think Meade would have been in command? Hooker was only relieved because he tendered his resignation due to frustration of interference by Washington in evacuating Harper's Ferry. That's not a given if Lee doesn't invade the North.
ps another interesting vid keep it up.
Agree with Greg but Johnston wouldn't have used them adequately. Lee would have been on the defensive using his cavalry under Stuart to keep the eastern Union forces busy
Greg smokes weed at Gettysburg every Thursday at the location of Pickett's charge !
💨🚬🔥🤘🏼
Maybe Vicksburg becomes an Alessia type battle?
So, twice as far as Chikamauga.
Have say the V and VI corps arrive in the West...
Grant would have learned of Longstreet heading his way in plenty of time to set a trap for Johnstone. Vicksburg would have fallen in any case. Lee would have probably sent a letter of resignation to Davis in protest. As it was Lee had a difficult time gathering troops for his sorte into Pennsylvania. Harvey Hill meanly held onto one of Pickett's brigades for example. Why Lee didn't just order that brigade north is still a mystery. As for Johnston, his force was under equipped and his logistic train was a mess. He was little better off when Longstreet did come west and he had to deal with Bragg and that ultimately led to Longstreet leading his corps back to Virginia. In the end Lee fought until he was forced to surrender after months of pointless bloody battles and sieges to the bitter end.
I need to check this again but I believe at this time in the war D.H. Hill and southern Virginia are not in Lee's area of responsibility, and so if Richmond approved the brigades retention in that area then Lee couldn't do much about it.
Gary, you must grow the 'burnsides' back...
Not easy to say... if the two divisions had ultimately led to a replacement of Grants, things would probably have turned out differently. The war would then have lasted longer, presumably with the same end result. We wargamer would have lost 'Gettysburg', a battle that has some cultural significance, and not just because of the Lincoln speech. Is there some ACW Gamer who hasn't thought about gaming 'Gettysburg'?
Presumably Lee had launched a different kind of invasion, but being outnumbered never deterred him. The South could only hope for a short-term military exhaustion of the North to win. Waiting would not have been an option. I think he knew that in the long run the South would lose the war.
Lee sends troops away before Chancellorsville? Might delay, but not prevent the fall of Vicksburg. Would Lee and Hooker engage in battle as Hooker goes south? A weaker Lee still prevail in a central Virginia campaign location? He pulled off Chancellorsville with stronger forces. A battered Lee and battered Hooker would still have the same motives, Lee to defeat the AoP and move north to try to relieve pressure on Vicksburg and put pressure on .Maryland and Pennsylvania. But can he do it? Hooker on the interior lines, stronger forces, better supplies, etc and he, if lucky can get between Lee and his escape routes. Lee really can't afford to have Hooker get below him. Lee goes to Harrisburg (or tries, I doubt he gets across the Susquehanna), he won't get a significant force out with him. If he gets to Baltimore, I suspect he gets trapped there and loses everything. Assumes Jackson survives. Without both Jackson and Longstreet? I think we see a Petersburg style siege but north of Richmond. The North will still be able to use the James to it's advantage, and squeeze Davis and the capitol out to the west. the Confederacy can't get all it needs through Wilmington for very long
After Chancellorsville? No Jackson? After Vicksburg falls and Lincoln lets Grant move his forces overland to Mobile? Lee is still probably going to go north, with Vicksburg taken the Confederacy is really on the short end of the stick. Lee has to get to Washington and/or eliminate the AoP. Both almost impossible. Grant plays holy hell in the west because the South has nowhere enough troops to counter him. Neither England or France will ally with the South. Queen Victoria and most of the government are basically abolitionists. Britain recently suffered through the Crimean War and nobody wants another overseas war.
No Chancellorsville? Lee is still on the exterior.
Hm, I am not well-studied enough to really comment on Lee's character insofar as his likelihood of strategic attack after losing 2 divisions, vs the Union circumstance and where Lee felt the war was going. So I'm going to just use my own postulation here.
If the deciding factor in sending the 2 divisions to Vicksburg was Lee acceding and being persuaded, then I think he likely goes on the attack. If the deciding factor was being ordered to send them by Jackson and so they went, the result is more likely, but still unclear if he sits back and defends.
My reasoning is thus. Lee as the preeminent Confederate general has a good idea of the strategic situation for the Confederacy and knows its under attack from every side except Virginia in spring and summer of 1863. So how to end the war if its going badly, without surrender? you have to change the mindset of the opposing leadership to one where they also want the war to stop. Whether this is due to attrition, or a belief that they cannot win, doesnt really matter in this instance. What matters is what Lee's plan is to cause that state. Lee likely knows they wont win an attritional war after 2 years of fighting and every federal army he defeats just being reconstituted later with more men and material than the confederates could ever hope for on their side. So that leaves taking out Lincoln or his public support. That means invading the North. The only way I see Lee not taking this approach is if he believes he doesnt have the forces to do it now, but might later.
After all, I dont think a General can count on foreign diplomacy to intervene as a shield and save the confederacy, so he has to plan for a win. As the most successful confederate general, closest to the problem (lincoln), he has to find a way to apply pressure. That means attack if the odds are not too disfavorable. Perhaps *HOW* he conducted the campaign in pennsylvania or maryland would be different, but looking at it, I dont think he would have relinquished those troops if he thought he needed them to save the confederacy. And I wont insult him by saying that he didnt know the strategic outlook for the south and the direction it was headed.
I think Lee would have held his own in Virginia - creating mischief for Federals but not a full blown invasion of the North on the scale of Gettysburg. As for the divisions being sent west, I feel they would have been wasted as the commanders in the West - Johnston and Bragg were weak. If under better leadership, veterans from the ANV would have given Grant problems.
It's romantic to believe if the confederates had saved Vicksburg the war could have had a different outcome, but be realistic, the Union by this time of the war had figured a lot of things out and was imposing it's will.
My understanding of Lee was that he had the same mind set of the Germans in WWI. They thought the decisive blow would come on the Western Front, and were relatively unmoved in that regard. Lee was the same. A decisive blow was going to happen in the East, and they (or perhaps Lee and Davis specifically) desperately wanted a Northern invasion to prove the Confederacy was worth supporting by foreign powers. Lee could've won all the defensive battles he wanted. Until the South won a massive victory on Union Soil, most of Europe wasn't going to be interested in meddling. Well, except France. Louis Napoleon apparently really wanted a War with the Union, but that's another story.
Gary! Didn’t you watch “Hell on Wheels?” It’s pronounced “Mono-Casey.”🤪
I’m wondering if Lee was worried about sending Longstreet out to Vicksburg then why did Longstreet go to chickamauga.
because Lee wanted to go on the offensive around the time of Gettysburg and wanted Longstreet, and his 13,000 men with him when he marched into Pennsylvania. He was able to stand detaching Longstreet to Chickamauga because Lee realized he would never be able to mount an offensive campaign and was content on being on the defensive.
@@s.w.6576 oh okay I understand now.
Ah, everyone break WEIRD from time to time. Embrace it.
The CSA suffered defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg because Robert E Lee and Joseph Johnston could not get their orders and plans followed.
I think Chancellorsville still would of happened but maybe Jackson would of been more cautious, I hope and Hooker would of been gone still as Meade would need time to reorganize and get his footing with the Army of the Potomac but had 2 divisions been sent; the Union would of scrambled more troops to fight them and I think Vicksburg fall would of been prolonged.
Garry is the best
I don't think it would have made much of a difference, it might have taken the federals a little longer to take Vicksburg. It's like I have always said, if the south was to win the war they would have to win by the end of 1862 before the great manpower advantage of the north could come to bare. But hind sight being 20/20 the south thought they could out last the north with a primarily defensive war that we know today was never going to work.
Johnston just never got it together. In my reaction I don’t think Johnston with Longstreet Pickett and Hood would have linked with Pemberton. He didn’t seize initiative when he was in command in 61 and was pushed back to within site of Richmond when he had Longstreet before. He didn’t even like Longstreet so I’m sure drama would have existed.
Do I think Lee goes north without his Jackson who died AND Longstreet? Wow that would have been daring! Who’s he got then? Ewell Hill and Stuart as his corps commanders ? While running an invasion ? That just doesn’t sound good at all. I could see him needing the food but if he got got for a big stakes battle with ewell hill and Stuart executing his aggressive plans I think we’d be talking about even more why didn’t ewell take that hill discussions all over.
Greg mentioned Chancellorsville well Lee might not have had Longstreet there but he has Jackson and that’s the key to 62’s success to 63’s failure. They had the ideal partnership.
I just don’t know what Lee could have done without his his right arm his left and probably his best division commander. The army of no Virginia was just decimated in regards to leaders by summer of 63.
I would you guys Game out full civil war game from 1861 to 1865 over 4 mouths .
Give us the British Expeditionary Corps at Gettysburg 'what if'. It never would have happened of course but it would make for a very close battle IMO and fascinating game
Longstreet I believe would be the Senior Lt. General at Vicksburg. I don't think he makes the ultimate difference at Vicksburg.
Johnston would have been more senior than Longstreet if they served together in 63.
@@LittleWarsTV I was talking Pemberton, I think Grant bags them all and South is hurting.
Lee would not be able to launch his campaign against the Union at Gettysburg. This is vital for the Confederates to attack so they could get supplies for the winter.
In the long term I don’t think it would’ve made much difference to the historical outcome. The Union had more man power to draw on than the Confederacy.
I think the loss of Vicksburg would still have doomed the South.
Lee Lucked out Hooker waa wounded at Chancellersville.
Butterfield was ready to commit the full 2nd half of the union army.
A better scenario is, what if Butterfield committed the rest of the Union Army at Chancellorsville and Hooker not said pull back.
After the South lost Stonewall to his own troops, Lee wasn't the same! Just sayin.
Vicksburg was most likely doomed no matter what, unless the Confederates could have some how drawn Grant away from Vicksburg by threatening his supply lines. Any strategy that would have required Confederates to get within range of the guns on board those Naval gunships would not have ended well for the Confederates.
Joseph E. Johnston was arguably good on the defensive, but he never showed much when it came to aggressive tactics or strategies. The only way I see Johnston being of much benefit here is if he could have forced Grant to have attacked him on grounds of his own choosing and whooped him pretty good that way.
Longstreet was pretty damned effective as subordinate (especially under Lee), but he seemed to be far less effective with independent command.
If we are going to play Monday Morning Quarterback and and engage in what ifs, would've could'ves and should'ves I would much rather do it with an able bodied and sound minded Stonewall Jackson. I think he could have done quite well operating independent command west of the Appalachians or elsewhere. The idea of Nathan Bedford Forrest's cavalry working in conjunction with an army under Jackson sends a shiver down my spine. I may be living in the Confederate States of America had that collaboration ever took place. I believe that pair could have had Sherman and/or Grant whistling Dixie.
William Dorsey pender would have taken over Jackson's role. He was as good or better than Jackson
Please tell me you will run an American Revolution campaign like the Pyrrhic campaign you ran last year. Maybe put the world back the right way round? 😉