Was Chancellorsville an Historical Illusion

[whitworth]

Too many historians look at Chancellorsville, isolated, as a great victory. Even if Stonewall Jackson survived, it was a hollow victory. It was a very isolated victory.

It regained none of the western counties of western Virginia, for Virginia and the Confederacy. It wasn't going to make the Union forces in Mississippi logistically weaker. Vicksburg was going to fall. It was inevitable, because Grant could bring more well supplied troops at the point of the attack, for a longer period, than the Confederacy.

Grant would capture Vicksburg, as Lee would never capture Washington.
Garrison troops in Arizona had Apaches to worry about; not Confederate troops. New Mexico and Arizona would never get recaptured by Confederate forces after mid-1862.
Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee were already beyond the reach of the Confederacy, except for the temporary raid. The Confederacy did not have the logistics to sit and hold these states.

By mid-1863 slavery had taken a substantial depreciation charge. No Confederate slaveowner could see selling any excess slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, most of Tennessee, territory west of Texas, parts of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.
By 1863, the Confederacy was unable to negotiate a peace for some of the Confederate States, because so much had already been lost.

Can anyone see the U.S. giving back the Virginia counties, adjacent to the Potomac River, including Norfolk? Why would the U.S. do that? It was all lost Confederate territory.

Can we see a negotiation for peace, where there was only a Georgia, a South Carolina, a North Carolina, a part of eastern Virginia, perhaps parts of Mississippi and Louisiana in the Confederacy. By 1863, the Confederacy was a shrunken state.

By 1863, Confederate Virginia was a shrunken state. Chancellorsville was a Confederate victory. But look at all the Virginia counties, already lost to Union forces. Virginia Counties lost permanently by the Confederate army.

[Dred]

If Jackson's plan had gone as it was supposed to be, Hooker's entire army would have been caught between the Reb army and the rapahannock river. In the position hooker would have been in only 2 choices would have remained. Surrender the army or be destroyed. With no army between Chancelorsville and DC Lee could have threatened DC, and altho very unlieky he would have taken it, he could have scared Lincoln into some sort of agreement. Lincoln was always overly protective of the capitol. In my opinion he would be less likely to defy the reb army when it is staring down on the capitol, even with the bullworks and forts all around it. How long does it take to reform an army of that size? I have no idea, but I'msure if Lee had then gone on to another ivasion of the north there would have been no army to chase him for quite some time. As it was tho, you are right. Not much was gained by the reb victory, except 2 more years of war and death.

[OpnDownfall]

The short answer is No! Chancellosville was a seminal battle in the Cw.
Davis and the war office was already looking west, where the war was in the process of being lost. By 1863, a look at the map showed the last part of the Mississippi River under confederate control was on the brink of extinction and the confederate heartland was under direct threat in Tn. If nothing was done, the war in the west was lost.
The battle itself, was no illusion, but it's effect was to feed the illusion of Lee and Richmond, that the war could be won in the East. That 'Another' victory over the AoP, 'This Time' would cover all the material disadvantages of the confederacy and mistakes of its leaders. Ignoring the fact thatafter two years of military success in NV (AND that the only defeat of Lee was when he invaded northern territory, during that time) had not brought Lincoln to accept, even the idea of southern independence. Instead they galvanized him (and the north) to greater effort. The war was expanding, the battles were getting bigger and bloodierk, not smaller.
The war was being lost in the west, but Chancellosville, wonderfully concentrated Lee's and Davis' attention on the strategic backwater of the war in the East.

[cw1865]

Clearly the Battle of Chancellorsville changes the initiative and shifts it from North to South. In that sense I think its appropriate to consider it a strategic victory, albeit not decisive.

[trice]

Originally Posted by whitworth

Too many historians look at Chancellorsville, isolated, as a great victory. Even if Stonewall Jackson survived, it was a hollow victory. It was a very isolated victory.

Chancellorsville was a decisive victory in the sense of breaking up the Union campaign in the East that Spring. Other than that, it gives the Confederates a certain flexibility they would not have had otherwise (for example, they could have sent troops West afterward, but chose not to). If Hooker had not moved yet, or had managed a better result, that would have been impossible or very difficult.

Originally Posted by whitworth

It regained none of the western counties of western Virginia, for Virginia and the Confederacy.

Nor had it attempted to. It was merely a decisive repulse of a Union attack. Still a great tactical exhibition by Lee, Jackson, and Stuart and a humbling defeat for the AoP/Hooker.

Originally Posted by whitworth

It wasn't going to make the Union forces in Mississippi logistically weaker. Vicksburg was going to fall. It was inevitable, because Grant could bring more well supplied troops at the point of the attack, for a longer period, than the Confederacy. Grant would capture Vicksburg, as Lee would never capture Washington.

Again, it wasn't an attempt to do any of that. It changed the situation in the East and gave the Confederates options they did not have a few days before.

Also, Grant's victory is nowhere near as assured as you are presenting it. Chancellorsville is May 1-3. Grant is just attacking Port Gibson on May 1. His victory there is still far from sure, and his campaign, if defeated, was likely to result in a disastrous result. I agree that a short time later, after Grant has marvellously rolled over, split up, separated and isolated the Confederates, trapping Pemberton in Vicksburg, there is little chance the Confederates can do anything about the situation. But on May 1, that is not a result anyone outside of Grant seems to have ben very confident about.

Originally Posted by whitworth

Garrison troops in Arizona had Apaches to worry about; not Confederate troops. New Mexico and Arizona would never get recaptured by Confederate forces after mid-1862.

Yes, but NM and AZ were a Confederate fantasy in my view anyway, unimportant in any major sense to the survival of the Confederacy.

Originally Posted by whitworth

Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee were already beyond the reach of the Confederacy, except for the temporary raid. The Confederacy did not have the logistics to sit and hold these states.

Again, this is before Tullahoma in June. Rosecrans has been badly bloodied at Murfreesboro and inactive for months. In all likelihood, the Confederates could have held (or at least fought a major effort) at Tullahoma if they had not just dispatched 10,000 men to Vicksburg. Even after that, Rosecrans will be smashed at Chickamauga and besieged at Chattanooga. If Grant can be held along the Mississippi, Middle Tennessee is an entirely different situation -- and control of the Tennessee River does not help the Union very much in that area.

Originally Posted by whitworth

By mid-1863 slavery had taken a substantial depreciation charge. No Confederate slaveowner could see selling any excess slaves in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, most of Tennessee, territory west of Texas, parts of Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas.

Hmm, yes, but I am not sure this impacts the military situation much.

Originally Posted by whitworth

By 1863, the Confederacy was unable to negotiate a peace for some of the Confederate States, because so much had already been lost.

Sure, but the only way to convince the US to negotiate a peace was to smack them around on the battlefield so much they grew weary of fighting, or to invade and defeat them on their own territory. If major victories could be gained in TN and VA while holding the Mississippi, maybe they could have done that; maybe Lincoln would have lost in 1864; maybe McClellan would have negotiated a peace.

Originally Posted by whitworth

Can anyone see the U.S. giving back the Virginia counties, adjacent to the Potomac River, including Norfolk? Why would the U.S. do that? It was all lost Confederate territory.

If the Union negotiated a peace treaty, yes, they probably would have withdrawn, although I think they would have retained what is now WV, or something like it. Probably the same in TN, and an evacuation along the coast, and the return of New Orleans, etc. I can't imagine them giving up MO or KY.

Originally Posted by whitworth

Can we see a negotiation for peace, where there was only a Georgia, a South Carolina, a North Carolina, a part of eastern Virginia, perhaps parts of Mississippi and Louisiana in the Confederacy. By 1863, the Confederacy was a shrunken state.

Sure. You left out AL and FL and TX. If the Union wants peace, they have to give up what they took, for the most part. Happens all the time in wars.

Originally Posted by whitworth

By 1863, Confederate Virginia was a shrunken state.

Yes, but similar situations happen all the time. Only a few years later, the Prussians occupied large parts of Austria (1866) and France (1870-71). They withdrew after the peace, although there were territorial concessions -- and the Prussians won both of those big time.

Originally Posted by whitworth

Chancellorsville was a Confederate victory. But look at all the Virginia counties, already lost to Union forces. Virginia Counties lost permanently by the Confederate army.

I doubt they could have got Lincoln to give up WV, and McClellan would have to be **** cynical to do that. But the rest of VA would quite probably have been returned in a peace treaty. If the Union is going to let the Confederacy exist, they will withdraw from parts of it. If they aren't ... well, then the war continues, and comes out about like real life.

Note that in 1870-71 the Prussians occupied most of Northern France, including Paris, and gave most of it back in the peace treaty even after decisively crushing the French Army in the field.

Regards,
Tim

[whitworth]

"Yes, but NM and AZ were a Confederate fantasy in my view anyway, unimportant in any major sense to the survival of the Confederacy."

Reply: Interesting, since the major opposition to Lincoln as president was the fear that he was going to end slavery in the United States Territories. In fact, he said so much in his Cooper Union speech in New York City, before his nomination. Southern leadership seemed to think that territories as slave states was important.

But capturing such territory proved to be Confederate fantasy. Was secession a product of fantasy?


"Yes, but similar situations happen all the time. Only a few years later, the Prussians occupied large parts of Austria (1866) and France (1870-71). They withdrew after the peace, although there were territorial concessions -- and the Prussians won both of those big time."

Reply: One must remember the U.S. had recaptured land and states, that had belonged to the U.S. before the Civil War, and was not considered foreign territory.



"maybe McClellan would have negotiated a peace."

Maybe McClellan would have been too late to do anything about the end of the war.

Lee surrenders at Appomattox Court House-April 9, 1865.

George B. McClellan
First Inaugural Address
Saturday, March 4, 1865

Historians seem to forget that McClellan would not become commander in chief of the U.S. Armed forces, but one month before Lee's surrender. General Sherman had his army in South Carolina at the 1865 inauguration, and was preparing to enter North Carolina. By that time, November, 1864 was a long time back.

[trice]

Originally Posted by whitworth

"Yes, but NM and AZ were a Confederate fantasy in my view anyway, unimportant in any major sense to the survival of the Confederacy."

Reply: Interesting, since the major opposition to Lincoln as president was the fear that he was going to end slavery in the United States Territories. In fact, he said so much in his Cooper Union speech in New York City, before his nomination. Southern leadership seemed to think that territories as slave states was important.

But capturing such territory proved to be Confederate fantasy. Was secession a product of fantasy?

I think we are talking about different things here.

Any Confederate belief that it could seize and hold the Arizona-New Mexico area by military force I believe to be utterly unrealistic, a fantasy.

The idea of secession is another matter. I feel it was driven primarily by hubris, greed, and fear combined with an unrealistic and arrogant refusal to compromise on the issue of slavery -- and that this was deliberately manipulated and whipped into a frenzy by a relatively small part of the population.

Originally Posted by whitworth

"Reply: One must remember the U.S. had recaptured land and states, that had belonged to the U.S. before the Civil War, and was not considered foreign territory.

Sure. But if we conjure a US defeated enough to negotiate a peace, they will not be able to hold everything and will be making adjustments on borders. Otherwise, it seems rather incongruous to try to imagine what the peace talks will be about.

Originally Posted by whitworth

"maybe McClellan would have negotiated a peace."

Maybe McClellan would have been too late to do anything about the end of the war.

Well, by the time we get to McClellan, we are in late 1864. He will only win if things look bad for the war effort -- and if they look good Lincoln will win, as he did. But in August, Lincoln thought it looked like he would lose, and made preparations for McClellan taking office.

In short, nothing about McClellan matters in this context unless he is making peace and that was the inspiration of the 1864 Confederate effort. Johnston/Hood were smashed and beaten on the Atlanta front, while Mobile fell to Farragut and Sheridan won battle after battle in the Shenandoah -- so Lincoln won the election. All across the board the South was being whipped, and the people of the North could see it, could see sooner or later Lee would go down as well.

This is what beat the Confederacy in the end, military superiority wielded skillfully. If the Grant team had been incompetent, the South would probably have staved them off that year and McClellan would be in the White House. But it was the Southern generals who could not get the job done, particularly in the West, and so the war ended.

Regards,
Tim