Red River Campaign

[gary]

I read Richard Taylor's Destruction and Reconstruction and was wondering about two points he raised regarding the Red River Campaign of Banks.

1) What if Porter's fleet had been captured? Porter would have scuttled it first, but the Confederates could have salvaged it. If the South had Porter's ironclads, they could have threatened New Orleans or Vicksburg (capturing either would be another issue).

2) Less intriguing to me is what if the 19th Army Corps was destroyed because it was cut off and had to surrender? It would never have reached Virginia and participated in saving the Capital. I still think Sheridan would have whupped Early even without the 19th Corps.

Discuss please. M-T mines wanna no.

[jackbluelight]

I pose a question to one of those questions. How in the world would the Confederacy go about capturing Porter's fleet? What resourses could they have used to do so bold a thing?

[gary]

Stranded ships are easier to capture than mobile ones. Porter had reservations about the campaign because he knew how quickly the water table could fall.

[ewc]

Porter would have never allowed his fleet to be 'taken'. He was a man full of resources, which unfortunately cannot be said of the campaign's commander. No doubt Porter had contingency plans set in case of disaster given his doubts of the campaign's wisdom and the competency of General Banks. Had he not been able to rescue the fleet- and he would have spared no opportunity in the attempt, he would have seen to its total destruction. The boilers would have been blown, and enough ammunition put onboard to wreck the clad sheeting. The Confederacy's resources, especially in the Trans-Miss and by 1864, were so meager as to making the salvage and operational capacity of the scuttled ships a virtual impossibilty, and I say this in the light of the Confederacy's amazing ability to craft a navy out of 'cornstalks and beanpoles' to borrow an expression.

And let us say that the fleet did indeed have to be scuttled. By this time the Mississippi was entirely in Union hands, and the Union with its amazing resources would have pushed production of riverine ironclads to compensate the loss immediately upon receiving the bad news. The fortresses and garrisons of river ports would have been greatly strengthened, and other resources immediately mobilized. The real advantage gained by the Rebels would have been the diverting of Union manpower, resources, and attention away from critical areas, and not a little advantage that.

Though Gneral Franklin is a much maligned figure of the war, I do not think he would have allowed a surrender of his forces. He was a commander of some skill- and some pride, and would have gotten out of this situation. If anything, the corps would have scattered and headed to New Orleans, which of course would have wrecked its fighting trim to be used in any immediate capacity but a garrison force for the nonce. But even with Kirby Smith and Taylor in the Trans-Miss, the Rebs simply did not have enough men and means to force the surrender of an entire army corps. I just do not see the thing as happening. But let us say the corps was mauled or demoralized badly enough to preclude its immediate use in other than garrison or refitting. It would have stayed put along the Mississippi, as would likely AJ Smith's corps and the other troops in the case of Porter's fleet being knocked out. If Porter's fleet is intact, other troops would have been called East. Grant had been harboring these for a hoped for drive at Mobile, and with that hope gone, would have scavenged these troops for the main efforts (Atlanta/ Virginia.) The Union and Lincoln and Grant and Halleck would have weathered Early's drive on Washington with what they had and could call up from Butler's army at Bermuda Hundred and Ft Monroe. Grant (and Lincoln)would have seen to it that the main Union objectives were not interefered with. My two cents.

[gary]

Yes, I concede that Porter would have scuttled his fleet. No good sailor would surrender a ship yet alone a fleet if he could prevent it. Porter almost gave the order to scuttle the Ironclads it during one (failed) drive on Vicksburg when he was trapped (and had to be rescued by Sherman).

[ewc]

No good Northern boy wants to even think about the Confederates with their hands on Porter's fleet, scuttled or afloat. The appearance of the Virginia in Hampton Roads was enough to keep President Lincoln and the cabinet awake at night, ready to ship the valuables out of town. Imagine the effect of an honest-to-God ironclad fleet ready to take on the width and breadth of Union held Mississippi River!! Poor digestion and insomnia for everyone north of the Ohio River for weeks on end. But there is Porter. If the fleet is not saved, underwater it goes. He sees to it that it is such a thorough job that the Confederates ability to resurrect it would be outside their resources and capacity to use it to advantage. But even so, the damage done to the Union is critical. Until the fleet can be replaced, (which can be done) there is a window of time open to the Confederates to be taken advantage of, and these very Confederates have proven masterful at taking advantage of Union weaknesses and mistakes. Is New Orleans vulnerable, Vicksburg, Memphis? Yes they are, very. One thing had been fairly constant in this war- Into any Union vacuum, a Confederate would rush.

[FSPowers]

I don't think that the Confederate's posession of Porter's fleet would have change the balance of power on the Mississippi, but it would have given the Northerners a headache for a while.

[johan_steele]

I don't think the CS forces in the area could have raised the fleet if Porter had scuttled it. And even w/out 19th Corps Early would still have been late.