Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
I forgot about Ledlie whose "outstanding" qualifications made him a "model" leader of men.
Regarding Butler, he was taken by the Great Diamond Hoax of the 1870s. Two Kentuckians showed some investors some uncut diamonds and convinced them they found a place in the desert rich with diamonds. They got $100k and came back with a bagful of diamonds, rubies and emeralds. Of course, they didn't mention that they bought them from a dealer in London. They'd sell stock in their corporation and came back with even more diamonds, rubies and emeralds. On this second trip, they said as much as they brought back, it was only half of what they started their return journey with as half the load fell into the river. That lured more investors including Butler into it. (Little Napoleon was another victim of this scam).
The flim-flam men disappeared and a lot of prominent investors hushed it up to avoid being embarassed. Check out the June 2004 edition of Smithsonian Magazine.
I have hesitated to respond to this thread since there were just so blasted many things I'd change.
I'd tell Stonewall to duck.
I'd shoot Bragg at Shiloh.
I’d put a tourniquet on Johnston at Shiloh.
I'd try my best to get the South to stockpile cotton before the war started and borrow against it to build a navy.
I'd tell A.P. Hill to stay with Longstreet and not request a transfer.
I’d also try to convince A.P. Hill not to ride on horseback so much, and to drink plenty of sulfur water.
I’d get me a Whitworth with a good scope and a brace of LeMats and haunt the battles for a handy shots at available targets.
Thea, I have never ...nor will I ever... underestimate the lethality of the fairer sex. In fact, I have often depended upon it.
If I had a chance to influence the war or its outcome, I would try like heck to convince R.E. Lee to have resigned from the Federal Army and never take up arms again, period. As much as I admire Lee and I do from near and afar, it was Lee who wrought so much death in the war with his phenominal genius, stroke of luck, faith in his men.With him out of the picture, the war would have been won much earlier by the Union, I also would have tried to prevent Lincoln's Assassination. But back to my pet peeve, I would not have let the Constitutional Convention recess until they worked out a compromise to end slavery.
What an interesting tack on the question, getting Lee not to take up arms, but keep him out of the war. Don't know if it would have been possible given what I know of the man's character, but still a neat concept there.
Do you think there was ANY chance of the South compromising on slavery at the Constitutional Convention at all?
Curious,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Honestly Neil, I don't know. But from what I read, they were in such a tizzy to get the constitution ratified that they pretty much ignored any issue that would hold up ratification. I would have liked to at least have seen an effort to promote gradual compensated emancipation. But I don't know how possible that would be, given the south's fear of the north overriding them on issue after issue. Equal representation in congress was a concern of theirs and the 3/5th clause was one method used to level out the playing field so it might have taken more than compensation to find a solution. One thing I do hope is that Jefferson had nightmare after nightmare after he wrote "All men are created equal" then proceeded to keep his slaves. I hope the faces of his slaves danced over his head every night in his dreams because of the failure of the founders to address the slavery issue.
There was a town in Deer Island Maine whose entire male population was killed because of the war. Was the destruction of an entire town in terms of its ability to provide descendants worth it? I think there was a southern town in North Carolina that suffered the same fate. (sigh)...If only the founders addressed the situation, where would we be today?????
Herein lies the true dilemma of American History and the time that makes me question the courage of our founding fathers. Why didn't they attack slavery harder at the Constitutional Convention or during the debate over the Declaration of Independence? Desperation to get the new country off the ground? What? Almost all knew that this 'problem' was going to come back and bite them in the butt on down the line. It was a constant source of worry for some of the smartest and wisest men of that time.
And yet, they ALL, North and South, chickened out on taking this bull by the horns, the national sin that made this country look like a bunch of hypocrites when it came to claim itself the land of the free. And through that inaction, the feeble hope that slavery would wither and die, condemed 620,000 Americans to death in the Civil War.
But before we are too harsh on them, we have to realize that our Revolutionary Fathers were only men, not the gods some would wish.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
The other day in our group I mentioned that due to the slowness in reloading the musket and revolvers, just how much more deadly a army might have been if they took a step back in time and were equipped with long bows. Certainly during the Indian wars that followed the Civil War, the Indians showed how deadly these weapons were, even against the lever action repeating 44-40's which were far superior to the single shot musket. If I could go back in time, it might be worth pointing out this to some of the army's leadership, for their thought. Certainly it would be great to keep the canons. Marching into the explosion and bellowing smoke emitted from those beast would put the fear in a soldier.
If anyone has thoughts on the bow and arrow theory I would love to hear them.
Max, interesting theory, but if I recall correctly, every time the Indians won a battle during the Indian Wars, it was because they had superior rifles to the government troops. This was especially the case at Little Big Horn.
Training might also be a problem. Any doof who knows which end of the gun shoots can shoot a musket. The archer's strength and skill take years to develop... years that go to waste when the archer dies or is wounded.
I'm looking forward to hearing what others have to say.
Max has a correct, though implausable, theory. The bow used by the Mongols toumans that swept all before them had an accuracy and range equal to that of the M-16... 400 yards was not an unusual killing shot for them, while mounted on horseback I might add. But those were men who lived and breathed the bow and the horse; their discipline was a marvel not understood by those they opposed few armies in history have equaled it.
Zou, you are quite correct about the bow taking a lifetime to learn to use w/ efectiveness. The bow was used to lethal effectiveness throughout all of the various Indian Wars, it was a silent killer, and in the hands of an experianced user, had a rate of fire far superior to any period firearm. Native Americans rarrely maintained their firearms, often not caring whether the round inserted into the barrell was the right size or not and preferred to use their rifles, carbines and pistols at close range. THey were warriors, splendid warriors, but poor soldiers. History is replete w/ examples of superb warriors losing to soldiers. Discipline and firepower have often outweighed courage.
The downfall to the Native American seemed more to be a love of closing w/ an enemy and killing face to face. Only a few of the tribes favored warfare from ambuscade... and those few excelled at it. For what it's worth many of Custers men on "last stand hill" were killed while laying prone, arrows striking them in the back... The Lakota and the Cheyenne were quite adept at laying flat on the ground and shooting up into the sky w/ enough skill that they knew about where the arrow would land and a dozen warriors doing so could paint the sky a terrifying black w/ their arrows. Custers men literally could do nothing but die, but they died hard.
__________________ Few take the trouble to understand or to view the American scene with perspective. And we Americans love to find ourselves guilty of something. However, it is never I who am guilty, but those other Americans, the past or present government or the other political party. Americans almost never find other countries guilty. It is always ourselves or our fancied influence in other countries. Louis L'amour
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
