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!
When Emory Upton was in charge of West Point he ran a war game every year that had a British intervention in the ACW; Union forces commanded by the students won hands down every time much to his suprise and chargrin.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
Thats interesting. How would the British army have performed alongside the Confederates. Generally speaking, the British were badly lead. In the ACW period, many British officers had bought their commisions. This practice was ending, but the army was still full of high ranking officers who were not really up to the task. It is often said that in a wealthy family, the first son would inherit any lands or buisnesses, the second would become a soldier, and the third a vicar. Not the ideal way to select leaders. The men in the ranks usually came from poor families. The army was a way to escape from grim industrial cities. There were also large numbers of Scots and Irish troops. They tended to join up to avoid scratching a living from a poor croft or farm. There was no conscription. Discipline was harsh. Like the American armies, tactics were still basically from the Napoleonic wars. The only difference would be, the British use of cavalry. Heavy cavalry were used in direct charges against bodies of enemy troops. Weapons used would also be similar to what was already being used. The only difference being the greater availability of breech loading cannon.
(How to shorten blockaderunner? Block? Wurra, wurra.) What a pointed observation! Neat! I have no doubt that UK soldiers were and are, man for man, every bit as good as the American counterpart. In the WBTS, we had our political generals and generals whose goal was political. I'd guess that yours who bought their commissions were every bit as bad.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Butler and Sickles are the two political generals who come to mind. And yes, they did perform badly. Were there many others?
I think there is also a similarity between British generals and the Confederates. Many senior British Army officers were titled men. Lords, Earls, Dukes etc. At the same time, many Confederate generals were members of polite Richmond society.
When Emory Upton was in charge of West Point he ran a war game every year that had a British intervention in the ACW; Union forces commanded by the students won hands down every time much to his suprise and chargrin.
Upton at West Point?
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
I think there is also a similarity between British generals and the Confederates. Many senior British Army officers were titled men. Lords, Earls, Dukes etc. At the same time, many Confederate generals were members of polite Richmond society.
Or they considered themselves among the elite. Actually, I can't think of a single Confederate general who was among the putative elite. (Well, maybe Wade Hampton.) Lee was clearly a superior man, but he was not really a slave-owner or even considered himself better than others. Longstreet was common as dirt. Forrest was this close to illiterate. Bragg married his money.
To make a short story longer. I see more puffy generals (politicians, usually)on the Union side than I see on the Confederate. And none of those approximate the practice of purchasing a commission.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Upton was a graduate of the Point and was later an instructor there, IIRC he was also the Commandant. I'm away from my references at the moment; so I don't recall the dates. The info may have come from Stephen Ambrose's excellent Biography of the man or from one of the other sources I read while I was researching the man.
Now as to aid for the CS from France or England...
France was having some issues in Mexico... and not faring terribly well. If the Juaristas could consistantly put the hurt on the French Army imagine the effect of a Union force.
England had troops spread all over the world with a small army. There was serious unrest in India only a few years prior. Yes England had some of the finest arms in the world... so did the US. The Army leadership was abysmal and had been for some time. Could England have caused major issues for the Union? Yes w/ the Navy along the coast. Remember what kind of bombardment Ft Sumter held out against. That said the Forts around Mobile & New Orleans were quickly and relatively easily bypassed and captured. Would the frots outside prominant Eastern Seaboard cities have been as easily run? It's a what if, but the Brit track record for taking fortifications was not real good at the time (same for the French)... Sevestapol comes to mind.
The US Army was largely a veteran organization by 1863... and French or English intervention would have seriously galvanized the US. Nations like Russia might well have jumped at the chance to humiliate the English & French after the Crimea. Germany had desighns upon France... Chances of France or England winning a war in the US? A serious what if.
An interesting possobility for a WWI in 1863 instead of 1914.
US, Russia & Prussia/Germany vs CS, France & England... serious what if.
__________________ Shane Christen
American Legion Post 352
SUVCW Camp Abernethy# 48
Lifetime NRA member
3rd MN VI
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. Eccl 1:18
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
If the Confederate founding fathers at the beginning of secession, saw the need for great European military support, that was one of the grandest errors perpetuated during the Civil War.
Great Britain and France never did give much solid aid to the Confederacy for it to win the war. In fact the Civil War, as it continued, indirectly aided European's future colonial empires, by guaranteeing that the U.S. would not have the resources to interfere, for many decades, in the colonial empires of the European nations.
Even as late as mid-1863, Lieut.-Col. Fremantle, on his trip through the south, from Texas to Virginia, was asked when the British would aid the Confederacy. He was too refined to ask if they knew the difference between slim and none.
The South also overestmiated the British need for American cotton. Ignoring the fact that a lot of cotton was coming from Egypt. England and France both had just recently outlawed slavery, at least in the home country, and were not all that sympathetic to it. Imho the best the British could have done would have been to break the blocade for a while. I don't think they could have won the war for the South.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
