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!
What tactics would Johnston have chosen with the well supplied, well armed ANV that he didn't use with the under supplied, poorly armed AoT?
Gunny: My opinion: JEJ was hopelessly hindered with his personal aversion to failure. His unwillingness to risk failure translated into an unwillingness to risk anything -- hence, do anything but maneuver and avoid confrontation. McClellan would have seen this and maneuvered JEJ into Richmond for a possible seige and early end to the war with the capture of Jefferson Davis. (Not. Richmond wasn't that important and Davis would have gotten out of Dodge.) But the fall of Richmond would likely have led to an earlier, less bloody, end.
Johnston simply didn't have Lee's audacity. He'd have never invaded anything. However, if one follows the theory that a defensive offense and patience would have diminished the Union's resolve, perhaps Johnston's style would have benefitted the Confederacy.
That Johnston didn't remain as head of the ANV is one of Neil's providential "incidents" that affected the course of the war.
__________________ 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
In addition:
Johnston's inactivity in the east would have made more Union troops available in the west. There would still have been about the same activity in the west -- the sweep from the Mississippi to the Atlantic would have been the same, and possibly bloodier.
Interesting thoughts, Gunny.
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
What if R. E. Lee had been killed after assuming command of the ANV, and J. E. Johnston had been placed in command.
What type actions might have resulted from his assumption of command.
For instance, would there have been a Gettysburg, Antietam, Wilderness?
What tactics would Johnston have chosen with the well supplied, well armed ANV that he didn't use with the under supplied, poorly armed AoT?
Jamie
Jaime,
Johnston had been seriously wounded in the right shoulder and chest at Seven Pines, May 31, 1862. He returned to duty as a department commander in December of 1862, but felt that he was not recovered enough to take the field as an Army commander at that time (Davis wanted him to take command whenever he was accompanying the army of Pemberton or Bragg; Johnston refused to do so).
As a result, Johnston would not be available for the period covering Seven Days -- 2nd Manassas -- Antietam -- Fredricksburg. If Lee had been wounded or killed anywhere in there, Johnston might have returned in the Winter of 1862-63. I suppose that if Lee had become a casualty before Fredricksburg, Johnston might have returned to command, but it is difficult to see where there might have been much change in that situation. Much more likely, IMHO, is that Jackson would have received the command.
Assuming Johnston came in early in 1863, I certainly can't imagine Chancellorsville as Lee fought it happening. Johnston would have retreated.
If Lee became a casualty at Chancellorsville, I cannot imagine that Johnston would have been pulled out of Mississippi and the attempt to rescue Vicksburg. Assuming Jackson then survived, you might see Jackson as the new ANV commander and he might lead an invasion of the North. However, I do not see how Jackson's style would deal with a deep invasion with an 80,000 man force. I think it would be too big for him.
If Lee had died at Gettysburg, I don't know how the ANV would have gotten back from PA. It would have been interesting to see what happened then. Johnston, if he came East, would have been purely on the defensive while Chickamauga and Chattanooga played out. Perhaps Beauregard would have come north from Charleston.
In 1864, in Virginia ... well, I think I'd agree with Grant's comment. After the vicious fighting at the Wilderness, he looked out across the smouldering field at Lee and the ANV, waiting for him to come on again. He said to his staff, "After two such days, Joe Johnston would have retreated."
Gunny: My opinion: JEJ was hopelessly hindered with his personal aversion to failure. His unwillingness to risk failure translated into an unwillingness to risk anything -- hence, do anything but maneuver and avoid confrontation. McClellan would have seen this and maneuvered JEJ into Richmond for a possible seige and early end to the war with the capture of Jefferson Davis. (Not. Richmond wasn't that important and Davis would have gotten out of Dodge.) But the fall of Richmond would likely have led to an earlier, less bloody, end. ...
The fall of Richmond would not lead to an immediate breakup of the Confederacy, but it would have been a terrible blow. Losing Tredegar would have been bad enough, but it gets worse. The Richmond-Petersburg position is like a cork in the bottle protecting the rest of the South. Lose it and the threats to the Confederacy multiply.
The Shenandoah Valley (at least the northern half of it) becomes an immediate lost area. If the Union wishes to, they will be able to attack it from three sides. That area will then become a new route into East Tennessee, Knoxville, and Chattanooga, advancing down the Shenandoah-Great Valley.
The Confederacy now faces the task of defending the North Carolina line against an attack from the North. Virginia is much more defensible with all the river lines. Also, the seacoast offers a constant danger that a flanking movement will cut in behind any Confederate force facing north.
McClellan's actual plan after taking Richmond, BTW, was to take the best part of his Army aboard ships and move down the coast overwhelming Confederate ports. This is essentially a variation on Scott's Anaconda plan, where the Confederacy will be crushed by a series of strategic/logistical moves, cut apart, dying of a thousand cuts.
In 1864, in Virginia ... well, I think I'd agree with Grant's comment. After the vicious fighting at the Wilderness, he looked out across the smouldering field at Lee and the ANV, waiting for him to come on again. He said to his staff, "After two such days, Joe Johnston would have retreated."
In which I can find this comment ? Perhaps in Grants memories?
--
If R.E.Lee was killed before Chancellorsville it could be Jackson taking command of ANV. I think Davis would see that ANV would be better lead with someone who KNOWS it, not some J.E.Johnston from west who was failing once and again....
In which I can find this comment ? Perhaps in Grants memories?
Hmm. I checked online and found this, from James Ford Rhodes (1848–1927). History of the Civil War, 1861–1865, published in 1917. The footnote is to Theodore Lyman, Milt. Hist. Soc., IV, 171. Lyman was a staff officer.
----
Next day Grant said to Meade, “Joe Johnston would have retreated after two such days’ punishment!” 5 In this remark was implied a wholesome respect for the redoubtable commander whom he had encountered for the first time. Neither general showed a disposition to attack, but Grant made arrangements to continue the movement by the left in a night march to Spottsylvania Court House. ...
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico_Davout
If R.E.Lee was killed before Chancellorsville it could be Jackson taking command of ANV. I think Davis would see that ANV would be better lead with someone who KNOWS it, not some J.E.Johnston from west who was failing once and again....
Well, I think you are probably right about Jackson. Johnston was still physically hampered by the recovery from his wound. But Johnston had also been in command of the forces that became the ANV for about half of 1861 and the first 5 months of 1862. Only his wounding at Seven Pines on 5/31/1862 brought Lee to the command.
Regards,
Tim
PS: Marechal Davout was always my favorite.
If were between Johnston and McClellan, there might never have been a battle in Virginia.
??
If it had been between them there might never have been a battle period.
I believe I read on this board somewhere that Johnston was the "retreating-est"
general of the war because he retreated towards Richmond and later towards Atlanta.
Hmm. I checked online and found this, from James Ford Rhodes (1848–1927). History of the Civil War, 1861–1865, published in 1917. The footnote is to Theodore Lyman, Milt. Hist. Soc., IV, 171. Lyman was a staff officer
That's a new one on me and I have read at least a dozen books on Grant.
Was tempted to consult John Y. Simon on it, but it's relatively small potatoes.
It does sound like something Grant might have said.
__________________ -
"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
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Joe Johnston 
? Perhaps in Grants memories?
Linear Mode
