What if the CSA had re-inforced Gen. Sterling Price at Lexington, MO?

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by Dred

That's a pretty big assumption. The loss of Missouri to the union would not automaticaly make ALL the citizens confederates. You still would have the same make up of units and manpower going north and south. Maybe a little more to the south than what they had but not a large enough amount to make a difference. I'm not sure why you think Kentucky would follow, but if it did, same thing. You had some north, some south, the numbers of soldiers given would not have changed much.

What you are suggesting is that KY and MO become like LA was, a militarily occupied zone, and while that is feesible, what you have now is 2 more states in the confederacy they need to hold on to without a major boost in manpower to do it with. They were hard enough pressed as it was.

So what happens... you stall Grant a bit, takes him a bit longer to get to the meat of the confederacy and down the ole Mississip, since he has 2 more states to worry about. So you got what, one more year of war? Lincoln would not sue for peace without an imminate threat to DC, especially not that early in the war. MO and KY going to the Confederacy just doesn't put that much of a danger on it.
It all comes down to manpower, something the rebs just didn't have. Whatever states they held after the initial secession would make little difference in that, by that poit anybody in northern or border states that wanted to fight for the rebs had already left. So they lose a year later, with a few thousand more dead gallant souls on each side.

As a what if it has merits. The loss of Missouri would have given the CS the control of St. Louis one of the biggest ports on the Mississippi if Kentucky had followed suit theres no doubt that Cario probably become untenable for Union Forces giving the CS control from St. Louis to Naw' leans at least for awhile.

Missouri and Kentucky were both on the cusp and this might have given the south a bit more leverage.

I don't think it ends the war but it certainly can throw a wrench in the works for the Union.

And in August / Sept of 61 as far as Missouri goes the Pro-Southerners were still most certainly in the state and activly campaigning. Prices Troops were Missouri State Guard in CS service. He picked up a number of recurits during the march from Wilsons Creek to the Lexington fight. Jo Shelby would also pick recruits on his 63 raid, and Price again in 64.

While the logic of the east applies to Maryland maybe Kentucky Missouri is a little different. Confederate forces seemed to be able to attract recruits throughout the war.

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by Dred

Alrighty then.. confusion cleared up. I am easily confused, especially about an area of the war I don't know much about. (the west ) I guess I'll just have to stay out of this one on account of lack of knowledge...


/salute

Not your fault the Trans-Mississippi is a much maligned theater. Heck even Richmond and Washington gave it short shift.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

Confederate forces seemed to be able to attract recruits throughout the war.

A lot of that had to do with the ruthlessness and brutality of the Union sympathizing people in the state don't you think Borderruffian? Union militia, Redlegs & Jayhawkers from Kansas and Invaders from Iowa & Illinois were pickin' the carcass clean. Anybody that had anything to do with the Democratic Party, slavery or anyone who advocated seccession or the Southern cause were dealt with pretty high handedly. Halleck's Extermination Order and later, Ewing's infamous Order No. 10, were just overt forms of oppression. Those unionblue boys were playing all those games I talked about in that "crimes against Southern civilians" thread from the get go.

and I think you know it, Borderruffian.



P.S. Thanks for the compliment, Sir.

As a what if it has merits.

[ole]

An interesting "what if." However many speculative paths one follows, the "what if" is going to run afoul of Lincoln--there was no way he was going to lose St. Louis, Cairo or Louisville.

Someone ventured prolongation of the war had McCullough reinforced Price. (Dred?) That is my favored scenario. Other invasive moves would have been postponed to drive Price from Missouri. If anyone thinks Ewing's order was harsh, think what things might have been if Lincoln thought control in Missouri was being lost. (Shudder)

ole

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by ole

An interesting "what if." However many speculative paths one follows, the "what if" is going to run afoul of Lincoln--there was no way he was going to lose St. Louis, Cairo or Louisville.

I'll tell you what ole, "if" it had happened that'a way and all them "invaders" were fightin' over on the eastern side of the Mississippi River and raidin' and stormin' and runnin' rough-shod over all them good people of Illinois .....

You don't think Lincoln would've sued for peace?

St. Louis was Key Terrain. From St. Louis you could control the flow and dominate not only the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers but the Mississippi and Ohio rivers too. Lexington was the Key to St. Louis.

If the CSA had re-enfoced the Missouri State Guard in Lexington, Missouri .....

We'd all be speakin' a might differently today.

[ole]

You don't think Lincoln would've sued for peace?

Not a chance. And the idea of Partisans rampaging all over Illinois and Iowa is imaginative.

St. Louis was Key Terrain. From St. Louis you could control the flow and dominate not only the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers but the Mississippi and Ohio rivers too. Lexington was the Key to St. Louis.

Which is exactly the reason Lincoln would never let Missouri go.

If the CSA had re-enfoced the Missouri State Guard in Lexington, Missouri .....We'd all be speakin' a might differently today.

First question: With what?

ole

[Borderruffian]

McCulloch's troops out of Arkansas and possibly Pikes troops out of the I.T. would have been the reasonable choices for the 1st battle of Lexington.

[Dred]

If you pull these troops to reinforce Lexington, wouldn't you be pulling them from an area that also needed them?

With a force that large so far north and west, is it possible the Union fights its way North along the Mississippi river instead of south? Using New Orleans as a base. Possibly the assault on New Orleans would have happened earlier in 1861 instead of Jan, 1862 since the North would need it even more now as access to the River.

Then again, if that happens then the AoP is left alone facing the AoV and possibly a larger force out in the west to threaten it while Grant's army is f.a.r.t.her south and out of reach but left alone to its own devices in the deep south, almost unopposed depending on where the forces that are now in MO came from. How many states could Grant roll up before the forces in MO were sent back south to stop him anyways? And would it take so long that the AoP is defeated before Grant has enough of an impact on the south?

Time for the armchair generals to chime in

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by Dred

How many states could Grant roll up before the forces in MO were sent back south to stop him anyways? And would it take so long that the AoP is defeated before Grant has enough of an impact on the south?

Grant wasn't even in this fight Dred.
He was Partying Druknk for a Commission.

He actually was in northeast Missouri in the summer of 1861, but he didn't influence the goings on in Lexington. He was too busy punishin' Seccessh to worry too much about fightin'.

He came on the scene up there where they buried my old GrGrand Pappy with a whole troop of Illinois Cavalry and punished rebels all summer long.

No, don't get me talkin' about Grant. You all think I'm bad on Lincoln, You ought to hear me on Grant!

[Dred]

I realize Grant wasn't in this fight.. but this is a what if.. and since it would have been that particular army affected the most by loss of acess to the Rivers, it is likely that eventually Grant would be involved.