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 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.
Yes. I agree. Destiny has a part to play in these matters. Grant was destined to greatness. No doubt about it.
You all don't seem to appreciate the distances involved and the vast amount of territory to cover. The Mississippi River is not only a lifeline for trade a commerce it is major thoroughfare for people too.
If Lexington falls, and Gen. Price is enabled to interdict the Hannibal-St. Joe Railroad and maybe even raid across the river into Illinois .....
All the while them barges full of explosives float down the Big Muddy and into the Yankee shipyards.
Boom! Ba-Da Boom! Boom BOOM!
St. Louis wasn't true blue boys. At best it was 1/3 Union & 1/3 Seccessist. More than 1/3 maybe even as much as 1/2 were Neutral. They wouldn't have put up with it. Yes, that 1/3 Union was armed to the teeth and organized into Dutch militia, but ..... They would've seen the light. They didn't owe no alligience to Whaa-Sheeen-tawn. They woiuld've fought for whatever side fed 'em or got 'em drunk.
This is just a snowball boys. It's rollin' down hill like that big muddy river.
I actually like the idea of the Yankees pullin' up roots and movin' down south to New Orleans, except New Orleans was Down South in the summer of 1861 and they would've had to go by Memphis and Vicksburg too. All the while tryin' to dodge them RAMS!
Louisville was in question from the start. Lexington was decidedly pro Southern. It wouldn't have taken much and them Green River boys would've done the same to Union forces in Louisville and the whole Mississippi River Valley would be Southern.
Lincoln might sue for peace, but he'd more likely get chopped off at the friggin' knees in the back room of some office building somewhere's on Pennsyvania Avenue.
and for those of you that don't think there were Guerrillas and Partisan Rangers east of the Mississippi River ......... Think Again!
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
In all reality McCulloch should have been with Price at and on the March to Lexington. He decided to take his "Regulars" back to Arkansas after Wilsons Creek because of the feud between he and Price. So pulling him wouldn't effect much further south. Pike was garrisoning the IT and probably could have been spared.
There were troops in Arkansas, Texas, Louisana that were being mustered into CS service during this time. But alot of these Regt's were being sent east to Virginia and Tennessee and Mississippi etc. they could have been left in the Trans -Miss.
The problem I see is that Richmond never really considered the Trans-Miss as anything more than a backwater and was not concerned or even aware of the possibilities unfolding.
I don't think Missouri seceding ends the war in 61. But it does force the Union tto open the Mississippi from the south and makes them fight up river instead of down.
You all ain't even addressed the first part. What precipitated this fight. Gen. Fremont had NO RIGHT to steal all that Gold. The US Government had NO RIGHT to steal all that Gold. Them people weren't in open rebellion against the Union. They were only exercising their God given right to resist oppression. Rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and taken away by Lincoln's Legions and invaders from Kansas.
I don't really think that the forced loan that Fremont levied against Lexington was the reason that Price marched on the town.
I think that the reason was it was the closest union force on the Missouri and there were still sympathic state guard units north of the river. I think the reason for the march was military and Price wanted to consolidate the State Guard for an advance into Central Missouri.
Price had occupied Lexington prior to Wilsons Creek after his commission by Gov. Jackson in May of 61. The State Guard units were being mustered in there and organized. However when Fremont ordered Lyons to rid the state of secessionist forces the State Guard was in no condition to fight Lyons or stall the advance he retreated to southwest Missouri in June. Lyons left Mulligan in Lexington to garrison it just as he had Garrisoned towns from St. Joe to St. Louis to deny the State Guard forces north of the river the opportunity to consolidate with Price.
The forced Loans and martial law that came after the Union defeat at Wilsons Creek was Fremont going off on his own hook.As he was apt to due during his tenure as Dept. commander. He not only managed to offend both Unionist and Secessionist in the state but also Lincoln who removed him.
I think Prices attack on the garrison at Lexington was purely a military decision.
I don't really think that the forced loan that Fremont levied against Lexington was the reason that Price marched on the town.
No doubt sir, you are correct. Militarily speaking Lexington was strategic not only because of the prominant bluffs and other terrain features that over look the river, thus making it a prime port facility on the Missouri River and ensuring or denying passage either up or downstream to any one side or the other. Lexington was the fourth largest city in Missouri at the time. It was a cultural center for Southern society. It was a riverboat town from the very begining of the western expansion movement.
"Pathfinder" sent Col. Mulligan to seize Lexington for the very reasons Gen. Price was there in the first place. For the very reasons why he went back there again and again. Lexington, Missouri was Key Terrain. Strategic. No Doubt About It.
Lexington was strategic for many many reasons, sir, military, financial and political.
The forced Loans and martial law that came after the Union defeat at Wilsons Creek was Fremont going off on his own hook.As he was apt to due during his tenure as Dept. commander. He not only managed to offend both Unionist and Secessionist in the state but also Lincoln who removed him.
This was a major escalation in the hostilities in the state at a time when tensions were very strained. We were on the verge of Civil War. Gov. Jackson was on the run. Old Pap was leading the boys back home victorious against Lyons when the dastardly deed occured.
Invaders in the dark of night waltzed into town and helped themselves to all that loot. Privateers from Illinois. I refer you to that game, "Razing the Town Square" I talked about in that thread on "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians". This is what they were playing here. This is what they had in mind in Lexington, Missouri. This is why they stole all that loot and holed up in the Masonic Temple and waited for re-enforcements. They figured Gen. Fremont was comin' with a Steamer and alls they'd have to do was dift back downstream with all that gold.
I suggest to you that Gen. Fremont's actions upon the Union Loss at Twin Oaks was barbaric and inhumane. It was Provocative and down right Evil and most certainly UN-Constitutional.
Upon lookin' at that composition list I linked to above, you might think Old Pap had as many as 40,000 men. Yeah, maybe. But he didn't have 15,000 rifles. Men and boys from all over the state congregated near Lexington in response to the theft of that gold. They came in bare feet, and weaponless. Poor defenseless soals put upon by a ruthless tyrant hell bent on destroying them and their way of life for ever.
Don't miss the correlation I made to Lexington, Kentucky either sir. It goes further back. It goes back to Lexington, Massachusetts and the Old Dominion.
"Stand Your Ground" Lexington, Massachusetts, April 19, 1775
by Don Trioni
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 08-22-2007 at 11:43 PM.
I reckon there could be a case made for unconstitutionality in there somewhere.
Lots of what we would now call criminal activity during that war. On both sides.
When the shooting starts, civil law tends to get shoved aside. That doesn't make it right, but it is typical and normal--nothing that hasn't happened before and won't happen again. A discussion on the levy Fremont demanded of the town ought to begin with the seizures of Federal arsenals, mints, customs houses, ships, forts and other facilities in every state.
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
Missouri Governor Claiborne F. Jackson, Governor’s Proclamation to the People of Missouri, June 12, 1861:
“I hold it to be my solemn duty to remind you that Missouri is still one of the United States… and that meanwhile it is your duty to obey all constitutional requirements of the Federal Government. But it is equally my duty to advise you that your first allegiance is due to your own State, and that you are under no obligation whatever to obey the unconstitutional edicts of the military despotism which has enthroned itself at Washington.”
Ya'll are speechless. I must've struck a nerve. Hit the nail on the head.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Is there any doubt that "IF" the CSA had re-enforced the Missouri State Guard that St. Louis would've fallen and Kentucky would've sided with the South too?
Is there any doubt that "IF" the USA had to push up the Mississippi River, they would've NEVER gotten past Vicksburg?
Is there any doubt that Lincoln would've sued for peace and .....
We'd all be talkin' a might differently today?
Last edited by Ozark Iron John; 08-22-2007 at 11:11 PM.
In all their motley array there was hardly a uniform to be seen, and then, and throughout all the brilliant campaign on which they were about to enter there was nothing to distinguish their officers, even a general, from the men in the ranks, save a bit of red flannel, or a piece of cotton cloth, fastened to the shoulder, or to the arm, of the former. But for all that they were the truest and best of soldiers. Many of them, when just emerging from endured to the dangers and privations of the wilderness; and many had engaged in the hot strife which had ensanguined the prairies of Kansas.
Among them there was hardly a man who could not read and write, and who was not more intelligent than the great mass of American citizens; not one who had not voluntarily abandoned his home with all its tender ties, and thrown away all his possessions, and left father and mother, or wife and children, within the enemy's lines, that he might himself stand by the South in her hour of great peril, and help her to defend her fields and her firesides. And among them all there was not a man who had come forth to fight for slavery.
- Thomas L. Snead, on the Missouri State Guard in his book, Fight For Missouri.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
