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

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by ole

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 think the sticking point to that would be this.

When Fremont was appointed Department Commander it seems he coronated himself king of all he surveyed.

Many of Fremonts decision's such as the levies, the forced conscription of males in "Secessionist" counties and most notably his emancipation were not authorized by the federal goverment. So much so that Lincoln felt Fremonts actions would lose Missouri for the Union and removed him.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by Borderruffian

So much so that Lincoln felt Fremonts actions would lose Missouri for the Union and removed him.

Too Little; To Late. Maybe if they had drawn and quartered him, but simply removing him was too little, too late.

Halleck wasn't any better.

Besides, the ball was already kicked off. You can't put the geenie back in the bottle. You can't poke that Missouri Tiger with a big stick and expect him to curl up and purr.

History has covered up, white washed and expunged from the Official Record a lot that happened in Missouri that compelled this nation into a great and terrible Civil War.

We owe it to them boys to make sure their story is told. We owe it to ourselves to understand the truth about who forced US into this awful mess.

If you look through Blue lenses, you will never see the Truth and it will never set you Free.

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

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 .....

I think theres alot of doubt.

Missouri seceding or coming under CS control does not make the secession or taking of Kentucky an automatic conclusion. It's an even bet at best.

Federals getting past Vicksburg? Eventually they would have. The whole scenerio is great as far as control of Missouri goes but I think it's slightly over reaching in the assumptions that go beyond that.

The fact of the matter is that after Price gains control of Missouri the level of troop commitment and material is in the hands of Richmond. As is the Naval and port defense's in the Gulf where the Union is going to come in. The CS never really got a good cohesive Naval Force, blue water or River going.

The North is still going to over shadow the South industrially and in terms of manpower.

Short of the capture of Washington and himself Lincolns not suing for peace.

[ole]

Many of Fremonts decision's such as the levies, the forced conscription of males in "Secessionist" counties and most notably his emancipation were not authorized by the federal goverment. So much so that Lincoln felt Fremonts actions would lose Missouri for the Union and removed him.

Fremont's appointment was a political necessity, but he ought to have been shot rather than removed. Still, a military force faced with armed rebellion can be forgiven actions that would be decidedly illegal in peace time.

ole

[whitworth]

That is why the Confederacy lost in Kentucky, Missouri and Tennessee. Too close to navigable streams and the superiority of Yankee steamboats, bringing troops and supplies.

"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."

Riverboat town ! That ended any hope to control that area, with any large Confederate force. Culture can't beat a riverboat.


As I recall Missouri Governor Jackson died in Arkansas.

"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?"

Do pigs fly too!!! I don't see any reason to duplicate the great mistakes of the Confederate leadership, who thought in 1861, that it could militarily control anything for long in Missouri and Kentucky.
I'd suggest a study of steamboats and why the Confederacy could never hold Kentucky or Missouri for long. Lexington was a riverboat town. Yankee riverboat town. Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Island #10, Columbus, Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky, St. Louis, Nashville,and Memphis were all on navigable streams, controlled early in the war by Union steamboats.

Missouri was too far north, and too far west for the Confederate States to supply an army and maintain one in Missouri.
The Confederacy lost Missouri because the United States was a Riverboat nation.

[ole]

The Confederacy lost Missouri because the United States was a Riverboat nation.

And, because no matter how many reinforcements could be sent to Price (someone mentioned flying pigs), the Union could send more--on gunboats.

ole

[Ozark Iron John]

I am willing to bet that if St. Louis fell, New York City would've secceeded from the Union in the fall of 1861. Certainly Baltimore would've and that would've meant Maryland and with Washington city completely surround by the Southern Confederacy .......

Lincoln wouldn't have had the chance to sue for peace. His own party would've gotten rid of him and Hannibal Hamlin would've sued for peace.

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by whitworth

Riverboat town ! That ended any hope to control that area, with any large Confederate force. Culture can't beat a riverboat.



I'd suggest a study of steamboats and why the Confederacy could never hold Kentucky or Missouri for long. Lexington was a riverboat town. Yankee riverboat town. Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Island #10, Columbus, Kentucky, Louisville, Kentucky, St. Louis, Nashville,and Memphis were all on navigable streams, controlled early in the war by Union steamboats.

Alot of those gunboats involved in those fights had their keels laid in the yards of James B. Eads & Company in Carondelet Missouri in St Louis Co. beginning in October of 61 to include the mortar barges used to such great effect at Island #10.

So continuing in the "what if " vein instead of the what really happened vein.

If the south gets control of Missouri in early to late Sept. of 1861 it controls St. Louis and the confluence of the Missouri and the Missississippi. For awhile at least no Union gunboats go down river from Saint Louis. The Union losses the Eads yard which will have to move to Mound City Il. where Eads is having three vessels constructed by Hambleton and Collier Company. It puts a bite on the future of the Mississippi Flotilla until the Union replaces what was lost (Hambleton &Collier could not handle the same volume as Eads).

If Price is smart he fortifies the confluence at St. Louis and further up River at Chesterfield as a first line and then garrisons it like Lyon.

[Dred]

Originally Posted by Ozark Iron John

I am willing to bet that if St. Louis fell, New York City would've secceeded from the Union in the fall of 1861. Certainly Baltimore would've and that would've meant Maryland and with Washington city completely surround by the Southern Confederacy .......

Lincoln wouldn't have had the chance to sue for peace. His own party would've gotten rid of him and Hannibal Hamlin would've sued for peace.

And while we are at it... Canada capitulates in the face of a confederat fleet sent up the river to Toronto!!

c'mon man that's not even a what if, thats a southerners wet dream. Even "What ifs" have to keep some semblance of realism.

[Borderruffian]

Originally Posted by Dred

And while we are at it... Canada capitulates in the face of a confederat fleet sent up the river to Toronto!!

c'mon man that's not even a what if, thats a southerners wet dream. Even "What ifs" have to keep some semblance of realism.

Agreed. Lexington and the further advance might take out Missouri if the State Guard presses hard and if Richmond supports the offensive (Thinkin not, not important to Jeff and Crew when they have an Army outside Washington).

Maryland is not leaving the Union. Not near enough secessionist support.

Kentucky like I said 50/50 at best.

Missouri is not the key to southern victory. A big thorn in the side and a method to prolong the war.

Union still trumps on men and material. War is prolonged.

Why?

Not much industry outside of the STL in Missouri in 1861. Eventually the Union will retake St. Louis and it's all down hill from there.