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!
Come on John, rationally you know that even if Missouri "Goes South'" IT AIN'T GONNA LAST.
Richmond is too focused on the war in Virginia. They will take all the troops and material east to protect and serve the landed gentry and give little thought to Missouri or the Trans-Miss.
^^^^^^Gee sounds likes Civil War Discussions now. Should we turn this into yet another J.B. Hood in Tennesse thread.
"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."
The Confederacy had an inadequate fresh water navy to control St. Louis. The Confederacy could never control the Mississippi in the St. Louis area, and also control the Ohio River, to prevent Union steamers of all types from coming from Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Wheeling. Memphis fell because the Confederate navy could not defeat the Union naval forces, which included rams that had steamed down the Ohio River, from Pittsburgh.
"I am willing to bet that if St. Louis fell, New York City would've seceeded from the Union in the fall of 1861. "
New York City is on the Hudson River with easy access by the U.S. Navy. New York City had politicians but no means of protecting any Confederates from naval bombardment.
"Lexington and the further advance might take out Missouri if the State Guard presses hard and if Richmond supports the offensive."
The Confederacy pulled out Missouri troops to protect Vicksburg. It neither had the great ability to supply any large army in Missouri for long, nor control the Mississippi to prevent Union supply to St.Louis or down the Missouri River.
What if the CSA had re-inforced Gen. Price at Lexington, Mo?
The border states received the special attention of President Lincoln very early in his Administration. The President was ready and willing to spare whatever it took to keep Mo. and the other Border States in Union.
A brilliant maneuver (Or luck) might have turned the war around in the West for the confederacy. But, the south would hav hade to work at it, Lincoln was not prepared to lose the Border States without a very big fight.
The south would need more than a few good moves or a lucky break or two, to offset the numerical and material advantages of the North, not to mention Lincoln's close attention.
"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."
The Confederacy had an inadequate fresh water navy to control St. Louis. The Confederacy could never control the Mississippi in the St. Louis area, and also control the Ohio River, to prevent Union steamers of all types from coming from Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Wheeling. Memphis fell because the Confederate navy could not defeat the Union naval forces, which included rams that had steamed down the Ohio River, from Pittsburgh.
"I am willing to bet that if St. Louis fell, New York City would've seceeded from the Union in the fall of 1861. "
New York City is on the Hudson River with easy access by the U.S. Navy. New York City had politicians but no means of protecting any Confederates from naval bombardment.
"Lexington and the further advance might take out Missouri if the State Guard presses hard and if Richmond supports the offensive."
The Confederacy pulled out Missouri troops to protect Vicksburg. It neither had the great ability to supply any large army in Missouri for long, nor control the Mississippi to prevent Union supply to St.Louis or down the Missouri River.
I said that no Union gunboats go down the river from Saint Louis for awhile.
If the CS had gained control of Missouri in 61 it would have gained control of the Eads yards and that coulda/woulda/shoulda put a damper for awhile on gunboats on the Mississippi.
Yes the Confederacy had an inadequate inland naval force but in Sept.-Oct 61 the US didn't ahve much of a Naval Force on the Rivers. Fitted out paddle wheelers could have transported troops but they don't do well against 12 or 24 lb solid shot from shore batteries.
Sept. 61 Vicksburg is not an issue yet the Missouri troops won't be sent there until after Pea Ridge and even then they'll fight in Northern Mississippi first.
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.
Maryland show troubling little inclination to furnish troops to the south...The idea NYC, despite some posturing from the mayor and some Democrats, never would have happened, and you know it...the only way out was to free the slaves then seek European help...the south was never gonna do this on their own....MO couldnt even get it together which side they were gonna fight on..I believe more MO troops fought for the Union...as did KY troops, tho my heart is with the Orphans..but historically speaking...youre fighting a war long over and your conjectures are less than fact based.
Yes the Confederacy had an inadequate inland naval force but in Sept.-Oct 61 the US didn't ahve much of a Naval Force on the Rivers. Fitted out paddle wheelers could have transported troops but they don't do well against 12 or 24 lb solid shot from shore batteries.
You sir, grasp the potential of what I suggest.
Folks that focus on the Eastern Theater still have a hard time understanding the importance of the Trans-Mississippi Theater.
If the South had secured control of Lexington, Missouri in the fall of 1861 ....
St. Louis would've gone with the South thus denying the Union passage on not only the Missouri river, but the Mississippi River as well.
I believe Louisville, Kentucky would've gone South thus denying the Union free flow on the Ohio river too.
If St. Louis and Louisville go South its only a matter of time before the slave holding Peace Democrats in southern Illinois succeed in throwing the Tyrant out.
I'd like to run this up with them CGSC boys at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and see what they have to say about it. I reckon they'd think,
You're essentially saying that the Confederates can choke the Federals by cutting off their rivers. This of course would be very true, BUT the problem is that the true importance of the rivers in the region is to get to New Orleans, and the Confederates in 1861 obviously have that blocked off. I think ultimately the problem with your analysis is that you're assuming a decisive effect in the Trans-Mississippi will have a decisive effect beyond it. Hey, it could be, but at the time, the area just isn't as significant as the more populated areas.
If the South had secured control of Lexington, Missouri in the fall of 1861 ....
It would have been back in Union hands a month later.
Quote:
If St. Louis and Louisville go South its only a matter of time before the slave holding Peace Democrats in southern Illinois succeed in throwing the Tyrant out.
Great big ifs. The slave-holding Peace Democrats in Southern Illinois managed to field about two companies of cornfeds. And they're going to unseat Lincoln? Dreaming.
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
If the South had secured control of Lexington, Missouri in the fall of 1861 ....
St. Louis would've gone with the South thus denying the Union passage on not only the Missouri river, but the Mississippi River as well.
I believe Louisville, Kentucky would've gone South thus denying the Union free flow on the Ohio river too.
If St. Louis and Louisville go South its only a matter of time before the slave holding Peace Democrats in southern Illinois succeed in throwing the Tyrant out.
I'd like to run this up with them CGSC boys at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and see what they have to say about it. I reckon they'd think,
Your over reaching. Lexington does not even insure the secession or CS control of Missouri. There has to be an immediate and positive response from Richmond in troops and material from the Trans-Miss being sent east being allowed to remain in the Trans-Miss.
Lexington is a good jumping off point for control of Missouri but thats all.
On the whole it effects nothing east of the river.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
