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 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 the early fall of 1864 Thomas was sitting in Nashville, no longer needed as a supply vehicle as soon as Grant left for Savannah. The Army of Tennessee was in the best position for action while Hood deliberated his move from the vicinity of Rome, Georgia. He went west. The war was in the east. That was checkmate. Game over. The AOT should, in MHO, have taken a course for Augusta and Charlotte on the way to bypass Sherman and move to Lee's aid against Grant. Much more agreeable neighborhood and the railroads were still functional under Confederate control.
__________________ Ancestors in US Army: 13th TN Cav; 10th TN Cav; 3rd NC Inf
Ancestors in CSA Army: 48th VA; 63rd VA, 5th NC Cav; 37th NC
Wife and Grandson's CSA: 15th AL, 51st GA, 41st TN; 36th TN; GA Mil 1197 Dist
Last edited by larry_cockerham; 02-12-2008 at 01:47 AM.
Makes good sense, Larry. I take back that remark about you're being an idiot.
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
In the early fall of 1864 Thomas was sitting in Nashville, no longer needed as a supply vehicle as soon as Grant left for Savannah. The Army of Tennessee was in the best position for action while Hood deliberated his move from the vicinity of Rome, Georgia. He went west. The war was in the east. That was checkmate. Game over. The AOT should, in MHO, have taken a course for Augusta and Charlotte on the way to bypass Sherman and move to Lee's aid against Grant. Much more agreeable neighborhood and the railroads were still functional under Confederate control.
So if I am understanding correctly, you are saying that Thomas is sitting there with an idle army which isn't really doing anything to aid the Union cause, and by Hood's move into Tennessee, he is essentially throwing an army needed by the Confederacy elsewhere against a foe content to sit there on his ... instead of striking against the army which is actually doing him damage?
I hadn't thought of it that way, but it makes sense... or rather, it doesn't make sense, if you know what I mean.
__________________ "There must be more historians of the Civil War than there were generals figthing in it... Of the two groups, the historians are the more belligerent." David Donald, Lincoln Reconsidered (1961)
I have to respectfully disagree that the war was in the East. I think the game was essentially up by Oct-Nov 1864 for Lee. Badly outnumbered by Grant, Lee was being choked to death. Even if Hood shows up Grant could detach part of the Army of Potomoc to deal with him. Frankly, many of the Union boys would have rather been actively engaged rather than sitting in the trenches.
As it turned out, the Army of Tennessee, regardless of its commander, was in a real fix. Offering assistance to Lee is virtually abandoning the West and Sherman is not going to be stopped as he moves toward Savannah.
Here's an idea (and the Johnston supporters will hate me for this). Put Johnston back in command in Sept 1864, let him try and stop Sherman, and Savannah falls in perhaps February instead of Christmas. End result is the same.
Hood striking toward Nashville and trying to liberate Middle Tennessee remained, in my opinion, the best option. Would you rather move toward a town that was garrisoned by 8,000 (with the potential of significant reinforcement) or deal with Sherman's 60,000 or Grant's 100,000 already in place?
In the long run, Johnston's plan was, probably, the best. Conserve confederate manpower and wait out the rest of the war that was obviously lost i.e., save as many lives as possible, to help rebuild the south, after the war.
In which case it would have been better to retain Johnston in command of the AoT.
So are you saying that Johnston never really had intention of fighting to save Atlanta? If so, that's an interesting argument because Johnston always claimed he had a plan to fight for Atlanta, but there is no real evidence to support that.
Or are you saying that by retaining Johnston thru the fall of Atlanta he would have just laid back, done nothing to turn the tide, and waited for the curtain to fall? I'm no Johnston fan, but this analysis really undercuts him.
Just my opinion; but, Yes, I do believe that Johnston had no real intention of defending Atlanta.
We can get into a fine psychological discussion about, how much or how little Johnston was 'aware' of his subliminal feelings, during his retreat to Atlanta.
But were have a fairely complete history of Joe Johnston during the CW and nothing in it leads me to believe that Johnston did not think of Atlanta as anything other than a geographical spot on a map.
Except for his post-war reminescences, we have no extant proof that he would have Not been flanked out of Atlanta, if he had retained command.
Hood's experiences is some kind of proof that Johnstons feelings (instincts) were correct about trying to defend what was essentially an indefensible city.
If Atlanta was not worth defending what else in the West was worth it.
You and I definitely agree about Johnston not fighting for Atlanta. I think Atlanta was worth defending, but by mid-July 1864 the goose was well past bubbling. As I have to more than a few people, Lee may have stopped McClellan at the gates of Richmond, but Hood was no Lee and Sherman and definitely no McClellan.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
