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!
What would Beauregard have done next if he prevailed and won the Battle of Shiloh in 1862?
Would he have marched on to Nashville?
Would he have marched back to Corinth?
Would Grant's and Sherman's careers have been over for being caught off guard by the Rebels and losing?
Would a Victory at Shiloh added maybe another year to the war?
Optional thought:
What would Johnston have done next if he had been victorious at Shiloh and lived?
My thoughts: The only way for Beauregard (or Johnston) to win at Shiloh would have been if Buell was late coming up. Then they could have whipped Grant as a separate force. (Its my understanding that was the plan). Even if they had conquered Grant, however, they still would have had to face Buell. It really depends on what Buell does. He still had a large army and control of the rivers. With Union gunboats on the river, I do not think Beauregard could have completely captured or destroyed Grant's army so Buell would also have those troops. I think Beauregard would have had to retire, but with a much stronger force that he actually had.
Halleck would no doubt have taken command personally and screamed for reinforcements, then moved even slower than he actually did.
Some prolongation of the war, perhaps mostly because there would be no Grant to take command in the West and perhaps no Sherman, either. Some would argue that would open the way for Thomas to become the "star" which might be a good thing. Hard to say.
__________________ "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)
What an absolutely wonderful question! The war changed character at Shiloh. If Beau and Sid had prevailed, we might all be talkin' a bit slower. Shiloh (or Pittsburg Landing if you like that one) was a seminal moment.
The idea was sound: whip Grant before Buell comes up. It was possible. With one exception. Grant. Given his failings and miserable history, Grant was not one to fold. And, of such, is history made.
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
Since Beauregard was second-in-command, I am assuming he comes to command through Johnston's dath at the Hornets Nest. Beauregard had been one of Johnston's subordinates that favored retreating before the battle, because they assumed the army's advance had been detected and Grant's army was alert and prepared for the attack.
Most of the major tactical mistakes had already occured by that time (johnston's death) But the 'What If..' question assumes a confederate victory and as others have noted, the only way for Beauregard to have won, was to have, effectively, destroyed Grants army by driving it into the river.
Buell too late to save Grant but in time and with enough force, including the gunboars, to prevent a confederate crossing of the river would, IMO, be reluctant to continue Grants campaign.
Beauregard's ill trained army, badly supplied even before the battle would, in his opioion, I believe, be in no condition to try to cross the river in the face of the AoC and Union gunboats and have a viable chance to win. The reluctant decision would be to retreat' guaranteeing that Davis would replace him as soon as possible.
Halleck would stay as far away from a scene of disaster as he could. Buel would want to retreat, but Lincoln and the War Dept. would be reluctant and depending upon how quickly Beauregard retreated (and I am guessing it would happen sooner rather than late)
Grant and Sherman would be under a cloud for a while, but the contrasts with Buell and Halleck would not be long in showing up. Depending on how slow footed Buel continued to be after Beauregard's (assumed) retreat, Lincoln might see the necessity to replace Buell (if not Halleck) with a fighting general; hopefully it would be Thomas.
IMO the Northern war effort in the West would be stalled until Lincoln found replacements for the two slowest and most cautious senior generals in the army, besides McClellan (again, hopefully, with Grant reinstated; in times of crisis, quality, usually, wins out)
What an absolutely wonderful question! The war changed character at Shiloh. If Beau and Sid had prevailed, we might all be talkin' a bit slower. Shiloh (or Pittsburg Landing if you like that one) was a seminal moment.
The idea was sound: whip Grant before Buell comes up. It was possible. With one exception. Grant. Given his failings and miserable history, Grant was not one to fold. And, of such, is history made.
ole
Ole is right for Shiloh in the west is like Gettysburg in the east. Shiloh set the tone in the west for the union success and for rebel failure.
If the south had won with Grant's army being scattered or in the river, Corinth would have been safe for awhile and Beauregard could use the river to keep Buell at bay.
Beauregard could have threaten to move north using the river again to keep Buell at bay and threaten KY., MO. even Ill.
A victory at Shiloh would and added much time to the union quest to conquer the western parts of the Confederacy.
Think: When would Vicksburg have fallen to the union in 1864 instead of 1863? When would Atlanta have fallen to the union in 1865 instead of 1864?
The biggest prise would have been Grant's fall from grace. He most likely would never have commanded an army again maybe at the Corp. level at best..most likely he would have gone with Gen. Pope and fought Indians..
Could Gen. Halleck or Gen. Thomas have taken Vicksburg?
Would Sherman have March to the sea?
Shiloh sets the pieces on the board for the Union to when the war in the west but in the east as well...
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
The would the union have done for the rest of 1862 in the west if Beauregard had defeated Grant at Shiloh?
The Union command structure would have been discredited so men put in command but who?
Halleck would not have taken Corinth so he would not have been promoted to Washington to aid Lincoln.
What of the Army of the Cumberland and Gen. Buell would he have tried to cross the Tennessee river to challenge and defeat Beauregard of stay on his side of the river?
I beleive a loss at Shiloh the west would have remain a stalemate until following year. It would have added at least a year to the war plus no Grant maybe no Appomattox..
__________________
"States Rights are about States Wrongs" - Jesse Jackson
The historical perspective, says that Davis was as much in the dark as to who, of his Western Generals, was any better than any other. Whereas, although we know the quality of Grant, Thomas And Sherman, where was the 'Cream' to rise to the top of the confederate armies in the West?? (As far as Davis was concerned, the 'Only' Real General in the south, at that time, died at Shiloh)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
What would Beauregard have done.....? 
Linear Mode
