A prolonged Civil War?

[JSylvester]

To take a short break from my current timeline, I'd like to revive a scenario I've started pondering on (and abandoned) several times in the near future and put the rough timeline up for debate here: A prolonged Civil War starting with a divergence after the Battle of Nashville. Please feel free to chime in at any point!

-Hood somehow convinces Forrest to attempt a desperate attempt of a stand at Columbia, mainly to "preserve the honor" of the Army of Tennessee (and much more important to himself personally) to safe his legacy.
-During the 2nd Battle of Columbia (21st December, 1864), Hood (leading from the front) is mortally wounded, but the Confederates manage to check Thomas' pursuit, inflicting nearly 3,500 casualties while suffering less than 1,100 losses.
-A. P. Stewart takes over command and orders a disciplined retreat not towards Alabama, but in the direction of Georgia, aiming to reach Augusta and to link up with the forces facing off against Sherman at Savannah. Much less desertions occur and no furloughs are handed out during the retreat.
-The Army of Tennessee reaches Augusta on the 17th of January, 1865 with nearly 22,700 effectives in the ranks (about equal to the historical numbers as of 18th/19th January 1865).
-Hood's death leads Lee and Breckinridge to aggressively push for Johnston to be placed in command of the defenses of the Carolinas. Davis begrudgingly agrees and appoints him in mid-January 1865.
-In the end of January, 1865, the Army of Tennessee is reorganized in Augusta. Many depleted brigades from the western states are sent to Taylor's department (Granbury, Brantley, Deas, Sharp, Gibson, Featherston, Sears, Ector, Cockrell, and Reynolds as well as Forrest's cavalry). Other depleted formations are retained to guard Augusta (Maney, Strahl, Smith, Finley, Cumming, Stovall, Quarles). The remainder of the army, 11,700 effectives in three reorganized divisions under Cheatham, Bate, and Stevenson are sent to Branchville.
-The South Carolina Campaign includes battles at Pocotaligo (16th January), Rivers Bridge (4th February), and Columbia. Sherman is slowed down and finally repelled at the gates of Columbia, suffering total casualties of 13,300 men versus 4,300 on the Confederate side for the whole campaign. The Federals retire to Savannah and Sherman embarks the Army of Georgia in order to reinforce Grant at Petersburg (as Grant originally envisioned).
-The 2nd Battle of Fort Fisher on the 15th January results in a Federal defeat due to Conner's South Carolinians having joined the garrison (and not reinforcing McLaws in South Carolina due to the better shape of the Army of Tennessee). Terry's Provisional Corps is also sent back to Petersburg. Schofield's XXIII Corps is therefore not sent to North Carolina, but also assembles at Petersburg.
-On the 25th March, Grant throws his entire army group of 156,000 men against Lee's 58,400 defenders, breaking the defenses at the cost of more than 31,000 casualties. Lee's forces, having suffered over 9,000 losses, evacuate Richmond and Petersburg and head south to join Johnston. Grant orders the pursuit.
-The Mobile Campaign features the successfull defense of Spanish Fort and Fort Blakeley by a reinforced Confederate garrison. Canby has to abort the siege eventually after the outbreak of diseases.
-Forrest and two divisions of Wilson's corps fight a prolonged battle near Tuscaloosa on the 4th April, resulting in a draw. Meanwhile, Thomas advances with the IV Corps and another division of Wilson's cavalry on Selma.
-Walthall in command of the Selma defenses fights Thomas to a standstill on the 6th April, utilizing six depleted brigades formerly belonging to the Army of Tennessee as well as local militia and cavalry under Roddey.

My goal (if this were to be somewhat realistic) would be a final showdown between Grant/Sherman and Lee/Johnston in North Carolina where Lee's army is split and a large portion is forced to surrender, while Johnston, accompanied by Jefferson Davis, leads the survivors towards the west, ultimately hoping to ferry enough men across the Mississippi River and to prolong the struggle in the Trans-Mississippi-Theater.

Does this sound too ludicrous or might this result in an interesting and at least slightly plausible read?

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

-Hood somehow convinces Forrest to attempt a desperate attempt of a stand at Columbia, mainly to "preserve the honor" of the Army of Tennessee (and much more important to himself personally) to safe his legacy.

-During the 2nd Battle of Columbia (21st December, 1864), Hood (leading from the front) is mortally wounded, but the Confederates manage to check Thomas' pursuit, inflicting nearly 3,500 casualties while suffering less than 1,100 losses.

No sale. The entire scenario you've laid out would generously be described as wishful thinking.

 

[major bill]

A perlonged Civil War would likely have caused the Confedery addional damage. At some point the Union could overwelm the Confedery. IF t was a mater of manpower and production of war material.

 

[wausaubob]

Any prolongation of the war after December 1864 would have created an extremely dangerous situation for the remaining Confederates. The US administration could have easily changed its policy and declared the Confederates bandits and criminals no longer entitled to the protection of the law of war.

 

[Sheltowee]

Might be more effective if there was a foreign recognition/ intervention scenario?

If remotely possible- how would that have contributed?

 

[east_beast]

Considering the advantages the Union had, four years was already pretty doggone "prolonged".

 

[jepridgen]

Any post-Nashville scenario is too far fetched. Now, say Hood destroys Schofield, there is no Franklin, and something happens to Hood in front of Nashville. Maybe there's a drawn battle and Stewart pulls back and repulses a much reinforced Thomas near Columbia because Thomas would've received a ton of reinforcements from all over if Schofield's corps was destroyed or severely damaged.

The AoT was just too devastated to organize a defense after Nashville and honestly, probably after Franklin. Their best were gutted, and their most promising and arguably best generals were dead.

 

[Rhea Cole]

We do not have the imagine what kind of blood bath would have happened in a prolonged civil war. The contemporary War of the Triple Alliance in South America tells us all we need to know.

The loosing side lost 80% of the male population. Not a typo, that is an 8 with a 0. A slave army was loosed freedom to inflict horrors on the civilian population at will. In the South, no whites would have been left to rise in rebellion ever again.

Link:

War of the Triple Alliance: Bloodbath in Paraguay

Between 1865 and 1870, Paraguayan President Francisco Lopez took his tiny nation into war with Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

 

[Rhea Cole]

Any post-Nashville scenario is too far fetched. Now, say Hood destroys Schofield, there is no Franklin, and something happens to Hood in front of Nashville. Maybe there's a drawn battle and Stewart pulls back and repulses a much reinforced Thomas near Columbia because Thomas would've received a ton of reinforcements from all over if Schofield's corps was destroyed or severely damaged.

The AoT was just too devastated to organize a defense after Nashville and honestly, probably after Franklin. Their best were gutted, and their most promising and arguably best generals were dead.

Wilson's column of Spencer repeater armed troopers went where they wanted to go & did whatever they pleased. CSA soldiers who opposed them were lambs to the slaughter.

 

[east_beast]

You also have to consider the technology advanced coming down the pipeline. There was some usage of lever action rifles in the Civil War but in the years directly following the war they became widespread. Now imagine the Civil War but primarily with lever action rifles instead of of muskets. Woah boy. And you also have to realize that these rifles would largely of not almost solely flowing to the Union troops so a seriously prolonged war beyond 1865 becomes very difficult to imagine. Honestly it's difficult to imagine anything beyond 1865 that isn't an almost entirely guerilla effort.

 

[jepridgen]

Wilson's column of Spencer repeater armed troopers went where they wanted to go & did whatever they pleased. CSA soldiers who opposed them were lambs to the slaughter.

True, but Wilson's cavalry wasn't in top condition like it would be in spring of 65. If they were, Hood wouldn't have gotten anyone out but Forrest. Enfields and Springfields still had range on a Spencer carbine. The scenario I thought plausible to the OP was that an AoT not severely reduced by Franklin and not nearly destroyed at Nashville could've made the movement under AP Stewart described in his what if scenario.

I'd have to do a lot more study to comment on plausible moves once this theoretically intact AoT returned to Georgia.

 

[Rhea Cole]

You also have to consider the technology advanced coming down the pipeline. There was some usage of lever action rifles in the Civil War but in the years directly following the war they became widespread. Now imagine the Civil War but primarily with lever action rifles instead of of muskets. Woah boy. And you also have to realize that these rifles would largely of not almost solely flowing to the Union troops so a seriously prolonged war beyond 1865 becomes very difficult to imagine. Honestly it's difficult to imagine anything beyond 1865 that isn't an almost entirely guerilla effort.

By far & away the Spencer Repeating Rifle / carbine was the most common repeater in the war.

In the Paraguay War Argentinian lancers were armed with Spencer carbines. They were brigaded with ferocious pampas Indians whose weapon of choice was a fire hardened club. Old men & children opposed them. The tactic was for the warriors to swarm around & envelope their line. The lancers rapidly fired their Spencers & then rode down the panicked survivors with the lance. No quarter was given

Keep in mind that there were only 35,000 white males qualified to vote in South Carolina when the Articles of Secession were approved. Can't imagine that a Paraguayan style campaign of extermination would have left more than a fraction alive after the slave army was through with them.

 

[east_beast]

By far & away the Spencer Repeating Rifle / carbine was the most common repeater in the war.

Yep and those units had a huge advantage though the overall use of the Spencer made up a very small percentage of the small arms on the war. After the war, the Winchesters soon to follow would make the musket (and the Spencer for that matter) irrelevant in short order. I have a Winchester 1873 and 1892 myself.

 

[wausaubob]

As the end of the war approached Sec'y Stanton was considering arming the entire army with Spencer magazine rifles. That's one of the reasons there were so many surplus rifles. But the Spencer was only preliminary to the Winchester, in which the machining was perfected and the cost reduced. Improvements in artillery and the industrial engineering to produce the big guns was progressing. And then there was the Gatling device. If the primitive machine gun was mounted on platforms that could be raised and lowered, the operators could hide the gun until the opposition was advancing. Nothing that happened on land was going to affect the US Navy's pre-modern capacity to land troops anywhere and then shoot their way into any fort with combination of big guns and ironclads. Any continuation of the war past January 1865 was murder, to quote General Ewell.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Yep and those units had a huge advantage though the overall use of the Spencer made up a very small percentage of the small arms on the war. After the war, the Winchesters soon to follow would make the musket (and the Spencer for that matter) irrelevant in short order. I have a Winchester 1873 and 1892 myself.

As the end of the war approached Sec'y Stanton was considering arming the entire army with Spencer magazine rifles. That's one of the reasons there were so many surplus rifles. But the Spencer was only preliminary to the Winchester, in which the machining was perfected and the cost reduced. Improvements in artillery and the industrial engineering to produce the big guns was progressing. And then there was the Gatling device. If the primitive machine gun was mounted on platforms that could be raised and lowered, the operators could hide the gun until the opposition was advancing. Nothing that happened on land was going to affect the US Navy's pre-modern capacity to land troops anywhere and then shoot their way into any fort with combination of big guns and ironclads. Any continuation of the war past January 1865 was murder, to quote General Ewell.

The French bought a large number of Spencers that were employed during the Franco-Prussian War. I don't recall the exact details. What I do know about is the Spencer's long career as a sporting rifle in France.

I am sure that many of you will be as surprised as I have been at the robust hunting culture that exists in France. My brother's in laws regularly hunt deer & wild boar. The meat is a staple of their diet. In a photo showing the hunters gathered before a boar hunt there were a couple of rifles with a very familiar profile. When I got a close up look, sure enough, they were Spencers that are, I am told, valued for their reliability no matter what the conditions are.

As we know, boar hunting isn't for the faint of heart. They told my brother that they bring the Spencers to the hunt to honor their forebears who hunted with them. Not sure if anybody actually shoots boar with them now.

 

[JSylvester]

No sale. The entire scenario you've laid out would generously be described as wishful thinking.

I respectfully beg to differ at least slightly. Forrest (together with Walthall's rearguard) put up spirited defenses at Anthony Hill and Sugar Creek, taking advantage of the overextended pursuers under Wilson and stopping the Federals in their tracks. In my opinion this (not to speak of the later performance during the Battle of Bentonville) shows, that the Army of Tennessee had not yet fully lost its fighting spirit. Also, the disintegration of the army after Nashville seems to me to be somewhat of a myth. Hood entered the Battle of Nashville with around 18,900 effective infantry (including the command detached to Murfreesboro). On 20 January 1865, there were still more than 16,500 effective infantry in the ranks (without a doubt including many slightly wounded having returned).

Any post-Nashville scenario is too far fetched. Now, say Hood destroys Schofield, there is no Franklin, and something happens to Hood in front of Nashville. Maybe there's a drawn battle and Stewart pulls back and repulses a much reinforced Thomas near Columbia because Thomas would've received a ton of reinforcements from all over if Schofield's corps was destroyed or severely damaged.

The AoT was just too devastated to organize a defense after Nashville and honestly, probably after Franklin. Their best were gutted, and their most promising and arguably best generals were dead.

The goal is not to have the Confederates succeed in winning the war, but simply to prolong it as long as reasonably possible.

Wilson's column of Spencer repeater armed troopers went where they wanted to go & did whatever they pleased. CSA soldiers who opposed them were lambs to the slaughter.

Did Wilson's men have their repeaters during the Franklin-Nashville-Campaign already? Forrest seemed to be able to confront them just fine during that period.

 

[east_beast]

Yeah, Spencers are well known for their durability and reliability. Winchester just came along and ate their lunch with lighter, faster operating, and significantly cheaper rifles.

 

[Stryker65]

Based on what you've written, I don't think the Confederate government would allow half the army to be transferred or remain behind — they would also be ordered against Sherman.

Separately, Sherman's army, I think, would be too powerful to be defeated by just Hardee's force along with Cheatham's command. If they are, I would think they would retire to Charleston, instead of Savannah. With this development, were Schofield to be defeated at Fort Fisher, they would then most likely move to reinforce Sherman at Charleston, in order to prevent a Confederate siege of that place.

With regard to Grant, I would think that the 19th Corps would join the forces at Petersburg, and he might recall Terry's Provisional Corps. An assault at Petersburg, following the same structure as historically, I would think would not cause as many casualties as stated.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I respectfully beg to differ at least slightly. Forrest (together with Walthall's rearguard) put up spirited defenses at Anthony Hill and Sugar Creek, taking advantage of the overextended pursuers under Wilson and stopping the Federals in their tracks. In my opinion this (not to speak of the later performance during the Battle of Bentonville) shows, that the Army of Tennessee had not yet fully lost its fighting spirit. Also, the disintegration of the army after Nashville seems to me to be somewhat of a myth. Hood entered the Battle of Nashville with around 18,900 effective infantry (including the command detached to Murfreesboro). On 20 January 1865, there were still more than 16,500 effective infantry in the ranks (without a doubt including many slightly wounded having returned).

The goal is not to have the Confederates succeed in winning the war, but simply to prolong it as long as reasonably possible.


Did Wilson's men have their repeaters during the Franklin-Nashville-Campaign already? Forrest seemed to be able to confront them just fine during that period.

Have you heard of the December 5-7 1864 3rd Battle of Murfreesboro / Battle of the Cedars? Forrest & Bate were soundly beaten. They came close to being captured or killed themselves.

How, exactly was the Battle of Selma a Confederate victory in anyway whatsoever?

Bentonville was a case of criminal negligence on the part of the same deadwood that had lost every single battle the Army of Tennessee ever fought.

You are making these events out to be something they certainly were not.

 

[east_beast]

I honestly don't know how you come up with a scenario where the war continues past 1865 as anything other than a guerrilla war. The Confederacy was just absolutely out of resources to supply a proper army.