Game-changers

Mark F. Jenkins

Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
Mar 31, 2012
Location
Central Ohio
The reasons that officers chose to "go with their state" or not were often intensely personal ones, and ones which literally divided families as brothers went different directions. There were a few individuals in key positions who, if they had decided differently, might have significantly affected the flow of events.

The classic example is the well-known fact that Winfield Scott favored giving command of the United States Armies to Robert E. Lee. Had the old warrior managed to sway Lee to his side, the course the war would have taken may have been very different.

Another one is David G. Farragut. While the small navy of the Confederacy might have given him no chance for distinction (though one wonders about the-might-have-beens of Captain Farragut of the CSS Alabama, for instance), his unavailability may have meant that New Orleans stayed Confederate.

Who are some other "game changers" if they had decided differently, either to go with their state when they historically didn't, or vice versa?
 
Another one is David G. Farragut. While the small navy of the Confederacy might have given him no chance for distinction (though one wonders about the-might-have-beens of Captain Farragut of the CSS Alabama, for instance). . . .
That's an interesting thought. Who else among seagoing officers during the war was a veteran of U.S.S. Essex and knew commerce-raiding in his bones?
 
George Thomas (Virginian in Blue) going with the Confederacy would have been a game changer. Can you imagine an Army of Northern Virginia commanded by Lee, with Jackson, Longstreet and Thomas as his corps commanders? And the Union war effort in the West would not have been anywhere close to as successful as it was historically if Thomas had not been in a blue uniform.

Another game changer would have been Josiah Gorgas (Pennsylvanian in Gray). Without him as Chief of Ordinance, the Confederacy would not have had sufficient arms or ammunition to carry on the war effort nearly as long as it did. As it was, he was perhaps the single most important officer in the Confederacy aside from Lee himself.

A third game changer would be John C. Pemberton (Pennsylvanian in Gray). Had he stayed loyal to the Union, it would have been a disastrous blow. . . for the Union.
 
William Tecumseh Sherman was teaching at the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning & Military Academy (now LSU) when Louisiana seceded. He was known to be sympathetic to the South and Southern institutions before secession.
 
William Tecumseh Sherman was teaching at the Louisiana State Seminary of Learning & Military Academy (now LSU) when Louisiana seceded. He was known to be sympathetic to the South and Southern institutions before secession.

I don't think his strengths as a strategist of total war would have been of much use to the Confederacy, which lacked the resources to put such a strategy into effect even if they had wanted to do so. Sherman was below par as a tactical commander.
 
I don't think his strengths as a strategist of total war would have been of much use to the Confederacy, which lacked the resources to put such a strategy into effect even if they had wanted to do so. Sherman was below par as a tactical commander.
I agree that Sherman wasn't among the best tactical commanders, but I think he is equal to or above a number of Confederate generals reaching corps or army level command. Also throw in an intangible - what happens if Sherman is not present when Ulysses Grant ponders his future in the army after Shiloh.
 
I agree that Sherman wasn't among the best tactical commanders, but I think he is equal to or above a number of Confederate generals reaching corps or army level command. Also throw in an intangible - what happens if Sherman is not present when Ulysses Grant ponders his future in the army after Shiloh.

Without Sherman during the battle of Shiloh, the Union line would have crumbled before enough troops could have moved into the Hornet's Nest area. The whole shebang might have been over after a few hours with the secesh watering their horses in the Tennessee. Grant's career might have been over. And I cannot see the Union winning without that guy. (Should we call him THAT GUY II?) I mean, THAT GUY II does seem to show up wherever the Union wins big. Musta been those cigars. Or maybe he was just that good.
 
How about if Winfield Scott had retained his youthful physique, and been able to vigorously lead the US forces south into Virginia in July, 1861, much as he led the US Army to Mexico City 15 years earlier?
 
Back
Top