Grant killed at Belmont

[Luke Freet]

I've been chatting with @SeanMichaelChick about an Alternate History scenario he considered way back in the day, based on an event at Belmont. During the retreat, Grant rode off to find a missing regiment, only to stumble into a squad of Confederates. Grant managed to escape, but he nearly suffered the fate of General McPherson 3 years later.

What if Grant had been killed in his first battle? The butterfly effects would be enormous. Sean and I may be critical of Grant, but it can't be denied he was a vital commander for the Union cause. His victories at Forts Henry, Donelson and Vicksburg are all pointed to as vital turning points of the war, ones which arguably doomed the Confederacy. How would events in the west, particularly along the Mississippi, transpire without him?

Mr. Chick came to the logical conclusion that Charles Ferguson Smith would take command of Grant's "Army" at Cairo, overstepping McClernand. Smith was a hero of the Mexican War, but was under a cloud regarding his strong connections to southern officers who joined the Confederate cause. Chick informed me that he was also responsible for picking Pittsburgh Landing as a camp site, and his reports may have been what convinced many officers that the Confederates wouldn't attack at Shiloh.

Alternatively, McClernand would take command by seniority. McClernand had ties to Lincoln, keeping up a correspondence with the president up through Vicksburg; keep in mind, Lincoln never sent a letter to Grant until after Vicksburg. However, he was no friend of Halleck, meaning their working relationship would be worse than Halleck's early relationship with Grant. I can imagine Halleck will try to sideline McClernand in some way, like he did with Grant after Donelson. Maybe McClernand is sent to the Army of the Ohio, or sent on recruiting duty.

Now, the big question would be the Fort DOnelson operation. Union forces would definitely take Fort Henry, but the question would be if Smith or McClernand would move on to Donelson immediately after as Grant had. Chick points to Grant's move onto Donelson as characteristic of Grant's generalship, of bold aggressive strokes. But it should also be mentioned that Grant had the backing of Elihu Washburne in Washington, and was more politically secure than C. F. Smith. Would C. F. Smith, someone with far weaker political backing than his former pupil, be willing to risk such an aggressive movement, or will he sit and marshal his forces for the next phase of the operation, buying time for ASJ to reinforce Donelson and Nashville?

The further butterflies of this are fascinating.

Additionally, another idea related to Belmont: reading A. P. Stewart's biography, I discovered that Leonidas Polk almost got himself killed after ordering one of the naval guns at Columbus to fire for his amusement, even though it still needed to be cleaned out. The crew did a rush job, and the cannon exploded, leaving Polk wounded, killing a few of its gunners.

What if not only Grant was killed at Belmont, but Polk as well? Polk's reputation in historiography has almost always been poor, as he often did poorly as a corps commander (Sean noted he did better at Shiloh than Hardee, and from what I read of Perryville, did well when he was effectively overseeing a single division). He also was considered an intriguer, the ringleader of the Anti-Bragg faction. Would his death improve things for the future Army of Tennessee? Or would there still be high command infighting with or without the bishop's influence or involvement?

I know it would open the door for someone to take over Polk's command at Columbus. The senior man present was Gideon Pillow...which may have been even worse. It means that we'd have a Bragg loyalist who actually sucks in a position of high command. He would get along with Forrest, somehow Forrest liked him of all people.

Just a scenario for people to munch on. I need to do a mountain of research into the early war in the west to say any more regarding this.

 

[G Low]

All that is pretty deep, throw in Sherman getting killed too and see what the butterfly effect does….

 

[gary]

Who else had the grit to take Vicksburg but Grant?

 

[Luke Freet]

All that is pretty deep, throw in Sherman getting killed too and see what the butterfly effect does….

Sherman was not at Belmont or Donelson, so that wouldn't be plausible.

 

[SWS]

I've always found the 'Lady Polk' accident interesting. Part of me thought that Johnston (considering he felt even true professionals such as Buckner and Hardee unsuited for independent command) would request a permanent replacement for Polk from outside the West. Dept. and that Davis would use the opportunity to 'exile' Beauregard from Virginia at an earlier date.

I'd love to see the Union give Johnston enough time to properly prepare Nashville's defenses.

 

[Library Lady]

Sherman was not at Belmont or Donelson, so that wouldn't be plausible.

But if you get rid of Grant, would Sherman have been as successful as he ultimately was? The sense I got from Robert O'Connell's Fierce Patriot is that he wouldn't have been, that he worked best as Grant's "wingman." The title of Charles Bracelen Flood's book Grant and Sherman: The Friendship that Won the Civil War leads me to believe that he didn't think Sherman would have been so successful without Grant, but I haven't read it yet and could be wrong. Remember that Belmont was very early on and Sherman was still being seen as kind of crazy, thus his later comment, "Grant stood by me when I was crazy, and I stood by him when he was drunk, and now we stand by each other."

In If the South Had Won the Civil War, MacKinlay Kantor kills Grant off by having him thrown from his horse and striking his head on a rock. Now, this is just before Vicksburg, so a different starting place. In Kantor's story, McClernand then gets command at Vicksburg and makes a total hash of it. Sherman is shot in the head and killed while leading a bit too close to the front.

 

[G Low]

Sherman was not at Belmont or Donelson, so that wouldn't be plausible.

Surely there's some place where we could get him killed?

 

[Saruman]

I've been chatting with @SeanMichaelChick about an Alternate History scenario he considered way back in the day, based on an event at Belmont. During the retreat, Grant rode off to find a missing regiment, only to stumble into a squad of Confederates. Grant managed to escape, but he nearly suffered the fate of General McPherson 3 years later.

What if Grant had been killed in his first battle? The butterfly effects would be enormous. Sean and I may be critical of Grant, but it can't be denied he was a vital commander for the Union cause. His victories at Forts Henry, Donelson and Vicksburg are all pointed to as vital turning points of the war, ones which arguably doomed the Confederacy. How would events in the west, particularly along the Mississippi, transpire without him?

Mr. Chick came to the logical conclusion that Charles Ferguson Smith would take command of Grant's "Army" at Cairo, overstepping McClernand. Smith was a hero of the Mexican War, but was under a cloud regarding his strong connections to southern officers who joined the Confederate cause. Chick informed me that he was also responsible for picking Pittsburgh Landing as a camp site, and his reports may have been what convinced many officers that the Confederates wouldn't attack at Shiloh.

Alternatively, McClernand would take command by seniority. McClernand had ties to Lincoln, keeping up a correspondence with the president up through Vicksburg; keep in mind, Lincoln never sent a letter to Grant until after Vicksburg. However, he was no friend of Halleck, meaning their working relationship would be worse than Halleck's early relationship with Grant. I can imagine Halleck will try to sideline McClernand in some way, like he did with Grant after Donelson. Maybe McClernand is sent to the Army of the Ohio, or sent on recruiting duty.

Now, the big question would be the Fort DOnelson operation. Union forces would definitely take Fort Henry, but the question would be if Smith or McClernand would move on to Donelson immediately after as Grant had. Chick points to Grant's move onto Donelson as characteristic of Grant's generalship, of bold aggressive strokes. But it should also be mentioned that Grant had the backing of Elihu Washburne in Washington, and was more politically secure than C. F. Smith. Would C. F. Smith, someone with far weaker political backing than his former pupil, be willing to risk such an aggressive movement, or will he sit and marshal his forces for the next phase of the operation, buying time for ASJ to reinforce Donelson and Nashville?

The further butterflies of this are fascinating.

Additionally, another idea related to Belmont: reading A. P. Stewart's biography, I discovered that Leonidas Polk almost got himself killed after ordering one of the naval guns at Columbus to fire for his amusement, even though it still needed to be cleaned out. The crew did a rush job, and the cannon exploded, leaving Polk wounded, killing a few of its gunners.

What if not only Grant was killed at Belmont, but Polk as well? Polk's reputation in historiography has almost always been poor, as he often did poorly as a corps commander (Sean noted he did better at Shiloh than Hardee, and from what I read of Perryville, did well when he was effectively overseeing a single division). He also was considered an intriguer, the ringleader of the Anti-Bragg faction. Would his death improve things for the future Army of Tennessee? Or would there still be high command infighting with or without the bishop's influence or involvement?

I know it would open the door for someone to take over Polk's command at Columbus. The senior man present was Gideon Pillow...which may have been even worse. It means that we'd have a Bragg loyalist who actually sucks in a position of high command. He would get along with Forrest, somehow Forrest liked him of all people.

Just a scenario for people to munch on. I need to do a mountain of research into the early war in the west to say any more regarding this.

If Grant had been killed at Belmont, I think McClernand would have assumed command of the Union forces at Cairo, as C.F. Smith already commanded at Paducah.

If Polk had been killed by the explosion of the "Lady Polk" cannon, then Pillow would have assumed command of the Confederate forces at Columbus.

In late November and early December, Pillow formulated a plan to attack Cairo with the support of the "Mosquito Fleet." He was worried about a Union offensive against Columbus and thought a pre-emptive strike would be the best strategy. He had been told that the Union gunboats at Cairo were not finished and would be vulnerable. It was a naive plan and Polk rightly dismissed it, but without Polk, perhaps Pillow would have done it.

So the next engagement may not have been at Fort Henry. Perhaps it would have been a clash between Pillow and McClernand at Cairo? (which I think would have been a disaster for the Confederates as well). McClernand may have become the next hero.

 

[DanSBHawk]

Without Henry/Donelson/Shiloh/Corinth, I think Halleck probably wouldn't have gone to Washington.

 

[SWS]

Interestingly, Pillow's early December proposal for an amphibious attack on Cairo coincides with Johnston's attempt to relinquish personal command of the AoCK to Hardee. Perhaps he'd be concerned enough with whatever Pillow was trying to do to go over to Columbus personally.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Would C. F. Smith, someone with far weaker political backing than his former pupil, be willing to risk such an aggressive movement, or will he sit and marshal his forces for the next phase of the operation, buying time for ASJ to reinforce Donelson and Nashville?

Donelson, like Vicksburg, is a trap. You only need enough men to prevent it from being taken by assault. Everyone else needs to be in the relief force.

As for Nashville: once Donelson falls can it hold out again Foote's gunboats, especially with the rivers riding high?

What if not only Grant was killed at Belmont, but Polk as well? Polk's reputation in historiography has almost always been poor, as he often did poorly as a corps commander (Sean noted he did better at Shiloh than Hardee, and from what I read of Perryville, did well when he was effectively overseeing a single division). He also was considered an intriguer, the ringleader of the Anti-Bragg faction. Would his death improve things for the future Army of Tennessee? Or would there still be high command infighting with or without the bishop's influence or involvement?

Biggest question I have about Polk dying early in the war is who ends up the other corps commander besides Hardee? Pillow might get along with Bragg, but I don't see him lasting. Maybe Breckenridge goes to Kentucky after all?

 

[Stryker65]

What I see happening here is...if Grant gets killed, does Albert Sidney Johnston survive? With a famed veteran as General Johnston staying alive, perhaps HE would have become the premier Confederate commander instead of Lee? A. S. Johnston was a mentor to Lee and many other officers, including even George Thomas.