What if the USA had a standing army in 1861

MikeyB

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
American tradition did not subscribe to a large, standing professional army. And the United States Regulars were strung across the country all the way to the frontier with very little concentration.

What if the USA had even a modest, concentrated standing army in 1861? If Lincoln had 15,000 professional soldiers, readily available to concentrate and play with, could he have routed the rebels at Bull Run and quickly made a move into Richmond and chopped the rebellion off immediately? Could he have made a more forceful move at Fort Sumter and asserted Federal authority in South Carolina? Could he have occupied some of the upper South states and maybe kept a couple more in the Union?

QUESTION: Do 15,000 professional Union soldiers in Washington in January 1861 have any chance of stopping the rebellion very quickly in its tracks?
 
In fact, the Regular US Army contained about 16,000 officers and men in 1860. True, they were spread out in many frontier posts but even had such a force been concentrated in Washington City in early 1861, would that have made any significant difference to the early course of the war? To be sure, Lincoln's initial call for 75,000 state militia was prompted in part by his concern for the safety of Washington, and indeed, disruption of the supply chain through Baltimore was a real problem until sufficient forces could safeguard Washington.
 
how many of 15000 will remain loyal to USA with president A.Lincoln??

The real problem here would be the loyalty of the officer corps. In actual fact, the numbers are something like 1/3 of Regular Army officers resigned their commissions to fight for the south (an option that was not available to enlisted ranks.) So the command situation made no real difference whether the US had a standing army or volunteer army at that stage of the war.
 
You postulate "concentrated," so lets say in the Philadelphia area. The previous President showed no heart for using force, so we can assume that nothing would change until Lincoln took office. Lincoln would still need to call for troops from all still-loyal states and we can assume the departure of the later states. At that point, Lincoln could use his standing army to march on Richmond, using any of several routes. Virginia could only stop the advance by using its militia, not concentrated, trained or organized yet.

With speed and boldness, the US captures Richmond and everything changes too much to guess at. Without speed and boldness, the quick strike does not take place and we revert to the historical war, with 1st Manassas not having to be fought when it was -- Lincoln now had the US army to keep Washington secure while a real army is formed. Again, we head into the fog of war with no guide.
 
Another option:

Prior to the inauguration, Lincoln makes it clear that the government will not tolerate the armed lawlessness showing up in the deep South. The day after the inauguration, Scott is ordered to suppress the lawlessness, using the armed forces of the government. With Lincoln's prior warning, and the fact that a standing army must be able to move to the location of action (and therefore will have planned for rail and ship movement during peace), the army is transported to Charleston, covered by a couple of warships (USS Shawnee is mentioned frequently as particularly capable and scary). They would arrive about March 31, sail straight to the docks and debark. Fighting? Maybe, but how many guns are ready to fire on that date? Run past them and debark -- dagger to the heart of the rebellion.

Who knows after that, but a few rebels in jail, Charleston taken, and the upper South still on the fence....
 
Another option:

Prior to the inauguration, Lincoln makes it clear that the government will not tolerate the armed lawlessness showing up in the deep South. The day after the inauguration, Scott is ordered to suppress the lawlessness, using the armed forces of the government. With Lincoln's prior warning, and the fact that a standing army must be able to move to the location of action (and therefore will have planned for rail and ship movement during peace), the army is transported to Charleston, covered by a couple of warships (USS Shawnee is mentioned frequently as particularly capable and scary). They would arrive about March 31, sail straight to the docks and debark. Fighting? Maybe, but how many guns are ready to fire on that date? Run past them and debark -- dagger to the heart of the rebellion.

Who knows after that, but a few rebels in jail, Charleston taken, and the upper South still on the fence....

Yeah, it is interesting. If Lincoln had the forces and power to strike down a rebellion in the spirit of Andrew Jackson while it was a green, unorganized group of glorified militia before it develops into the modern day ANV. If the Union army is in Richmond or Charleston, you may have a lot of angry firebrands, but can you cut the rebellion in its tracks. Lincoln promises again to maintain slavery where it exists, Union preserved
 
Another option:

Prior to the inauguration, Lincoln makes it clear that the government will not tolerate the armed lawlessness showing up in the deep South. The day after the inauguration, Scott is ordered to suppress the lawlessness, using the armed forces of the government. With Lincoln's prior warning, and the fact that a standing army must be able to move to the location of action (and therefore will have planned for rail and ship movement during peace), the army is transported to Charleston, covered by a couple of warships (USS Shawnee is mentioned frequently as particularly capable and scary). They would arrive about March 31, sail straight to the docks and debark. Fighting? Maybe, but how many guns are ready to fire on that date? Run past them and debark -- dagger to the heart of the rebellion.

Who knows after that, but a few rebels in jail, Charleston taken, and the upper South still on the fence....
Did you mean USS Pawnee?
 
Yeah, it is interesting. If Lincoln had the forces and power to strike down a rebellion in the spirit of Andrew Jackson while it was a green, unorganized group of glorified militia before it develops into the modern day ANV. If the Union army is in Richmond or Charleston, you may have a lot of angry firebrands, but can you cut the rebellion in its tracks. Lincoln promises again to maintain slavery where it exists, Union preserved

There's a thought.

But I still think the slaveholding South was a bit more militant, more able to respond to an invasion from the North, even if it were possible to gather all 15,000 men, the needed ships for transport, and all the support equipment and rations needed to mount such an expedition.

Anyone remember how many troops Andrew Jackson was thinking about deploying to South Carolina during the tariff crisis of 1832?
 
There's a thought.

But I still think the slaveholding South was a bit more militant, more able to respond to an invasion from the North, even if it were possible to gather all 15,000 men, the needed ships for transport, and all the support equipment and rations needed to mount such an expedition.

Anyone remember how many troops Andrew Jackson was thinking about deploying to South Carolina during the tariff crisis of 1832?
You are ignoring the OP -- concentrated standing army. If you are going to keep them concentrated, they are going to make plans for moving to areas of operation. I suggested they would be near Philadelphia, so both rail and water transportation would be easy to plan for and acquire when the government is not using it for other needs (ie blockade, supply of other deployed troops, etc).
 
You are ignoring the OP -- concentrated standing army. If you are going to keep them concentrated, they are going to make plans for moving to areas of operation. I suggested they would be near Philadelphia, so both rail and water transportation would be easy to plan for and acquire when the government is not using it for other needs (ie blockade, supply of other deployed troops, etc).
Well we have to look at the original intention of the Framers, that all of the state militias would be rallied against the federal army, if any one state were invaded.
So if a well-regulated militia of every male citizen between the age of 18 and 45 were ordered by the state governments to rally against the federal army of 15,000, what do you think would happen?
 
You are ignoring the OP -- concentrated standing army. If you are going to keep them concentrated, they are going to make plans for moving to areas of operation. I suggested they would be near Philadelphia, so both rail and water transportation would be easy to plan for and acquire when the government is not using it for other needs (ie blockade, supply of other deployed troops, etc).

@DaveBrt ,

No, I honestly think I am not ignoring such a concept.

I just recall a somewhat similar concept tried during the Revolution

As I recall, a tremendous fleet of British ships and troops, all concentrated at New York city, did initially did achieve some success.

But the rest of those stubborn, scattered farmers and shopkeepers eventually managed to rally (with French and Spanish help, I will admit), hold out for years and win their revolution.

What would stop the South in 1860 from doing the same, even against a concentrated force ready to spring into action?

Is it your contention that the early action of such a force would quell ALL resistance in the South?

Might I suggest a read of the book, The Militant South, by John Hope Franklin? This may suggest a deeper spirit of defiance of the Southern people at that time.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 
@DaveBrt ,

No, I honestly think I am not ignoring such a concept.

I just recall a somewhat similar concept tried during the Revolution

As I recall, a tremendous fleet of British ships and troops, all concentrated at New York city, did initially did achieve some success.

But the rest of those stubborn, scattered farmers and shopkeepers eventually managed to rally (with French and Spanish help, I will admit), hold out for years and win their revolution.

What would stop the South in 1860 from doing the same, even against a concentrated force ready to spring into action?

Is it your contention that the early action of such a force would quell ALL resistance in the South?

Might I suggest a read of the book, The Militant South, by John Hope Franklin? This may suggest a deeper spirit of defiance of the Southern people at that time.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
I think it impossible to know what would happen after the first move and that is why I stopped at that point. The SC rebellion collapsed the first time because all the other states backed away. Maybe that would have happed again with a president willing to take aggressive action ----- and maybe not. Just fun What ifs...
 
I think it impossible to know what would happen after the first move and that is why I stopped at that point. The SC rebellion collapsed the first time because all the other states backed away. Maybe that would have happed again with a president willing to take aggressive action ----- and maybe not. Just fun What ifs...

Agreed.

Which is why I just love Alternate History books. :smile:
 
People

I think the big problem is that while 15,000 men might be enough to seize Charleston is it going to cower the other states or provoke them? Jackson's threat back in the 30's found S Carolina isolated and it backed down. Here, if Lincoln is clearly the 1st to use force then I suspect that you could even get more states joining the rebellion. OTL several states only became rebels after Lincoln made clear he would use force and you could see others joining in. Plus if the entire military at Lincoln's power is in S Carolina what happens with Washington when pro-southerners in Maryland kick up a stink? Not to mention it sounds like this force is stationed somewhere permanently, which I can see upsetting a lot of people who see it as a way for the president to threaten civil liberties.

I'm also presuming that the 15,000 isn't the entire army as there would need to be others out west else there's going to be a lot of other people upset. Plus since a lot of officers and other ranks were from the south how many are doing to defect one way or another? With the added problem here of them leaking the plans of the attack to all and sundry, both giving at least some time for S Carolina to prepare and for Congress to kick up a real storm.

Steve
 
@DaveBrt ,

No, I honestly think I am not ignoring such a concept.

I just recall a somewhat similar concept tried during the Revolution

As I recall, a tremendous fleet of British ships and troops, all concentrated at New York city, did initially did achieve some success.

But the rest of those stubborn, scattered farmers and shopkeepers eventually managed to rally (with French and Spanish help, I will admit), hold out for years and win their revolution.

What would stop the South in 1860 from doing the same, even against a concentrated force ready to spring into action?

Is it your contention that the early action of such a force would quell ALL resistance in the South?

Might I suggest a read of the book, The Militant South, by John Hope Franklin? This may suggest a deeper spirit of defiance of the Southern people at that time.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Unionblue

Well possibly not the best example. :wink: The Union is likely to be more militant that the British were initially, as they will view it as a rebellion to suppress by force rather than civil distrubances to be handled by limited force. Also its unlikely that the south would get the support that the rebels got in the 1770's from France especially. Both tying down the bulk of the British forces and supplying the guns, artillery, powder, gold etc that the rebellion needed. But then we're probably getting off topic there.

However one other possibility is that there would be widespread unrest and guerilla actions in some ways or another and 15,000 men isn't anywhere near enough to hold down S Carolina I suspect let alone a wider rebellion. With the south not battered by years of war this could be one way of achieving what another thread suggested, a widespread low level resistance to an occupying army.

Steve
 
Back
Top