Texas stays in the Union

[david3565]

You don't have to take a city. You just take what you need and then burn it to the ground and move on. And even if you were to take a city, you're forcing the North to expend forces on re-taking its own turf, rather than taking your turf.

The South could then cause attrition for the North in the siege while harassing then with the superior guerilla capbility. Not the wisest strategy long-term, as they would most likely loose an entire army in the process, but it does demonstrate the flexibility of the situation and the danger posed by having the enemy in your back yard, superior defenses or no.

Wrong to take a city you either have to storm it (and the Confederates never had enough men to do that) or siege it. The problem is that both solutions take time and even with just railroads and telegraphs you have only a short time before the Union army surrounds YOU and cuts you off from supplies. Trying to take a Northern city would have only ended up in disaster.

 

[Brilliantlight]

You don't have to take a city. You just take what you need and then burn it to the ground and move on. And even if you were to take a city, you're forcing the North to expend forces on re-taking its own turf, rather than taking your turf.

The South could then cause attrition for the North in the siege while harassing then with the superior guerilla capbility. Not the wisest strategy long-term, as they would most likely loose an entire army in the process, but it does demonstrate the flexibility of the situation and the danger posed by having the enemy in your back yard, superior defenses or no.

1) I don't see what that accomplishes except making sure there is NO chance of European intervention and gelling the Union. You just made Lincoln's job a WHOLE lot easier.

2) MUCH easier said then done, before you get to the city proper you will have to get too close to towns and villiages. Even in the 1860s you don't go strictly rural to metropolitian in a few miles. Once you start getting closer to the cities you WILL get spotted and a telegraph message goes across the wire to send for troops. You will also probably start having more and more inhabitants shooting at you.

 

[david3565]

1) I don't see what that accomplishes except making sure there is NO chance of European intervention and gelling the Union. You just made Lincoln's job a WHOLE lot easier.

I don't exactly understand your reasoning here. The British were actually waiting for a decisive victory to decide whether to ally with the CSA. The near-taking of DC was viewed in the South as an opportunity to convince them.

2) MUCH easier said then done, before you get to the city proper you will have to get too close to towns and villiages. Even in the 1860s you don't go strictly rural to metropolitian in a few miles. Once you start getting closer to the cities you WILL get spotted and a telegraph message goes across the wire to send for troops. You will also probably start having more and more inhabitants shooting at you.

Actually the armies were typically to far away and mobile to use telegraphs. They typically used rider dispatches. And the population density meant that you could potentially avoid such small towns. Or you could just send smaller forces ahead to cut telegraph lines outside the towns in question.

 

[Brilliantlight]

I don't exactly understand your reasoning here. The British were actually waiting for a decisive victory to decide whether to ally with the CSA. The near-taking of DC was viewed in the South as an opportunity to convince them.



Actually the armies were typically to far away and mobile to use telegraphs. They typically used rider dispatches. And the population density meant that you could potentially avoid such small towns. Or you could just send smaller forces ahead to cut telegraph lines outside the towns in question.

There was almost no chance that England was going to back the South. The Queen and the British public were both strongly abolishtionist, the last two times they tried it they did not succeed in acomplishing much and they were heavily dependent on Northern corn. If you think job riots are bad food riots are even worse. Burning a Northern city would merely convince an anti-Southern UK that the South was being run by barbarians.

It took Grant a long time to take Vicksburg which was a small Southern city and Sherman a long time to take Atlanta and both were MUCH smaller then New York or Chicago. Every time the South went north it ended in disaster for them. The North had the same advantages the South had in its own turf AND more armies to boot. Trying to take a Northern city would have simply been a quick way to commit suicide.

 

[david3565]

There was almost no chance that England was going to back the South. The Queen and the British public were both strongly abolishtionist, the last two times they tried it they did not succeed in acomplishing much and they were heavily dependent on Northern corn. If you think job riots are bad food riots are even worse. Burning a Northern city would merely convince an anti-Southern UK that the South was being run by barbarians.

You state that the UK was "anti-South" and yet they certainly didn't behave that way. English manufacturers supplied tens of thousands of guns to the South. Both were in active dialog; The English packet ship Trent was carrying Confederate diplomats.

Burning cities was a typical tactic of warfare in the 19th century, used to destroy your enemy's capability to make war. The British themselves burned DC in the War of 1812. And Sherman did it to excess on his way to Atlanta. If I am not mistaken, both Northern and Southern forces burned towns and cities throughout the war.

It took Grant a long time to take Vicksburg which was a small Southern city and Sherman a long time to take Atlanta and both were MUCH smaller then New York or Chicago. Every time the South went north it ended in disaster for them.

The difference is that they both met forces actively opposing them. In Lee's second campaign of the North, he ended up at a pace and position where he was constantly two steps ahead of Union forces, who didn't have the available numbers to meet his forces. The reason that it ended in disaster was that by the time they invaded, they didn't have sufficient supplies to maintain a presence in the North. That is the battle against the clock I was talking about.

Gettysburg was an accident. If that hadn't occured, in all likelihood, Lee could have made it as far as New York before meeting Northern forces. Even if his forces had been crushed, burning every major city along the way virtually all undefended) would have struck a huge blow against the Union.

The North had the same advantages the South had in its own turf AND more armies to boot. Trying to take a Northern city would have simply been a quick way to commit suicide.

The North didn't have the same advantages, e.g. better developed guerilla capability and light horse calvary; Longstreet and Mosby's Rangers. If they did, Lee would have been stopped a lot sooner in the second campaign of the North, because he dealt some pretty hard blows to Northern forces using unconventional and high-mobility tactics the North couldn't counter.

 

[Brilliantlight]

You state that the UK was "anti-South" and yet they certainly didn't behave that way. English manufacturers supplied tens of thousands of guns to the South. Both were in active dialog; The English packet ship Trent was carrying Confederate diplomats.

Burning cities was a typical tactic of warfare in the 19th century, used to destroy your enemy's capability to make war. The British themselves burned DC in the War of 1812. And Sherman did it to excess on his way to Atlanta. If I am not mistaken, both Northern and Southern forces burned towns and cities throughout the war.



The difference is that they both met forces actively opposing them. In Lee's second campaign of the North, he ended up at a pace and position where he was constantly two steps ahead of Union forces, who didn't have the available numbers to meet his forces. The reason that it ended in disaster was that by the time they invaded, they didn't have sufficient supplies to maintain a presence in the North. That is the battle against the clock I was talking about.

Gettysburg was an accident. If that hadn't occured, in all likelihood, Lee could have made it as far as New York before meeting Northern forces. Even if his forces had been crushed, burning every major city along the way virtually all undefended) would have struck a huge blow against the Union.



The North didn't have the same advantages, e.g. better developed guerilla capability and light horse calvary; Longstreet and Mosby's Rangers. If they did, Lee would have been stopped a lot sooner in the second campaign of the North, because he dealt some pretty hard blows to Northern forces using unconventional and high-mobility tactics the North couldn't counter.

England is an entire country not a small town so there are always differences. Most of the country was against the Confederecy but many of the aristicrats were not. They were the ones with the money to lend the South during the war. They paid both a political and economic price for it after the war.

Burning down a city was NOT typical during the 19th century but an exception. Sherman did not order the burning of Atlanta that was done by drunken troops IIRC. What happened IIRC is that the troops found a liquer warehouse and boozed it up.

It ended in disaster everytime Lee went north because like the ANV did in the south the north had the civilians on the ground to tell them where the southern troops were and people who knew the land. The south could hide from the northern troops only by AVOIDING population centers. Once they would have started closing in on cities they would have been seen by people in town after town leading to it.

 

[Melvin Loh]

quote: actually, TX is one state that overwhelmingly voted for secession... in the rest of the south, the vote was a LOT closer... sometimes just a few hundred votes difference.

What about South Carolina ? Wasn't Charleston the hugest hotbed of secessionism during 1860/61 ?

With a Unionist Texas, would there still have been the Mason/Slidell incident in 1861 ? Also, could a secure Texas still in Union hands have been used somehow as a springboard for an earlier threatened military intervention into Mexico against Archduke Maximilian's puppet kingdom than OTL 1867 ?

 

[david3565]

England is an entire country not a small town so there are always differences. Most of the country was against the Confederecy but many of the aristicrats were not. They were the ones with the money to lend the South during the war. They paid both a political and economic price for it after the war.

Fine, but if they are ones in power, they ARE England for all political purposes, unless the people decide another Glorious Revolution is in order.

Burning down a city was NOT typical during the 19th century but an exception. Sherman did not order the burning of Atlanta that was done by drunken troops IIRC. What happened IIRC is that the troops found a liquer warehouse and boozed it up.

I wasn't talking about Atlanta. I was talking about eveverything burned on the way to Atlanta. Granted, my calling it "typical" was a little too much, but it wasn't an uhread of practice and I think you over-played the reaction England would have to it, especially since they didn't have any great love of the US.

It ended in disaster everytime Lee went north because like the ANV did in the south the north had the civilians on the ground to tell them where the southern troops were and people who knew the land.

Consider that Lee marched back both times to the South with an intact, though reduced army, I wouldn't call it disaster, merely defeat, especially since it gave his share of blows to Union forces.

The south could hide from the northern troops only by AVOIDING population centers. Once they would have started closing in on cities they would have been seen by people in town after town leading to it.

When you do start approaching targets with grater population density, you send ahead smaller units to do thing like cut telegraph lines, which I already mentioned before.

Anyway, we're butting heads over a pretty small subject and it isn't adding anything to this thread, so I'll bow out.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Fine, but if they are ones in power, they ARE England for all political purposes, unless the people decide another Glorious Revolution is in order.



I wasn't talking about Atlanta. I was talking about eveverything burned on the way to Atlanta. Granted, my calling it "typical" was a little too much, but it wasn't an uhread of practice and I think you over-played the reaction England would have to it, especially since they didn't have any great love of the US.



Consider that Lee marched back both times to the South with an intact, though reduced army, I wouldn't call it disaster, merely defeat, especially since it gave his share of blows to Union forces.



When you do start approaching targets with grater population density, you send ahead smaller units to do thing like cut telegraph lines, which I already mentioned before.

Anyway, we're butting heads over a pretty small subject and it isn't adding anything to this thread, so I'll bow out.

We are talking about the 1860s not the 1760s and the aristicracy is on its way down. One of the reasons why the aristicrats backed the Confederacy is they tried to forstall their decline but they sped it up instead.

I don't think I was overstating the case about English reaction. They may have had no great love for the US but the queen and most commoners had even less love for Dixie.

If Meade was a bit more agressive Lee might have had most of his army wiped out at Gettysburg it was a near run thing.

The Confederacy didn't know where all the telegraph poles were. Hell, I doubt the Union army knew where they all were. Besides sooner or later someone is going to see you pulling down telegraph poles and start shooting at you. Most of the men in those days had rifles and if you keep sending small parties you are in danger of losing a good part of your army in detail. Also I doubt you could knock out all the telegraph poles coming out of a major city in time.

 

[Dave Howery]

quote:
What about South Carolina ? Wasn't Charleston the hugest hotbed of secessionism during 1860/61 ?
QUOTE]

Hmm.. well, the book I have on this subject is rather vague... it seems to say that SC seceeded by proclamation of the state legislature, with no vote by the public, but I'm not certain on that. In any event, the next six states to vote mostly voted for secession on slim margins. Georgia voted in favor of it by 44,152 in favor and 41,632 against. FL voted 20,214 in favor and 18,451 against. THose are some pretty tight margins. TX, OTOH, voted 44,317 in favor and 13,020 against... a clear and unmistakable verdict....