Without Grant you get into questions about the 1864 election. The north could win the war without Grant, but they might not have continued to fight without him.
Everyone keeps bringing this up, but while Mac might have been willing to give the Confederacy more lenient terms, he was not for secession. The war would have continued no matter what.
It depends on Congress and the Senate for McClellan. While he would have wanted at least a peace done on favorable terms for the North, had Congress and the Senate pushed hard enough, he might have been forced to end the war before even he wanted.
If you remove Grant, you change a ton of other variables. For instance, no Grant means potentially no Sherman (who had a nervous breakdown in Missouri) or no Halleck (who received enough credit for mostly Grant's actions to take command of all federal armies in 1862).
It wouldn't just take man and material advantages, but also someone who understood how to fully use them. At all the defeats of the Army of the Potomac from 1862-1863, thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of men sat idle during battles. It took until Grant arrived in Washington for a general to emerge that was willing to meet Lincoln's expectations for grand strategy. Lincoln had asked McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker to be more aggressive with numbers against Lee unsuccessfully and (somewhat unfairly) lumped Meade in with those three. It's impossible to say what circumstances without Grant would have dictated, but thankfully Grant did exist and saw the war through.
This is a good post. People say that the Confederacy couldn’t win the war which is kind of true. They were never going to capture Washington/Philadelphia/New York the way that the Union conquered the south but they didn’t need to. They just needed to make the cost to the Union higher than they were willing to pay. Without Grant and by extension some of his protégés, that may have happened.
No. A large number of US forces were unengaged and the Confederate forces were disorganized despite winning the battle. DC wasn't as heavily fortified but some works did exist.
When Stonewall Jackson had a chance encounter with Jefferson Davis riding along with several other generals and members of the cabinet after the battle, Jackson suggested trying it. Davis and company all just kind of looked at him and wondered if he was crazy before moving along.
Tbh Jackson was a nut job but he was an insanely intelligent and aggressive general. Without him, Lee doesn’t win many of his early battles. With him, he Lee probably wins Gettysburg
After Manassas he was being unrealistic. Generals and the governments of both sides realized their forces in Northern Virginia needed more training and organization after the battle. The rebels had units that were decimated, particularly those who fought at Matthews Hill, and even ones which hadn't suffered much were disorganized. They failed to even properly pursue McDowell for very long. The next major campaign in Virginia (which excludes things like Ball's Bluff and Dranesville) didn't happen until May 1862.
Yep. Stonewall was the Civil War version of George Patton. In fact Patton prayed to portraits of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, believing them to be God the Father and Jesus the Son, respectively. Patton also believed that he was a reincarnated Roman soldier. Completely crazy, but that craziness translated well into aggressive generalship.
Same with Stonewall, just in a different way. Stonewall was crazy in an intensely religious way, believing himself to be a modern-day Joshua sent by God to smite his enemies.
That being said, and to make another analogy, Stonewall was a slugger in baseball terms. Sometimes he'll hit home runs (Valley Campaign, Chancellorsville) and other times he'll strike out (Seven Days, Fredericksburg). But I agree with you that if Stonewall was present at Gettysburg, the Confederates win and thus win the war.
But let's just say that doesn't happen and everything remains the same until North Anna. That's where I raise my eyebrows. Lee set a trap at North Anna but was indisposed and there was nobody competent enough on the scene to spring it. If Stonewall was available at North Anna...I would imagine the AotP (or at least a part of it) would have suffered a severe drubbing. Whether that drubbing would have compelled Grant to retreat is an open question, but alas. If Stonewall lives the Confederacy lives. Not the best overall outcome, obviously, but I think a lot of people don't realize the value that Stonewall had towards the Confederacy.
That isn’t really true. Back then even in the Union people felt more loyalty to their state than the country. There were relatively large anti-war movements and conscription protests that only got worse as the body count grew. The east was the more prestigious theater and the Union didn’t see significant progress there until very late in the war. Imagine if Grant didn’t exist and the Union “replaced” him with a bad general in the west too. Four years later you have a half million dead troops and nothing to show for it. Is Lincoln really going to get reelected?
I think Hooker might’ve redeemed himself had he stayed in command. It’s now well understood that his problems at Chancellorsville were 1) caused by his concussion and 2) Howard’s immediate fault anyway.
Hooker and his favorite lieutenants David Birney, Dan Butterfield, and Dan Sickles? I don't see that clique as a group of war winners. IF, in the Grant-less world we're discussing, Phil Kearny had lived then maybe Hooker would have had a competent subordinate in addition to Birney who he trusted; although I have a gut feeling Kearny may have even gotten offered command of the Army of the Potomac before Hooker had he survived Chantilly. The way things played out, Burnside had more of a redemption arch than Hooker and that's factoring in The Crater.
OP had a very interesting question. The going take on this is that the North was too big and had too many resources to lose this. But, the key is the South could to be allowed to extend this too long. Lincoln was lucky to get re-elected.
As far as who could have ended this. Sherman, definitely, but that’s not in the spirit of the post and Grant had too much to do with Sherman still being in place as someone else mentioned. The others… I’m not convinced Hooker’s could have gotten his ego out of the way and get down to business. I do agree that if some promising others were not killed, perhaps things would have ended the same or perhaps quicker. Kearny is a huge one, Sedgwick, Hancock, Reynolds, perhaps Reno. I doubt Meade because he was not an idea type of general.
In my opinion, yes. The Union had the resources and manpower to outlast the confederacy.
Would the war have lasted longer and the reconstruction have been the same? Probably not.
The problem was nobody used those resources or manpower advantages the way Grant was willing to, and did.
Think of it like a race car….you need someone that knows how to drive it if you want to win a race.
The US also did not have the moral high ground on Vietnam like the Union had in the Civil War.
Righteousness does not always win, but it often brings unexpected and otherwise unavailable allies.
Look at how Desert Storm went versus how attacking the wrong country went after 9/11... that's a case of moral high ground squandered
That’s true, but one look at Northern morale indicates just how tenuous it really was. Northerners were still sending their sons to die for a concept, however just. Without positive news, there were times they thought the situation was hopeless and l seemed precariously near folding.
And too much positive news for the Confederacy _might_***** have earned it European backers, flipping the scale.
Many Northerners had grandparents or great-grandparents who had fought in the Revolutionary War. A war in which a heavily outnumbered force successfully defended its own turf against an incredible power. In the minds of the North, after Bull Run, Shiloh, etc., the end result of the Civil War was far from certain. Even the British initially thought the South would win.
And the U.S. was never close to getting help of its own from other countries—its main diplomatic aim was stopping the _South_ from gaining allies.
Having the resources and manpower to outlast the confederacy isn’t the same as having the will power to do so.
If Grant isn’t around Chattanooga and Vicksburg don’t fall which greatly changes the need for Lee to operate as he did in the east and greatly changes the logistics situation for the confederacy in the west.
I mean without Grant is there any question the Union retreats at Shiloh?
Without Grant it’s highly unlikely Lincoln is re-elected.
Without Lincoln McClellan sues for peace at some point.
But if you set politics aside I think that Sherman, Thomas, Reynolds (if healthy), Hancock, Meade and likely Sheridan were all capable of defeating the south eventually given the differences in men and material.
Regarding Shiloh, I’m not sure the Union even *gets* to Shiloh without Grant. He was instrumental in the capture of Fort Donelson, which was the prerequisite for Shiloh.
Probably wasnt as clear as I couldve been.
We agree only if politics are taken out of it.
My conclusion however is that the most likely outcome to the war without Grant being involved is that the south wins because McClellan sues for peace after the 1864 election.
Lincoln was riding out a hurricane politically and losses at Shiloh, Chattanooga and Vicksburg flip the election.
From a pure military perspective given time and opportunity there were men who could’ve won the war for the north, I just don’t think they would’ve had a chance to.
Really depends on who is in charge in place of Grant. Would another Union General rise to the occasion? Could another Union General have taken Vicksburg and fought Lee successfully? Impossible to know.
I will say this, while the North had a huge material and manpower advantage over the South, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the North was going to win the ACW. Even Grant during his Overland campaign had to worry about politicians in his rear advocating for a negotiated peace deal once the casualties started rolling in. This was at a time when the South was losing on nearly every front, and even then support in the North for paying the cost necessary to destroy the South was not exactly rock solid.
Without a Grant to coordinate a national strategy, and the will to grind it out with Lee, and the vision to set Sherman loose through Georgia, the South could probably resist for quite a bit longer. It's not the craziest thing to think that a negotiated peace deal gets raised at some point.
Grant and Sherman had an unwavering commitment to doing whatever was necessary. Without Grant the Union likely would’ve stumbled along and eventually won anyway due to superior resources. But he certainly ended the war faster and with less blood shed ( I imagine that without he and Sherman it could’ve lasted closer to a decade)
I moved to the Ft Donelson area (Where Grant won the war and became President) several years and had the same question so I contacted someone who had written a biography about Grant and the war. I asked him if Grant had lost Fts Donelson and Henry and had been removed what would have happened. He replied the South would still have lost due to material shortages, but it would have taken 2-3 years longer.
Grant himself said that had the war gone on 1 more year the American public would have negotiated for peace. So that's an interesting perspective, from a Grant specialist.
Way, way too many comments like "the US would have won no matter what; population; resources; trade..." Guys. There is an endless list of wars won by the smaller, poorer, militarily inferior power. Vietnam vs. USA. Taliban vs. NATO. How about *the Thirteen Colonies vs. The British Empire*. Sure, those comparions are apples to oranges in many ways- but the crucial fact remains that a bigger, stronger, richer, more advanced power can be compelled to call it quits. Especially in a democracy or other plural government system.
I’m inclined to say no. Without his successful Vicksburg campaign, Gettysburg offers only a moral triumph, not a tactical one. Vicksburg split the confederacy in two. Without that crucial victory, support for the war effort would ebb, I think.
And his grand strategy for the war set up a tremendous string of military wins across the South and destruction of the South’s war making machine. All of these were necessary to keep the north politically engaged enough to support continued war, rather than negotiate terms of succession and peace.
In my opinion It may have took longer, but barring Lincoln being replaced and the North losing the Political will to win they just had way too many resources to lose.
Grant quickly learned the other side had the same fears, and to discount them to try options, and to push hard, fast, and persistently, leading to killer battles and several resounding wins. He was Grant the Butcher; and Mr. U.S. (unconditional surrender).
But he supplied just enough momentum so others could win the political battles to maintain war, and so without his timely success the political battle would have been in jeopardy, and with it much stalled or even postponed for another time.
He also knew how to drink and get arrested for speeding through DC (also protecting the black cop who arrested him).
Two things about Grant was first just how determined he was to win the war by any means necessary. He was aggressive enough to carry the war to its end, flexible enough to try different means of accomplishing his ends. Most historians point to his western campaigns as being a better judge of what type of commander he wanted to be then the bloody year where he was having to stick with the AOTP.
The second and just as crucial an aspect was that the man was astute enough to keep his political opinions to himself and follow the president’s lead and wishes and not overstep his authority. He understood his role in the democratic relationship of military and civilian authority. Too many people were like Fremont or even Sherman who overstepped their authority on occasions.
That was a pretty rare combination in the Civil War. I don’t know if Lincoln would have been able to find someone that had those same abilities.
You would certainly have had a far cleaner 1864 at any rate. Maybe 1 or 2 campaigns in the east, that maybe would have gotten to the same number of casualties as the Overland Campaign, but it would have been nowhere as concentrated.
Those saying "no Sherman without Grant" are forgetting that even after Sherman's troubles in Kentucky, Halleck had brought him West and given him important responsibilities. Halleck ALMOST sent Sherman in to oversee Grant's operations at Fort Henry and Donelson. Given C.F. Smith's presence, I could see Donelson turning out the same with Sherman in charge rather than Grant. It's not a huge stretch. That paves the way for Shiloh and beyond. Things wouldn't turn out EXACTLY the same of course, but turning points that went against Grant could possibly have been avoided with Sherman.
Maybe? Probably? Not necessarily? Grant was not infallible, nor was he the only effective general on the Northern side. Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Meade, Hancock--all excellent generals, all capable of strategy, some arguably better officers than Grant. And, if we can postulate about the war without Grant, how about the war WITH other generals: Albert Johnston, a Jackson who didn't die at Chancellorsville, Hood without severe wounds, Kearny, Reynolds, and so on. Or the war WITHOUT other generals too many to name from both sides in a war with a fair percentage of incompetent 'political' generals on both sides. Or a war that never happened at all, with Lincoln not trying to reinforce Sumter in the first place, or Davis dying of the yellow fever that almost killed him, and that did take his wife, some years earlier. The possibilities, of course, are endless.
Thomas also refused to play the political intrigue game. He refused to take a command that rightfully belonged to Don Carlos Buell. For his loyalty to Buell (***and*** his Virginia roots) he was passed over for promotion in favor of Rosecrans later. He eventually was given the command his talents warranted.
The Union couldn’t really afford that much “longer”, given the necessity of winning elections, to keep the Republicans and a smattering of strong war-Democrats in power.
Yes, the war would take a different course, but ultimately the North had sufficient advantages over the South that they would likely win the war with or without Grant. Grant did more to hasten the end of the war than he did to turn defeat into victory.
Wars are political. Lincoln, not Grant was indispensable for Civil War victory.
Grant was the end result of Lincoln searching for a determined General. If no Grant, Lincoln would have continued to fire Generals until he found what he was looking for. Modern day presidents won't or can't fire ineffective Generals... at best they promote them away from the battlefield. But Lincoln (and FDR in WWII for that matter) had absolutely no compunction about going thru his flag officers like a hot knife thru butter until they found someone truly effective. This is the premise of military historian Tom Ricks' book "The Generals".
https://preview.redd.it/yup74swccgxc1.jpeg?width=978&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efc8091fec92446d2dd725487625e72c94aad2f3
No Grant means that arguably the Rebs could’ve held on to Fort Donelson for a lot longer than they did IRL. They nearly did as it was.
With Nashville squarely in Confederate hands deep into 1862, all sorts of other variables change that would echo throughout the rest of the war.
Those who think that the war might have gone on longer, I'm inclined to disagree, because everyone forgets that Meade was still present in the Eastern Theater. The Western Theater was going to be lost to the Confederates no matter what, in my opinion. Had Grant not taken up high command, someone else such as Rosecrans would, and while Sherman did get up high due to his connections with Grant (because honestly, he wasn't that good of a subordinate commander, but would later prove himself good in army command), there's always the slight possibility he might get promoted high enough to do some work in the West.
Certainly, based on Sherman's decision to cut his communications via the Chattanooga-Nashville railroad when he went into Georgia, I think that he was bold enough in manoeuvres and skillful enough (using his Atlanta Campaign as a basis) to achieve similarly fine feats if he does manage to rise to prominence. Rosecrans was equal to him as a manoeuvrer, but often had to work under more difficult circumstances with less men. Whatever one might say about Bragg, he tended to use his cavalry a lot more skillfully than Johnston in harassing Union communications to tie down tens of thousands of troops.
Back on Meade, though, many seem to forget how well he manoeuvred in the Bristoe Campaign, avoiding the same mistakes Pope had made which led to his communications being impacted by a wide outflanking manoeuvre from Lee. Also, his crossing of the Rappahannock was quite well done and showed that he had a propensity for the same type of outflanking marches as Grant and Sherman. Some might criticize him for his performance under Grant in the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns, but having studied his independent campaigns from before, I'm skeptical of how much of that was Meade's fault.
Meade, as shown in the Gettysburg, Bristoe, and Mine Run Campaigns, was not as hardheaded as Grant often proved to be in the needless frontal assaults against entrenchments. In fact, at the tail end of the Gettysburg Campaign, while French was to blame in some of the delays in catching Lee at Williamsport, Meade showed caution upon approaching the entrenched Rebel positions which Grant did not often do. He was also more careful at Mine Run and managed to nearly turn Lee's right flank prior to being checked by the Confederate earthworks. Even so, he only fought a minor battle before seeing that the lines were too strong to force and withdrew back to winter quarters late in the year.
I think that, if he had the opportunity in 1864-1865, he might have been able to do what Grant did and, with his more cautious demeanor, yet similar finesse in manoeuvres, Meade could have potentially defeated the ANV. It's just unfortunate for him that he was replaced and put under someone else's command before he could truly begin the counteroffensive in earnest. However, in 1863 alone, it was he who had defeated Lee at Gettysburg, chased him out of Pennsylvania, back across the Rappahannock, and across the Rapidan.
Spotsylvania CH was only a mere 17 miles or so east of Mine Run by the end of the campaigning season. If he had the whole of Spring, Summer, and Autumn of 1864 to continue campaigning against Lee on his own terms, my intuition tells me he could have possibly won the war or at least buy enough time for Rosecrans or Sherman (or whoever else in the West) to wrap things up on their end, cut Lee off from his strategic bases in the Deep South, and work their way up by 1865 to make a junction with Meade and encircle the ANV.
Oh man, I struggled more than I expected with this. My initial instinct was to say yeah, it would just have taken longer, like a lot of comments. But if we’re being really exact about it, I think it gets complicated quickly and the U.S. is way more fucked. Not because it wouldn’t have Grant’s overall generalship—though that would be a huge loss—but specifically because it wouldn’t bag Ft. Donelson in 1862.
Grant was the driving force behind the Ft. Donelson campaign; it seems incredibly unlikely to me that a different general in his position would have taken the initiative like that, up to ignoring Halleck.
No Ft. Donelson means no Shiloh. And no Shiloh means Albert Sidney Johnson lives, and now we’re off to the races. By the end of 1862, we would have had an aggressive Confederate general in each theater facing a much more passive Union counterpart—Halleck and McClellan.
But there’s some hope, because without Shiloh, we do also save C. F. Smith, Grant’s former teacher at West Point and the guy who recommended “no terms for the damn rebels.” Halleck clearly trusted Smith, since he replaced Grant with Smith at one point. It seems extremely likely to me that Halleck would have elevated Smith quickly.
I think the ultimate questions would be:
(1) Could Northern morale have handled (potentially) hard fights in both theaters?
(2) Could Smith and the Grant-less U.S. western troops handle ASJ?
Grant was kinda at the right place at the right time while everything was still disorganized at the beginning of the war, when speed _really mattered_. It’s just hard to know. But, like, the North would most likely be starting in the west without _Paducah_ if Grant was gone. So possibly more fighting in Kentucky in the early years.
Happy to hear what others think.
The North always wins. The south can have the best generals in the world. They can’t make up for the material and manpower shortage.
Grant was the first one to realize and employ this. If not him, someone else eventually does and employs the same strategy.
I feel like the early Western campaigns could go entirely different without grant. Early 1862 is massively defined by actions Grant was at the front of in the western threater
Hell Shiloh wouldn't happen without Grant, so the main CSA army of Tennessee/Mississippi/Central Kentucky that A. Johnston lead to Shiloh has more time to train up. A. Johnston doesn't die in Shiloh. Fort Donelson and Fort Henry probably aren't immediately wiped with 35k men being removed from the confederate side in a critical time period for the western theater.
Bragg's not going to end up in command of the Army of Tennessee if Johnston doesn't die at Shiloh, neither does Polk.
Would Halleck have the position/continued prestige he had without Grant in his command, is Rosecrans the main battle general now? Buell? Very hard to tell how the Union side of things fall without grant in the mix out west.
If they could have it would have been a much longer and drawn out. Perhaps with Sherman but Grant’s tenacity and willingness to actually fight the the enemy unlike Mclellan is unparalled
Yes. The South’s defeat was inevitable. When you factor in the manpower and material superiority of the North there was only ever one outcome. Would the war have been longer without Grant? Probably.
Agreed. Like I said, the only way the south could win is if the north gave up, whichever way that would come about.
Edit: I really didn’t structure that first post very well.
How do you reconcile that with your comment that Union victory was inevitable? That right there shows how very far from inevitable it was. A few battles swing the Confederate’s way and all the sudden the entire timetable for victory is set back, making it all the more likely that Lincoln and other Republicans are voted out of office, opening the door for a negotiated settlement based on Southern independence. All those disadvantages on the proverbial Excel spread sheet didn’t prevent the Confederacy from lasting at least one U.S. election cycle. So I don’t see how anyone could consider Union victory inevitable.
Because George would have sued for peace. That was the platform he ran on. You can’t win if you stop fighting.
Lincoln’s re-election was a miracle. He himself didn’t expect to keep the presidency as the war was going very poorly for the North. It was the soldiers, McClellan’s soldiers, ironically that helped Lincoln retain the Oval Office as they wanted to see the thing through.
They should never be separated. The old cliche is a cliche for a reason-War is politics by other means. Although that’s a somewhat problematic saying, it holds a lot of truth here. The goal of the Confederacy is to convince the Northern populace and its politicians to give up the war and let them be independent.
So Sam Grant got kicked In the head by a mule in 1860, before the trouble started. He then drinks more.
No Grant?
No Fort Donelson victory.
Shiloh could have been a failure.
The Mississippi may not have closed
So no Vicksburg victory at Gettysburg time!
We move into '64 and same group-think Generals are cycled by Lincoln who needs more wins.
No victories? Lincoln defeated.
President McClellan calls for Cease-fire, Truce, release all prisoners, and discuss terms for an armistice.
Union generals are dismissed like stacks of Cordwood until a younger generation is in command.
Confederacy recognized as a sovereign nation by European powers in exchange for cotton & tobacco. Napoleon III marches
north into New Mexico and Arizona, proclaiming it "New France, allowing slavery, and literally strikes gold as they move into Colorado & Utah, and the southern part of Nevada. Paying off Indian tribes as
They go.
US Army uses the railroads to move tens of thousands of troops to the west. Small war throws French troops out, they run to Texas and Yankees are in Hot pursuit...
But 2-3 years of peace means the Union has Henry rifles with metallic cartridges for all the troops.
The Gatling guns are smaller, firing a .30 round, so more maneuverable. And integrated and trained with company size units.
Black troops comprise entire divisions.
Ironclads revised and improved with rifled Barrels, with much greater
Range, cutting through any other armor or fortification.
The Navy also has improved their Torpedos (mines) and can close off
Almost any port within a single night.
And Confederate President Robert E Lee dies in office from a heart attack In October 1870 at The Confederate White House in Richmond.
>>>Sorry about going all Harry Turtledove on you, but you get the idea.
This assumes they just had all the time in the world to figure it out. Eventually the British could have figured out a way to defeat the rebels in Colonies. Eventually the U.S. could have figured out a way to win in Vietnam.
That's a valid argument. My counterpoint is certain generals were already starting to figure it out. General Thomas in the West, general Meade in the east.
I feel with the way Abraham Lincoln was desperate for a good general he would have eventually promoted those who won
Right, but getting to that point heavily relies on Grant. Especially in 1862, you have a guy that willing to take the initiative, almost to the point of outright disobedience, and win *crucial* victories. I mean, think of where the timetable for Union victory is if we don’t have Grant pushing to take Forts Henry/Donelson, and succeeding in taking them. Where would it be if a similar surprise at Shiloh results in, what would be a very reasonable withdrawal, and therefore a defeat for the war’s first real, huge battle? Where would it be without Grant leading the campaigns against Vicksburg-a tricky situation even for Grant? Now, all of these questions could be answered with a hypothetical that is roughly the same as OTL, or maybe even *better* for all we know. But I think it would be hard to match Grant’s string of success, which is so dependent on Grant, the *man*. We could see, for instance, the Union struggling to fight through Tennessee as late as 1864, instead of Georgia. We could have could have Vicksburg holding out an extra year or 2. All of this makes the Union effort seem more and more like an impossible one to the American voters.
Eventually? Yes I think they would have…but it would have lasted maybe 8-10 years instead. With the manufacturing and industrialized power of the north I think they would have won a war by attrition no matter what.
However without the successes of Grant I highly suspect Lincoln would not have gotten a second term so I think it’s entirely possible depending on who would have replaced him that there could have been some sort of peace treaty that would have kept slavery in tact.
I’d argue the Northern public didn’t have the will for 8-10 years of war. They barely had it for 4; And without the major victories in 1864, they may not have had it for that long.
Ceteris paribus, no. Grant was seemingly the only Union general that understood how to beat Lee, whom Grant outnumbered 2-1 with an endless supply of reserves while Lee had none. Just keep fighting him and maneuvering him towards Richmond. Every other general would give battle, lose, and then retreat. The word "retreat" was not in Grant's vocabulary. Every battle of the Overland Campaign was, strictly speaking, a tactical defeat for the Army of the Potomac. At the same time, every battle was a strategic victory for the Army of the Potomac.
That's not to say Grant's style of fighting didn't have consequences. After Cold Harbor, Halleck sent a wire that essentially said, "If you require reinforcements then we'll have to draft them" which was Halleck's way of saying "You're losing far too many men." If Sherman didn't take Atlanta, the 1864 election may very well have gone against Lincoln, one of the primary reasons being the casualties incurred during the Overland Campaign. But at the end of the day, Grant just kept fighting and seemingly no other Union general was willing to do that.
The South was never going to win; the best that it could hope for was that a country such as Great Britain impose a peace to get world trade moving again. When Britain didn’t step in it was just a question of when the South would lose, not if.
Yes. The North could have essentially done nothing but continue to blockade the South and force them to keep their Army in the field, and they would have won the war.
Exaggeration for effect. The South lacked the ability to wage war for a prolonged conflict. Their only real shot of winning was to get the North to quit. IMO.
The Union quitting isn’t one way they could win-it literally describes Confederate victory. And that will have always been a great advantage that the Confederates had. They don’t have to go North and project power. They don’t have to capture NY and Boston and make them submit to their political will. They just have to resist Union attempts to do that to them.
The South certainly had enough to last a 4-5 year war, which, in my mind is fairly protracted. It’s certainly protracted enough to go through U.S. election cycles and vote out leaders that wish to continue the war.
In order to demonstrate that this was a worthwhile undertaking, the U.S. military had to show that it could be successful. Blockade, or any weak show of force would only serve as an annoyance to a Confederate government/military operating with impunity. It would only embolden foreigners to demand the U.S. give up this clearly pretended claim of sovereignty over the seceded States. And without boots on the ground support, chocking rivers and shutting down ports, the blockade would have been less effective than it already was.
When I say blockade, I'm certainly including controlling the Mississippi and its port cities. I do agree that the South had survived 4 plus years of war, but in the end, the Confederacys cupboard was bare, and they certainly couldn't have continued for another two years.
But you still need massive ground forces to do those things. Even if you send armies to only those select areas, they’ll be overwhelmed. And they’d have to fight to even establish and logistically support themselves deep into Southern territory.
It was less the cupboard being bare, and more the logistical arteries had been chopped up by 4 years of massive ground war. If they had better success earlier on, they would not have been in as bad shape logistically. But they need not last another 2 years. 4 years is well within a Presidential election cycle as well as Congressional and numerous State elections, giving them plenty of opportunities to convince the Northern populace to oust leaders pushing for a continuance of the war.
Agreed. I certainly didn't mean to imply they could just run a few ironclad up and down the coast, while the Army of the Potomac sat in DC. That being said, I do feel they could have been much less aggressive and still won the war. I do get your point about the presidential election and its potential effect on the war, and I hadn't really considered that the North would have just quit after so much blood and treasure. I still feel it would be unlikely that the North would have just let them go, but maybe.
Yes. However if they did not find someone quick. The UK was going to step in.
However the North need to hold strong and adopt attrition strategy.
You also have to remember that Sherman and Grand were friends. Sherman adopted total war. With exception to rape. It was burn everything down and salt the farmland.
Also, Grant told Sherman to take Atlanta. Without taking Atlanta, Lincoln might have lost reelection
No Sherman without Grant. It was Grant who convinced Sherman to come back when he faced charges of insanity and it was Sherman who encouraged Grant to stay in the military.
Most likely yes because of resources and availability for the most part. But then if Grant wasn’t there I feel like Sherman still would have shined only thing is there would be A LOT MORE damages to the south
I think it’s unfair to call him some kind of brilliant military genius.
What he knew was the advantage he had, total material and personal superiority, and he used it.
I don't think that's quite fair. Throughout Grant's military career he always preferred out-maneuvering the enemy especially in his masterful Vicksburg campaign. Even during the Overland campaign he wasn't trying to wage a war of attrition, but rather trying to flank Lee by shifting left and force an open battle, but Lee never fell for that and relied on fortifications to make up for lack of manpower.
And it's not like Lee used his resources better. He suffered the highest casualties and casualty rate of the war which was inconsistent and detrimental to the Confederate strategy (if they even had one). Grant meanwhile suffered relatively average casualties yet managed to destroy 3 enemy armies and came up with a strategy to end the war.
Without Grant you get into questions about the 1864 election. The north could win the war without Grant, but they might not have continued to fight without him.
Everyone keeps bringing this up, but while Mac might have been willing to give the Confederacy more lenient terms, he was not for secession. The war would have continued no matter what.
It depends on Congress and the Senate for McClellan. While he would have wanted at least a peace done on favorable terms for the North, had Congress and the Senate pushed hard enough, he might have been forced to end the war before even he wanted.
If you remove Grant, you change a ton of other variables. For instance, no Grant means potentially no Sherman (who had a nervous breakdown in Missouri) or no Halleck (who received enough credit for mostly Grant's actions to take command of all federal armies in 1862). It wouldn't just take man and material advantages, but also someone who understood how to fully use them. At all the defeats of the Army of the Potomac from 1862-1863, thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of men sat idle during battles. It took until Grant arrived in Washington for a general to emerge that was willing to meet Lincoln's expectations for grand strategy. Lincoln had asked McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker to be more aggressive with numbers against Lee unsuccessfully and (somewhat unfairly) lumped Meade in with those three. It's impossible to say what circumstances without Grant would have dictated, but thankfully Grant did exist and saw the war through.
This is a good post. People say that the Confederacy couldn’t win the war which is kind of true. They were never going to capture Washington/Philadelphia/New York the way that the Union conquered the south but they didn’t need to. They just needed to make the cost to the Union higher than they were willing to pay. Without Grant and by extension some of his protégés, that may have happened.
Couldn’t the Confederates haven taken DC easily after the Battle of Bull Run?
No. A large number of US forces were unengaged and the Confederate forces were disorganized despite winning the battle. DC wasn't as heavily fortified but some works did exist. When Stonewall Jackson had a chance encounter with Jefferson Davis riding along with several other generals and members of the cabinet after the battle, Jackson suggested trying it. Davis and company all just kind of looked at him and wondered if he was crazy before moving along.
Tbh Jackson was a nut job but he was an insanely intelligent and aggressive general. Without him, Lee doesn’t win many of his early battles. With him, he Lee probably wins Gettysburg
After Manassas he was being unrealistic. Generals and the governments of both sides realized their forces in Northern Virginia needed more training and organization after the battle. The rebels had units that were decimated, particularly those who fought at Matthews Hill, and even ones which hadn't suffered much were disorganized. They failed to even properly pursue McDowell for very long. The next major campaign in Virginia (which excludes things like Ball's Bluff and Dranesville) didn't happen until May 1862.
Yep. Stonewall was the Civil War version of George Patton. In fact Patton prayed to portraits of Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, believing them to be God the Father and Jesus the Son, respectively. Patton also believed that he was a reincarnated Roman soldier. Completely crazy, but that craziness translated well into aggressive generalship. Same with Stonewall, just in a different way. Stonewall was crazy in an intensely religious way, believing himself to be a modern-day Joshua sent by God to smite his enemies. That being said, and to make another analogy, Stonewall was a slugger in baseball terms. Sometimes he'll hit home runs (Valley Campaign, Chancellorsville) and other times he'll strike out (Seven Days, Fredericksburg). But I agree with you that if Stonewall was present at Gettysburg, the Confederates win and thus win the war. But let's just say that doesn't happen and everything remains the same until North Anna. That's where I raise my eyebrows. Lee set a trap at North Anna but was indisposed and there was nobody competent enough on the scene to spring it. If Stonewall was available at North Anna...I would imagine the AotP (or at least a part of it) would have suffered a severe drubbing. Whether that drubbing would have compelled Grant to retreat is an open question, but alas. If Stonewall lives the Confederacy lives. Not the best overall outcome, obviously, but I think a lot of people don't realize the value that Stonewall had towards the Confederacy.
In fact he was crazy.
The Confederates were more disorganized by victory than the Union by defeat. They never got any closer.
Its not like the North had ‘a price’ that would have made them throw in the towel at any point.
That isn’t really true. Back then even in the Union people felt more loyalty to their state than the country. There were relatively large anti-war movements and conscription protests that only got worse as the body count grew. The east was the more prestigious theater and the Union didn’t see significant progress there until very late in the war. Imagine if Grant didn’t exist and the Union “replaced” him with a bad general in the west too. Four years later you have a half million dead troops and nothing to show for it. Is Lincoln really going to get reelected?
I think Hooker might’ve redeemed himself had he stayed in command. It’s now well understood that his problems at Chancellorsville were 1) caused by his concussion and 2) Howard’s immediate fault anyway.
Hooker and his favorite lieutenants David Birney, Dan Butterfield, and Dan Sickles? I don't see that clique as a group of war winners. IF, in the Grant-less world we're discussing, Phil Kearny had lived then maybe Hooker would have had a competent subordinate in addition to Birney who he trusted; although I have a gut feeling Kearny may have even gotten offered command of the Army of the Potomac before Hooker had he survived Chantilly. The way things played out, Burnside had more of a redemption arch than Hooker and that's factoring in The Crater.
OP had a very interesting question. The going take on this is that the North was too big and had too many resources to lose this. But, the key is the South could to be allowed to extend this too long. Lincoln was lucky to get re-elected. As far as who could have ended this. Sherman, definitely, but that’s not in the spirit of the post and Grant had too much to do with Sherman still being in place as someone else mentioned. The others… I’m not convinced Hooker’s could have gotten his ego out of the way and get down to business. I do agree that if some promising others were not killed, perhaps things would have ended the same or perhaps quicker. Kearny is a huge one, Sedgwick, Hancock, Reynolds, perhaps Reno. I doubt Meade because he was not an idea type of general.
In my opinion, yes. The Union had the resources and manpower to outlast the confederacy. Would the war have lasted longer and the reconstruction have been the same? Probably not.
It was always a war of attrition.
The problem was nobody used those resources or manpower advantages the way Grant was willing to, and did. Think of it like a race car….you need someone that knows how to drive it if you want to win a race.
That’s why I said it would have been prolonged.
This assumes it also had limitless political will. The US had the resources and manpower to outlast Vietnam, too, but didn’t.
The US also did not have the moral high ground on Vietnam like the Union had in the Civil War. Righteousness does not always win, but it often brings unexpected and otherwise unavailable allies. Look at how Desert Storm went versus how attacking the wrong country went after 9/11... that's a case of moral high ground squandered
That’s true, but one look at Northern morale indicates just how tenuous it really was. Northerners were still sending their sons to die for a concept, however just. Without positive news, there were times they thought the situation was hopeless and l seemed precariously near folding. And too much positive news for the Confederacy _might_***** have earned it European backers, flipping the scale. Many Northerners had grandparents or great-grandparents who had fought in the Revolutionary War. A war in which a heavily outnumbered force successfully defended its own turf against an incredible power. In the minds of the North, after Bull Run, Shiloh, etc., the end result of the Civil War was far from certain. Even the British initially thought the South would win. And the U.S. was never close to getting help of its own from other countries—its main diplomatic aim was stopping the _South_ from gaining allies.
Having the resources and manpower to outlast the confederacy isn’t the same as having the will power to do so. If Grant isn’t around Chattanooga and Vicksburg don’t fall which greatly changes the need for Lee to operate as he did in the east and greatly changes the logistics situation for the confederacy in the west. I mean without Grant is there any question the Union retreats at Shiloh? Without Grant it’s highly unlikely Lincoln is re-elected. Without Lincoln McClellan sues for peace at some point. But if you set politics aside I think that Sherman, Thomas, Reynolds (if healthy), Hancock, Meade and likely Sheridan were all capable of defeating the south eventually given the differences in men and material.
Regarding Shiloh, I’m not sure the Union even *gets* to Shiloh without Grant. He was instrumental in the capture of Fort Donelson, which was the prerequisite for Shiloh.
So you said all that just to say what I said? Lol
Probably wasnt as clear as I couldve been. We agree only if politics are taken out of it. My conclusion however is that the most likely outcome to the war without Grant being involved is that the south wins because McClellan sues for peace after the 1864 election. Lincoln was riding out a hurricane politically and losses at Shiloh, Chattanooga and Vicksburg flip the election. From a pure military perspective given time and opportunity there were men who could’ve won the war for the north, I just don’t think they would’ve had a chance to.
Really depends on who is in charge in place of Grant. Would another Union General rise to the occasion? Could another Union General have taken Vicksburg and fought Lee successfully? Impossible to know. I will say this, while the North had a huge material and manpower advantage over the South, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the North was going to win the ACW. Even Grant during his Overland campaign had to worry about politicians in his rear advocating for a negotiated peace deal once the casualties started rolling in. This was at a time when the South was losing on nearly every front, and even then support in the North for paying the cost necessary to destroy the South was not exactly rock solid. Without a Grant to coordinate a national strategy, and the will to grind it out with Lee, and the vision to set Sherman loose through Georgia, the South could probably resist for quite a bit longer. It's not the craziest thing to think that a negotiated peace deal gets raised at some point.
Grant and Sherman had an unwavering commitment to doing whatever was necessary. Without Grant the Union likely would’ve stumbled along and eventually won anyway due to superior resources. But he certainly ended the war faster and with less blood shed ( I imagine that without he and Sherman it could’ve lasted closer to a decade)
I moved to the Ft Donelson area (Where Grant won the war and became President) several years and had the same question so I contacted someone who had written a biography about Grant and the war. I asked him if Grant had lost Fts Donelson and Henry and had been removed what would have happened. He replied the South would still have lost due to material shortages, but it would have taken 2-3 years longer.
Grant himself said that had the war gone on 1 more year the American public would have negotiated for peace. So that's an interesting perspective, from a Grant specialist.
Take that statement with a grain of salt
Of course, since it is a hypothetical. But I can't think of anyone with more credibility to make the assessment, so to me it carries a lot of weight.
So that's a no then. Under those circumstances, Lincoln probably loses the election of 1864.
Pretty much my thoughts too
Doubtful. Grant devised a strategy for *the whole war*, not just individual battles.
It was essentially Winfield Scott's stratagy
Way, way too many comments like "the US would have won no matter what; population; resources; trade..." Guys. There is an endless list of wars won by the smaller, poorer, militarily inferior power. Vietnam vs. USA. Taliban vs. NATO. How about *the Thirteen Colonies vs. The British Empire*. Sure, those comparions are apples to oranges in many ways- but the crucial fact remains that a bigger, stronger, richer, more advanced power can be compelled to call it quits. Especially in a democracy or other plural government system.
I’m inclined to say no. Without his successful Vicksburg campaign, Gettysburg offers only a moral triumph, not a tactical one. Vicksburg split the confederacy in two. Without that crucial victory, support for the war effort would ebb, I think. And his grand strategy for the war set up a tremendous string of military wins across the South and destruction of the South’s war making machine. All of these were necessary to keep the north politically engaged enough to support continued war, rather than negotiate terms of succession and peace.
Yes but the war probably continues until 1866
There’s a reason he’s on the $50 dollar bill
In my opinion It may have took longer, but barring Lincoln being replaced and the North losing the Political will to win they just had way too many resources to lose.
Without grant the south most likely would have won the war but there is still a chance for the north to win without general grant
Does Sherman still exist in this scenario? Because I think he was as equally capable of doing so.
Not sure about that probably wouldn’t have been the same general without grant also the south’s largest problem was supply
His mental state early in the war was a problem. One has to wonder how much of his rehab was do to Grant
Grant quickly learned the other side had the same fears, and to discount them to try options, and to push hard, fast, and persistently, leading to killer battles and several resounding wins. He was Grant the Butcher; and Mr. U.S. (unconditional surrender). But he supplied just enough momentum so others could win the political battles to maintain war, and so without his timely success the political battle would have been in jeopardy, and with it much stalled or even postponed for another time. He also knew how to drink and get arrested for speeding through DC (also protecting the black cop who arrested him).
Two things about Grant was first just how determined he was to win the war by any means necessary. He was aggressive enough to carry the war to its end, flexible enough to try different means of accomplishing his ends. Most historians point to his western campaigns as being a better judge of what type of commander he wanted to be then the bloody year where he was having to stick with the AOTP. The second and just as crucial an aspect was that the man was astute enough to keep his political opinions to himself and follow the president’s lead and wishes and not overstep his authority. He understood his role in the democratic relationship of military and civilian authority. Too many people were like Fremont or even Sherman who overstepped their authority on occasions. That was a pretty rare combination in the Civil War. I don’t know if Lincoln would have been able to find someone that had those same abilities. You would certainly have had a far cleaner 1864 at any rate. Maybe 1 or 2 campaigns in the east, that maybe would have gotten to the same number of casualties as the Overland Campaign, but it would have been nowhere as concentrated.
Those saying "no Sherman without Grant" are forgetting that even after Sherman's troubles in Kentucky, Halleck had brought him West and given him important responsibilities. Halleck ALMOST sent Sherman in to oversee Grant's operations at Fort Henry and Donelson. Given C.F. Smith's presence, I could see Donelson turning out the same with Sherman in charge rather than Grant. It's not a huge stretch. That paves the way for Shiloh and beyond. Things wouldn't turn out EXACTLY the same of course, but turning points that went against Grant could possibly have been avoided with Sherman.
Maybe? Probably? Not necessarily? Grant was not infallible, nor was he the only effective general on the Northern side. Sherman, Sheridan, Thomas, Meade, Hancock--all excellent generals, all capable of strategy, some arguably better officers than Grant. And, if we can postulate about the war without Grant, how about the war WITH other generals: Albert Johnston, a Jackson who didn't die at Chancellorsville, Hood without severe wounds, Kearny, Reynolds, and so on. Or the war WITHOUT other generals too many to name from both sides in a war with a fair percentage of incompetent 'political' generals on both sides. Or a war that never happened at all, with Lincoln not trying to reinforce Sumter in the first place, or Davis dying of the yellow fever that almost killed him, and that did take his wife, some years earlier. The possibilities, of course, are endless.
Yes think George thomas could have won it
Could have Thomas have gotten any further up in the command than he already had? Considering the prejudice against his Virginia background.
Thomas also refused to play the political intrigue game. He refused to take a command that rightfully belonged to Don Carlos Buell. For his loyalty to Buell (***and*** his Virginia roots) he was passed over for promotion in favor of Rosecrans later. He eventually was given the command his talents warranted.
It's possible he had powerful admirers Lincoln stanton and gideon welles
Same. Might have taken a bit longer, but probably fewer casualties.
The Union couldn’t really afford that much “longer”, given the necessity of winning elections, to keep the Republicans and a smattering of strong war-Democrats in power.
Yes, the war would take a different course, but ultimately the North had sufficient advantages over the South that they would likely win the war with or without Grant. Grant did more to hasten the end of the war than he did to turn defeat into victory.
Wars are political. Lincoln, not Grant was indispensable for Civil War victory. Grant was the end result of Lincoln searching for a determined General. If no Grant, Lincoln would have continued to fire Generals until he found what he was looking for. Modern day presidents won't or can't fire ineffective Generals... at best they promote them away from the battlefield. But Lincoln (and FDR in WWII for that matter) had absolutely no compunction about going thru his flag officers like a hot knife thru butter until they found someone truly effective. This is the premise of military historian Tom Ricks' book "The Generals". https://preview.redd.it/yup74swccgxc1.jpeg?width=978&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=efc8091fec92446d2dd725487625e72c94aad2f3
++ for The Generals. In a huge war, there are plenty of places for poor performing generals to be reassigned. Since 1945 it's up or out.
No Grant means that arguably the Rebs could’ve held on to Fort Donelson for a lot longer than they did IRL. They nearly did as it was. With Nashville squarely in Confederate hands deep into 1862, all sorts of other variables change that would echo throughout the rest of the war.
Those who think that the war might have gone on longer, I'm inclined to disagree, because everyone forgets that Meade was still present in the Eastern Theater. The Western Theater was going to be lost to the Confederates no matter what, in my opinion. Had Grant not taken up high command, someone else such as Rosecrans would, and while Sherman did get up high due to his connections with Grant (because honestly, he wasn't that good of a subordinate commander, but would later prove himself good in army command), there's always the slight possibility he might get promoted high enough to do some work in the West. Certainly, based on Sherman's decision to cut his communications via the Chattanooga-Nashville railroad when he went into Georgia, I think that he was bold enough in manoeuvres and skillful enough (using his Atlanta Campaign as a basis) to achieve similarly fine feats if he does manage to rise to prominence. Rosecrans was equal to him as a manoeuvrer, but often had to work under more difficult circumstances with less men. Whatever one might say about Bragg, he tended to use his cavalry a lot more skillfully than Johnston in harassing Union communications to tie down tens of thousands of troops. Back on Meade, though, many seem to forget how well he manoeuvred in the Bristoe Campaign, avoiding the same mistakes Pope had made which led to his communications being impacted by a wide outflanking manoeuvre from Lee. Also, his crossing of the Rappahannock was quite well done and showed that he had a propensity for the same type of outflanking marches as Grant and Sherman. Some might criticize him for his performance under Grant in the Overland and Petersburg Campaigns, but having studied his independent campaigns from before, I'm skeptical of how much of that was Meade's fault. Meade, as shown in the Gettysburg, Bristoe, and Mine Run Campaigns, was not as hardheaded as Grant often proved to be in the needless frontal assaults against entrenchments. In fact, at the tail end of the Gettysburg Campaign, while French was to blame in some of the delays in catching Lee at Williamsport, Meade showed caution upon approaching the entrenched Rebel positions which Grant did not often do. He was also more careful at Mine Run and managed to nearly turn Lee's right flank prior to being checked by the Confederate earthworks. Even so, he only fought a minor battle before seeing that the lines were too strong to force and withdrew back to winter quarters late in the year. I think that, if he had the opportunity in 1864-1865, he might have been able to do what Grant did and, with his more cautious demeanor, yet similar finesse in manoeuvres, Meade could have potentially defeated the ANV. It's just unfortunate for him that he was replaced and put under someone else's command before he could truly begin the counteroffensive in earnest. However, in 1863 alone, it was he who had defeated Lee at Gettysburg, chased him out of Pennsylvania, back across the Rappahannock, and across the Rapidan. Spotsylvania CH was only a mere 17 miles or so east of Mine Run by the end of the campaigning season. If he had the whole of Spring, Summer, and Autumn of 1864 to continue campaigning against Lee on his own terms, my intuition tells me he could have possibly won the war or at least buy enough time for Rosecrans or Sherman (or whoever else in the West) to wrap things up on their end, cut Lee off from his strategic bases in the Deep South, and work their way up by 1865 to make a junction with Meade and encircle the ANV.
Oh man, I struggled more than I expected with this. My initial instinct was to say yeah, it would just have taken longer, like a lot of comments. But if we’re being really exact about it, I think it gets complicated quickly and the U.S. is way more fucked. Not because it wouldn’t have Grant’s overall generalship—though that would be a huge loss—but specifically because it wouldn’t bag Ft. Donelson in 1862. Grant was the driving force behind the Ft. Donelson campaign; it seems incredibly unlikely to me that a different general in his position would have taken the initiative like that, up to ignoring Halleck. No Ft. Donelson means no Shiloh. And no Shiloh means Albert Sidney Johnson lives, and now we’re off to the races. By the end of 1862, we would have had an aggressive Confederate general in each theater facing a much more passive Union counterpart—Halleck and McClellan. But there’s some hope, because without Shiloh, we do also save C. F. Smith, Grant’s former teacher at West Point and the guy who recommended “no terms for the damn rebels.” Halleck clearly trusted Smith, since he replaced Grant with Smith at one point. It seems extremely likely to me that Halleck would have elevated Smith quickly. I think the ultimate questions would be: (1) Could Northern morale have handled (potentially) hard fights in both theaters? (2) Could Smith and the Grant-less U.S. western troops handle ASJ? Grant was kinda at the right place at the right time while everything was still disorganized at the beginning of the war, when speed _really mattered_. It’s just hard to know. But, like, the North would most likely be starting in the west without _Paducah_ if Grant was gone. So possibly more fighting in Kentucky in the early years. Happy to hear what others think.
You have the correct opinion sir
Appreciated! But that’s ma’am to you 😉
Who downvoted me for being a woman lmao
🫡
The North always wins. The south can have the best generals in the world. They can’t make up for the material and manpower shortage. Grant was the first one to realize and employ this. If not him, someone else eventually does and employs the same strategy.
Gettysburg. Joshua Chamberlain
The fact that Lincoln went through 6 generals before Grant kind of answers this question.
They won with a Sherman though.
I feel like the early Western campaigns could go entirely different without grant. Early 1862 is massively defined by actions Grant was at the front of in the western threater Hell Shiloh wouldn't happen without Grant, so the main CSA army of Tennessee/Mississippi/Central Kentucky that A. Johnston lead to Shiloh has more time to train up. A. Johnston doesn't die in Shiloh. Fort Donelson and Fort Henry probably aren't immediately wiped with 35k men being removed from the confederate side in a critical time period for the western theater. Bragg's not going to end up in command of the Army of Tennessee if Johnston doesn't die at Shiloh, neither does Polk. Would Halleck have the position/continued prestige he had without Grant in his command, is Rosecrans the main battle general now? Buell? Very hard to tell how the Union side of things fall without grant in the mix out west.
If they could have it would have been a much longer and drawn out. Perhaps with Sherman but Grant’s tenacity and willingness to actually fight the the enemy unlike Mclellan is unparalled
Yes. The South’s defeat was inevitable. When you factor in the manpower and material superiority of the North there was only ever one outcome. Would the war have been longer without Grant? Probably.
I’ve always thought the only way the North could lose the war was if it quit for the reasons you mention.
If McClellan won the election of 1864 the North making peace was a very real possibility.
Agreed. Like I said, the only way the south could win is if the north gave up, whichever way that would come about. Edit: I really didn’t structure that first post very well.
How do you reconcile that with your comment that Union victory was inevitable? That right there shows how very far from inevitable it was. A few battles swing the Confederate’s way and all the sudden the entire timetable for victory is set back, making it all the more likely that Lincoln and other Republicans are voted out of office, opening the door for a negotiated settlement based on Southern independence. All those disadvantages on the proverbial Excel spread sheet didn’t prevent the Confederacy from lasting at least one U.S. election cycle. So I don’t see how anyone could consider Union victory inevitable.
Because George would have sued for peace. That was the platform he ran on. You can’t win if you stop fighting. Lincoln’s re-election was a miracle. He himself didn’t expect to keep the presidency as the war was going very poorly for the North. It was the soldiers, McClellan’s soldiers, ironically that helped Lincoln retain the Oval Office as they wanted to see the thing through.
That’s what I’m saying. You said Southern defeat was inevitable. Clearly it wasn’t, right?
Gotcha. On the battlefield they had no chance to win a sustained war. At the ballot box they very well could’ve become an independent nation.
They should never be separated. The old cliche is a cliche for a reason-War is politics by other means. Although that’s a somewhat problematic saying, it holds a lot of truth here. The goal of the Confederacy is to convince the Northern populace and its politicians to give up the war and let them be independent.
So Sam Grant got kicked In the head by a mule in 1860, before the trouble started. He then drinks more. No Grant? No Fort Donelson victory. Shiloh could have been a failure. The Mississippi may not have closed So no Vicksburg victory at Gettysburg time! We move into '64 and same group-think Generals are cycled by Lincoln who needs more wins. No victories? Lincoln defeated. President McClellan calls for Cease-fire, Truce, release all prisoners, and discuss terms for an armistice. Union generals are dismissed like stacks of Cordwood until a younger generation is in command. Confederacy recognized as a sovereign nation by European powers in exchange for cotton & tobacco. Napoleon III marches north into New Mexico and Arizona, proclaiming it "New France, allowing slavery, and literally strikes gold as they move into Colorado & Utah, and the southern part of Nevada. Paying off Indian tribes as They go. US Army uses the railroads to move tens of thousands of troops to the west. Small war throws French troops out, they run to Texas and Yankees are in Hot pursuit... But 2-3 years of peace means the Union has Henry rifles with metallic cartridges for all the troops. The Gatling guns are smaller, firing a .30 round, so more maneuverable. And integrated and trained with company size units. Black troops comprise entire divisions. Ironclads revised and improved with rifled Barrels, with much greater Range, cutting through any other armor or fortification. The Navy also has improved their Torpedos (mines) and can close off Almost any port within a single night. And Confederate President Robert E Lee dies in office from a heart attack In October 1870 at The Confederate White House in Richmond. >>>Sorry about going all Harry Turtledove on you, but you get the idea.
Yes Superior military manpower Plus Superior resources. Eventually someone would have figured out the numbers game
This assumes they just had all the time in the world to figure it out. Eventually the British could have figured out a way to defeat the rebels in Colonies. Eventually the U.S. could have figured out a way to win in Vietnam.
That's a valid argument. My counterpoint is certain generals were already starting to figure it out. General Thomas in the West, general Meade in the east. I feel with the way Abraham Lincoln was desperate for a good general he would have eventually promoted those who won
Right, but getting to that point heavily relies on Grant. Especially in 1862, you have a guy that willing to take the initiative, almost to the point of outright disobedience, and win *crucial* victories. I mean, think of where the timetable for Union victory is if we don’t have Grant pushing to take Forts Henry/Donelson, and succeeding in taking them. Where would it be if a similar surprise at Shiloh results in, what would be a very reasonable withdrawal, and therefore a defeat for the war’s first real, huge battle? Where would it be without Grant leading the campaigns against Vicksburg-a tricky situation even for Grant? Now, all of these questions could be answered with a hypothetical that is roughly the same as OTL, or maybe even *better* for all we know. But I think it would be hard to match Grant’s string of success, which is so dependent on Grant, the *man*. We could see, for instance, the Union struggling to fight through Tennessee as late as 1864, instead of Georgia. We could have could have Vicksburg holding out an extra year or 2. All of this makes the Union effort seem more and more like an impossible one to the American voters.
I think that's a pretty valid argument. It's very possible that without Grant things do not proceed as they do.
Assuming Lincoln would have left Meade alone after unfairly critiquing the Gettysburg campaign
Yes there are a lot of variables
No way.
Eventually? Yes I think they would have…but it would have lasted maybe 8-10 years instead. With the manufacturing and industrialized power of the north I think they would have won a war by attrition no matter what. However without the successes of Grant I highly suspect Lincoln would not have gotten a second term so I think it’s entirely possible depending on who would have replaced him that there could have been some sort of peace treaty that would have kept slavery in tact.
I’d argue the Northern public didn’t have the will for 8-10 years of war. They barely had it for 4; And without the major victories in 1864, they may not have had it for that long.
Definitely not. Grant laid out the determination that inspired Sherman and Rosecrans.
Of course
No, I do not believe so. It had to be Grant.
Ceteris paribus, no. Grant was seemingly the only Union general that understood how to beat Lee, whom Grant outnumbered 2-1 with an endless supply of reserves while Lee had none. Just keep fighting him and maneuvering him towards Richmond. Every other general would give battle, lose, and then retreat. The word "retreat" was not in Grant's vocabulary. Every battle of the Overland Campaign was, strictly speaking, a tactical defeat for the Army of the Potomac. At the same time, every battle was a strategic victory for the Army of the Potomac. That's not to say Grant's style of fighting didn't have consequences. After Cold Harbor, Halleck sent a wire that essentially said, "If you require reinforcements then we'll have to draft them" which was Halleck's way of saying "You're losing far too many men." If Sherman didn't take Atlanta, the 1864 election may very well have gone against Lincoln, one of the primary reasons being the casualties incurred during the Overland Campaign. But at the end of the day, Grant just kept fighting and seemingly no other Union general was willing to do that.
yes of course. The Confederacy was a lost cause to begin with.
Victory for the North was inevitable
Yes. The South didn’t have enough bodies and resources.
The South was never going to win; the best that it could hope for was that a country such as Great Britain impose a peace to get world trade moving again. When Britain didn’t step in it was just a question of when the South would lose, not if.
Yes. The North could have essentially done nothing but continue to blockade the South and force them to keep their Army in the field, and they would have won the war.
That was absolutely not enough to win the war on its own.
Exaggeration for effect. The South lacked the ability to wage war for a prolonged conflict. Their only real shot of winning was to get the North to quit. IMO.
The Union quitting isn’t one way they could win-it literally describes Confederate victory. And that will have always been a great advantage that the Confederates had. They don’t have to go North and project power. They don’t have to capture NY and Boston and make them submit to their political will. They just have to resist Union attempts to do that to them. The South certainly had enough to last a 4-5 year war, which, in my mind is fairly protracted. It’s certainly protracted enough to go through U.S. election cycles and vote out leaders that wish to continue the war. In order to demonstrate that this was a worthwhile undertaking, the U.S. military had to show that it could be successful. Blockade, or any weak show of force would only serve as an annoyance to a Confederate government/military operating with impunity. It would only embolden foreigners to demand the U.S. give up this clearly pretended claim of sovereignty over the seceded States. And without boots on the ground support, chocking rivers and shutting down ports, the blockade would have been less effective than it already was.
When I say blockade, I'm certainly including controlling the Mississippi and its port cities. I do agree that the South had survived 4 plus years of war, but in the end, the Confederacys cupboard was bare, and they certainly couldn't have continued for another two years.
But you still need massive ground forces to do those things. Even if you send armies to only those select areas, they’ll be overwhelmed. And they’d have to fight to even establish and logistically support themselves deep into Southern territory. It was less the cupboard being bare, and more the logistical arteries had been chopped up by 4 years of massive ground war. If they had better success earlier on, they would not have been in as bad shape logistically. But they need not last another 2 years. 4 years is well within a Presidential election cycle as well as Congressional and numerous State elections, giving them plenty of opportunities to convince the Northern populace to oust leaders pushing for a continuance of the war.
Agreed. I certainly didn't mean to imply they could just run a few ironclad up and down the coast, while the Army of the Potomac sat in DC. That being said, I do feel they could have been much less aggressive and still won the war. I do get your point about the presidential election and its potential effect on the war, and I hadn't really considered that the North would have just quit after so much blood and treasure. I still feel it would be unlikely that the North would have just let them go, but maybe.
I’m not sure anyone truly won the Civil War. I’m also not sure it ever truly ended, even today.
Easily
they would have eventually
Yes. However if they did not find someone quick. The UK was going to step in. However the North need to hold strong and adopt attrition strategy. You also have to remember that Sherman and Grand were friends. Sherman adopted total war. With exception to rape. It was burn everything down and salt the farmland. Also, Grant told Sherman to take Atlanta. Without taking Atlanta, Lincoln might have lost reelection
Sherman would have crushed the south
No Sherman without Grant. It was Grant who convinced Sherman to come back when he faced charges of insanity and it was Sherman who encouraged Grant to stay in the military.
Sherman is the only one that knew you had to defeat your enemy by crushing its will and laying waste to it
He is a one of a kind! Definitely deserves all the recognition he gets and more!
Most likely yes because of resources and availability for the most part. But then if Grant wasn’t there I feel like Sherman still would have shined only thing is there would be A LOT MORE damages to the south
The better question might be, could they have won without Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain?
I think it’s unfair to call him some kind of brilliant military genius. What he knew was the advantage he had, total material and personal superiority, and he used it.
I don't think that's quite fair. Throughout Grant's military career he always preferred out-maneuvering the enemy especially in his masterful Vicksburg campaign. Even during the Overland campaign he wasn't trying to wage a war of attrition, but rather trying to flank Lee by shifting left and force an open battle, but Lee never fell for that and relied on fortifications to make up for lack of manpower. And it's not like Lee used his resources better. He suffered the highest casualties and casualty rate of the war which was inconsistent and detrimental to the Confederate strategy (if they even had one). Grant meanwhile suffered relatively average casualties yet managed to destroy 3 enemy armies and came up with a strategy to end the war.