- This topic has 5 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
On July 17, 1864, Jefferson Davis replaced Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston with Lt. General John Bell Hood. Johnston had 51,000 troops to Sherman’s almost 100,000 men. Johnston had followed a strategy of retreating and waiting for a favorable moment—which never came—to attack Sherman. After each of Johnston’s retreats Sherman would have to flank Johnston causing Johnston to yet again retreat. The process was slow and it appeared Sherman might bog down (as Grant had at Petersburg) never being able to take Atlanta.Hood attacked Sherman—suffering huge casualties in his defeat. Atlanta fell before the election between Lincoln and McClellan.Prior to the fall of Atlanta the North was war weary and it appeared McClellan was going to beat Lincoln. McClellan, of course, was running on a platform calling for a negotiated end to the Civil War. The fall of Atlanta restored Northern faith in ultimate victory and played a significant role in Lincoln defeating McClellan. Had Davis not replaced Johnston with Hood would Johnston have been able to delay the fall of Atlanta until after the election? If so, would McClellan have beaten Lincoln?Did Davis’ decision to replace Johnston result in the South losing the war?
Wouldn't have mattered.. the South was pretty much done at this point anyway. Replacing Johnson with Hood really was insignificant. The end results were already written on the wall.The Western Theater had been secured by the Union, most of the Trans-Mississippi was also secured by the Union. Grant was pushing from the north, Sherman from the south. The Confederacy was boxed in, losing real estate rapidly, soldiers returning home and little to no backup troops.1863 might have been a different story, but 1864 the move was inconsequential.
Wouldn't have mattered.. the South was pretty much done at this point anyway. Replacing Johnson with Hood really was insignificant. The end results were already written on the wall.The Western Theater had been secured by the Union, most of the Trans-Mississippi was also secured by the Union. Grant was pushing from the north, Sherman from the south. The Confederacy was boxed in, losing real estate rapidly, soldiers returning home and little to no backup troops.
I fear you missed my point. It appears you are only looking at things from a military viewpoint; you're not looking at the bigger picture.There are more ways to win or lose a war than on the battlefield. Just look at Viet Nam. The American military never lost a significant battle but North Viet Nam won the war. War weariness caused the US to stop fighting and go home resulting in North Viet Nam winning the war. Something similar could have happened in the Civil War. Had Lincoln lost the election to McClellan the outcome of the Civil War would have been different. The North was weary of the war and McClellan was running on a platform calling for a negotiated end to the war. He would not have continued the fighting; he would have negotiated a peace that would have granted the South its independence. At the time Davis replaced Johnston with Hood everyone--including Lincoln--thought McClellan would win the election because the North was tired of fighting. (The fall of Atlanta changed everything by re-energizing the North.)Had Atlanta not fallen to Sherman before the Lincoln vs. McClellan election the South would almost certainly had gained its independence. I think that had Davis left Johnston in command Atlanta would not have fallen in time to help Lincoln win resulting in the South gaining its independence.
Johnston could have prolonged the campaign, but the end result was not in doubt by that time. I don't think the Southern people would have supported a guerrilla type campaign unless they knew in advance help from Europe was on the way….and of course no such help was ever coming.
There are more ways to win or lose a war than on the battlefield. Just look at Viet Nam. The American military never lost a significant battle but North Vietnam won the war. War weariness caused the US to stop fighting and go home resulting in North Viet Nam winning the war. Something similar could have happened in the Civil War.
I am not convinced that public opinion mattered as much during the Civil War as it did 100 years later. Yes, there were political sops to public opinion but it was not as important as you might think based on it's importance today. The main reason I think this is communication. Even with the telegraph news tended to travel slowly and do not Forget that part of Lincolns original campaign pledge was to preserve the Union and while many Northerners may not have cared much for slavery, they were passionate about preserving the Union. The Copperhead Democrats were not as popular as later history seems to suggest. Lincoln won the popular vote by a handy 9% margin. not the ratio of somebody whose reelection was supposedly in doubt just weeks before the election.
It appears I'm the only one (who has thus far posted in this thread) that believes the fall of Atlanata changed the outcome of the Lincoln vs. McClellan election. Its clear that before Atlanta fell that Lincoln believed he was going to be "badly beaten." I think he was right. I think that had Davis not replaced Johnston with Hood that McClellan would have defeated Lincoln and the South would have gained independence through a negociated peace. I am surprised that no one else here believes that.
Atlanta was going to fall, so replacing Johnson is a moot point in terms of the effect it had. Sherman was on the move and Johnson would hit and run... no way he could have made a stand in Atlanta... he just did not have the resources... Even with that strategy Sherman was going to take Atlanta no one was going to stop him and I truly believe that regardless of who was in charge of the Confederate Army, Sherman had the resources and momentum and Atlanta was going down before the election regardless. Grant knew this, so did Sherman. I guarantee that all parties involved made it clear to make this victory happen.You have to look at the military side of things...Vietnam and the Civil War are not on the same field... they are not even the same sport...
I truly believe that regardless of who was in charge of the Confederate Army, Sherman had the resources and momentum and Atlanta was going down before the election regardless.
I agree that Atlanta would have fallen (if the war continued) no matter who was the Confederate commander. The "64 dollar question" is when. I don't think Atlanta would have fallen before the election if Johnston had remained in command. (Just look at how long it took Grant to break the seige at Petersberg.) Had Hood not attacked Sherman (suffering major causilties) Atlanta would not have fallen when it did.Consider that the Battle of Atalanta was fought July 22, 1864 but it was not until September 2. 1864 that Sherman actually entered Atlanta. I think had Johnston remained in command he would have been able to delay the fall of Atlanta another two months--and that would have resulted in McClellan wining the election and the South gaining its independence.
I'd say there's a good chance Johnston could have delayed the fall of Atlanta until the election if he'd remained in command.However, while Atlanta's fall pretty much ensured Lincoln's reelection, I don't think the opposite is true. Lincoln himself was certainly pessimistic about his chances, but the Democrats were weak beyond being the anti-war party. It's probably a much closer election, but I think Lincoln could have still won.Johnston remaining in command through Atlanta's fall almost certainly prevents the disastrous Nashville campaign as well as the March To The Sea (at least as we know it). But even if Johnston had lasted until the fall of Atlanta I'd think it unlikely he survives that. Hood might've returned to Lee's army by that point so someone else probably gets command there. Regardless, Sherman probably doesn't move on Savannah until the spring.If Lincoln does lose, he still had until Narch before McClellan would have taken office. Even with Sherman's campaign having proceeded slower, Lee's army was still rotting away at Petersburg. Perhaps during the winter Grant shifts part of Sherman's army to Virginia, accelerating events there (Richmond fell not quite a month after Inauguration Day). McClellan might've taken office with Lee already surrendered.If Lee is still holding out in Richmond when McClellan is inaugurated (and Sherman is probably still in Atlanta), what kind of independent Confederacy would there be? The Border States stick with the Union. Tennessee was essentially entirely Union-occupied and much of Louisiana and Virginia as well. Would McClellan have abandoned that or would it have been a shrunken independent Confederacy? I've frequently heard the opinion the narrow economy of the South and weak central government of the CSA (and the continued stain of legalized slavery), they would have struggled to function long term as an independent country.
