Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

2nd Bull Run

preshlock

Leader
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
81
Yes ultimately the Union won the war but if the CSA had been able to better capitalize after this battle we might have a different history.

I've always wondered that if instead of a victory at Bull Run what if the South had a decisive victory where the entire Union Army was destroyed. I doubt that much would have changed as Washington D.C. still had a huge garrison with a bunch troops training by. Who knows maybe the North also doesn't wait until the summer of 1863 to ramp up the war effort and the war is even shortened.

Also there was a huge reason why no field army, until the very last stage of the war, was ever completely wiped out.
 

America 1st

The best poster on the board! Trumps lover! 🇺🇸
Founder
Patron
Joined
Jan 7, 2021
Messages
16,098
I've always wondered that if instead of a victory at Bull Run what if the South had a decisive victory where the entire Union Army was destroyed. I doubt that much would have changed as Washington D.C. still had a huge garrison with a bunch troops training by. Who knows maybe the North also doesn't wait until the summer of 1863 to ramp up the war effort and the war is even shortened.

Also there was a huge reason why no field army, until the very last stage of the war, was ever completely wiped out.
Feels like they took a little bit of a step back by not following up. I always felt it should have been somewhere besides around Washington.

The 'wins' at 2nd and on the peninsula (neither of which were as drastic as we frame them up to be) were largely due to retaining the initiative. Don't know why they took their foot off the gas.
 

futurepanther

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
12
I've always wondered that if instead of a victory at Bull Run what if the South had a decisive victory where the entire Union Army was destroyed. I doubt that much would have changed as Washington D.C. still had a huge garrison with a bunch troops training by. Who knows maybe the North also doesn't wait until the summer of 1863 to ramp up the war effort and the war is even shortened.

Also there was a huge reason why no field army, until the very last stage of the war, was ever completely wiped out.
The Federals were really good at moving men and resources when a major city was under threat. During the Kentucky Campaign, Kirby Smith sent roughly 8,000 Confederates under Henry Heth to make a demonstration against Cincinnati. The Federals were able to organize over 80,000 troops to defend it. Of course, a majority of the forces were militia, but it was impressive.
 

preshlock

Leader
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
81
Feels like they took a little bit of a step back by not following up. I always felt it should have been somewhere besides around Washington.

The 'wins' at 2nd and on the peninsula (neither of which were as drastic as we frame them up to be) were largely due to retaining the initiative. Don't know why they took their foot off the gas.

of course one of the famous quotes is that the Confederates were just as disorganized by victory at Bull Run as the Union was by defeat. Maybe with the training and experience of the 1862 or 1863 army that could have been done. But both sides were just getting armies formed.

Always thought a fundamental mistake of the Confederates was not building up an army before the war. If the Army of Northern Virginia had been established for a couple of years before the war then the Confederates would have been in much better position at the opening. Of course the same is true for the Union but with the resource disparity the onus was really with the Confederates.

Look at Germany in 1914 and 1939 and see what a smaller but very highly trained army could achieve against numerically superior opponents. But instead the war began with no real strategic view in place.
 

Cards1968

Moderator
Moderator
Founder
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
325
The Federals were really good at moving men and resources when a major city was under threat. During the Kentucky Campaign, Kirby Smith sent roughly 8,000 Confederates under Henry Heth to make a demonstration against Cincinnati. The Federals were able to organize over 80,000 troops to defend it. Of course, a majority of the forces were militia, but it was impressive.
Another great example of this is Price's '64 invasion of Missouri when Union troops were moved by paddle boat to defend St. Louis from as far away as Tennessee and Mississippi. Turned out to be quite unnecessary, but they had no way of knowing how poorly equipped Price's Missouri State Guard was.
 

grimm515

Elite
Founder
Platinum
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
636
I think many people overlook how ill-equipped the Confederate armies were, logistically, to conduct lengthy operations in enemy territory. They chose a defensive strategy mainly for that reason. There are many documented cases of Confederate soldiers overrunning Union camps and stopping to loot them instead of continuing to pursue Union troops.
 

AgEngDawg

Overlord
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
4,408
I think many people overlook how ill-equipped the Confederate armies were, logistically, to conduct lengthy operations in enemy territory. They chose a defensive strategy mainly for that reason. There are many documented cases of Confederate soldiers overrunning Union camps and stopping to loot them instead of continuing to pursue Union troops.

They were extremely poorly equipped. In fact, many say that Lee's entire plan in the Pennsylvania invasion was to just spread out in an arc in Pennsylvania and live off the land for a while. Give Virginia farmers a rest.

Also, it annoys me so much when I see a fat Confederate in a movie. They didn't exist.
 

Quatch$

Elite
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
446
They were extremely poorly equipped. In fact, many say that Lee's entire plan in the Pennsylvania invasion was to just spread out in an arc in Pennsylvania and live off the land for a while. Give Virginia farmers a rest.

Also, it annoys me so much when I see a fat Confederate in a movie. They didn't exist.
Haha very true. Those mother fuckers didn’t even have shoes, let alone food. They were boiling leather belts to eat for God’s sake.
 

futurepanther

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
12
The idea of the "ragged rebel" is really exaggerated. Sure, there are examples where the Confederate armies were in really bad shape like the Antietam Campaign, and Price's 1864 Missouri Raid. However, there are also several examples where the Confederates were better uniformed and supplied than the Federals. It really depended on which theater they served in and what phase of the war.
 

AgEngDawg

Overlord
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
4,408
The idea of the "ragged rebel" is really exaggerated. Sure, there are examples where the Confederate armies were in really bad shape like the Antietam Campaign, and Price's 1864 Missouri Raid. However, there are also several examples where the Confederates were better uniformed and supplied than the Federals. It really depended on which theater they served in and what phase of the war.

I disagree. That was never the case in the Eastern theatre. One side had a naval blockaded and the other was not and it showed.

In 1864, it showed and showed big time.

By 1865, it was extreme.
 

futurepanther

Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2021
Messages
12
I disagree. That was never the case in the Eastern theatre. One side had a naval blockaded and the other was not and it showed.

In 1864, it showed and showed big time.

By 1865, it was extreme.
Is that why the Confederate dead of Fort Mahone (April, 1865) are mostly wearing almost brand new imported Tait style jackets, new shoes, and accoutrements? This was just days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Adolphus Confederate Uniforms
 

BigBucnNole

Elite
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Messages
1,994
I think many people overlook how ill-equipped the Confederate armies were, logistically, to conduct lengthy operations in enemy territory. They chose a defensive strategy mainly for that reason. There are many documented cases of Confederate soldiers overrunning Union camps and stopping to loot them instead of continuing to pursue Union troops.

We whipped their yankee ass under Gen’rl Jackson with muskets from the 18th century at the battles of Winchester in the Shenandoah Valley.
 

BigBucnNole

Elite
Joined
Jan 15, 2021
Messages
1,994
Is that why the Confederate dead of Fort Mahone (April, 1865) are mostly wearing almost brand new imported Tait style jackets, new shoes, and accoutrements? This was just days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Adolphus Confederate Uniforms

Lee’s army was still pretty short of clothing leading into the battle of Fredericksburg. And that was when we were supposedly the best equipped.

South had the resources, and almost the production capacity to maintain the armies. Where shit went “south” was the logistical abilities. Which ironically was a major factor in clearing up before the Revolution began to tilt in the direction of the colonies.
 

AgEngDawg

Overlord
Joined
Jan 9, 2021
Messages
4,408
Is that why the Confederate dead of Fort Mahone (April, 1865) are mostly wearing almost brand new imported Tait style jackets, new shoes, and accoutrements? This was just days before Lee's surrender at Appomattox.

Adolphus Confederate Uniforms

The fact that the Confederates were sorely lacking in food and supplies especially in 1864 and 1865 is NOT up for debate. This is extensively reported in the historical literature.

It is also completely against common sense. Why would they risk the great Beefsteak Raid if they were well fed?
 

Monthly Donation Goal

  1. Campaign goal
    $267.17 of $500.00

Latest posts

Top Bottom