Can the North defeat the confederacy if Grant is killed?
by the way I think it is possible.
by the way I think it is possible.
For example if Grant is killed at say Belmont, I think the war sees some more deaths but eventually the right men will rise to high posts.
If Grant is killed before the Cracker Line Plan can be launched to save the Army of the Cumberland in Chattanooga and Thomas has to abandon the city
There were only two General Officers Ranks during the war besides Grant's Lt. Generalship, so broadly no since he made it to Major General.You know, this does make me wonder-given that Grant and Thomas had a bad relationship, does this mean Thomas rises higher if Grant dies?
Well I'm not sure I would call Pope capable. But there are very few cases in the war where Generals in one Army were dispatched to assume Command of Others. Pope went east to assume command of a new military formation in an effort to turn McClellan into a desk general and Grant both at Chattanooga and in the Overland/Petersburg campaigns was assigned more overarching commands then the Armies themselves.Yea, I guess that goes to the point-there are other capable officers in the West who can broadly speaking do the kind of work Grant did.
Though theoretically if the Army of the Tennessee is wiped out at Shiloh its possible that Thomas becomes commander of some new force (Army of the Mississippi most likely) that becomes the replacement force in the Mississippi component of the Western Theater. Though John Pope is more likely to get that/be willing to assume the command.
No, not really. The only likely intervention is that of the French, and even a disaster at Shiloh isn't going to save New Orleans at the end of the month and close that option.The Army of the Tennessee getting wiped out at Shiloh is likely to trigger Anglo-French intervention.
No, not really. The only likely intervention is that of the French, and even a disaster at Shiloh isn't going to save New Orleans at the end of the month and close that option.
I'd have to actually see Jones' sources on that because he's profoundly out of step with other studies on the subject. Manson and Slidell were not particularly welcome nor successful in their lobbying efforts. Efforts continuing does not mean that likelihood was increasing or even remaining steady. And frankly the idea that Union victories INCREASED Anglo-French intervention chances is laughable. Especially considering that the Capture of New Orleans DID start seeing cotton arriving back onto the world market.
The full cite for the book is Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations, and it's published through University of North Carolina Press. In terms of being out of step, it largely matches all other sources I have seen, such as Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Volume I: To 1920 by Dennis Merrill. As for why New Orleans increased support for intervention, Jones explains such quite well in my estimation; basically the Union failed to translate that into decisive military success or even re-open the Cotton trade, which convinced London and Paris that continuing the Civil War was a folly that would only drag down both the North and the South (and the Anglo-French economies with them!).
The problem is that the part in bold simply isn't true.
A decisive military victory doesn't have to end the war right away. As an example, the Battle of Vicksburg and the capture of Atlanta were decisive victories for the Union, but the Civil War didn't end in 1863 or 1864.Bu the Civil War didn't end in 1862 nor did Cotton exports to Europe appreciably increase in the aftermath?
It also did see the slow, but steady growth of the cotton market yet again towards Europe.A decisive military victory doesn't have to end the war right away. As an example, the Battle of Vicksburg and the capture of Atlanta were decisive victories for the Union, but the Civil War didn't end in 1863 or 1864.
Not really, no - by that point, anti-slavery sentiments was largely ingrained in the British psyche that it would just be not on, and France would not be so stupid as to risk disaster for itself (though Napoléon III did try, with horrendous consequences, in Mexico). Furthermore, both countries were by and large at least nominally and discreetly pro-Union (even when officially neutral in the conflict), which frustrated the Confederacy. So an Anglo-French intervention on behalf of the Confederacy just simply would not work.The Army of the Tennessee getting wiped out at Shiloh is likely to trigger Anglo-French intervention.
A decisive military victory doesn't have to end the war right away. As an example, the Battle of Vicksburg and the capture of Atlanta were decisive victories for the Union, but the Civil War didn't end in 1863 or 1864.
Not really, no - by that point, anti-slavery sentiments was largely ingrained in the British psyche that it would just be not on, and France would not be so stupid as to risk disaster for itself (though Napoléon III did try, with horrendous consequences, in Mexico). Furthermore, both countries were by and large at least nominally and discreetly pro-Union (even when officially neutral in the conflict), which frustrated the Confederacy. So an Anglo-French intervention on behalf of the Confederacy just simply would not work.