Creating an alternate Civil War

Something that has always interested me was the "What Ifs". Generally these what ifs surround the possibilities for a shorter Civil War. As a sci-fi fan, the idea of what ifs also has a power in and of itself. Generally though, they usually revolve around Axis victory in WWII.

For the past couple years, I have been working on an alternate Civil War trilogy. It explores the possibility of Confederate victory. It starts off with a larger victory at Chancellorsville, with three Corps being decimated at the Chancellorsville battle itself, instead of just the one. The story travels all over northern Virginia, up through Maryland and into Pennsylvania, and then back down into Maryland.

I've been publishing the trilogy over on Lulu, and the first one of them has even made it onto Amazon. But when it comes down to it, what makes a good alternative history? Is it simply a good story? Is it a good premise? Or is there more involved to it?

First: I believe research is key. In the book, These Few Remain by Harry Turtledove explores Salt Lake City of the time. He is incorrect with most of his stuff, and many of the characters are not true to form, even in a "future" in which the South won their independence. If the characters and setting don't feel right, it's not going to come out right. One thing I pride myself is how close I keep the real people to how they actually were. Longstreet ends up in command of the Army of Northern Virginia, and actually fumbles and makes terrible battle decisions. This happened to him during the Knoxville Campaign of 1863. Usually a pretty solid commander, he fumbled against Burnside, who easily defeated every attack Longstreet threw at him.

Two: Winking at the real events I believe is a good choice. What I mean is this: In my books, I use a very detailed, "Ok, this has happened, so what would be the likeliest course of action?" Many of times, I'd use the real course of events to dictate how something would turn out. For example, in book 2, Lee meets with Jefferson Davis after destroying over half the Army of the Potomac to discuss what to do next. Davis suggests sending Longstreet West to help bolster against Grant. But Lee suggests moving northwards, saying that the East has more political value than the West. This meeting actually happened, although it was tailored to my "reality".

Three: Not everyone needs to live or die. You don't need to keep every person that has lived or died to live or die. Reynolds, who died at Gettysburg in real life, actually survives the war. But Lee on the other hand, who survived the war all but unscathed (his health deteriorated over the course of the war), actually gets shot.

So, when it comes down to it, the best way to create a viable alternative history is: Research your characters and place, giving a wink at real history and you can have people live or die.

The Civil War and the Limits of Destruction

Alright, if you haven't been on this blog before I will come out and say it. I am a Unionist through and through and feel that too much blame is thrown on the feet of the yanks and not enough of the blame taken by the rebs for their own actions. And I was looking forward to a read that finally tries to prove the Federals were not a bloodthirsty and lawless as described.

(Force Mind Trick) But....this is not the book you're looking for. And I will give a few thoughts on why I disagree.

This book's defense is based on three premises: The two sides weren't willing to take off the gloves because of the fact they were fighting whites as well. The discipline level was higher. And the later Union troops were more focused on proving themselves the equals to the Confederates.

1. Being the same race stayed their hands: This statement is not as accurate as he paints for the reader. Sure, during the beginning they tried to be less brutal. But, you read of Confederate troops right after First Manasass digging up a Union soldiers body to mutilate it. You read of Union troops after killing General Zollicoffer during the early part of the war and tearing out hairs of his beard for souvenirs. Lee's second invasion of the north saw Confederates look away as many Confederates all but robbed the northerners, Lee even going as far as saying to a woman complaining that everything has been taken, "Now you know something of what the people of Virginia have endured."

2. The Discipline was higher: Yes, it was, but discipline has a way of breaking down when soldiers capture cities. Fredericksburg being one example, even if the officers tried to stop their men from looting. One case sticks out quiet well in my mind. There's a story of the Overland Campaign where a Union officer told his soldiers he don't want to see them pulling apart fences, then turned around and looked away until his soldiers had dismantled an entire fence. And both sides officially authorized bushwhacking units.

3. Glory more important than revenge: There is a story of during the Georgia Campaign where Sherman's men captured a mill where 400 women were working. He kidnapped them and sent them north. Even despite the quicking an end to the war aim to do the Overland Campaign and March to the Sea and all the other maneuvers in the late part of the war was specifically meant to give the troops a chance to enact revenge against the South for their taking up arms. And meanwhile, as I pointed out, Confederate officers while they tried to limit the destruction caused by their troops in Pennsylvania, would look away at acts of revenge as long as they didn't get out of hand. You even hear of Stuart's cavalry shelling Chambersburg until they pay a ransom to be spared.

In short, this is really a book bent on not so much changing how people look at the war as to diverting their focus away from the war and looking at what other people did. It's the same as a kid who get's caught in trouble and says: "But everyone is doing it, and that kid is so much worse than I am."

Recounting the dead

So, after two days of being unable to get on my computer, I finally jumped on and headed over the the Civil War Gaming site: MadMinute Games BBS and I saw there was a new post in the Civil War section. So, I went over there and there was a new topic called Recounting the Dead. The initial post from the author said this:

Interesting article on the possibility that the accepted number of deaths in the Civil War may be underestimated.

Listed was a link to an article written J. David Hacker associated professor of history at Binghamton University. In it he argues, with a strong argument, that the deal toll of the Civil War or directly related to it was actually between 750,000 to 850,000. High number right? Well, actually, he states that even when the 1870 census was created, it wasn't by no means accurate. Most of the Confederate records had been destroyed, and unlike the Union widows and orphans, southern women got no benefits from their loved ones pensions and didn't report the loss of family members. Also, the US population had increased 34-36% every decade. But, in 1870, the increase was only 21%, or three million less then it should have been.

Well, to make a long story short, I agree with the article. I think as a society we have accepted too low a number. Heck, most people are under the impression that the 620,000 was all losses, dismissing the 400,000 wounded that lived out their natural lives. Also, rebel troops were very ill-fed and ill-clothed. The mortality rate had to be higher. Makes logical sense.

Several months ago I read an article that claimed civilian losses were 80,000. Too high a number in my opinion. That probably included all deaths, natural or otherwise. But, many civilians were killed, and we know of 400 women in the South who disappeared when they were kidnapped by Union soldiers under Sherman's command. Also, hundreds, even thousands died during the guerrilla warfare wagged in the Border States. I myself estimate the total losses in deaths closer to 730,000 at least.

But, a link to the article is here, just click the name: Recounting the Dead.

Lincoln and Lee at Antietam: The Cost of Freedom

So, I recently purchased the documentary Lincoln and Lee at Antietam: The Cost of Freedom. I had been looking forward to since 2009. And finally, I got it off of iTunes and watched it on my iPod.

It was well written and well delivered by the historians. The reenactments were fun to watch on it.

And besides, my good friend James McPherson makes an appearance on the show. Not every day I get to see him doing his thing.

One thing that surprised me was the defense of Burnside delivered by one of the historians. How he was the only person to take his assigned target, clear the area out of enemies entirely, and almost cut off the escape of the Army of Northern Virginia. Only problem; he hadn't yet paid up his gambling debt to AP Hill, who also lost his girl to McClellan. So, Hill had a bone to pick with him.

But, I certainly say you should go out and get this show. Very nicely done.

Nathanial Lyon

What I think about this general is simple.

He was quiet a general and even in his short career did amazing things.

He only lived until August, and that was only like 6 months into the war.Despite he didn't have alot of time to build up a good reputation, he already did several incredible things, and probably would have done better, but, I don't really want to get into the what-ifs.

Army of the Potomac

So, anyways, despite the fact that I haven't been on for a while, I have several updates on my Civil War Experience. Those of you whom know what I mean, it is anything that happens that I am involved someway to the Preservation of the legacy of the American Civil War, which has not only defined America, but how the whole world views America in times of crisis.

The Major ones at this time is my doing in the Civil War gaming communities.

On MadMinute Games BB, they have been doing simulations for the game. Interesting though, for it is strictly a one player game. What happens is one person plays the game, and is the Facilitator. The man who has been doing the past two is called Motubu, from Africa. He's been doing one heck of a job I must say.

He only does anything though, depending on the orders he receives. So, the other players involved in this are commanders. We take a historical OOB and from there we take the positions of the historical person who we want to be. But, these aren't historical settings.

The turns go like this: we issue out orders to those below us and the the facilitator, they then carry out the orders. Then, we get written reports on the actions of the different people and the facilitator. Then, we issue out orders based upon the new information received.

There have been three total, but, I've only been able to participate in two.

The first one was a simulation called Longstreet verses Sickles. It was to show what would have happened if the I Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia commanded by James Longstreet, supplied with a division from the III Corps, randomly meet the III Corps of the Army of the Potomac, commanded by Sickles. We played as Longstreet.

My character was Cadmus M. Wilcox, and I original was assigned the first brigade from the III Corps Division. But, my commanding officer, General Anderson, was killed, and so I replaced him most of the battle. My division ended the battle after five turns. with a smashing all-out attack on the units near us. My division received the highest scores of the simulation.

The second one, being played out right now, is called Burnsides' Gambles. It based upon the assumption that Burnside received his pontoon bridges on time and crossed the river on November 19. It also shows how much different it would have been, if two Corps were not present, used to keep the Army of Northern Virginia in place. And what would have happened if most of the Army of Northern Virginia had slipped past them and still arrived at Fredericksburg, but, without having the time to prepare themselves in a strong fortified line.

I am General Ambrose Burnside. It amazing leading the Army of the Potomac into battle. There is a set fixed limit of 10 turns, and we have completed turn 8. Half of the army was on the town side of the Rappahanock. The other half on the other side of the river. We learned only after intense fighting The I Corps was virtually mauled twice when trying to enter Fredericksburg from the south (or north on the map given us), and it has only 6,000 men left out of 13,000. The enemy set up a massed artillery base ontop of a hill, fixing us in place until we had drained enough of thier manpower to launch an attack on the hill.

The enemy crossed the river with a battery and seven brigades, but they were annihilated. Jackson's Corps is nearly wiped out and we are still in fairly good condition. But, the battle isn't over yet. No one knows what will happen next.

New Strategy

So, anyways, there is so much on the subject of the war, that, from now on, I am going for a different approach. I am very active in several civil war/military history message boards, and so, I am going to start posting posts about different topics I have or am participating in.

The rules of engagement will still be the same, my opinions on the topics. But, this way, I can keep on my toes when it comes to new ideas. Have I exhausted my list of topics? By no means. But, this will keep them coming in a timely manner.

Would Jackson have won at Gettysburg?

No. Absolutely not.

These are reasons why Jackson would not have won:

1. The Confederates were worn out. To have continued the attack would have taxed thier strength to the point that it would have snapped. Even Jackson would have given his men a few minutes rest, and by then, the Union defense on the hills would have been solidified.

2. Terrain was not in his favor. The Yanks were on a hill, and had good fields of fire that would have killed many troops before even getting within rifle range.

3. The Confederates had taken massive casualties. July 1 was the bloodiest of the 3 days, because entire units were destroyed and the casualties were high.

4. Yanks were pouring in every minute. The build up of forces would have slowed Jackson down sugnificantly, allowing the Union time to press thier advantage of troops.

5. True, the 2nd Corps would not have been broken into two corps, allowing Jackson more men on the field under his personal command. At most, he would have only had 30,000 men at the start of the battle, and he would have been facing several Union Corps (at least 2, if not more) numbering about 15,000 if there was only 2 Union Corps. Even a succesful attack would have cost the Confederates so dearly, that they would have needed a day to rest, more then enough time for Meade to form good defenses at Philidelphia and Baltimore.

Most people consider Jackson would have succedded where Ewell failed. Would he have? He would have done a better performance. But, if he had failed to carry the heights, then, think of how less men there would have been to attack the following days.

Gettysburg: 1863-2009

Well, Gettysburg is probably the most overhonored place in American History. What do I mean by that? If you ever been there, you can hardly go to any place that is even remotely untouched and left in it's natural state. Now, honors to the brave men is fine. They sacrificed alot for both sides.

But, when I went to Gettysburg, I was bummed out by the hundreds of statues that dotted every couple yards.

Now with that said: Why do people want to desecrate the monuments?! A couple years ago, several Union monuments had been vandalized, one of them lost his arm. Come on people, leave the hallowed places of America be. They stand as monuments of democracy and freedom.

Book Review on Armchair General

It's not Civil War, but, it's cool stuff.

So, in 2007, I wrote a book review for Armchair General Magazine. It's still on the website and it's been 2 years! You can find it at:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/patriot-battles-book-review.htm

How cool is that?

Army of the Potomac vs. Army of Northern Virginia (MMG Style)

It was a week after the MMG OOB came out before I finally got the MMG OOB to work. This is what was posted on the MadMinute Games Forum.

The fighting began as Texans arrive on the scene and try to attack my dismounted Cavalry. A fierce firefight ensued as both sides called up reeinforcments.

Flanked, the Texans are routed to a small creek while thier Alabamian comrades are routed to a cornfield. Thier commanding officer, trying to stop the rout, rides forth, right into my boys waiting guns. He is killed before he hits the ground.

At this, the Rebels turn and fight again, catch my men in a deadly crossfire with artillery and two brigades. The fighting seesaws back and forth as we both push each other back. Both sides lose many men in point blank duels.

A battery of cannon blasts away dozens of men with grapshot, and a deadly fight ensues over possession of the cannon. Two Irish regiments capture a gun, then a rebel sharpshooter regiment charges them, throwing them into confusion and shoving them from the guns. One last regiment is thrown in, and all six cannons fire at the exact same time, all throwing canister at the same time, and the regiment is thrown back. Finally, I order a cavalry charge, and finally, the battery is taken.

At the same time, the rebels are broken and fall back upon thier reserves. At the same time as I push my Maine Brigade forward and turn thier flanks by advancing on thier rear. But, they run right into 6 regiments of cavalry, and after some fierce fighting, they break and run like chickens.

The rebels are scattered now all over the field, but, they still carry alot of fight. Six times they rout a regiment, then are forced to fall back. During this time, "Phantom Menace" sends a report, ranting about the day is lost, and his Maine brigade needs reeinforcments. He is killed immediatly after the report is recieved.

After the death of him, seven enemy officers are killed in attempts to rally thier men. The enemy breaks, and nearly four regiments are lost and they will cause my men no trouble. Their last artillery battery keeps up a steady fire, trying to save thie army from total disaster. I send my cavalry in another charge, which picks up all but one cannon. It will keep up a pesky fire that does no damage.

Finally, after thirty minutes of pure agony for the rebels, they mount several cavalry charges once again the brave Maine boys. They break, and Chamberlain is killed during this exchange. The Maine boys head for the woods and refuse to come back out until the cavalry is cleared out of thier front.

I send my zouvees against the cavalry, along with an Iron Brigade regiment. Together, they rout the enemy cavalry. During this time, the rebels make one last charge, with a full sized regiment against a badly mangaled cavalry regiment. A classic duel starts, which ends with the rebels in total rout.

With that, major victory!

Score: 10,624
Losses: 3,034
Enemy losses: 2,938

Was the South or North Right

That is probably the biggest of all contreversies when it comes to the Civil War. What most people don't realize is that both sides had excellant points. Let me point out a few I have thought of over the past while (meaning 3 points each side). Let us start with the South.

South:

1. The Founding Fathers had been for the right that man has to speak up against things they feel threatening from the government. Whether they meant rebillion when the North had not yet really taken away rights is questionable.

2. The Constitution did not condemn seccesion.

3. There had not been a true definition given over the power the state level governments had compared to the central government.

North:

1. The nation had been made centralized for the purpose of perserving democracy and defnding the common man from tyrany. Had the South succedded in breaking away, democracy would have failed and the common man would lose his rights, especially since power hungry nations would have gobbled up the remnants of the United States.

2. The Constitution did not support seccesion.

3. Many in the South were leaving to keep thier slaves. That was not a legit reason to leave the Union, and the North had the right to treat the South as traitors, since they were techinically that.

Conclusion: I think overall the North was right, but, the South sticking up for themselves allowed the Nation to define what was what and what would become of the new Union created.

I Corps Commander

Mad Minute Games, when they were making an OOB (Order of Battle) for all members of thier site for the game, Take Command 2, they asked all members to put what they would like to command. I love the game and decided to try my luck at getting a command.

I asked if I could be the commander of the I Corps of the Army of the Potomac, and it was amazing when I played it for the first time and saw myself leading troops into combat.

They reorganized it over the past year, and since I've been unable to play it, promoted another man in my stead. But, they promised me a command when I am able to return to playing; hopefully my old command.

Was Hooker Drunk at Chancellorsville

Now, it is common knowledge that Joseph Hooker was a drinker. But, new information is of the opinion that Hooker was not drunk at Chancellorsville. Unearthed in recent years is some things that point to Hooker not being drunk.

1. Hooker swore off liquor arely days before his Chancellorsville Campaign. This would explain his 'losing nerve' which migh have been withdrawls!

2. Hooker did not make clear choices and this is a sign of most alcholics going off the booze. They can't think clearly.

3. Before Chancellorsville, he was known as a stout fighter.

4. Hooker threw up violently during the battle of Chancellorsville, something that happens to addicts going off booze.

4. After Chancellorsville, during Chattanoga, he was again fighting like he once did.

5. Hooker's own reason why he lost gives us a clue to he was going through withdrawls: "I was not hurt by a shell and I was not drunk. For once I lost confidence in Hooker, and that is all there is to it." What man leaving his booze has faith in himself? He goes crazy because he is trying not to drink, and his body is going crazy on him because it has no liquor.

6. The War Committe itself asked if he was drunk, and one good Reverand Henry Ward Beecher stated that Hooker had abstained from alchol, and the only known treatment for his wond was a tiny bit of whiskey.

7. Colonel Sharpe of the Secret Service said that any man who said Hooker was drunk "lies through his teeth."

8. The ultimate testimonial: Darius Coach in his After Action Report, himself says that it was this very reason he lost: he wasn't drunk!

As such: Hooker was not drunk. He just tried to swear it off at the wrong time.

New name

To give the blog an uplift, I've done few twicks, which should give this a better feel and a cooler look. I've also changed my name to my alias on another site, "Youn' Fighting Joe Hooker".

Which Side Washington Would Have Been On

There has been some debate on which side our friend Mr. Washington would have been on if he was alive at the time of the Civil War. It was and is the opinion of many that Washington would have been with ths South, seeing as he owned slaves.

He would have joined them as soon as he would have joined the British in 1812. In other words, that's chrap!

He stated on several occassions that those who sought to tear down the United States would be condemned by the Almighty, and he pitied them for their foolishness.

Many still would claim he was for the South due to the Revolution. He, however, le troops against the Whiskey Rebillion. To believe he woud be against the Union is wrong. He would have defended it to the death.

According to many from the Confederate side during the attack on Little Round Top, many, hundreds claimed seeing George Washington's spirit during Chamberlains' Charge. Was the general there? No one knows. But, it is sure to be understood and clear as mud that he would have perserved the Union.

Sherman: Hero or Monster

Was Sherman a hero or monster? That has haunted the Civil War historian for nearly 2 centries. Let us look at the facts:

1. According to Rules of War established, Sherman was actually permitted to "borrow" from the natives. When an invading army entered enemy territory, they were suppose to write a long letter to the local authorities, describing thier needs, and the authorities were suppose to give them all the food and items they needed. When none was found, the invaders were allowed to take as much as needed. Sherman followed this.

2. The rule of combat is for every defender, 3 attackers will die. This is true with the Civil War. If Lee had over 40,000 men when Grant attacked, it's probable that 15,000 would be shot in a vigoruos assualt. By scaring and harassing the locals, many men felt compelled to leave the front lines to protect thier famalies. Desertions were rampant in both the ANV and AOT. Many thousands were saved, and maybe a couple months of war was skimmed off.

3. Most of the destruction was done by vagabonds and deserters. Sherman was not really for too much wanton destruction, but, the bummers (deserters who wanted to loot and plunder) did. Only 40% of the damage was really Sherman evoked. The rest was lawlessness.

4. If a family was present, thier homes didn't get burned down.

5. Of course, many things were entirely Sherman's fault, as not putting out the fire in Charleston until a little while after the fact is a big example.

Conclusion: Sherman did what he needed too. Was there a better way? There always is. But, he ended the Civil War sooner then any other general on either side.

Lee vs. Grant: Who is the Better One

This is probably the greatest contreversy of them all. Who was better, Lee or Grant. I've decided to do it an intresting way. I will compare the results throughtout the entire war.

Battles Won
Grant: 18 battles
Lee: 8 Battles

Captured (Cities, Forts, Armies)
Grant:2 Forts, 5 major cities, 3 Confederate Armies
Lee: Nothing

Time as Overall Commander
Grant: 1 year and 5 months
Lee: 3 months; lost

Men Lost
Grant: 136,000 men.
Lee: 168,000 men.

Overall, Grant proved superior in every aspect of the war. He captured more, won more and did everything more.

Now, I am not saying Lee was a bad general. Lee was a superb general. He outwitted army after army. But, in the end, Grant won.

As was once said: Lee was the best tatician in the war (even in his battles with Grant, Grant rarely broke the Confederate lines), but Grant was the best stratigist. Taticians win battles, strategists win wars.

Civil War Controversies

I was originally going to do a few more books, but, it has become more and more obvious to me that we need to go in a new direction now, and look more into the Contrevrsities of the Civil War. I plan to do the following:

Lee vs. Grant: Who is the Better One
Sherman: Hero or Monster
Which Side Washington Would Have Been On
Was Hooker Drunk at Chancellorsville
Was the South or North Right
and a couple more.

What Hath God Wrought

To understand the times that transform the United States to the belemoth that broke up during the Civil War, one must understand the times preceding the war. One of the books that most clearly describes such events is What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848 by Daniel Walker Howe.

It begins how it ends, on the field of battle. It starts with the British disaster at New Orleans, due to the communication downfall of the time; and ends at a new type of battle, the Sceneca Falls assembly where women began advocating equal rights and abolitsinism. Though the battles were diffrent, it is fair to point out that in both battles, the black man was a part of the issue. ANd both showed the way people viewed them back then. At New Orleans: Jackson offered the black troops 150 acres of land for thier services, but convinently forgot about it and the men were still trying to fight for thier lands. At Seneca Falls: women wants blacks free, but that did not nessecarily mean equal rights.

Howe's books helps show how the country transformed into what it became, allowing it to survive during the Civil War. It also allows us to see what kind of land Grant, Lee, Jackson and Sherman lived in and grew up. This book describes the country of Mexico as a people that were eager to show thier independance from Spanish rule, and determined to hold on thier lands from American interlopers.

In short, this book is an excellant addition to any History buffs library. I wouldn't recommend this book to someone who is wanting a light read or still new to the history profession. Why? 900 pages, 10 size font, and long words. But, for the hard core prosn, or someone who really wants a good read, I highly recommend it.

I rate this book 10 out of 10.