Scott goes South

[Nytram01]

I have no timeline or scenario planned out for this idea, just the idea itself. How would the American Civil War have developed if Winfield Scott had resigned his commission with the Federal Army and joined the Confederacy?

 

[TFSmith121]

Never going to happen

Scott was an American loyalist, through and through and to the bone; he had fought and faced the British repeatedly to preserve the Republic, had stood forth as the nation's premier soldier for a half century, and at an age when most men would be sitting retired by the fire, crossed the Atlantic in 1861 to lobby for the Union cause in Europe.

He truly was (as John SD Eisenhower chose to title his biography of Scott) the "Agent of Destiny" - Scott could no more have betrayed the United States than he would have breathed underwater.

It's interesting, but in Southern Sons, Lorri Glover makes the point that the generation of southern men between the Revolutionary generation and the fire-eaters were the ones who truly heaped up the flames of the sectional crisis; Scott stands as the antithesis of his generation of southerners.

It's as if suggesting Wellington would have joined Napoleon, or Marshall and King the Nazis and Japanese.

Best,

 

[David T]

Despite being born and raised in Virginia, Scott was neither a slaveholder nor really a Southerner politically--his support for the 1852 Whig nomination had come overwhelmingly from antislavery *northern* Whigs--and there is no way he would have joined the Confederacy. His loyalty was not to the South or even to Virginia but to the US Army he had served in so long.

 

[Elfwine]

Leaving others to make the argument on the unlikelihood, some issues it brings up if somehow Scott is convinced to do it.


1) He's old, fat, and in general not fit for field duty. One might even argue "any duty", but I think that's unfair.

BUT . . .

2) He's going to be overwhelmingly the most senior officer going south. That means either compromising the idea of "seniority in the CSA = seniority in the Old Army" for the upper guys (which is not likely to be taken well, either by Scott or by the supporters of that), or Scott being the most senior officer in the Confederacy despite #1.

3) I imagine a lot of profound shock on the part of Union men. Even if in his heart of hearts Scott may have hypothetically been doubtful enough to make this decision, no one would have thought that of him in 1861.

How that plays out, I'm not sure. But it's going to be pretty dramatic and emotional, however practically irrelevant.

 

[Nytram01]

Ok. I am fully aware that Scott would never have resigned and gone south. Perhaps I should said so in the opening post and that I didn't was a mistake on my part, however I dont really need people lecturing me on the subject.

I thought the idea of Scott going south was an interesting one, because his reputation was such that Virginia and the Confederacy would have automatically employed him in the highest office in their militaries and it would have been interesting to see how he would have run the Confederate war effort, and how he would have dealt with Davis and the Confederate politicians, and how he would have dealt with the Confederate Generals.

I am dissapointed that only one person out of the three who replied thus far has even attempted to talk about that.

 

[Nytram01]

Leaving others to make the argument on the unlikelihood, some issues it brings up if somehow Scott is convinced to do it.

And I thank you for that.

1) He's old, fat, and in general not fit for field duty. One might even argue "any duty", but I think that's unfair.

BUT . . .

2) He's going to be overwhelmingly the most senior officer going south. That means either compromising the idea of "seniority in the CSA = seniority in the Old Army" for the upper guys (which is not likely to be taken well, either by Scott or by the supporters of that), or Scott being the most senior officer in the Confederacy despite #1.

Personally, I dont think there would be much of an issue there. Either the Confederacy would make it a list of six full generals instead of five or Scott would be made General-in-Chief and immediate superior to the five full generals.

I cant see Lee or Joe Johnston having any issue with this idea since both greatly respected Scott, and Scott had undeniable seniority over both of them so Johnston would not be expecting to be the top ranking officer in the south. Cooper, also, I cant see making much of a fuss about it, but I'm not familiar enough with Sidney Johnston and Beauregard's relationship with Scott to comment on them.

Though one has to wonder how well Davis would have worked with Scott and whether he would have grown to resent Scott's presence and power as General-in-Chief.

3) I imagine a lot of profound shock on the part of Union men. Even if in his heart of hearts Scott may have hypothetically been doubtful enough to make this decision, no one would have thought that of him in 1861.

How that plays out, I'm not sure. But it's going to be pretty dramatic and emotional, however practically irrelevant.

I admit that I did not even think of the psychologic impact of Scott going south but it definitely would have been a devastating blow to many to see this living legend and war hero leave the Union for the Confederacy. I doubt that the Federals would be all that forgiving towards him come the war's end.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Although Winfield Scott proposed the Anaconda Plan for the defeat of the Confederacy, I don't think his going south (which I agree is something that would never happen) would alter Union strategic thinking that much. Blockading the South and focusing on gaining control of the Mississippi River are obvious strategies. As far as prioritizing the capture of Richmond, Scott had actually opposed this.

 

[TFSmith121]

What you're really asking, I think, is if there was

Ok. I am fully aware that Scott would never have resigned and gone south. Perhaps I should said so in the opening post and that I didn't was a mistake on my part, however I dont really need people lecturing me on the subject.

What you're really asking, I think, is if there was an undoubtedly senior/ general officer who went south in 1861, how would that have changed the PACS/CSA seniority list AND would that have any impact on the general fractiousness of the confederate war effort?

Which is an interesting question, actually; you could suggest Twiggs as your "rebel" - or you could change things so Cooper's career was as a line, not a staff, officer.

Or even that RE Lee had made brigadier in the old army, and before any of the Johnstons, etc.; have Twiggs killed in the Mexican War or something like that.

But suggesting Scott is akin to asking if zombie George Washington arose from the grave and asked for a commission...

Although John Tyler came close.

Best,

 

[Elfwine]

And I thank you for that.

Welcome. I think there's a point to saying it would be very unlikely to say the least, but one can still contemplate how his role would work out - there are certain observable effects.

Personally, I dont think there would be much of an issue there. Either the Confederacy would make it a list of six full generals instead of five or Scott would be made General-in-Chief and immediate superior to the five full generals.

I cant see Lee or Joe Johnston having any issue with this idea since both greatly respected Scott, and Scott had undeniable seniority over both of them so Johnston would not be expecting to be the top ranking officer in the south. Cooper, also, I cant see making much of a fuss about it, but I'm not familiar enough with Sidney Johnston and Beauregard's relationship with Scott to comment on them.

Though one has to wonder how well Davis would have worked with Scott and whether he would have grown to resent Scott's presence and power as General-in-Chief.

Davis seems more likely to have problems with Scott than Sidney Johnston or Beauregard, though I can see Beauregard having a relationship that develops like McClellan's did with Scott, given Beauregard's fantasy plans.

But I think that Scott is really well past his prime is going to be worrisome even if Lee and Joe admire him immensely. Not sure how that works out in the CSA as opposed to the USA, except that "general in chief" will definitely go over less well with Davis (even if he has no specific problem with Scott).

Also, I can see Scott speaking up for Joe Johnston and Lee - not sure of what particular situations, but he seems to have felt positively to them as well as them to him. Having him argue Davis was incorrect in Joe's seniority would be interesting, as a lot of people would probably take his opinion of the matter seriously.

I admit that I did not even think of the psychologic impact of Scott going south but it definitely would have been a devastating blow to many to see this living legend and war hero leave the Union for the Confederacy. I doubt that the Federals would be all that forgiving towards him come the war's end.

Yeah. I don't know if they'd actually do much, but it would certainly at best cast a long shadow over his previous service.


TFSmith121: Scott was not predestined to stay with the Union. He made a choice, like every other Unionist. A choice that might have been pretty damn predictable, but comparing it to zombie George Washington is a bit much.

 

[TFSmith121]

Actually, the ones making the choice were those who rebelled

Scott was not predestined to stay with the Union. He made a choice, like every other Unionist. A choice that might have been pretty damn predictable, but comparing it to zombie George Washington is a bit much.

Actually, the ones making the "choice" were those who considered rebellion. Scott's loyalty was the default, essentially; which - interestingly enough - he had made clear repeatedly over the decades of his career, notably in 1832 during the nullifcation crisis in South Carolina.

The moderators have posted the "let's stay wthin the realm of the possible in the general forum" post many times; this certainly falls within those parameters, I think.

One may as well suggest Lincoln goes south; it makes about as much sense.

Best,

 

[Duke 4]

He might become Secretary of War. Lee and Scott are very good friends. So Lee becomes the head of the Southern Army right away. Lee might win such a battle at Bull Run in which they might be able to take DC. Also Scott might be able to reign in Lee's ambitions on winning a battle in the north. He might figure out they just needed to keep winning a defense war.

 

[ProfJets]

Actually, the ones making the "choice" were those who considered rebellion. Scott's loyalty was the default, essentially; which - interestingly enough - he had made clear repeatedly over the decades of his career, notably in 1832 during the nullifcation crisis in South Carolina.

The moderators have posted the "let's stay wthin the realm of the possible in the general forum" post many times; this certainly falls within those parameters, I think.

One may as well suggest Lincoln goes south; it makes about as much sense.

Best,

For one man to hold a different opinion than he did OTL, especially when that opinion (state loyalty > national loyalty) was hardly uncommon, is hardly in the realm of Alien Space Bats, as you seem to be implying.

 

[TFSmith121]

Have you read much about Scott?

I'm not trying to be snarky, but this was a man whose entire adult life was defined by the words "the foremost soldier of the United States" for (arguably) the three decades prior to 1861, including the aforementioned 1832 Nullification Crisis.

Again, it's like asking if Wellington was suddenly going to through in his lot with the French in 1815.

Agent of Destiny is easy to find.

Best,

 

[Nytram01]

I'm not trying to be snarky, but this was a man whose entire adult life was defined by the words "the foremost soldier of the United States" for (arguably) the three decades prior to 1861, including the aforementioned 1832 Nullification Crisis.

Again, it's like asking if Wellington was suddenly going to through in his lot with the French in 1815.

Agent of Destiny is easy to find.

Best,

Your Wellington analogy does not work. The Napoleonic Wars were not a Civil War between different factions of one nation, they were wars between different countries.

That Scott was a staunch and unrelenting Unionist in OTL is beyond any debate, but it does not become ASB to make him change that. If he had been treated badly by the Federals authorities in spite of his successes, and others had conspired to rob him of credit he was due, and he had been forcably retired and largely forgotten by the authorities come 1860 then he might have been bitter about his treatment and more sympathetic to secession and the Confederate cause. One need look no further than Benedict Arnold to see how a great military man and firm loyalist to America can be driven into the arms of an enemy by mistreatment from the authorities.

 

[TFSmith121]

It is akin to suggesting Robertson joins the Irish Republicans in 1916

It is akin to suggesting Sir William Robertson joins the Irish Republicans in 1916.

And makes about as much sense.

Best,

 

[Elfwine]

I think simplifying any individual down to "the foremost soldier of the United States" as if they were incapable of even conceiving of circumstances that could make them change their mind does them no credit.

OTL Scott felt that, for whatever combination of reasons, the Union was where he would stand to the last. Fine. We get it. How many people who knew him would have felt the same was true of Lee in 1860?

 

[TFSmith121]

Lee is a different case entirely;

How many people who knew him would have felt the same was true of Lee in 1860?

He was a slave-owner from a family of slave-owners.

Scott was not, and frankly, had spent more time in New York and New Jersey during his adult life than in Virginia..

According to Judge John Robertson, who actually approached Scott about resigning his commission in April, 1861 (same month as Lee's resignation), Scott said:

"...Robertson, go no further; it is best we part here before you compel me to present a mortal insult....I have served my country under the flag of the Union for more than fifty years, and as long as God permits me to live, I will defend that flag with my sword, even if my own native state assails it."

Granted, this is second-hand from Nicolay and Hay, but it was good enough for JSD Eisenhower to include in his biography of Scott; and given Scott's service record (including the fact he happily presided over sending hundreds if not thousands of rebels to their deaths before retiring in 1861), it seems entirely consistent with everything else about the man.

So, yes, it is ASB to the extreme.

Best,

 

[Elfwine]

He was a slave-owner from a family of slave-owners.

You say that as if that has any relevance to the question.

I don't know if he owned slaves, but Robert Anderson (of Sumter fame) in Generals in Blue is described as "proslavery", which certainly sounds like a more serious sentiment than that held by say, Thomas Jonathan Jackson or Richard Stoddert Ewell - yet Anderson stayed with the Union and Jackson and Ewell didn't.

So again, how many people in 1860 would have believed Lee was dedicated to the Union past any serious (as opposed to farcical) question?

Scott was not, and frankly, had spent more time in New York and New Jersey during his adult life than in Virginia..

According to Judge John Robertson, who actually approached Scott about resigning his commission in April, 1861 (same month as Lee's resignation), Scott said:

"...Robertson, go no further; it is best we part here before you compel me to present a mortal insult....I have served my country under the flag of the Union for more than fifty years, and as long as God permits me to live, I will defend that flag with my sword, even if my own native state assails it."

Granted, this is second-hand from Nicolay and Hay, but it was good enough for JSD Eisenhower to include in his biography of Scott; and given Scott's service record (including the fact he happily presided over sending hundreds if not thousands of rebels to their deaths before retiring in 1861), it seems entirely consistent with everything else about the man.

So, yes, it is ASB to the extreme.

Best,

Repeating over and over again that OTL Scott was dedicated to the Union does not make it "ASB to the extreme" for something to change.

Why do you think that Scott was incapable of being a different person (while still serving in the US army as long and as well as he did OTL) or reacting to events differently?

 

[Japhy]

Scott having different views is not ASB, though it is ridiculously unlikely in regards to the fact it would require a completely different character for the man. We are talking having to go back decades to change it, which with his position would transform the lives and careers of dozens of men who would form the military and governmental cores of both the Union and rebellion.

That is to say you have to go back to the Madison administration if not earlier. And incidentally if he was removed before 1860 what the union would face would be more pre-cession treason, not just in regards as to how the Buchanan War and Navy departments acted after Sumtner but also with years to spare the rise of Pro-Southern "cadres" like happened with the creation of the 2nd cavalry. Much larger changes than the destruction of the Legacy of Winfield Scott.

 

[Elfwine]

Why would it require something obvious to change?

It's not as if the officers that did decide to don gray in 1860 had been visibly lukewarm in their loyalties earlier - having there be less conviction behind what appeared to be one of loyalty's paragons when it came to state vs. national would not be like asking for say, "What if Stalin was a pacifist?"

Although I agree that removing him earlier does have some effect. Scott's position would presumably be filled by someone else, and who that someone else is is a good question.