The confederate hold on to New Orleans

[JWQ]

What were the confederates have to have done to hold on New Orleans for A siege instead of being taken over pretty quickly during the Civil War?

I think the best option would’ve been General Beauregard to be the commander of New Orleans as he was a good military engineer not a good field commander though . His record certainly be shows he did well commanding forts against the union navy at the Lower seabed of operations. The Creole would have discouraged racism as much as he could as New Orleans was the safest city in the United States in 1860 for Black people. The creole would have made sure these black soldiers saw action in defending thei Cherished city from invasion.He may very well have been probably perfect to defend the city as he experiments with inventions.

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Based off his defense of Charleston harbor in 1863, I'd say Beauregard (who is familiar with the area) would do very well in holding the city.

In otl, the Confederates had to abandon the ironclads they were building in the city. If they succeed in completing those, the Union won't be able to effectively blockade or assault the city for a while. This helps the blockade running system and allows the South more foreign aid and important supplies and weapons.

Also, Grant will have to March on Port Hudson after Vicksburg, then march on Baton Rouge, then on New Orleans. Depending on how the original pod changes how the rest of the war goes, Grant never takes command of Chattanooga and may be to preoccupied with New Orleans to be sent east.

We also get another year of Texas troops, cattle and goods from Mexico reaching the armies of Tennessee and Northern Virginia.

Finally without having to guard Shreveport and the Red River, Kirby Smith can devote more men of the TransMississippi Department to the Sterling Price invasion of Missouri, which would have a much better chance of winning.

Conclusion: Not a war winner by itself (unless butterflies are enough to help peace Democrats in the 1864 election, although I doubt it), however you could definitely see the war going into 1866.

 

[JWQ]

Based off his defense of Charleston harbor in 1863, I'd say Beauregard (who is familiar with the area) would do very well in holding the city.

In otl, the Confederates had to abandon the ironclads they were building in the city. If they succeed in completing those, the Union won't be able to effectively blockade or assault the city for a while. This helps the blockade running system and allows the South more foreign aid and important supplies and weapons.

Also, Grant will have to March on Port Hudson after Vicksburg, then march on Baton Rouge, then on New Orleans. Depending on how the original pod changes how the rest of the war goes, Grant never takes command of Chattanooga and may be to preoccupied with New Orleans to be sent east.

We also get another year of Texas troops, cattle and goods from Mexico reaching the armies of Tennessee and Northern Virginia.

Finally without having to guard Shreveport and the Red River, Kirby Smith can devote more men of the TransMississippi Department to the Sterling Price invasion of Missouri, which would have a much better chance of winning.

Conclusion: Not a war winner by itself (unless butterflies are enough to help peace Democrats in the 1864 election, although I doubt it), however you could definitely see the war going into 1866.

How long could Beagard possibly hold the city? I wanted new Orleans to still feel oppression from War and from the Union occupation of the Beast known as General Butler in My planned timeline.

​

How long until the union would likely have lifted the siege Of New Orleans? Will they likely have a second seige attempt to take the city?

 

[wcv215]

Honestly the central problem has little to do with the commander. No, it’s that New Orleans was held by a couple of forts (which could be bypassed with relative ease as happened) and...uh...prayer. That last is remarkably difficult to hold a city with. Lovell has no option other than evacuation. He had nothing to hold the city WITH. You’d need the CSA to commit a lot more resources to New Orleans for the city to hold. And then you run into the old problem, who doesn’t get the guns and men that go to New Orleans?

 

[GuildedAgeNostalgia]

Honestly the central problem has little to do with the commander. No, it’s that New Orleans was held by a couple of forts (which could be bypassed with relative ease as happened) and...uh...prayer. That last is remarkably difficult to hold a city with. Lovell has no option other than evacuation. He had nothing to hold the city WITH. You’d need the CSA to commit a lot more resources to New Orleans for the city to hold. And then you run into the old problem, who doesn’t get the guns and men that go to New Orleans?

As mentioned earlier more proactive leadership can lead to the earlier construction of the ironclads that were being built in otl. If they get finished on time (and it is possible to finish them earlier), Farragut's fleet can't do shit in the short term.

The Charleston defenses were poorly manned and had much of its pre war artillery stripped if I'm not mistaken, yet Bearugaurd was able to properly lead the garrison there.

 

[Nytram01]

Years ago I wanted to make a scenario where George McClellan joined the Confederacy and I ended up putting him in charge in New Orleans because I came up with nickname I liked - you can see the thread here: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/mcclellan-in-grey-aka-the-lion-of-new-orleans.199283/ - I cant even remember what was said in that thread anymore, it might be worth a look, might have some relevent information hidden in there somewhere.

 

[wcv215]

The Charleston defenses were poorly manned and had much of its pre war artillery stripped if I'm not mistaken, yet Bearugaurd was able to properly lead the garrison there.

Charleston is on the coast. It’s forts can’t be bypassed the way Jackson and St. Philip were. Those positions were seventy miles away from New Orleans. Plenty of room for the Union ships to break through and regroup. And the city itself CANNOT hold. It’s too vulnerable due to the way New Orleans was built.

Charleston doesn’t risk flooding completely if fighting causes the levees to break.

As for the ironclads, they were rushed jobs with unskilled workers and few materials. They were also underpowered, especially for the Mississippi, and poorly designed (the bow guns are specifically noted to be unable to elevate or depress, and couldn’t be aimed laterally.)

 

[Aghasverov]

Absolutely... the loss of New Orleans and the Mississippi, plus the loss of Tennessee with its road, rail and river transport connections, was the absolute death-knell for the CSA... lack of an overall strategy was fatal, ridiculous to feed so many men into the meat-grinders in peripheral areas like PA and MD when the middle of your self-proclaimed country was being hollowed out...