The What-Ifs of What-If History

It is inevitable that we are, in some ways, as fascinated with what didn’t happen in history as we are with what did. Lively debate usually follows any mention of what-if scenarios at historical conferences and roundtables—or even in casual conversations among people who love history. Pondering what could have been has a legitimate role beyond its entertainment value. It is always possible to gain insight and new perspectives on momentous events in the past by giving serious thought to how they might have turned out differently, and what the ramifications might have been if they had.

But the operative word here is “might.” The dangers of what-if history become all too clear when people attempt to speak definitively about things that are inherently indefinite. When we start postulating that Stonewall Jackson definitely would have taken Culp’s Hill at Gettysburg if he had been alive, we take what-if history out of the realm of food for thought and put it squarely into the realm of bad history. If thousands of years of human experience have proved anything concrete, it is that life is utterly unpredictable. We can present circumstantial evidence, we can make educated guesses—in some cases we can even say we’re almost certain about what would have happened in an alternative historical scenario. But almost only counts with horseshoes and hand grenades.

Two of our features this month cover Civil War battles—one you’ve almost certainly thought about before, and one you probably haven’t—with fascinating what-if implications. Marc Leepson offers an intriguing look at Jubal Early’s Maryland raid in the summer of 1864, including a small battle at Monocacy that would have a large impact on the security of Washington, D.C., Lincoln’s hopes for reelection and the Union war effort by slowing the Confederates’ progress toward the Federal capital. Andrew Masich also explores a small but significant Union check on Confederate progress, this time in Arizona in the spring of 1862, when control of the Pacific Southwest—and the crucial California gold fields—were very much up for grabs.

Both authors discuss their respective topics in the larger context of the war and rightly conclude that each battle had a significant impact on its outcome. But at the same time, both resist any temptation to start down the slippery side of the what-if slope and attempt to present specifics about what would have happened if either battle had turned out differently. Speculative history remains a curious tool for further understanding what did happen—nothing more and nothing less.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to