Thoughts on this take on Lincoln's civil war strategy?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 05:25:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  History (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Thoughts on this take on Lincoln's civil war strategy?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Thoughts on this take on Lincoln's civil war strategy?  (Read 1560 times)
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2022, 07:16:34 PM »

With hindsight, it's clear that the optimal strategy would be focusing on naval superiority (capturing major rivers and ports) and fomenting/supplying Unionist revolts within the South in regions that were strategically important/easily defensible (West Virginia obviously, but also East Tennessee, South Texas, etc.).  If they can free the local slaves sooner, even better for your cause.  Critically, leave Virginia proper alone until the very end of the war (i.e. until you could attack simultaneously from the north and south), with just enough Union troops in the area to break a potential siege of D.C. if necessary.  It's the most defensible area of the Southeast with all those smallish rivers and mountains and the martial culture gave the Confederates their best officers.

IDK how reasonable it was to guess this in advance, though.  The thought process for a generation of Union officers who remembered the Mexican American War would have heavily favored rushing toward the capital city as quickly as possible.  Which is what they did, for multiple years and at great cost, until Grant knocked some sense into them!
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2022, 10:36:10 PM »

With hindsight, it's clear that the optimal strategy would be focusing on naval superiority (capturing major rivers and ports) and fomenting/supplying Unionist revolts within the South in regions that were strategically important/easily defensible (West Virginia obviously, but also East Tennessee, South Texas, etc.).  If they can free the local slaves sooner, even better for your cause.  Critically, leave Virginia proper alone until the very end of the war (i.e. until you could attack simultaneously from the north and south), with just enough Union troops in the area to break a potential siege of D.C. if necessary.  It's the most defensible area of the Southeast with all those smallish rivers and mountains and the martial culture gave the Confederates their best officers.

The Union had an overwhelming advantage in men and materiel so it didn't really make sense to abandon a theatre. The Confederacy would gain much more by sending Lee and most of the Army of Northern Virginia west than the Union would be attempting a strangulation tactic. So at best it lengthens the civil war by years, if not leading to a negotiated peace.

And even if we handwave strategic issues, it would have been absolutely politically impossible for Lincoln to tell the Northern public he was refraining from sending Union armies into Virginia because reasons.
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2022, 10:43:18 PM »

With hindsight, it's clear that the optimal strategy would be focusing on naval superiority (capturing major rivers and ports) and fomenting/supplying Unionist revolts within the South in regions that were strategically important/easily defensible (West Virginia obviously, but also East Tennessee, South Texas, etc.).  If they can free the local slaves sooner, even better for your cause.  Critically, leave Virginia proper alone until the very end of the war (i.e. until you could attack simultaneously from the north and south), with just enough Union troops in the area to break a potential siege of D.C. if necessary.  It's the most defensible area of the Southeast with all those smallish rivers and mountains and the martial culture gave the Confederates their best officers.

The Union had an overwhelming advantage in men and materiel so it didn't really make sense to abandon a theatre. The Confederacy would gain much more by sending Lee and most of the Army of Northern Virginia west than the Union would be attempting a strangulation tactic. And even if we handwave that it would have been absolutely politically impossible for Lincoln to tell the public he was refraining from sending Union armies into Virginia.

Not saying avoid VA entirely.  I'm thinking more like build a strong line of fortifications from Leesburg to Centreville to Dumfries or so after First Manassass and dare Lee to attack it.  There would be equal pressure from Confederate leadership to keep significant resources defending Richmond no matter what.  Either do the late VA encirclement I described or bait Lee to pyrrhicly attack D.C. and get your Gettysburg a year or two early.   
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2022, 02:53:37 PM »
« Edited: May 09, 2022, 03:02:26 PM by Statilius the Epicurean »

With hindsight, it's clear that the optimal strategy would be focusing on naval superiority (capturing major rivers and ports) and fomenting/supplying Unionist revolts within the South in regions that were strategically important/easily defensible (West Virginia obviously, but also East Tennessee, South Texas, etc.).  If they can free the local slaves sooner, even better for your cause.  Critically, leave Virginia proper alone until the very end of the war (i.e. until you could attack simultaneously from the north and south), with just enough Union troops in the area to break a potential siege of D.C. if necessary.  It's the most defensible area of the Southeast with all those smallish rivers and mountains and the martial culture gave the Confederates their best officers.

The Union had an overwhelming advantage in men and materiel so it didn't really make sense to abandon a theatre. The Confederacy would gain much more by sending Lee and most of the Army of Northern Virginia west than the Union would be attempting a strangulation tactic. And even if we handwave that it would have been absolutely politically impossible for Lincoln to tell the public he was refraining from sending Union armies into Virginia.

Not saying avoid VA entirely.  I'm thinking more like build a strong line of fortifications from Leesburg to Centreville to Dumfries or so after First Manassass and dare Lee to attack it.  There would be equal pressure from Confederate leadership to keep significant resources defending Richmond no matter what.  Either do the late VA encirclement I described or bait Lee to pyrrhicly attack D.C. and get your Gettysburg a year or two early.  

More likely would be Lee sending men and resources west so Vicksburg/Chattanooga is avoided and the interior of the Confederacy is preserved. And with the Union seemingly unable to threaten Richmond foreign powers would seriously consider international recognition of the Confederacy. The problem with a strangulation strategy alone is that the Confederacy wins by not losing (which is indeed one of the reasons why the Gettysburg campaign was stupid as hell from Lee.)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.027 seconds with 12 queries.