What if the Confederacy fought a true defensive war?

[MobileBoy]

This is often discussed, but I wonder what others think might have been different.I see casualties possibly being lower and the war maybe ending sooner.If the Confederate forces simply dug in behind entrenchments as they did around Petersburgh wouldn't it become a matter of who had more supplies and bigger guns.A siege war would seem to benefit the North to me but perhaps with no major victories to report the political support for the war would've been significantly altered.Thanks for any responses.

[r_moody]

I don't believe that a purely defensive war was possible in the western theater. Too many miles and the rivers favored the Union's advance. Any entrenched position out west could be easily flanked.

Rick

[matthew mckeon]

If the South went "purely defensive" basically what Lee did in 1864 in the Overland Campaign there are some possible consequences:

1. The casualities would be so great, the North would throw in the towel, Southern independence.


2. The North would make slow, but steady progress, ignore the casualities, and in a massive siege operation capture Richmond in 1862. This would encourage the North to continue the war, and discourage the South.

3. The CS army would retreat before the advancing Union army, across Virginia, nearly to North Carolina, where they would turn on the Union army, which weakened by the need to expend troops to guard its communications, and deep in hostile territory, would be destroyed. Confederate victory in 1862.

4. Or, the battle would be inconclusive, and extended Union occupation of Virginia would discourage the South and weaken its war effort. War lost in 1862-3

[samgrant]

There are some who suggest that the confederates should have adopted the strategy of the armies of the War of Independance and relied on avoiding general battles, while keeping the pressure on by small, targeted engagements, till the "agressor" was too 'worn out' or had lost his politcal/popular backing to continue with the war.

I somewhat agree that this might have been a more productive strategy on the part of the South than that which was implimented. But I cannot suggest that this was the only way for the Rebs to win.

[matthew mckeon]

Washington's strategy: which was forced upon him, afterall he would have preferred to win the battles to hold on to New York City etc., would that have worked in the Civil War?

If the Federal armies seized Virginia early on, they would hold a significant part of CS industry, population and resources. Also for the CSA to maintain itself, it had to demonstrate it could win against the North. Also if Federal armies advanced into the South, after issuing the EP they would be destroying slavery in the areas they controlled and disrupting it in the areas they didn't yet hold. Could the CSA afford to trade "space for time."

If it happened early enough in the war, before the EP, perhaps it could have worked.

[matthew mckeon]

However if the CS armies could move on the "strategic offensive," but the "tactical defensive" that is set up situations where the Yankees are attacking Rebel entrenchments, but in areas of the Rebel's choosing, that would be the most advantageous to the South, a series of Fredericksburgs.

[r_moody]

Originally Posted by matthew mckeon

However if the CS armies could move on the "strategic offensive," but the "tactical defensive" that is set up situations where the Yankees are attacking Rebel entrenchments, but in areas of the Rebel's choosing, that would be the most advantageous to the South, a series of Fredericksburgs.

Or it could have been a series of Vicksburg’s. Everyone in the south thought that Vicksburg was a fortress and invincible. Grant showed them that it wasn’t and could be flanked. There were no entrenched positions in the west that were defendable. The only reason that Fredericksburg happened was that an incompetent general was in charge. It would not have happened if Hancock, Reynolds or Hooker had been in charge. They would have moved to attempt to flank Lee.
A defensive strategy had a fair chance in the east but no chance in the west.

Rick

[richard]

If the command structure of the South had been different and there was accountablity within the AONV along with a workable system of supply and the use of an enginerring corp, which did not exist, then the south may have had a chance in any type of campagne.

The lack of engineers to build roads and draw maps hindered the armys of the South greatly. The lack of command and control on the part of Lee was another thorn in the side of the AONV. With out a means of gleaning good intellange and putting it to good advantage proved to be a major error for Lee. Any type of war cannot be expected to be won without these elements.

[whitworth]

The arrogance of the Confederate leadership would never permit the army to fight a true defensive war.
Georgia Governor Joe Brown was not very happy when Robert E. Lee pulled troops from defending the barrier islands, early in the war.
The Confederacy had too many institutional and industrial vulnerabilities to defend its "territory."
Unfortunately, the Confederacy never anticipated that the United States would have the size army and the logistical supplies to invade and control every important state in the Confederacy.

[Fifth Iowa]

I agree with the general sentiment here that the Confederates could not have defended their strongpoints/line in the Western theater. However, in individual engagements it is a given that the person holding the defensive position can normally inflict greater casualties on their attackers than they experience themselves. Smaller forces, of course, can still be overrun. However, being well dug in makes the price in winning such victories that much higher. Nevertheless, the Union's resources (manpower and materiel) made the end result of the war a virtual certainty... no matter how it was fought.