"The Anaconda Plan is the strategy that won the Civil War."

historicus

Private
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
In my thread "A Comparison & Contrast of Lee & Grant", leftyhunter wrote the following: "In terms of strategy lets give credit where credit is due to that old warhorse General Winfield Scott. Scott wrote the 'Anaconda Plan' prior to his retirement. it was a simple common sense strategy. The devil is in the details of implementing it.
Leftyhunter"

Leftyhunter did not explicitly say that the Anaconda Plan won the American Civil War (ACW). Perhaps Leftyhunter does not think that the Anaconda Plan won the Civil War. However, to me, leftyhunter's post suggests that he might think that the Anaconda Plan is what won the Civil War. Otherwise, in a thread comparing & contrasting Lee & Grant, why credit Winfield Scott with the Anaconda Plan? I've read and heard several Civil War buffs explicitly say that the Anaconda Plan is what won the American Civil War for the Union.

The Anaconda Plan is not really what happened in the ACW. Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan was a 2 part strategy: 1) for the Union to blockade the CSA and 2) for the Union to use 150,000 troops and plenty of ships to take control of the Mississippi River. Scott's Anaconda Plan stated that the Union was to use those 2 strategies and only those two strategies to win the ACW. Scott's Anaconda Plan assumed that those achieving those two strategies would be enough of a bargaining chip for the Union to cause the CSA to decide to re-enter the Union. The Anaconda Plan called for the Union to blockade the South and take control of the Mississippi River and squeeze the South like an Anaconda to win the ACW without invading the Confederacy. Winfield Scott thought the key to the Anaconda Plan was it would allow the Union to win the ACW with a minimum of troops and a minimum of bloodshed because the Union would not have to invade the Confederacy itself by the Anaconda Plan. The problem with the thesis that the Anaconda Plan won the ACW is that is not what happened! The Union did have to invade the Confederacy.

Yes, the Union did use both of the two part strategies, and both of those 2 strategies helped the Union win the ACW. However, if the Union only did Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan, the Union would not have won the ACW. It was the invasions of the Confederacy that proved decisive in winning the ACW. The Anaconda Plan was only a tiny part of what won the ACW. The thesis that the Anaconda Plan won the war for the Union ignores Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, the entire Gettysburg Campaign, Antietam, the Stones River Campaign, the Overland Campaign, the Siege of Petersburg, Chattanooga, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, the Atlanta Campaign, and Sherman's March to the Sea and a lot more than that even.

If Winfield Scott was correct, the CSA would have surrendered when Vicksburg and Port Hudson surrendered in the summer of 1863 because both parts of Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan were fully implemented by then.

It's a myth that the Anaconda Plan is the strategy that won the ACW.
 
Last edited:
While true, it's also fair to say that the Anaconda Plan was a rough blueprint for the actual plan that was put into practice to defeat the Confederacy. While the plan that was carried out in practice differed to some degree from what Scott had in mind, as that wisest of sages Murphy would say, "No plan survives contact with the enemy."

Gary Gallagher gives Winfield Scott some credit for the plan that defeated the Confederacy, "in broad outline."

 
Gary Gallagher said "He put forward what came to be called the Anaconda Plan, which is essentially how the United States waged the Civil War in broad outline: Blockade the Confederate coasts. Deny them material that they would be bringing in from abroad. Take control of the Mississippi River to divide the Confederacy into two pieces. And, if necessary, if those two things were not enough, project United States military power deep into the hinterlands of the Confederacy."

The last sentence Gary Gallagher said in this quote is wrong. Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan did not call for the Union "to project United States military power deep into the hinterlands of the Confederacy." Therefore, the Anaconda Plan is not how the Civil War really played out.
 
Gary Gallagher said "He put forward what came to be called the Anaconda Plan, which is essentially how the United States waged the Civil War in broad outline: Blockade the Confederate coasts. Deny them material that they would be bringing in from abroad. Take control of the Mississippi River to divide the Confederacy into two pieces. And, if necessary, if those two things were not enough, project United States military power deep into the hinterlands of the Confederacy."

The last sentence Gary Gallagher said in this quote is wrong. Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan did not call for the Union "to project United States military power deep into the hinterlands of the Confederacy." Therefore, the Anaconda Plan is not how the Civil War really played out.

Scott's plan called for troops to seize forts along the Mississippi River and to occupy New Orleans, so it did call for a projection of force into the hinterlands of the Confederacy. It was just much more limited than what would ultimately be used. It also did not call for a march on Richmond.

Keep in mind also that Scott's plan was structured around the comparatively small number of US troops that the government had on hand (or were in the process of being raised) in 1861, not the huge armies the US fielded in 1864 or 1865. The US Army only had 16,000 men in April of 1861 with another 75,000 being called up after Ft. Sumter. He had much less to work with.

While it would be inaccurate to say that an unaltered version of the Anaconda Plan defeated the Confederacy, it would be equally inaccurate to state that it had nothing to do with the Confederacy's ultimately defeat. Some elements of Scott's plan did survive and were carried out by the Federal Army & Navy during the war, most crucially the seizure of the Mississippi River, which split the Confederacy in two.
 
Scott's plan called for troops to seize forts along the Mississippi River and to occupy New Orleans, so it did call for a projection of force into the hinterlands of the Confederacy.

Gallagher already mentioned that the Anaconda Plan called for the Union to take control of the Mississippi River before Gallagher said "if necessary, the Union would project UNited States military power deep into the hinterlands of the Confederacy." Therefore, Gallagher's quote implies that hinterlands means something beyond the Mississippi River. Gallagher is either wrong or he was being highly disingenuous.



While it would be inaccurate to say that an unaltered version of the Anaconda Plan defeated the Confederacy, it would be equally inaccurate to state that it had nothing to do with the Confederacy's ultimately defeat. Some elements of Scott's plan did survive and were carried out by the Federal Army & Navy during the war, most crucially the seizure of the Mississippi River, which split the Confederacy in two.

The Anaconda Plan had little to do with the Confederacy's ultimate defeat.
 
The assertion that the Anaconda Plan is largely what won the ACW ignores the fact that the Union had to fight any number of battles to destroy the Confederate armies to win the ACW and such an assertion ignore sthe fact that the Union had to occupy tens of thousands of miles of Confederate territory to win the ACW. Basically, any assertion that the Anaconda Plan won the ACW ignores the vast majority of the ACW.
 
It sure looks like at least elements of the Anaconda Plan where put in place, whether or not there was a conscious strategy to do so. The Union naval blockade, major efforts to take Memphis, New Orleans, and Vicksburg along the Mississippi, and assaults on coastal locations at Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, and Wilmington were certainly key components of the ultimate northern victory, although certainly not the only ones. Grant's 1864 coordinated strategy of multiple offensives throughout the confederacy were another major factor in the winning strategy.
 
In my thread "A Comparison & Contrast of Lee & Grant", leftyhunter wrote the following: "In terms of strategy lets give credit where credit is due to that old warhorse General Winfield Scott. Scott wrote the 'Anaconda Plan' prior to his retirement. it was a simple common sense strategy. The devil is in the details of implementing it.
Leftyhunter"

Leftyhunter did not explicitly say that the Anaconda Plan won the American Civil War (ACW). Perhaps Leftyhunter does not think that the Anaconda Plan won the Civil War. However, to me, leftyhunter's post suggests that he might think that the Anaconda Plan is what won the Civil War. Otherwise, in a thread comparing & contrasting Lee & Grant, why credit Winfield Scott with the Anaconda Plan? I've read and heard several Civil War buffs explicitly say that the Anaconda Plan is what won the American Civil War for the Union.

The Anaconda Plan is not really what happened in the ACW. Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan was a 2 part strategy: 1) for the Union to blockade the CSA and 2) for the Union to use 150,000 troops and plenty of ships to take control of the Mississippi River. Scott's Anaconda Plan stated that the Union was to use those 2 strategies and only those two strategies to win the ACW. Scott's Anaconda Plan assumed that those achieving those two strategies would be enough of a bargaining chip for the Union to cause the CSA to decide to re-enter the Union. The Anaconda Plan called for the Union to blockade the South and take control of the Mississippi River and squeeze the South like an Anaconda to win the ACW without invading the Confederacy. Winfield Scott thought the key to the Anaconda Plan was it would allow the Union to win the ACW with a minimum of troops and a minimum of bloodshed because the Union would not have to invade the Confederacy itself by the Anaconda Plan. The problem with the thesis that the Anaconda Plan won the ACW is that is not what happened! The Union did have to invade the Confederacy.

Yes, the Union did use both of the two part strategies, and both of those 2 strategies helped the Union win the ACW. However, if the Union only did Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan, the Union would not have won the ACW. It was the invasions of the Confederacy that proved decisive in winning the ACW. The Anaconda Plan was only a tiny part of what won the ACW. The thesis that the Anaconda Plan won the war for the Union ignores Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, the entire Gettysburg Campaign, Antietam, the Stones River Campaign, the Overland Campaign, the Siege of Petersburg, Chattanooga, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, the Atlanta Campaign, and Sherman's March to the Sea and a lot more than that even.

If Winfield Scott was correct, the CSA would have surrendered when Vicksburg and Port Hudson surrendered in the summer of 1863 because both parts of Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan were fully implemented by then.

It's a myth that the Anaconda Plan is the strategy that won the ACW.
Who on this forum is arguing that the Anaconda strategy in and of itself was the totality of Union strategy? As I pointed out in the original thread strategies need to evolve but the Anaconda strategy was a very good start. In the long term it worked. Once Wilimgton the last major Confederate port fell it was game over for Lee no food no good.
Has General Caral Von Claudeitz ( sp?) pointed out ( in German so we get various interpretations @Burning Billy
" no plan survives the first shot or no plan survives the first contact with the enemy)
plans only go so far. On the other hand has @Burning Billy points out the Anaconda strategy was a good beginning.
Leftyhunter
 
The assertion that the Anaconda Plan is largely what won the ACW ignores the fact that the Union had to fight any number of battles to destroy the Confederate armies to win the ACW and such an assertion ignore sthe fact that the Union had to occupy tens of thousands of miles of Confederate territory to win the ACW. Basically, any assertion that the Anaconda Plan won the ACW ignores the vast majority of the ACW.
Don't know about that. The South's economy was all about exports. No port no trade. The Confederate leadership seemed to think their ports were important. They certainly tried to defend them and even took back one (Gaveleston, Tx) and for six months took back Plymouth , North Carolina.
Leftyhunter
 
Who on this forum is arguing that the Anaconda strategy in and of itself was the totality of Union strategy?

Nobody. Anyone who argues against the assertion that the Anaconda Plan was the totality of Union strategy is refuting an argument that does not exist.

However, I have heard and read many Civil War buffs say that the Anaconda Plan is most of the reason that the Union won the ACW. I only had to search for 2 minutes on this website to find an example of this.

The following is a link to a post made by civilwartalk.com member Package4 on November 23, 2016:
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/robert-e-lee-callous-or-incompetent.128860/page-10#post-1428421

On the thread "Robert E Lee callous or incompetent", Package4 wrote the following: "Please enlighten me about the "box"; having served and been to various war colleges for course study, I would like specifics. The only 2 boxes that I am familiar with are the "kill box" relatively new term and box in strategy, which is a defensive strategy enticing the aggressor to attack all sides at once. The South lost largely due to the Anaconda Plan, which is certainly not a Box Strategy........."

I boldfaced the sentence that relates to this thread. Package4 says that the South lost largely due to the Anaconda Plan. What Package4 wrote is the myth that I am talking about. It was the destruction of the Confederate armies and the invasions & occupation of tens of thousands of miles of Confederate territory that proved decisive in the ACW, not the Anaconda Plan. It is a fact that without the destruction of the Confederate armies and the Union invasion and occupation of tens of thousands of miles of Confederate territory, the South would not have lost the ACW. How do I know that this is a fact? The Confederacy did not surrender and, indeed, did not even think about surrendering when the Anaconda Plan was fully implemented at the end of the summer of 1863. Furthermore, the Union probably would have won the war even if the Union did not blockade the CSA and take control of the Mississippi River, although the blockade and the Union control of the Mississippi River certainly helped shorten the war.
 
Don't know about that. The South's economy was all about exports.

I agree that the South's economy was all about exports, but that does not mean that the Anaconda Plan won the ACW for the Union.


The Confederate leadership seemed to think their ports were important. They certainly tried to defend them and even took back one (Gaveleston, Tx) and for six months took back Plymouth , North Carolina.
Leftyhunter

The Confederacy embargoed Europe anyway! Europe was the South's main buyer of cotton. Embargo Europe= not exporting cotton from southern ports.

Do you think that a blockade of the Confederacy was more decisive than Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, the entire Gettysburg Campaign, the Stones River Campaign and the eventual Union occupation of Nashville, Chattanooga, and most of the rest of TN, the Overland Campaign, the Union occupation of the Confederate Capital at Richmond, the Siege of Petersburg, the destruction of the Army of TN, the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, the Atlanta Campaign, Sherman's March to the Sea, and the Appomattox Campaign?
 
I agree that the South's economy was all about exports, but that does not mean that the Anaconda Plan won the ACW for the Union.




The Confederacy embargoed Europe anyway! Europe was the South's main buyer of cotton. Embargo Europe= not exporting cotton from southern ports.

Do you think that a blockade of the Confederacy was more decisive than Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, the entire Gettysburg Campaign, the Stones River Campaign and the eventual Union occupation of Nashville, Chattanooga, and most of the rest of TN, the Overland Campaign, the Union occupation of the Confederate Capital at Richmond, the Siege of Petersburg, the destruction of the Army of TN, the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, the Atlanta Campaign, Sherman's March to the Sea, and the Appomattox Campaign?
No but my point on the previous thread was simply that it wasn't Grant alone who had a major impact on Union strategy. The Anaconda plan proved it's merits and has @Burning Billy points out it was a good early war basic strategy. No major war is going to be one with just one strategic plan.
Leftyhunter
 
It sure looks like at least elements of the Anaconda Plan where put in place, whether or not there was a conscious strategy to do so. The Union naval blockade, major efforts to take Memphis, New Orleans, and Vicksburg along the Mississippi, and assaults on coastal locations at Mobile, Savannah, Charleston, and Wilmington were certainly key components of the ultimate northern victory, although certainly not the only ones. Grant's 1864 coordinated strategy of multiple offensives throughout the confederacy were another major factor in the winning strategy.

jackt62, I ask you the same question: Do you think that a blockade of the Confederacy was more decisive than Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, the entire Gettysburg Campaign, the Stones River Campaign and the eventual Union occupation of Nashville, Chattanooga, and most of the rest of TN, the Overland Campaign, the Union occupation of the Confederate Capital at Richmond, the Siege of Petersburg, the destruction of the Army of TN, the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, the Atlanta Campaign, Sherman's March to the Sea, and the Appomattox Campaign?

The blockade just shut the Confederacy off from nations that the Confederacy was embargoing anyway. The campaigns waged by the Union armies destroyed the Army of TN and the Army of Northern Virginia.
 
I agree that the South's economy was all about exports, but that does not mean that the Anaconda Plan won the ACW for the Union.




The Confederacy embargoed Europe anyway! Europe was the South's main buyer of cotton. Embargo Europe= not exporting cotton from southern ports.

Do you think that a blockade of the Confederacy was more decisive than Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, Corinth, the entire Gettysburg Campaign, the Stones River Campaign and the eventual Union occupation of Nashville, Chattanooga, and most of the rest of TN, the Overland Campaign, the Union occupation of the Confederate Capital at Richmond, the Siege of Petersburg, the destruction of the Army of TN, the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, the Atlanta Campaign, Sherman's March to the Sea, and the Appomattox Campaign?
Actually the embargo was only for six months and was one of Davis's most stupid blunders.
Leftyhunter
 
Apparently, General Scott knew what he was talking about with decades of experience. Especially, concerning his rejected advice to Pres. Lincoln bout Ft. Sumter. I will leave it at that.
 
In my thread "A Comparison & Contrast of Lee & Grant", leftyhunter wrote the following: "In terms of strategy lets give credit where credit is due to that old warhorse General Winfield Scott. Scott wrote the 'Anaconda Plan' prior to his retirement. it was a simple common sense strategy. The devil is in the details of implementing it.
Leftyhunter"

Leftyhunter did not explicitly say that the Anaconda Plan won the American Civil War (ACW). Perhaps Leftyhunter does not think that the Anaconda Plan won the Civil War. However, to me, leftyhunter's post suggests that he might think that the Anaconda Plan is what won the Civil War. Otherwise, in a thread comparing & contrasting Lee & Grant, why credit Winfield Scott with the Anaconda Plan? I've read and heard several Civil War buffs explicitly say that the Anaconda Plan is what won the American Civil War for the Union.

The Anaconda Plan is not really what happened in the ACW. Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan was a 2 part strategy: 1) for the Union to blockade the CSA and 2) for the Union to use 150,000 troops and plenty of ships to take control of the Mississippi River. Scott's Anaconda Plan stated that the Union was to use those 2 strategies and only those two strategies to win the ACW. Scott's Anaconda Plan assumed that those achieving those two strategies would be enough of a bargaining chip for the Union to cause the CSA to decide to re-enter the Union. The Anaconda Plan called for the Union to blockade the South and take control of the Mississippi River and squeeze the South like an Anaconda to win the ACW without invading the Confederacy. Winfield Scott thought the key to the Anaconda Plan was it would allow the Union to win the ACW with a minimum of troops and a minimum of bloodshed because the Union would not have to invade the Confederacy itself by the Anaconda Plan. The problem with the thesis that the Anaconda Plan won the ACW is that is not what happened! The Union did have to invade the Confederacy.

Yes, the Union did use both of the two part strategies, and both of those 2 strategies helped the Union win the ACW. However, if the Union only did Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan, the Union would not have won the ACW. It was the invasions of the Confederacy that proved decisive in winning the ACW. The Anaconda Plan was only a tiny part of what won the ACW. The thesis that the Anaconda Plan won the war for the Union ignores Fort Henry, Fort Donelson, Shiloh, the entire Gettysburg Campaign, Antietam, the Stones River Campaign, the Overland Campaign, the Siege of Petersburg, Chattanooga, the Franklin-Nashville Campaign, the Atlanta Campaign, and Sherman's March to the Sea and a lot more than that even.

If Winfield Scott was correct, the CSA would have surrendered when Vicksburg and Port Hudson surrendered in the summer of 1863 because both parts of Winfield Scott's Anaconda Plan were fully implemented by then.

It's a myth that the Anaconda Plan is the strategy that won the ACW.
To be fair to the old warhorse Scott retired less then a year after the start of the Civil War. General Hallack perfered the Tennessee River to penetrate the South.Nonetheless the Anaconda strategy was implemented not always perfectly and it proved to be a good basic strategy. Other strategies such has Sherman's march through Georgia and the EP were also vital. It's not a question of one good strategy it's a question of many good strategies simultaneously implemented.
Leftyhunter
 
Who on this forum is arguing that the Anaconda strategy in and of itself was the totality of Union strategy? As I pointed out in the original thread strategies need to evolve but the Anaconda strategy was a very good start. In the long term it worked. Once Wilimgton the last major Confederate port fell it was game over for Lee no food no good.
Has General Caral Von Claudeitz ( sp?) pointed out ( in German so we get various interpretations @Burning Billy
" no plan survives the first shot or no plan survives the first contact with the enemy)
plans only go so far. On the other hand has @Burning Billy points out the Anaconda strategy was a good beginning.
Leftyhunter
Or in the immortal words of Mike Tyson " Everybody has a plan until you get punched in the face."
 
If the argument is the "Anaconda Plan",in and of itself, was not sufficient to defeat the rebellion, of course not. It certainly weakened and demoralized the South, but in the end ANV had to be decisively defeated in the field in order to bring the war to a successful conclusion. That's why Lincoln and Grant were willing to expend so much human capital in Virginia in 1864-.5.
 
Back
Top