Confederate strategy.

[Viper21]

I don't agree, Viper, because by 1860 Maryland was following a path similar to what had already happened in New Jersey.
I think a large number of Marylanders wanted to get rid of the blacks and slavery and not be cut off from the East Coast economy, but that is without a source.

I hear you BUT.... The possibility of Maryland flipping to the CS was pretty much nullified by those actions. There were certainly some prominent Marylanders who sided with the Confederate States. The "plot", or scheme to get Maryland to flip was pretty much nipped in the bud by such.

Coincidentally, I have a GG Grandfather who came from a respected Maryland family. He wore grey.

 

[Viper21]

I voted for occupy DC.
My opinion is that at first Manassass they should have pressed their advantage and went all the way to Washington.
I dont know if that would have won the war but it wouldn't have hurt.

The occupation of DC could've drastically changed public opinion. Possibly even, international opinion. It's a pretty interesting "what if" to consider imo.

 

[WJC]

The occupation of DC could've drastically changed public opinion. Possibly even, international opinion. It's a pretty interesting "what if" to consider imo.

It was certainly a great concern of the Lincoln Administration.

 

[wausaubob]

If the Confederates cannot get Maryland to secede, then they are left with No. 3 and playing it straight with Britain would have been a good first step. The odds were against it working.

 

[James N.]

1. Mainly in the early months of the war, the Confederates had an opportunity to isolate Washington, D.C. and seize it. The domestic and international consequences should have been enough to end the war successfully for the Confederates.

I'll point out that this was the choice of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, as detailed in Bevin Alexander's book Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson.

 

[Mr. King]

No guarantee that the newly freed,slaves,would simply defect to the Union as did many white Confederate soldiers who defected to the Union Army or simply deserted.
Leftyhunter

True. But frankly any man (free, slave, black, white, whatever...) who wanted to go over to the Yankees.... Such a man will be going over to them eventually by whatever means.

This is a question that I don't know the answer to yet: In the RevWar, what stopped the same such slaves that were granted freedom for their service from going over the the redcoats?

 

[James N.]

True. But frankly any man (free, slave, black, white, whatever...) who wanted to go over to the Yankees.... Such a man will be going over to them eventually by whatever means.

This is a question that I don't know the answer to yet: In the RevWar, what stopped the same such slaves that were granted freedom for their service from going over the the redcoats?

Possibly the knowledge of what happened to many who did - At the beginning in 1775 the Royal Governor of the Virginia Colony Lord Dunmore offered freedom to slaves who would abandon their farms and plantations and enter British service. Unfortunately, Dunmore was vastly outnumbered by his former colonists, taking refuge aboard a British ship in Chesapeake Bay and eventually taking flight all the way to Canada, so was never able to profit from his exhortation! As I recall, many of the black volunteers he had enlisted were abandoned to their fate, many dying of diseases like smallpox in their squalid camps. During the Yorktown Campaign in 1781 Benedict Arnold and Lord Cornwallis tried much the same tack with similar results: slaves who had come into the British lines were subjected to the same bombardment and near-starvation of the Franco-American siege, again dying like flies.

 

[Mr. King]

I'll point out that this was the choice of Confederate General Stonewall Jackson, as detailed in Bevin Alexander's book Lost Victories: The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson.

View attachment 179708

It was Jackson's recommendation, that is true. IIRC, he may have yelled it out to a just-arrived Jeff Davis while he was getting his hand doctored up, and Davis didn't know who he was from Adam.

From what I understand, the victorious Confederate army was not in much better shape than the bluecoats they just routed. They were raw recruits, poorly armed and equipped for the most part, and now worn out and scattered by the hard battle they just faced, which was the first shots most of them ever heard in anger.
IMO, it could have just as easily been them that broke and ran back to their capitol that day. Jackson is just about the only reason they weren't, aside from E. P. Alexander randomly noticing the glint of a highly polished brass cannon far off to his left, signifying the presence of Yankees on their exposed left flank.
If Johnston and Beauregard had managed to resupply and rally their green troops, they likely would not have started out till the next day, and that would have given the blue bellies plenty of time to to get ready.
Do not discount the US Navy, either.

30,000 ANV veterans from 1863 could have easily stormed that capitol against those odds, but not these green recruits from 1861.

 

[James N.]

It was Jackson's recommendation, that is true. IIRC, he may have yelled it out to a just-arrived Jeff Davis while he was getting his hand doctored up, and Davis didn't know who he was from Adam.

From what I understand, the victorious Confederate army was not in much better shape than the bluecoats they just routed. They were raw recruits, poorly armed and equipped for the most part, and now worn out and scattered by the hard battle they just faced, which was the first shots most of them ever heard in anger.
IMO, it could have just as easily been them that broke and ran back to their capitol that day. Jackson is just about the only reason they weren't, aside from E. P. Alexander randomly noticing the glint of a highly polished brass cannon far off to his left, signifying the presence of Yankees on their exposed left flank.
If Johnston and Beauregard had managed to resupply and rally their green troops, they likely would not have started out till the next day, and that would have given the blue bellies plenty of time to to get ready.
Do not discount the US Navy, either.

30,000 ANV veterans from 1863 could have easily stormed that capitol against those odds, but not these green recruits from 1861.

All too true - the fatal flaw however was that the Southern victors didn't even TRY! Of course in July, 1861 nobody knew - or cared! - who Jackson was, maybe not until Johnston's report of the battle came out; but even then Davis essentially paid no attention to him until June of 1862 AFTER he'd completed the successful Valley Campaign. The fact was, the South at least had a CHANCE, one Davis squandered in his wrongheaded defensive posture.

 

[Mr. King]

All too true - the fatal flaw however was that the Southern victors didn't even TRY! Of course in July, 1861 nobody knew - or cared! - who Jackson was, maybe until Johnston's report of the battle came out; but even then Davis essentially paid no attention to him until June of 1862 AFTER he'd completed the successful Valley Campaign. The fact was, the South at least had a CHANCE, one Davis squandered in his wrongheaded defensive posture.

Davis had the worst gut instincts. That much is in true. LOL

 

[John Winn]

I certainly agree that after first Manassas the confederate army wasn't in much better shape than the Union army and couldn't have taken Washington at that moment. However, I do think that if there had been a concerted effort to regroup, concentrate assets, and make Washington the target before the Union had a chance to really fortify it could have worked. I also don't think the lack of a railroad connection was critical. A railroad would have made things easier, certainly, but it wasn't necessary. Geez, Lee invaded Pennsylvania without the railroad. The Confederacy didn't have to hold Washington forever and they could have exploited stored goods for quite a while.

So I'm not convinced yet that making Washington the target very early wasn't their best strategy.

 

[wausaubob]

It is difficult to see any facts that disproved General Jackson's recommendation.
The Confederacy could not survive a long drawn out war.

 

[leftyhunter]

True. But frankly any man (free, slave, black, white, whatever...) who wanted to go over to the Yankees.... Such a man will be going over to them eventually by whatever means.

This is a question that I don't know the answer to yet: In the RevWar, what stopped the same such slaves that were granted freedom for their service from going over the the redcoats?

My understanding is some slaves did go over to the Redcoats. Not real sure how many had the opportunity certainly not enough to make a difference. Having thousands of newly formed slaves near the Yankees would be problematic. We have only one documented example of black Confederate soldiers actually being used in combat and that was April 4th 1865 at Painsvile, Virginia. Not exactly shock and awe for the Confederacy.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Explanation of the choices:
1. Mainly in the early months of the war, the Confederates had an opportunity to isolate Washington, D.C. and seize it. The domestic and international consequences should have been enough to end the war successfully for the Confederates.
2. This is the strategy in which the Confederacy attempted to last longer and endure greater suffering than the people of the United States. This would lead to a political change in the United States and an armistice.
3. If the Confederacy fought at sea and on land with enough courage and skill, they could achieve international recognition based on national dedication. This is sort of the Gary Gallagher, Robert E. Lee, Ralphie Semmes strategy.
4. The Cotton 7, Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina had a population of about 4 million with about 1.5 million of that being enslaved. Should they have taken any action that would expand the coalition, regardless of possible negative consequences?
5. Should they have freed the slaves at the outset of the war?

Not all the choices are logically possible.
And there are other possible strategies such as renounce secession, return to Congress and fight for the protection of slavery by political means.

I have,a similar thread "Did Davis have a strategic plan to win the Civil War ".
The consensus was that Davis never really had a strategic plan to begin with.
The Confederacy tried to expand their coalition by invading Maryland and Kentucky and failed . In both cases the people of both states did not rally in significant numbers to the stars and bars.
The Confederacy tried to wrest Missouri, the American South West and the,Indian territory and also failed.
Davis certainly tried via Slidell and Mason to gain diplomatic recognition also a major failure.
At no time was the Confederacy winning enough battles to convince any nation that the Confederacy was worthy of diplomatic recognition.
In short the Confederacy tried various listed strategies and failed every time.
Leftyhunter

 

[wausaubob]

If there is no plan, then the responsible decision maker never has to admit how poor the odds are from the beginning.
No one ever has to admit that the plan did not work.
Nor is the ever a logical stopping point.
If there is no plan then the stopping point becomes when there are no more soldiers capable of fighting.

 

[damYankee]

Out of the options offered #1 would have IMHO given the South the best option to barter a peaceful exit. Although it would be a temporary one, the South would compete with the Union in western expansion and that would undoubtedly bring about a second war, no later than 1875.
Number three seems to be redundant, the South already exhibited those characteristics.
Number four ? Why secede if that were an option? That was the main reason for session in the first place as stated in every southern states constitution.

 

[Carronade]

If the southern states were willing to abolish slavery, what would be the point of secession? To form their own independent nation with almost half the population free blacks?

 

[Irishtom29]

I think the notion that the enemy capturing DC would've destroyed the American will to fight unrealistic.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Reviewing the options, there are two ways of looking at this;

1. Would the posted option have brought closure?

2. How likely were they to achieve?

'Emancipate the slaves.' While I don't believe this could ever happen, if it did, the North would still be coming South if the true objective was the preservation of the Union. I'm not sure this would accomplish anything.

'Demonstrate national courage and dedication.' I believe that the South did this. And like the Japanese during WWII, it didn't alter the final outcome.

'Exhaust the will to fight in the United States.' This is achievable by two routes. Quickly cause unimaginable losses and great victories on Northern soil or get into a lengthy long drawn out war-of-attrition that the South wasn't equipped to sustain as happened historically.

'Occupy Washington, D.C.' Unless much of the seated government, especially Lincoln, were also captured, would this have forced any issue? Move the Federal Government to Philly or even NYC and press on with the cause. The way this could help is by causing such panic that it would hasten 'Exhaust the will to fight in the United States.' or...

'Expand the Confederate coalition.' ...by foreign recognition. This is possibly the best way for the Confederacy to establish itself as a stand-alone nation but also the one least likely to happen. Unless in combination with 'Occupy Washington, D.C.' and 'Exhaust the will to fight in the United States.' this is seen as the only honorable solution to a rapidly deteriorating situation.

Just my babblings,
USS ALASKA

 

[Irishtom29]

It occurs to me, sitting here idly thinking, that British intervention could've resulted in the United States losing the South but gaining Canada. Which might've been better.