American87
Sergeant
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2016
- Location
- PENNSYLVANIA
In hindsight, the South's defensive strategy seems to have been an error. Either they should have gone on the offensive more, or they should have avoided a war altogether. Yes there were many cases where the South could have won on the defensive, for example, maybe destorying the AoP after Malvern Hill. But here is the point: Was the South really fighting a defensive war? Academic arguments aside, the first guns fired were Confederate against Union. The U.S. government was attacked at Fort Sumter. Perhaps this ruined any chance of a defensive war.
In other words, if the South never fired at Fort Sumter, or anywhere, they would have been purely on the defensive. Lincoln would have had to invade the South. I don't mean resupplying a U.S. garrison in Charleston Harbor, I mean sending in troops to purely Confederate territory and assuming the offensive. In this case, the South would have been perceived as on the defensive. The Democrats in the North might not support the war. European countries might have a better political image if they stepped in. But, by firing on Fort Sumter, the South took the first offensive action of the war and nullified these advantages.
Thoughts?
In other words, if the South never fired at Fort Sumter, or anywhere, they would have been purely on the defensive. Lincoln would have had to invade the South. I don't mean resupplying a U.S. garrison in Charleston Harbor, I mean sending in troops to purely Confederate territory and assuming the offensive. In this case, the South would have been perceived as on the defensive. The Democrats in the North might not support the war. European countries might have a better political image if they stepped in. But, by firing on Fort Sumter, the South took the first offensive action of the war and nullified these advantages.
Thoughts?