Confederate strategy.

[wausaubob]

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.

 

[John Winn]

I only see 1 and 3 as real alternatives. Exhausting the North's will just means fight a war of attrition and the numbers were strongly against the Confederacy. Other than a few border states, which didn't want to join up, there weren't any potential new partner states. Emancipation would have destroyed the South's economic system, required abandoning the social system for which they seceded, and would been too expensive. I also think it very unlikely anywhere near enough freed slaves would have fought for the Confederacy so as to change the attrition numbers.

Although I voted for both 1 and 3 I think 3 was a real gamble. European states just didn't really want to get into our war and they didn't need to. They had cotton in warehouses and were working on alternative sources. It might have happened but I'm in the serious doubt camp on that. If the Confederacy had, early on, concentrated on Washington that would have been a telling blow and I think Lincoln would have been forced to accept the South's secessions and sign a truce. So, to me, 1 is the only strategy with a good probability of payoff.

 

[wausaubob]

Four was implemented at the time it was decided to attack Fort Sumter. This was an attempt to get Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky, at a minimum, to secede and join. It partially worked, though Virginia split in a predictable way and Kentucky did not secede although it had a large enslaved population.
The cost of this strategy was that it created a unified United States.
The benefit was less then anticipated because Kentucky did not secede and the other three main slave states had significant Unionist populations.

 

[John Winn]

Four was implemented at the time it was decided to attack Fort Sumter. This was an attempt to get Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky, at a minimum, to secede and join. It partially worked, though Virginia split in a predictable way and Kentucky did not secede although it had a large enslaved population.
The cost of this strategy was that it created a unified United States.
The benefit was less then anticipated because Kentucky did not secede and the other three main slave states had significant Unionist populations.

I'll grant that but as a grand strategy it was a poor gamble and it didn't work out very well right at the start. I've read many who've said if Kentucky had seceded the Union might not have won (including Lincoln I think) but I'm not convinced. It certainly would have been harder without control of the Ohio River but the Confederacy still just didn't have what it needed to win a war of attrition. Other than Kentucky there wasn't any place to expand (well, maybe Maryland but I don't think there were enough sympathizers for that to have happened). It was just a one-shot gamble without a backup strategy other than attrition or stalling the Union advance long enough for a European power to come to their assistance, another big gamble. The Confederacy needed to clobber the Union right away while it still had all it's manpower and before the Union had it together to resist. A couple more decisive victories at the start and taking Washington was the ticket.

It's a bit like a fistfight. If your strategy is to just defend yourself and try not to get hit you will lose. You have to find an opening and aggressively move in on your opponent.

 

[gary]

Free the slaves and get foreign recognition. Yeah, sure, like the Confederates would do that. Kevin Levin's book, Confederate Emancipation, thoroughly examines this.

 

[JOHN42768]

If one had been pursued, the disruptive effect would have gone a long way to their war effort.

 

[wausaubob]

Free the slaves and get foreign recognition. Yeah, sure, like the Confederates would do that. Kevin Levin's book, Confederate Emancipation, thoroughly examines this.

Not all the choices are rational, in my opinion.

 

[wausaubob]

If one had been pursued, the disruptive effect would have gone a long way to their war effort.

Let's see what people think!

 

[OpnCoronet]

All of the choices, except for the last(Emancipation) taken together is, I believe, a plausible strategy. Though possibly, not a winning one.

If only one choice, then I believe, taking Washington, would offer the best short term strategy, i.e., it was within the confederacy, to do so, immediately, but, with a limited amount of time available.



PS. Emancipation would be a no go. Without slavery there would be no need for a strategy for southern independence. There would have been no secession, to strategize.

 

[Mr. King]

IMO, due to the problems of logistics, I do not believe they could have moved much further than they did post-Bull Run to isolate and conquer Washington. The railroad which brought the supplies forward from Richmond stopped at Manassas Junction, and everything else after that was transported by wagon, which was terribly inefficient. They could maintain small troop concentrations without railroad supply, and they could traverse the area or stay temporarily, but they could not maintain a large army for any long period of time without rails.
The Yankees had the benefit of the waterways, and they used that method of supply to support their armies in Northern VA, the Carolina Coast, New Orleans, and all along the Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee Rivers. As we know, the Rebs did not have the luxury of using waterways very often.
The Yankee's ability to build railroads overnight in 1864 and 1865 was also something that enabled them to conquer at will.
When Sherman was marching to the sea, they lived off the land. They could do so comfortably and travel at a leisurely pace. Grant had "discovered" this possibility during his 1862 retreat from Mississippi, when Van Dorn had stopped his campaign in it's tracks by cutting his supply line. He was amazed at his men's foraging finds.

When Lee whipped Pope at 2nd Manassas, he had two realistic options available to him. He could fall back towards Richmond, probably stopping at Fredericksburg, or he could invade Pennsylvania. He could not stay at Manassas Junction because the rails were not linked to Richmond. He could not advance on Washington for the same reason. Virginia was suffering greatly from the past months of army occupation by both sides. Food and fodder was extremely scarce, and the coming fall would not help that situation at all. Considering all that, he decided to invade. It was really a question of food more than anything else.

 

[Mr. King]

IMO, they should have offered the slaves freedom in exchange for their military service. That would have denied the North sole ownership of the moral high ground, which they claimed with the emancipation proclamation. It also would have bolstered their military by a good 20 to 30%, but those numbers are debatable.

 

[Cam]

Number 4 gave Lincoln a bit of anxiety early on, if I'm remembering rightly - Yes, here's the quote I was thinking of:

"I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we cannot hold Missouri, nor Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to separation at once, including the surrender of this capitol."

There was also a time when number 3 seemed quite possible. Britain was the most likely to pitch into the Southern effort. I can't find the quote I'm thinking of from after a British ship was searched and US officials seized two passengers, Confederate diplomats(?) that implied just how close this dream came to a reality, but here's a new one from 1961:

"It is in the highest degree likely that the North will not be able to subdue the south, and it is no doubt certain that if the Southern union is established as an independent state it would afford a valuable and extensive market for British manufactures but the operations of the war have as yet been too indecisive to warrant an acknowledgement of the southern union."

British PM Lord Palmerston both expected a Southern victory and was eager to see it happen. It doesn't necessarily mean that Britain would have come to the South's aid, however. There were several excellent reasons not to go to war against the Union. Britain feared retaliation, for one. The Union might seek to make up for lost land by making a grab for Canada, according to Battlecry of Freedom. The PM can also be quoted about the dangers of stepping into someone else's quarrel and was naturally eager to avoid conflict with a country that had bested them twice. War with America was costly. But there was a time when it seemed as if there was hope of British intervention in some form. The best chances would have been early in the war when Southern victory seemed assured and Britain's fears over the consequences of the loss of Cotton imports could be anticipated as worse than they would be in reality. Even if Britain had decided not to interfere directly, it seems likely based on the above quote that it might have granted the Confederacy recognition if they had been consistently successful, and that would have paved the way for productive diplomacy with other European nations. The idea of a weakened America was quite appealing in the Old World.

Number 5 would have only had negative consequences, though, especially at the beginning of the war. It would have been seen as an appeasement to the stronger North and weakened the South's chances at recognition. Unlike the North, the South was fighting a war of principles from the beginning. If they gave up their main principle from the outset, what would they have to gain? And that's not to mention the invaluable service of slaves to replace manpower when the male population went to war. This was a boon to the region, which was so outnumbered. There was serious talk about the use of blacks as soldiers at the very end of the war, which would have set up the possibility of eventual emancipation, but that was grasping at straws. It defied the principles of the South. If a black man was fit to be a soldier, he was not fit to be a slave. It was always a lose-lose situation.

 

[wausaubob]

I think in order to seize Washington, D.C. the Confederates' covert operations in Maryland would have needed to produce a decisive secession in that state.
I think that is a very hard sell in Maryland which has a strong nationalist and naval tradition.

 

[Viper21]

I think in order to seize Washington, D.C. the Confederates' covert operations in Maryland would have needed to produce a decisive secession in that state.
I think that is a very hard sell in Maryland which has a strong nationalist and naval tradition.

I wonder how that would've played without the arresting of dissenters to Lincoln, & other actions. Some believe Maryland may have seceded without such actions.

 

[wausaubob]

I wonder how that would've played without the arresting of dissenters to Lincoln, & other actions. Some believe Maryland may have seceded without such actions.

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.

 

[wausaubob]

With respect to British intervention, our friend Whitworth began this thread:
Britain knew the Confederacy was losing the war in 1862

And the situation became much worse for the Confederates by June 1, 1862.

 

[Youngblood]

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.

 

[Mr. King]

With respect to British intervention, our friend Whitworth began this thread:
Britain knew the Confederacy was losing the war in 1862

And the situation became much worse for the Confederates by June 1, 1862.

Great Britain was a very abolition-minded empire. Say what you will about the evils of colonial rule, if that's how you feel, but they abolished slavery long before the US, and that was a big stain on the Confederacy in their eyes.
Lord Palmerston carefully avoided any recognition of the Confederacy, even refusing to meet directly with their diplomats, IIRC.
The only shot the South had of getting the British Empire to fight on their side was the Trent Affair. Cotton, while important to the British economy, was not their biggest import from the US. That was corn, and losing that would cause a different kind of problem than unemployed textile workers.... Hunger.
If Britain had declared war on the US, the likely result would have been a US invasion of Canada, which would have siphoned off at least 50,000 troops and able commanders from their campaigns in the South, and the blockade would have been put to a stop by the might of the Royal Navy, who would probably then flip the coin and blockade the North's East Coast. Supplies and munitions would have poured int the South, but I doubt any troops. The British would have been hard pressed to defend Canada from the US Army, and would not have had the spare troops.
France and Russia are another story. France could go either way, herself, but would not have sided against Britain, for sure. Russia was decidedly Unionist, and they would have lent the US their naval power, for sure.

 

[Ole Miss]

The viable option for success in my opinion would be number 4.

1) The Confederacy might have taken Washington DC but it would have been a very short occupation as Federal units were available and the Rebels were as disorganized as the enemy. Early's attack later in the War was more of an annoyance than a real threat, I believe.

2) This strategy would have been futile as the Union fought as Shelby Foote so famously stated: "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back. At the same time the war was going on, the Homestead act was being passed, all these marvelous inventions were going on... If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."" The Japanese attempted this form of strategy during WW II and they were unsuccessful.

3) I honestly believe this is a pipe dream form of strategy with no possibility of success. European countries detested slavery and would not recognize the Confederacy.

4) Cam above has stated the reasons for selection of this strategy better than I can.

5) If they were to free the slaves, why fight the War? The cause of the War was slavery
Just my weak thoughts.
Regards
David

 

[leftyhunter]

IMO, they should have offered the slaves freedom in exchange for their military service. That would have denied the North sole ownership of the moral high ground, which they claimed with the emancipation proclamation. It also would have bolstered their military by a good 20 to 30%, but those numbers are debatable.

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