Doc_Ralph
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2023
USA at start of war
The Anaconda Plan
The strategy grudgingly accepted by the USA was General Winfried Scott's Anaconda Plan. As the plan name indicates, it was designed to squeeze the CSA over time. This would be achieved by (a) blockading the southern ports and coastline to strangle trade and help from overseas, (b) capturing and controlling the Mississippi River by cutting trade and movement, and (c) capturing the Confederacy capital at Richmond, Virginia. This last component of the plan was ridiculed, and the plan itself was thought by many to be over the top as the war would be over soon enough.
(McPherson, 2007, Pps. 131-132)
Thus, it was indeed open to ridicule by North and South cartoonists given, as Foote writes: "The anaconda was required to hug a circumference of about five thousand miles, two-fifths dry land and rivers, and the remaining three-fifths shoreland…" (Foote, 1986, Pages 112-113). There is more that one could quote of it…however, it is in Foote's earthy flowery language. So let us just say the plan had a lot of real estate to cover by naval forces and armies to take the river strongholds.
Lincoln signed on to the plan, and it was used with some modifications (campaigns along rivers in Tennessee and Virginia first) and then the drive to possess the Mississippi. Ultimately, the drive to capture Richmond became a vital part of the strategy and turned into the classic wrestling match between Lee and Grant. Sherman cut east (Georgia) to the sea and then up into the Carolinas.
Admiral Yamamoto had a quote about the sleeping giant and this was the cold and brutal reality. And one can think that is just about right. Outmanned, outgunned, out-resourced, and hungry, it was just a matter of time before the USA's superior force overcame the pure grit and pride of the CSA.
(Foote, 1986, Pps. 111-113), (McPherson, 2007, Pps. 114-121)
This strategy worked, and as its name attested, the squeeze began by eventually cutting off cattle and agricultural resources from Texas to the South, crippling the export of cotton and other products, and stopping the import of foreign help from neutral Mexican ports in the Gulf of Mexico. (Foote, 1986, Pps. 111-112)
In the Western theater lay the winning path, and the key to the victory of this part of the Anaconda strategy was the capture of Vicksburg on the mighty Mississippi.
Question: Which side was poised for a victory?
IMHO At the outset of the war (first months), it would appear that the CSA had the upper hand by (1) the taking of Ft. Sumter, (2) the near bloodless win at Big Bethel, (3) the successful transporting an army by rail and (4) to be in place to defeat/rout a USA army (First Manassas/ Bull Run) close to the USA capital.
The USA had a plan - but as a cold snake needs warmth for movement – it would take time, as the wise and retired General Scott understood. There were moments of failure and peril, but there were also avenues of opportunity that would transform the war.
The Anaconda Plan
The strategy grudgingly accepted by the USA was General Winfried Scott's Anaconda Plan. As the plan name indicates, it was designed to squeeze the CSA over time. This would be achieved by (a) blockading the southern ports and coastline to strangle trade and help from overseas, (b) capturing and controlling the Mississippi River by cutting trade and movement, and (c) capturing the Confederacy capital at Richmond, Virginia. This last component of the plan was ridiculed, and the plan itself was thought by many to be over the top as the war would be over soon enough.
(McPherson, 2007, Pps. 131-132)
Thus, it was indeed open to ridicule by North and South cartoonists given, as Foote writes: "The anaconda was required to hug a circumference of about five thousand miles, two-fifths dry land and rivers, and the remaining three-fifths shoreland…" (Foote, 1986, Pages 112-113). There is more that one could quote of it…however, it is in Foote's earthy flowery language. So let us just say the plan had a lot of real estate to cover by naval forces and armies to take the river strongholds.
Lincoln signed on to the plan, and it was used with some modifications (campaigns along rivers in Tennessee and Virginia first) and then the drive to possess the Mississippi. Ultimately, the drive to capture Richmond became a vital part of the strategy and turned into the classic wrestling match between Lee and Grant. Sherman cut east (Georgia) to the sea and then up into the Carolinas.
Admiral Yamamoto had a quote about the sleeping giant and this was the cold and brutal reality. And one can think that is just about right. Outmanned, outgunned, out-resourced, and hungry, it was just a matter of time before the USA's superior force overcame the pure grit and pride of the CSA.
(Foote, 1986, Pps. 111-113), (McPherson, 2007, Pps. 114-121)
This strategy worked, and as its name attested, the squeeze began by eventually cutting off cattle and agricultural resources from Texas to the South, crippling the export of cotton and other products, and stopping the import of foreign help from neutral Mexican ports in the Gulf of Mexico. (Foote, 1986, Pps. 111-112)
In the Western theater lay the winning path, and the key to the victory of this part of the Anaconda strategy was the capture of Vicksburg on the mighty Mississippi.
Question: Which side was poised for a victory?
IMHO At the outset of the war (first months), it would appear that the CSA had the upper hand by (1) the taking of Ft. Sumter, (2) the near bloodless win at Big Bethel, (3) the successful transporting an army by rail and (4) to be in place to defeat/rout a USA army (First Manassas/ Bull Run) close to the USA capital.
The USA had a plan - but as a cold snake needs warmth for movement – it would take time, as the wise and retired General Scott understood. There were moments of failure and peril, but there were also avenues of opportunity that would transform the war.
Bringing the