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.
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: