The Confederacy needed Hadrian Wall...

[5fish]

Maybe I forgot but what war in the last 200 years was won by solely using defensive measures?

In the last two hundred years... Remember, the win is stalling the union war effort until the northern people tried of the war... I figure something less then 10 years.. I agree the barrier idea if it could work would be somewhere accross Virginia in tandem with the river system..

This thought is not far off the Overland was basically Lee getting to the Ford of a river and blocking it. The Overland campaign was a moving entrenchment. Lee beats Grant to a spot and digs in and either Grant would tries force his way or moves to the next crossing point. I think it's funny you read about Lee and Grant wanting to fight an open field battle but Lee control the field of battle he could have allowed Grant to cross unhindered and fought in open battle. It seems Lee knew better...

 

[5fish]

Timing is everything.

For everything, there is a season.

At one time, castle walls and brick forts served a purpose.

But by 1861, their time was over.

Dirt and logs had replaced stone walls and for good reason. Trenches were king for their season. By WWII, defensive structures like trenches had been replaced by dragon's teeth, barbed wire, and pill boxes. Armored warfare made static defenses almost useless. Look at all the effort for a German Atlantic Wall, breached in one day. Look at all the preparation of Iraq at defensive walls at the beginning of Desert Storm and how little they effected the outcome.

A stone wall does not a defense make if it fails to take into account the timing of it's construction.

Yes, technology changes and the response has to change with it...

Dirt and logs had replaced stone walls and for good reason. Trenches were king for their season.

The wall I refer to would really be a series of earthen breastworks and trenches... The word," wall " does create a great image in one's mind...

 

[wausaubob]

And how did that trench warfare work out?
Whoops there goes the outer forts at Mobile Bay. Whoops, one Confederate army loses its railroad connections, while Lee sits in his trench system. The rubber tree plants are falling thick and fast as another United States field army sweeps around the flanks of the Confederates in the Shenandoah Valley, one, two, three times. Then mobile steam powered naval vessels mass outside Fort Fisher and blast the place to smithereens while marines and soldiers storm the pallisades.
Seems like Grant was pretty content to have Lee stay right where he was and General Lee was content to protect Richmond while the rest of the war went to heck in a hand basket.
As soon as Lee went to ground in the trench system, the United States geared up its navy and spend major $$ on its wide ranging cavalry units, while collapsing the unprotected parts of the Confederate railroad system.
From July 1864 to the end of January 1865, 7 months, show me the Confederate victories that prove static defenses have value.
I'll give you credit for good natured fun, though.

 

[leftyhunter]

In the last two hundred years... Remember, the win is stalling the union war effort until the northern people tried of the war... I figure something less then 10 years.. I agree the barrier idea if it could work would be somewhere accross Virginia in tandem with the river system..

This thought is not far off the Overland was basically Lee getting to the Ford of a river and blocking it. The Overland campaign was a moving entrenchment. Lee beats Grant to a spot and digs in and either Grant would tries force his way or moves to the next crossing point. I think it's funny you read about Lee and Grant wanting to fight an open field battle but Lee control the field of battle he could have allowed Grant to cross unhindered and fought in open battle. It seems Lee knew better...

A huge if. Five years into the war every major Confederate port except Galveston was captured by the Union. Conventional wars seldom last 10 years. The Confederate economy is already into free fall by 1864.
What about the rest of the Confederacy that is already falling even before the Overland Campaign.
Even if Lee could somehow prevent Grant from taking Petersburg and then
Richmond, Lee is tied down fighting Grant while Sherman slowly but surely is making his way towards Virginia and plenty of Lee's men are deserting due to Sherman's March through Georgia.
Also more Union troops can be easily landed in Charleston after Sherman siezed it to invade Virginia from the South.
Bottom line. conventional wars are won on the offense not by wearing the enemy out.
Leftyhunter

 

[Irishtom29]

Timing is everything.

For everything, there is a season.

At one time, castle walls and brick forts served a purpose.

But by 1861, their time was over.

Long over, earth replaced masonry as the main material of most new fortifications in the 1500s with masonry used only as a revetment to hold the earth in place. The Dutch even did away with the masonry revetments and being a rich nation were willing to pay the high cost of maintaining permanent earthworks.

However in 1863 Fort Sumter showed that a Montelambert influenced pure masonry sea coast fort was still capable of doing its intended job of seeing off an enemy fleet.

 

[leftyhunter]

In the last two hundred years... Remember, the win is stalling the union war effort until the northern people tried of the war... I figure something less then 10 years.. I agree the barrier idea if it could work would be somewhere accross Virginia in tandem with the river system..

This thought is not far off the Overland was basically Lee getting to the Ford of a river and blocking it. The Overland campaign was a moving entrenchment. Lee beats Grant to a spot and digs in and either Grant would tries force his way or moves to the next crossing point. I think it's funny you read about Lee and Grant wanting to fight an open field battle but Lee control the field of battle he could have allowed Grant to cross unhindered and fought in open battle. It seems Lee knew better...

Also keep in mind with Sherman taking out Confederate railroad tracks in North Carolina the AnV is dependent on food imports from Western Europe via Wilmington Harbor. Once Ft.Fisher falls game over. I believe @mobile_96 had some figures on food imports via Wilmington Harbor.
So no ;defensive positions in Virginia do not equate to victory.
Leftyhunter

 

[5fish]

I got Caeser at the Battle of Alesia... He hide behind walls and carried the day... He had two walls...

Battle of Alesia, (September 52 BCE). The Battle of Alesia and the battles that raged around it are often considered to be the finest military exploits in the career of Julius Caesar. His victory completed the Roman conquest of Gaul and made Caesar powerful enough to embark on the civil wars that would make him dictator of Rome.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Alesia-52-BCE

Grant was almost in the same boat...

 

[MattL]

Honestly I could only see this working if they shrunk their defended area way way down. Basically abandoning certain States from the get go.

 

[leftyhunter]

I got Caeser at the Battle of Alesia... He hide behind walls and carried the day... He had two walls...

Battle of Alesia, (September 52 BCE). The Battle of Alesia and the battles that raged around it are often considered to be the finest military exploits in the career of Julius Caesar. His victory completed the Roman conquest of Gaul and made Caesar powerful enough to embark on the civil wars that would make him dictator of Rome.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Alesia-52-BCE

Grant was almost in the same boat...

Not really since Sherman was going to reach Richmond through the back door.
Military technology had changed quite a bit by the 1860s vs one thousand or so years in the past.
Fortifications do not an army feed. If Lee can't get food from North Carolina and he can't get food from Western Europe via Wilmington then where is the food supposed to come from?
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Honestly I could only see this working if they shrunk their defended area way way down. Basically abandoning certain States from the get go.

Which allows the Union to concentrate more troops on the core Confederate states and recruit Unionists and slaves from the abandoned states. That's a tough way to win a war.
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

Which allows the Union to concentrate more troops on the core Confederate states and recruit Unionists and slaves from the abandoned states. That's a tough way to win a war.
Leftyhunter

Fantasy is best applied after accomplished, historical fact.

 

[5fish]

Honestly I could only see this working if they shrunk their defended area way way down. Basically abandoning certain States from the get go.

I agree yes over the long run the south would have had to give large suede of land. I figure they would have multiple defensive positions. They would fall back to them and protect key agriculture areas, industrial areas and railines. They would kept breaking those blue waves against their defensive positions causing caulities and eating up time. Southern cavalry would protect the flanks and do raids on those union supply lines.

Hopefully by the 1864 election, the union would have had limited success in the war so Lincoln gets elected out of the office... Bringing in the peace Democrats..

 

[leftyhunter]

I agree yes over the long run the south would have had to give large suede of land. I figure they would have multiple defensive positions. They would fall back to them and protect agriculture, industrial and railines. They would kept breaking those blue waves against their defensive positions causing caulities and eating up time. Southern cavalry would protect the flanks and do raids on those union supply lines.

Hopefully by the 1864 election, the union would have had limited success in the war so Lincoln gets elected out of the office... Bring in the peace Democrats..

Again in the nineteenth century what war is won on the defensive?
It seems more logical that the Confederacy that is outnumbered, has no chance of foreign military intervention and is badly divided with forty percent of its population enslaved or discriminated against is going to have a hard time winning a war .
Leftyhunter

 

[MattL]

I agree yes over the long run the south would have had to give large suede of land. I figure they would have multiple defensive positions. They would fall back to them and protect key agriculture areas, industrial areas and railines. They would kept breaking those blue waves against their defensive positions causing caulities and eating up time. Southern cavalry would protect the flanks and do raids on those union supply lines.

Hopefully by the 1864 election, the union would have had limited success in the war so Lincoln gets elected out of the office... Bringing in the peace Democrats..

Agreed, I think a strategy like that would have had a real chance at success. Now I think it was nearly politically impossible. I mean you'd have to clearly be willing to give up Whole States, such as Virginia. That alone would've probably made it politically impossible. Another, equally politically and practically impossible, plan might involve immediately relocating all Confederates into a much constrained Southern Confederacy, giving up Virginia, Maybe even some of the Carolinas and various borders on the west. Hunker down in a much tighter area where their smaller army had less density issues and the Northern army size could only benefit so much, especially if geographically chosen and fortified in a sort of best case scenario.

Maybe if they got the US to concede they could negotiate some of that other land back on principle.

Again in the nineteenth century what war is won on the defensive?
It seems more logical that the Confederacy that is outnumbered, has no chance of foreign military intervention and is badly divided with forty percent of its population enslaved or discriminated against is going to have a hard time winning a war .
Leftyhunter

A good point, though I think in this case this war is different than many. The Confederacy just needed to get the US to give up and of course convincing foreign powers of taking them seriously. The South was a very large area to defend with a smaller army, shrinking that down might have extended the duration of defense and eventually I can't imagine the US population not just wanting to give up.

All speculation of course.

 

[MattL]

Which allows the Union to concentrate more troops on the core Confederate states and recruit Unionists and slaves from the abandoned states. That's a tough way to win a war.
Leftyhunter

Maybe, but troop density can only get so high if the geographical area is small enough. The whole narrow gap defense over simplification, you can only fit so man people into a gap at a time. Also conversely the CSA had a much smaller army but had a huge area to defend, not the smartest strategy in a general sense (if necessary for support though).

 

[Tielhard]

I can't help thinking there are two groups of posters on this thread. One group is taking it seriously and the other isn't but is rather amused by the idea. I am definitely in the latter camp.

Having said that there is something about the idea which is not only unpleasantly Faschistic but also positively legendary - 300 Spartans, Cuchulain, Beowulf sort of stuff.

I keep thinking of a great stone wall 600' high in the style of Game of Thrones stretching from Northern California over a great bridge spanning the Mississippi to Maryland encompassing a Great and safe Confederacy. High up on its ramparts sit great fortresses that only Speer could have imagined and from every tower on every fortress huge Confederate battle standards fly. Between every fortress hundreds of great bonfires fed by hundreds of thousands of slaves illuminate the night, never giving the barbaric Yankees the opportunity to approach the wall unseen. The noble troops of the grey war band line the parapets eternally vigilant. In the barracks below the great steam tanks and mutated war elephants, products of advanced Confederate science await the call whilst high above the wall the Eagles of Death - giant airships purchased from the Ottomans wait to be fed. Exterminate! EXTERMINATE! ... I'm sorry I have no idea what came over me.

 

[unionblue]

I'm sorry I have no idea what came over me.

Reality, perhaps?

 

[5fish]

. I'm sorry I have no idea what came over me.

I like it you start off Game of Thrones and finish with steam punk... narrative

 

[Brendan]

I can't help thinking there are two groups of posters on this thread. One group is taking it seriously and the other isn't but is rather amused by the idea. I am definitely in the latter camp.

Having said that there is something about the idea which is not only unpleasantly Faschistic but also positively legendary - 300 Spartans, Cuchulain, Beowulf sort of stuff.

I keep thinking of a great stone wall 600' high in the style of Game of Thrones stretching from Northern California over a great bridge spanning the Mississippi to Maryland encompassing a Great and safe Confederacy. High up on its ramparts sit great fortresses that only Speer could have imagined and from every tower on every fortress huge Confederate battle standards fly. Between every fortress hundreds of great bonfires fed by hundreds of thousands of slaves illuminate the night, never giving the barbaric Yankees the opportunity to approach the wall unseen. The noble troops of the grey war band line the parapets eternally vigilant. In the barracks below the great steam tanks and mutated war elephants, products of advanced Confederate science await the call whilst high above the wall the Eagles of Death - giant airships purchased from the Ottomans wait to be fed. Exterminate! EXTERMINATE! ... I'm sorry I have no idea what came over me.

The beauty of it is that they would build the wall and make Lincoln pay for it. There, I said it.

 

[Carronade]

The key point about Hadrian's Wall, the Maginot Line, etc. was that they were built during peacetime, when nations could spend several years designing and construction fortifications along a fixed line. The Confederates didn't have that luxury.