- Joined
- Aug 25, 2012
Overall was the Confederate Heartland Offensive a success? Both General Bragg and General Kirby Smith enjoyed some early success. Bragg captured 4,000 Union soldiers at Munfordville, and Kirby Smith won a great victory at the Battle of Richmond, he too captured around 4,000 Union soldiers. Then came the Battle of Perryville. Bragg won a tactical victory at Perryville. After that the Confederate Heartland Offensive slowed down and Bragg soon withdrew.
Should have Bragg continued the Confederate Heartland Offensive? Bragg seemed to be doing well against General Don Carlos Buell. I am not not sure Buell would have been any more effective against Bragg in the next few weeks. If Bragg had continued the offensive he possibly could have achieved more, but there was a risk in doing so. I have some questions if Buell was the general to decidedly defeat Bragg. The Confederate Heartland Offensive did tie up a large number of Union troops and did do some damage to the Union position. The offensive also slowed down any Union offensive. Still some historians consider the Confederate Heartland Offensive a strategic defeat for the Confederacy. Is this a fair evaluation?
I am not sure what historians expected from General Bragg. Even after he damage the Union forces in the area, there were still enough Union forces to hinder any ongoing Confederate offensive. So should have Bragg took the risk to continue the offensive?
Should have Bragg continued the Confederate Heartland Offensive? Bragg seemed to be doing well against General Don Carlos Buell. I am not not sure Buell would have been any more effective against Bragg in the next few weeks. If Bragg had continued the offensive he possibly could have achieved more, but there was a risk in doing so. I have some questions if Buell was the general to decidedly defeat Bragg. The Confederate Heartland Offensive did tie up a large number of Union troops and did do some damage to the Union position. The offensive also slowed down any Union offensive. Still some historians consider the Confederate Heartland Offensive a strategic defeat for the Confederacy. Is this a fair evaluation?
I am not sure what historians expected from General Bragg. Even after he damage the Union forces in the area, there were still enough Union forces to hinder any ongoing Confederate offensive. So should have Bragg took the risk to continue the offensive?