Perryville The Confederate Heartland Offensive.

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
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?
 
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?
A great question major bill. Do you know if he could have secure his rear given that US controlled Nashville.
 
President Davis did warn Bragg about getting his army destroyed in Kentucky. Union forces still outnumbered them. Also winter was comming on and additional campaigning could have been dificult. I would have to study the possibility of going in to winter camp so far from your supply base. For example; they might be able to take Cincinnati, but could the hold it?
 
The offensive did not win Kentucky back to the Confederacy, it did not bring a significant number of recruits, and it proved that Bragg could not effectively work well with others. After the victory at Richmond in August, the draw at Perryville was a disappointment that failed to accomplish much other than get Buell fired. The threat to Cincinnati just drew more Union troops to the Bluegrass state, many of whom ended up invading East Tennessee the following year. The only viable Confederate force left in Kentucky to oppose the Union build-up after Bragg's withdraw was Morgan's command, which was incapable of doing anything other than harassing Yankees, annoying what remained of neutral Kentuckians, and eventually took itself off the map precisely when it should have been keeping an eye on enemy activities. So, lets see... fail, win, draw, fail, fail, and fail. Yep, that's a failure for sure!
 
The offensive did not win Kentucky back to the Confederacy, it did not bring a significant number of recruits, and it proved that Bragg could not effectively work well with others. After the victory at Richmond in August, the draw at Perryville was a disappointment that failed to accomplish much other than get Buell fired. The threat to Cincinnati just drew more Union troops to the Bluegrass state, many of whom ended up invading East Tennessee the following year. The only viable Confederate force left in Kentucky to oppose the Union build-up after Bragg's withdraw was Morgan's command, which was incapable of doing anything other than harassing Yankees, annoying what remained of neutral Kentuckians, and eventually took itself off the map precisely when it should have been keeping an eye on enemy activities. So, lets see... fail, win, draw, fail, fail, and fail. Yep, that's a failure for sure!
I think SgtDarby is spot on. If the objective was to "liberate" Kentucky and enlist thousands of new recruits (Bragg brought wagonloads of small arms for this purpose)- it mostly failed. The victory at Munfordville was hollow, as it costed Bragg 2-3 days that may have resulted in a quite different outcome for Buell's army.
I do think the offensive relieved some pressure on Tennessee.
Overall, the Heartland Offensive was demoralizing to Bragg and Smith's forces. Kentucky was in the grips of possibly the worst drought the Bluegrass has experienced, and Smith's invasion thru the Cumberlands was through a harsh, destitute landscape.
At the end, the liberated natives failed to turn out for the Confederate cause (Bragg was livid), and the southern troopers were just ready to get back home.
 
Back
Top