The Davis plan

[atlantis]

As I understand the war plan of Davis was to defend the borders. He has taken a lot of criticism on this but what other options did he have.

 

[leftyhunter]

As I understand the war plan of Davis was to defend the borders. He has taken a lot of criticism on this but what other options did he have.

None at all. Wars are almost always win in the offense not the defense. Their is no such thing has the Confederacy winning a defensive war. If the Confederate Navy can't break the blockade then slavery dies since the Southern economy is based on slaves producing export crops to Western Europe. The Confederacy itself is to large to build extensive fortifications and fortifications can be overwhelmed by a larger opponent.
Leftyhunter

 

[breckod]

Letting immense amounts of plantation land and slaves fall into enemy hands isn't really a national strategy you can pursue when the elites you need to support you are plantation-owning slavers who want to establish an empire of slavery and maintain their comfortable lifestyles. No President of the Confederacy could act much differently and expect to retain power.

 

[leftyhunter]

As I understand the war plan of Davis was to defend the borders. He has taken a lot of criticism on this but what other options did he hav

Letting immense amounts of plantation land and slaves fall into enemy hands isn't really a national strategy you can pursue when the elites you need to support you are plantation-owning slavers who want to establish an empire of slavery and maintain their comfortable lifestyles. No President of the Confederacy could act much differently and expect to retain power.

It's even worse then that because as if January 1st 1863 the Union Army can enlisted every able bodied man of color into the United States Coulored Corps or the Navy. The Union Army also recruited Southern whites from the Confederacy up to 104k per " Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy " William Current NorthEast University Press.

The Confederacy has to defend every inch of land. As of January 1st 1863 the Union could and did enlist men of color into the United States Coloured Corps and Navy plus 104k Southern white males per " Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy " William Current North East University Press.
Leftyhunter

 

[rpkennedy]

As I understand the war plan of Davis was to defend the borders. He has taken a lot of criticism on this but what other options did he have.

With the manpower limitations that the CSA had, it was simply not possible to defend every inch of the Confederacy. What they could do is trade space in order to lengthen US supply lines and give the CSA forces time to concentrate and give themselves a reasonable chance to knock out a US army (if fairness, no one knew how difficult that would turn out to be).

Ryan

 

[unionblue]

What's the old phrase?

"He who defends everything ends up defending nothing."

 

[jackt62]

Davis (and the Confederate government) faced a serious quandry in defining realistic war aims and appropriate methods for achieving them. Seceding from an established republic and declaring a separate nation without gaming out scenarios that considered possible reactions by that republic was the first misstep in trying to attain southern independence. The second obstacle facing Davis was the hastily cobbled nature of the Confederate government, which being heavily dependent on the disparate needs of the individual states, forced Davis' hand in deploying limited military resources to areas that were not necessarily critical to meeting the sketchy goals of the Confederacy. Given these considerations, the Confederate political and military hierarchy never developed a unified and comprehensive plan to ensure its existence. While Davis initially felt compelled to defend the land and sea borders of the Confederacy, senior officers including Lee and Joe Johnston set forth different military concepts, ranging from offensive-defense to fighting or maneuvering withdrawal. While Davis may have initially hoped for a strong cordon across Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee his inability to provide AS Johnston with sufficient resources doomed that early effort and let Davis acede to Lee's more aggressive plans. While facing the growing industrial might and organizational management strengths of the United States, one cannot fairly blame Davis alone for the collapse of the Confederate experiment.

 

[leftyhunter]

As I understand the war plan of Davis was to defend the borders. He has taken a lot of criticism on this but what other options did he hav

Letting immense amounts of plantation land and slaves fall into enemy hands isn't really a national strategy you can pursue when the elites you need to support you are plantation-owning slavers who want to establish an empire of slavery and maintain their comfortable lifestyles. No President of the Confederacy could act much differently and expect to retain power.

It's even worse then that because as if January 1st 1863 the Union Army can enlisted every able bodied man of color into the United States Coulored Corps or the Navy. The Union Army also recruited Southern whites from the Confederacy up to 104k per " Lincoln's Loyalists Union soldiers from the Confederacy " William Current NorthEast University Press.

The Confederacy has to defend every inch of land.

What's the old phrase?

"He who defends everything ends up defending nothing."

Which doesn't make the saying true. Wars are not won the defense and a slave based export economy can not survive a naval blockade.
Other the the medieval battle of Malta and Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia there simply aren't many if any examples of wars won on the defense.
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

Their is no senario where a defensive war ensures the survival of the Confederacy. Every inch of land the Confederacy looses to the Union brings the Union Army that much closer to defeating the Confederacy. The more land the Union takes the more Southern men black and white it can and indeed very much did enlist in the Union Army. Either the Confederate Army can sieze and hold land or it can't and if it can't it looses which is what happened.
Leftyhunter

 

[retexan599]

In another context re the Vietnam War; I can view the war aims of North Vietnam as mainly defensive, albeit that periodic offensive forays occurred (Tet, etc.). And they 'won', because after a long war, the U.S. decided the game was not worth the candle and pulled out. In a way the Confederacy (Davis) may have counted on a similar strategy; hold on, defend the borders and whatever you can, strike when you can, and hope that the North would eventually tire of the war and 'let the erring sisters go' after all. Just my speculation of course...

 

[leftyhunter]

In another context re the Vietnam War; I can view the war aims of North Vietnam as mainly defensive, albeit that periodic offensive forays occurred (Tet, etc.). And they 'won', because after a long war, the U.S. decided the game was not worth the candle and pulled out. In a way the Confederacy (Davis) may have counted on a similar strategy; hold on, defend the borders and whatever you can, strike when you can, and hope that the North would eventually tire of the war and 'let the erring sisters go' after all. Just my speculation of course...

Except of course that's not what happened in the Vietnam War as at least one hundred thousand Chinese troops in engineering and anti aircraft units where stationed in North Vietnam from 1965 to 1969. The North Vietnamese received extensive military support from both China and the Soviet Union. The North Vietnamese rightly concentrated on the offense not the defense.
In contrast the Confederacy was never diplomatically recognized and received no military aid from any nation. The Confederates could buy what ever arms they wanted from Western Europe but only in a cash or carry basis and all by ships once Brownsville , Texas fell to the Union. Also any ship from Western Europe risked being intercepted by the USN.
The Secessionists badly underestimated Union resolve and this had to pay a price for that.
Leftyhunter

 

[JerryD]

The Confederacy has to defend every inch of land.


Wars are not won the defense and a slave based export economy can not survive a naval blockade.
Other the the medieval battle of Malta and Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia there simply aren't many if any examples of wars won on the defense.
Leftyhunter

You seem to be arguing two totally different things, unless you are saying they had to defend every inch, so they were doomed from the start. Is that what you are saying?

 

[JerryD]

Letting immense amounts of plantation land and slaves fall into enemy hands isn't really a national strategy you can pursue when the elites you need to support you are plantation-owning slavers who want to establish an empire of slavery and maintain their comfortable lifestyles. No President of the Confederacy could act much differently and expect to retain power.

Reliance on slavery was indeed a strategic disadvantage for the CSA. Interestingly enough, Southerners lived in perpetual fear of slave insurrection and of having the slaves rise up when the men were off, but they seem to have completely discounted this when they decided to go to war.

Even so, I think a Fabian strategy where land was surrendered strategically instead of fighting for every non-strategic inch made the most sense for victory. Not saying it would have worked, but it would give the best chance, in my opinion.

 

[JerryD]

Which doesn't make the saying true. Wars are not won the defense and a slave based export economy can not survive a naval blockade.
Other the the medieval battle of Malta and Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia there simply aren't many if any examples of wars won on the defense.
Leftyhunter

What about the American Revolution?

 

[jackt62]

Even so, I think a Fabian strategy where land was surrendered strategically instead of fighting for every non-strategic inch made the most sense for victory.

In the southern context, a major problem with the so-called "fabian" strategy was that in giving up territory, that strategy would unwittingly unshackle untold thousands of former Black slaves. Their liberation not only released many for service with Union forces but helped destroy the southern economic system.

 

[JerryD]

In the southern context, a major problem with the so-called "fabian" strategy was that in giving up territory, that strategy would unwittingly unshackle untold thousands of former Black slaves. Their liberation not only released many for service with Union forces but helped destroy the southern economic system.

I know...that is why its a poor strategy. But its the best bad choice they had. Reliance on slave labor harmed the south in many, many ways.

 

[breckod]

In the southern context, a major problem with the so-called "fabian" strategy was that in giving up territory, that strategy would unwittingly unshackle untold thousands of former Black slaves. Their liberation not only released many for service with Union forces but helped destroy the southern economic system.

You are right, but there was the option, taken by some slavers, of transferring their slaves into the interior of the Deep South away from Union forces. This was of course more of a band-aid than a solution, but even so.

 

[leftyhunter]

In another context re the Vietnam War; I can view the war aims of North Vietnam as mainly defensive, albeit that periodic offensive forays occurred (Tet, etc.). And they 'won', because after a long war, the U.S. decided the game was not worth the candle and pulled out. In a way the Confederacy (Davis) may have counted on a similar strategy; hold on, defend the borders and whatever you can, strike when you can, and hope that the North would eventually tire of the war and 'let the erring sisters go' after all. Just my speculation of course...

Except of course that's not what happened in the Vietnam War as at least one hundred thousand Chinese troops in engineering and anti aircraft units where stationed in North Vietnam from 1965 to 1969. The North Vietnamese received extensive military support from both China and the Soviet Union. The North Vietnamese rightly concentrated on the offense not the defense.
In contrast the Confederacy was never diplomatically recognized and received no military aid from any nation. The Confederates could buy what ever arms they wanted from Western Europe but only in a cash or carry basis and all by ships once Brownsville , Texas fell to the Union. Also any ship from Western Europe risked being intercepted by the USN.
The Secessionists badly underestimated Union resolve and this had to pay a price for that.
Leftyhunter

What about the American Revolution?

The American Revolution was won on the offense at Yorktown with a combined US and French Army and a combined French and Spanish fleet offshore plus Dutch financial aid . Also the British where fighting a two front
war in the Indian subcontinent a far more important war objective then North America. The American Revolution became absorbed in the Seven Years War . The Colonial Rebels most likely would not if won independence with out the tremendous aid give to them by France, Spain and the Netherlands .
Leftyhunter

 

[leftyhunter]

In another context re the Vietnam War; I can view the war aims of North Vietnam as mainly defensive, albeit that periodic offensive forays occurred (Tet, etc.). And they 'won', because after a long war, the U.S. decided the game was not worth the candle and pulled out. In a way the Confederacy (Davis) may have counted on a similar strategy; hold on, defend the borders and whatever you can, strike when you can, and hope that the North would eventually tire of the war and 'let the erring sisters go' after all. Just my speculation of course...

Except of course that's not what happened in the Vietnam War as at least one hundred thousand Chinese troops in engineering and anti aircraft units where stationed in North Vietnam from 1965 to 1969. The North Vietnamese received extensive military support from both China and the Soviet Union. The North Vietnamese rightly concentrated on the offense not the defense.
In contrast the Confederacy was never diplomatically recognized and received no military aid from any nation. The Confederates could buy what ever arms they wanted from Western Europe but only in a cash or carry basis and all by ships once Brownsville , Texas fell to the Union. Also any ship from Western Europe risked being intercepted by the USN.
The Secessionists badly underestimated Union resolve and this had to pay a price for that.
Leftyhunter

What about the American Revolution?

The American Revolution was won on the offense at Yorktown with a combined US and French Army and a combined French and Spanish fleet offshore plus Dutch financial aid . Also the British where fighting a two front
war in the Indian subcontinent a far more important war objective then North America. The American Revolution became absorbed in the Seven Years War . The Colonial Rebels most likely would not if won independence with out the tremendous aid give to them by France, Soanin and the

You seem to be arguing two totally different things, unless you are saying they had to defend every inch, so they were doomed from the start. Is that what you are saying?

Yes because there is no such thing as strategic depth for the Confederacy. The American South isn't Russia with vast open plains and a harsh winter. Moving troops around the South is not overly difficult. There are many navigable rivers which is why both sides tried to control Kentucky. There is a long shoreline and other the the Great Smokey Mountains not much defensive mountainous terrain. Also as already mentioned it wasnt overly difficult once the Union seized Confedrate territory to recruit Southern men regardless of race.
Leftyhunter

 

[Georgia Sixth]

As I understand the war plan of Davis was to defend the borders. He has taken a lot of criticism on this but what other options did he have.

Davis was forced to play the hand he was dealt. In many ways, I think the confederacy's strategic situation was similar to Imperial Japan's in 1941. Their war effort was dependent on vital resources that could only be found abroad. So in Japan's case, this meant an audacious offensive in late 1941 to conquer and secure regions rich in oil, rubber and other essentials. In the CSA's case, this meant keeping every port possible open for blockade runners to bring in goods from Europe. Davis simply could not ignore the importance of these ports and so had to invest considerable men and artillery defending them. Even then, ports were lost, most critically New Orleans and Norfolk.
Also, both Japan and the CSA hoped to win a decisive victory early on with a goal of, not conquering the USA, but of demoralizing it and bringing on a truce. Japan hoped the attack on Pearl Harbor would do the trick; for the CSA, it was First Manassas. Once the hope of a singular demoralizing victory vaporized, both Japan and the CSA were doomed to a prolonged war of attrition where their opponent could threaten them from many directions, requiring a dispersal of military resources, and doomed as well to strangulation by the US Navy, which grew stronger every year. In both cases, it was a war that could not be won...but it was a a war that they just maybe could survive. The only hope left was that war weariness would bring the USA to a point where the people no longer wanted to see the war continue.
Ultimately, it was their own populace who paid the price: in 1865 due to the many Union columns (most notably Sherman's) advancing at will and wreaking destruction; in 1945 due to the successful use of the new atomic bomb.