- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Facts are more important than emotion.
Agreed.
Facts are more important than emotion.
True, but it can be hard to imagine the hysterical Yankee relying on the facts.
The US pursued a mix strategy of politics and force, and in the process retained Wilmington, DE, Wheeling, VA, Baltimore, St. Louis, Alexandria, VA, Louisville, Newport and Covington, KY. Without expending many lives, the captured the cities of the border states, and part of Virginia.
Most of the cities of the 11 state Confederacy were on rivers, or on the coast. By deploying its naval resources, with some combined arms support, the US also captured Nashville, TN, New Orleans, Norfolk, VA and Memphis, TN. None of these captures involved large battles. The large land battles occurred elsewhere. The last four locations were retained by the US throughout the war. So whatever offensive operations the Confederacy undertook, they did not retake these important towns and cities.
You can't have it both ways. It was you who brought up the issue of the lack of morality concerning Yankee slave ship owners.A fair question would have had something to do with the topic heading -- The South's Defensive War.
I have a thread from a few years ago where I argued that due to the geopolitical situation of the early 1860s vs the early 1780s that it is unfair to bash Slidell and Mason.A very vital point, IMO. I agree with those that argue that there was no real military answer to the economic, political and social weaknesses of the csa.
I tend to believe that the weaknesses of the South, were so deep and pervasive, there was no real military solution to achieving southern independence. Neither the offensive or defensive(or any likely combination of them) models would be sufficiient, in themselves to winning the kind of Revolutionary War they had engaged in.
As noted by you, Shiloh, Bragg's Ky invbasion or Lee's two iinvasions of the North, failed, not so much by military weakness as the inability of the confederacy to supply the necessary men and supplies to follow up on any successes. As many analysts then and now note, in the end, no territory lost by the confederacy was every permanently regained.
As noted by Lefty Hunter, et. al., the model available for fighting a revolutionary war from a position of material inderiority, was the Revolutionary one of the American colonistsin gaining their independence.. Almost as soon and real war broke out, the Founding Fathers sent their best and brightest to Europe. Congress sent Ben Franklin, John Adams, eta. al, to find and build alliances, political and commercial,. The South sent Mason and Slidell, et. al.
Not a bad source. However said source gave no figures regarding the mortality rate of slaves freed by the British vs those stuck in slavery in the United States.Here are a few factoids on the Humanitarian British and Americans treatment of Blacks during the Revolutionary War. https://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn07/slaves.cfm
Or more likely would of economically collapsed from the blockade and or slaves fleeing to freedom.If the Confederacy had remained on the defensive, it might have preserved communication between the two sides, and allowed an armistice short of total victory.
The definition of "defensive" war becomes somewhat blurry when it comes to talking about Confederate war aims. Yes, they wanted their independence and supposedly wished to be "left alone." But that's not the whole story. The southern states always maintained that the Confederacy consisted not only of the 11 seceded states, but also Kentucky and Missouri, whose insurgent governments were accepted as member states of the Confederacy. Additionally, the Confederacy laid claim to parts of United States territories, specifically New Mexico, Arizona, and Indian Territory (Oklahoma). Lastly, the Confederacy believed that much of Maryland was waiting to be "liberated" and reverted to southern rule. Given these claims, the Confederacy spent much blood and treasure in mounting offensive campaigns to obtain sovereignty over these lands, while at the same time mounting various defensive and/or offensive-defensive campaigns to protect the original 11 states. It's no wonder that the proliferation of war aims and strategies to achieve them did little to ensure the survival of the Confederacy as an independent nation.
One would think that if the vast majority of folks in Kentucky and Missouri were pro Confederate then said states would of been Confederate. Certainly Dyer's Compendium does not reflect that the majority of white men in either state flocked to the Confederacy more then the Union.They wanted those western territories for a reason. That reason was one of the main purposes of secession. They also needed KY. It was a bread basket. KY also like MO had many who sympathized with the South. MO had Industrial capability. Both pledged Independence. Many were against Union Occupation. Bragg went to KY to liberate them. Sympathetic Kentuckians wanted Bragg to force Federals out, then they would join. Bragg needed them to join and help him to force them out. He didn’t have the numbers to do it. However, the campaign was successful. Bragg brought back many wagons of food and material. However, the loss of MO and KY was huge to the South.
A successful military campaign is not defined by stealing food but seizing and holding enemy territory. I never heard of winning a war by stealing food.They wanted those western territories for a reason. That reason was one of the main purposes of secession. They also needed KY. It was a bread basket. KY also like MO had many who sympathized with the South. MO had Industrial capability. Both pledged Independence. Many were against Union Occupation. Bragg went to KY to liberate them. Sympathetic Kentuckians wanted Bragg to force Federals out, then they would join. Bragg needed them to join and help him to force them out. He didn’t have the numbers to do it. However, the campaign was successful. Bragg brought back many wagons of food and material. However, the loss of MO and KY was huge to the South.
To be fair to Davis I don't know how he could of planned to do significantly better then what actually happened to the Confederacy.The definition of "defensive" war becomes somewhat blurry when it comes to talking about Confederate war aims. Yes, they wanted their independence and supposedly wished to be "left alone." But that's not the whole story. The southern states always maintained that the Confederacy consisted not only of the 11 seceded states, but also Kentucky and Missouri, whose insurgent governments were accepted as member states of the Confederacy. Additionally, the Confederacy laid claim to parts of United States territories, specifically New Mexico, Arizona, and Indian Territory (Oklahoma). Lastly, the Confederacy believed that much of Maryland was waiting to be "liberated" and reverted to southern rule. Given these claims, the Confederacy spent much blood and treasure in mounting offensive campaigns to obtain sovereignty over these lands, while at the same time mounting various defensive and/or offensive-defensive campaigns to protect the original 11 states. It's no wonder that the proliferation of war aims and strategies to achieve them did little to ensure the survival of the Confederacy as an independent nation.
However, the loss of MO and KY was huge to the South.
Lincoln himself supposedly said " to loose Kentucky is to loose the game".Agreed. Flip a few Border States either way, and its a very different war.
Stephen Feeling in his book " the South vs the South" definitely makes that argument.Agreed. Flip a few Border States either way, and its a very different war.