An entrenched army is a stuck army just begging to be besieged.
I'm of the opinion that the only chance was to emulate Washington and Greene, fight when strong and evade when weak, drag it out as long as possible and don't allow the Union any decisive and morale-boosting victories like Vicksburg. Then you can potentially win even with fewer bodies.
Concur, but while Lee would tenaciously defend ground as opposed to Joe Johnston would yield rather than be invested.
Lee wrote to Seddon (12 April, 1864):
"It is difficult, in view of the conflicting information received, to ascertain what the purpose of the enemy may be, but an investment of Richmond is one of the possibilities for which we should be prepared. Even should no actual invesment be made, it is not improbable tha an accumulation of troops in or near the city may become necessary, and operations may be carried on its immediate vicinity."
Lee goes on to suggest:
"In either case, I think it very desirable that all the population whose presence would impede or endanger our efforts should be removed, especially that part of it which increases the consumption of public storoese, without aiding or strengthening the army. Prisoners of the enemy and our own paroled men are of this class, and I think no time should be lost in placing them in some other locality."
See:
The Wartime Papers of R. E. Lee, pages 695-6.
People who write alternate history novels are not to be trusted. They're not right in the head.
It's for fun, not for learning. BTW, I average one non-fiction book in about five years. Almost everything I read is non-ficiton and related to research. It took decades before I read Stephen Crane's
Red Badge of Courage and I confess to reading
Si Klegg and his Pard, Peck's
How Pvt. George Peck Put Down the Rebellion, along with some short stories from Ambrose Bierce.
Bringing the