jeffdavislegion
Cadet
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
The predominant theory always seems to state the Union's superior manufacturing power and ability to generate resources ensured its victory.
I'm not a military strategist, but I've made this observation: Wars are not generally won by killing the other side's soldiers. Wars are won by removing the other side's will to fight. Viet Nam and Mogadishu come to mind. Obviously superior forces pulled out for fear of body count, political backlash and internal disagreement.
I hate "what ifs" also (remember chaos theory?), but I believe that a couple of major victories by the South, such as a double-header at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, could have caused a fatal splintering the Union's resolve. Although I doubt that the Federal army would have ever lost in terms of force, it could have lost in terms of maintaining the Union.
I believe that was Lee's strategy for the Pennsylvania excursion. He knew he couldn't win on strength alone. He wanted a couple of quick uppercuts in the hope that the Union would sue for peace and let the secession stand.
I'm not a military strategist, but I've made this observation: Wars are not generally won by killing the other side's soldiers. Wars are won by removing the other side's will to fight. Viet Nam and Mogadishu come to mind. Obviously superior forces pulled out for fear of body count, political backlash and internal disagreement.
I hate "what ifs" also (remember chaos theory?), but I believe that a couple of major victories by the South, such as a double-header at Vicksburg and Gettysburg, could have caused a fatal splintering the Union's resolve. Although I doubt that the Federal army would have ever lost in terms of force, it could have lost in terms of maintaining the Union.
I believe that was Lee's strategy for the Pennsylvania excursion. He knew he couldn't win on strength alone. He wanted a couple of quick uppercuts in the hope that the Union would sue for peace and let the secession stand.