"Confederate Strategy In The Civil War" Topic

"The southern commander at Manassas was Pierre G. T. Beauregard, the dapper, voluble hero of Fort Sumter, Napoleonic in manner and aspiration. Heading the rebel forces in the Shenandoah Valley was Joseph E. Johnston, a small, impeccably attired, ambitious but cautious man with a piercing gaze and an outsized sense of dignity. In their contrasting offensive-and defensive-mindedness, Beauregard and Johnston represented the polarities of southern strategic thinking. The basic war aim of the Confederacy, like that of the United States in the Revolution, was to defend a new nation from conquest. Confederates looked for inspiration to the heroes of 1776, who had triumphed over greater odds than southerners faced in 1861. The South could "win" the war by not losing; the North could win only by winning. The large territory of the Confederacy--750,000 square miles, as large as Russia west of Moscow, twice the size of the thirteen original United States--would make Lincolns task as difficult as Napoleons in 1812 or George III's in 1776. The military analyst of the Times of London offered the following comments early in the war:

". . . It is one thing to drive the rebels from the south bank of the Potomac, or even to occupy Richmond, but another to reduce and hold in permanent subjection a tract of country nearly as large as Russia in Europe. . . No war of independence ever terminated unsuccessfully except where the disparity of force was far greater than it is in this case. . . Just as England during the revolution had to give up conquering the colonies so the North will have to give up conquering the South. . . ."

Jefferson Davis agreed; early in the war he seems to have envisaged a strategy like that of George Washington in the Revolution. Washington traded space for time; he retreated when necessary in the face of a stronger enemy; he counterattacked against isolated British outposts or detachments when such an attack promised success; above all, he tried to avoid full-scale baffles that would have risked annihilation of his army and defeat of his cause. This has been called a strategy of attrition--a strategy of winning by not losing, of wearing out a better equipped foe and compelling him to give up by prolonging the war and making it too costly…"
Main page
link

So, what would be the best Strategy for the South?

Amicalement
Armand

Elect saner legislators. :-)

They overlooked the significant logistical disadvantage they started with and failed miserably to narrow that critical gap.

Jefferson Davis agreed; early in the war he seems to have envisaged a strategy like that of George Washington in the Revolution. Washington traded space for time …

No, Davis tried to defend everything; giving up territory was not politically popular, especially with those who lived in the territory to be given up. He forgot, if he ever knew, that "He who defends everything, defends nothing."

However, the best strategy for the "South" was to get out from under the Confederate government at the first opportunity. (In other words, "the South" and "the Confederacy" are not synonymous terms.)

Right. Davis insisted on a cordon defense. He didn't give up territory; it was taken by Union armies.

As the war went on, most senators and congressmen from over-run states wanted war to the knife, while those from states yet to feel the brunt of war hoped for compromise. As the war went on and more territory fell, the war to the end faction increased.

The only strategy which held much hope was one to drag out the war as long as possible and wear out the North. Blood them when they could do so with little loss to themselves and give up ground when they had to. But to commit to a long grinding war would have had to be done from the start and no one (on either side) wanted to admit that that was going to happen. Each side wanted a quick decisive victory. By the time the South realized they couldn't win a conventional victory they had been so worn down and exhausted they couldn't win the other kind, either.

From the moment that Lincoln was able to mobilize the U.S for the war, a strategy of attrition would had benefited the side with more resources. I.e the United States of America.

As I have said on another thread the South lost its main advantages in the political fight once it left the Union.

The CSA(good point on the CSA vs. South distinction. Never thought of it that way, but it makes sense) could only win if it demoralized the USA public with such a massive victory that President Lincoln could not mobilize it, or if it avoided actions that President Lincoln could use to mobilize the Norther public. I.e the choices they faced were stark. Either win big and win early, or avoid fighting at all and hope this restricts the ability of the USA administration to mobilize the USA to the extend that it could hope to dominate the CSA (remember that no fighting, no second order session, i.e Virginia, which might limit the ability of the Federal goverment to go to full war footing).

Free the slaves, surprisingly many would have fought for the south. Increasing the South's fighting strength. But then again would there have been a war?
Might have worked and might have gained foreign recognition as well?
Only spanner in the works was the poor esteem most white folks regarded black people.

Pete: There were other reasons the Southerners couldn't free the salves. The most important factor was the entire southern economy and social system was based on slavery. The value of slaves in 1860 was more than $2 USD billion (then dollars, not now dollars). The couldn't free them without bankrupting their entire economy.

Agreed. In the pre war years the South had turned a source of free labour into a capital asset their entire economy relied on. To make it worse they then tied this capital to two main products and boxed themselves in!

Yes thanks guys I know full well the economic problems of the South, problems that contributed to their downfall.
Just highlighting the major problem of the south which depended on the " peculiar institution " to gather in the profits for the tobacco and cotton plantation owners.
The South lost their chance of Independence by performing badly in the western theatre. Bragg and Davis had a lot to do with losing the war.
Jackson or Longstreet sent west to command the Army of Tennesseein early 1863 might just have made a difference.
A good what if story I think?

I don't know if Jackson or Longstreet would have done all that well out west. Longstreet never really proved himself outstanding as an independent army commander, and Jackson's greatest successes independently were with small forces operating in territory he knew intimately.

What about sending Lee there?… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Lee would have proved a successful commander of the Army of Tennessee without doubt. However who would have replaced him in the East?

Lee refused several requests from Davis to serve out west. He unsheathed his sword for Virginia, period.

which sort of made sense. He only fought for the confederacy because Virginia did. If he was going to fight elsewhere, he might as well stayed in the Union Army.

Lee did NOT refuse to serve in the West; he merely said that he thought the generals already there, being more familiar with the terrain and the armies of both sides, could do a better job than he could, but he said he'd go if Davis thought it best. Davis, as usual, made the wrong decision.

Joe Johnston could have replaced Lee in Virginia, trading space for time, while Lee took over in the West, even if it meant retreating into the defenses of Richmond. (Given Meade's attitude after Gettysburg, I'm not sure that would have been necessary.) But Davis didn't like or trust Johnston (and vice versa). Or Beauregard might have been a suitable choice, but Davis didn't like him either, and he was doing a good job at Charleston, which was under threat.

I don't know if Jackson or Longstreet would have done all that well out west. Longstreet never really proved himself outstanding as an independent army commander, and Jackson's greatest successes independently were with small forces operating in territory he knew intimately.

I agree with Scott the West was so different I think it would have showed up both Longstreet and Jackson's limitations. There's a tendency to view Jackson through the light of the Valley and assume he was the finished article which he may well have not been.

I think Don makes a good point about Davis. Too much of what went on came done to his opinion of his commanders. At the end of the day he only had one Lee.

I'm not sure if Johnston would have worked in the East.

Even allowing for Meade dragging his feet the "trading space for time" gambit would have been hard to pull off – there was a lot more space for Johnston to trade, out West.

If the end result would have been the siege of Richmond 18 months earlier that brings its own problems in supply etc. with 10 – 15,000 more mouths to feed who didn't get killed at the Gettysburg that never happened!

Besides, who knows what would have gone on in the West at the same time? Assuming Vicksburg was under siege already its a tough call to lift the siege and drive off Grant in one grab.

Free the slaves, surprisingly many would have fought for the south. Increasing the South's fighting strength. But then again would there have been a war?

Howell Cobb, former general in Lee's army, and prominent pre-war Georgia politician: "If slaves will make good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong." [Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]

A North Carolina newspaper editorial: "it is abolition doctrine . . . the very doctrine which the war was commenced to put down." [North Carolina Standard, Jan. 17, 1865; cited in Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 835.]

Robert M.T. Hunter, Senator from Virginia, "What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?"

Richmond Enquirer, 1856: "Democratic liberty exists solely because we have slaves . . . freedom is not possible without slavery."

Atlanta Confederacy, 1860: "We regard every man in our midst an enemy to the institutions of the South, who does not boldly declare that he believes African slavery to be a social, moral, and political blessing."

Without slavery there never would have been a war or a Confederacy. Anything else could have been worked out according to the Constitution and existing laws. To arm the slaves would fly in the face of the reason for the Confederacy's existence.

I agree with Rallynow.

I agree as well.

Yup, in a nutshell. No slavery, no war.

Even allowing for Meade dragging his feet the "trading space for time" gambit would have been hard to pull off – there was a lot more space for Johnston to trade, out West.

Actually, it wasn't just Meade, but Lincoln and Halleck as well. Meade was under orders to stay on the north side of the Rappahannock, at least until it was clear that Lee had retreated to the south side of the Rapidan and sent troops to Bragg.

The southern struggle for independence was one of history's great noble lost causes. Considering the huge disadvantages that the CSA were up against it is amazing that they held out for so long. To have won literally everything had to have gone their way, and they just didn't.

Don't think advocating slavery was a nobel cause, however James Longstreet is by far my favourite general in the war, followed by Robert E. Lee then Patrick Cleburne. All three I think were eventually against slavery but believed that honour dictated then went with their states and the Confederacy.
In my opinion Lee was the top Army Commander, Longstreet the best Corps Commander and Cleburne a superb Divisional Commander.

Was the ACW primarily fought over the issue of slavery? The vast majority of CSA soldiers didn't own slaves, and the vast majority of Yankees wouldn't have gone to war to liberate the slaves. Surely the conflict was more about States rights and all of that sort of thing?

Sadly at the end of the day, as we intimated no slavery no war.

Surely the conflict was more about States rights and all of that sort of thing?

Men on both sides were inspired to fight by patriotism`, state pride, the chance for adventure, steady pay. Union soldiers fought to preserve the Union; the common Confederate fought to defend his home. Later in the war, increasing numbers of Federal soldiers fought to abolish slavery, if for no other reason than to end the war quickly. Confederate soldiers sometimes fought because they feared Union victory would result in a society where black people were placed on an even footing with whites.

"We are fighting for matters real and tangible . . . our property and our homes . . . they for matters abstract and intangible . . . for the flimsy and abstract idea that a Negro is equal to an Anglo American." – Private, 1st Texas

"A Virginia Soldier was avid to "be in the front rank of the first regiment of the first brigade that marches against the invading foe who now pollute the sacred soil of my beloved native state with their unholy tread"

His captors asked him why he fights. His reply "I'm fighting because you're down here." – Thomas B. Webber

At the beginning of the war Union soldiers would most likely tell you that they were fighting to preserve the union. That states just couldn't up and leave it. They may also say they were fighting against the idea that there could be an aristocracy in the country. That one group could not say I am better than you. The term "Southern Aristocracy" was real to them.

Poor southerners who did not own slaves did not want slaves free because they could be considered at the same social level as blacks and would have to compete with them. You also have to consider what they heard from the press and the pulpit.

You also have to take into account what they see slaves do on a daily basis, the kind of work they do. I might be low on the totem poll but I am at least above them. Its complicated.

But the root cause is still slavery.

Highly recommend this book.

"What They Fought for, 1861-1865"
by James M. McPherson

link

Also "Cause and Comrades" Excellent by the same author.
Still as so many have mentioned no slavery, no war.

The immediate cause of the war was secession, but the cause of secession was slavery, or the attempt to preserve it.

It was a rich man's war and a poor man's fight, which is one reason the Confederacy had to resort to universal conscription (the other reason being that it was badly outnumbered).

But the Southern Aristocracy managed to convince many Southern non-slave-owners that it was an us-vs-them situation: we're being "invaded" by Yankees; you have to fight for your "rats".

Far more Southerners owned slaves or had a direct interest in the institution than is generally thought. While only about 10% of southerners owned slaves, ownership of property was determined by the elder male in the family. So in fact almost 40% of southern families owned slaves. And many poor farmers who didn't own slaves borrowed or leased them from people who did at planting and harvest times. And even those who had no direct economic interest in slavery had a personal interest in making sure the blacks remained slaves. The thought of large numbers of free blacks scared the bejeesus out of them.

One Confederate sergeant told his captors, near the end of the war: My family never owned any slaves but we used to rent a few at harvest time; now instead of paying their masters we'll just pay them instead.

donlowry,

The expansion of slavery into the western territories was what the South was most concerned with. Lincoln had no interest in ending slavery were it already existed. Of course this view of his would change.

Well, then you have Lincoln's election and the firing on Fort Sumter. The Federal call up for volunteers which caused more states to succeeded. It's complicated.

Lincoln had no interest in ending slavery were it already existed.

I know that, but many Southerners of the time did not, or didn't believe it.

Actually, he personally would have liked to see it ended everywhere, but he did not believe that he had (in peace time) the authority, under the Constitution, to interfere with the institution within the states. Ironically, by seceding and starting a war, the Southern states handed him the power to do it.

That of course is the main theme in the movie "Lincoln". The need to get the 13th Amendment passed before the Confederacy surrenders or a peace is made.

'History is written by the victors'.

There is a strong argument to suggest that this is what happened in the case of the ACW.

In the post war era the conflict was portrayed as a great crusade to end the abomination of slavery by the victorious states to justify the slaughter; deflect from the fact that the Confederacy was invaded by the north; justify the horrors inflicted on the south by the likes of Sherman and the reconstruction and generally paint the ''Rebels' as the bad guys.

Nevertheless, ultimately the existence of slavery didn't do the CSA any favours as it pretty much ruled out and substantive support from external parties, especially from Great Britain.

An interesting subject. Great to share different perspectives!

Sorry Ostrowisk that just doesn't hold water.

Here's a view from the Session Congress of the State Mississippi in 1861. Regardless of what was, or was not, said after the war this is what Mississippi said it was fighting for at the outset.

Ten miniutes on the internet will turn up the same stuff and worse, right across the Confederacy. All in print, all documented in the minutes and proclamations issued by State Legislatures. No one had to make it up the Confederate states were clear about it from day one.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

I have to wonder how the slave owners thought secession was going to solve the problem, though. After all, once the slave states secede there is no reason for the free states to maintain the fugitive-slave law, meaning that any slave that can escape across the new border is not going to be returned.

Our old pal Major General Benjamin "The Beast" Butler was a key player here, in refusing to return Slaves as "contraband" as soon as the war broke out.

Congress later passed two Confiscation Acts in 1861 and 1862 to confirm this action. Not quite as egalitarian as it might seem, as the Slaves were still regarded as "property" in the first instance.

Although the 1862 Act made a point of stating that those concerned were "forever free of their servitude."

Even if the CSA had won the war it is difficult to see how the slave based economic system would have survived. It was fundamentally flawed, evil and unsustainable.

Ultimately the emerging world power – the USA – was going to utterly destroy any threat to its manifest destiny and it deployed its vast economic and industrial superiority to achieve this goal.