5fish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2019
- Messages
- 13,429
- Reaction score
- 5,321
One can argue the many mistakes the Confederacy made during the civil war. I argue the three-big strategic mistakes were their King Cotton foreign policy, Davis insistence on trying to keep border integrity, and Lee's insistence desire to crush the Union army with his much smaller force... I will say King Cotton foreign policy may have worked if they had promise nations cheap cotton for recognition and support, instead of a cotton embargo...
The point of this What if is to address Davis and Lee failed visions. The Confederacy strategy should have been to drag the war out and allow war weariness in the North to win the war. The Confederacy should have looked back to history and follow the Chinse and Romans strategy of walls and fortification along the borders. I say the Confederacy should have used trenches and fortification in strategic places to stimy Northern efforts to invade instead on open warfare. Here are Rome's Limes! See not everywhere just in strategic places and excess points...
Only if the Confederate Leadership could have been so farsighted and creative, they could have used the rivers and mountains and trenches to make it almost impossible to invade in the east and in the west they could have a network of trenches fortification to protect vital infrastructure, croplands and stop the invader. A trench and fortification strategy would have drag out the war for years causing war weariness in the North and leading to victory. With this strategy, Atlanta may not have followed before 1864 election and giving the election to McClellan. Grant may have been stimy in the west and never rose in the ranks to lead all the Union armies. Think about it no Gettysburg or Sharpsburg...
It takes fewer men to defend a fortified position than it takes to overrun it. The old rule of thumb is a three to one ratio to attacker versus defenders. Yes, I am talking about World War One like trenches across Virginia parts of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama protecting the core of the Confederacy. I never understood why the Confederacy never spiked the rivers in the west stopping all traffic... If the union tries to land troops along the coast again pick strategic places to put your tranches and fortifications to stimy any advance inland... The Overland campaign showed how quickly made fortifications are hard to overrun if not impossible.
I know you going to bring up the siege of Petersburg but that was not planned in advance and done at the end of the war after the Confederacy had little to no resources left. If they follow the strategy of conservation during the war they would have won... Davis strategy was wasteful of men and Lee's strategy of open warfare was unsustainable in men and supplies.
The Confederacy needed its own Hadrian Wall or Maginot Line or a few Roman Limes...
The point of this What if is to address Davis and Lee failed visions. The Confederacy strategy should have been to drag the war out and allow war weariness in the North to win the war. The Confederacy should have looked back to history and follow the Chinse and Romans strategy of walls and fortification along the borders. I say the Confederacy should have used trenches and fortification in strategic places to stimy Northern efforts to invade instead on open warfare. Here are Rome's Limes! See not everywhere just in strategic places and excess points...
Only if the Confederate Leadership could have been so farsighted and creative, they could have used the rivers and mountains and trenches to make it almost impossible to invade in the east and in the west they could have a network of trenches fortification to protect vital infrastructure, croplands and stop the invader. A trench and fortification strategy would have drag out the war for years causing war weariness in the North and leading to victory. With this strategy, Atlanta may not have followed before 1864 election and giving the election to McClellan. Grant may have been stimy in the west and never rose in the ranks to lead all the Union armies. Think about it no Gettysburg or Sharpsburg...
It takes fewer men to defend a fortified position than it takes to overrun it. The old rule of thumb is a three to one ratio to attacker versus defenders. Yes, I am talking about World War One like trenches across Virginia parts of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama protecting the core of the Confederacy. I never understood why the Confederacy never spiked the rivers in the west stopping all traffic... If the union tries to land troops along the coast again pick strategic places to put your tranches and fortifications to stimy any advance inland... The Overland campaign showed how quickly made fortifications are hard to overrun if not impossible.
I know you going to bring up the siege of Petersburg but that was not planned in advance and done at the end of the war after the Confederacy had little to no resources left. If they follow the strategy of conservation during the war they would have won... Davis strategy was wasteful of men and Lee's strategy of open warfare was unsustainable in men and supplies.
The Confederacy needed its own Hadrian Wall or Maginot Line or a few Roman Limes...