Re: [civilwarwest] Re: A "Proper" Defense in the West
- Hello theme_music@...,
In reference to your comment:
è 1) If your going to violate someone's neutrality, you
è might as well go all out. A half-assed unplanned small
è scale incursion results in roughly the same amout of
è political/social/economic fallout, so you might as well
è go all out for military gain.
Kentucky as a buffer zone would soon collapse anyway. McPherson and McMurry in their writings stated that Kentucky was going towards the Union anyway. Sad to say, Kentucky, like Missouri, was a divided State with citizens going both towards the Confederacy and towards the Union. One other factor affected them is that they felt sympathy towards the beliefs of the Confederacy, but felt stronger that the Union should not be divided and opposed seccession. Even if the good Bishop and ASJ had gone all out for military gain, the end result would not change for in the beginning they were doomed for failure as a result of the topography of the land.
Sustaining your army off enemy resources while preserving you own is very useful to your moral.
"Will <wh_keene@...>" <wh_keene@...> wrote:
Two thoughts in reaction to Madelon's question:
1) Offensive campaigns 'liberate' areas theoretically disposed to
join the Confederacy (ie: Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri) or lost
through previous advances of the enemy.
2) Offensives campaign create opportunities to engage the enemy on
your terms in his territory. Victories in this situation could have
much greater impact on the will of the enemy populace and thus
greater political impact than defensive victories within one's own
--- In email@example.com, meheatherington@j... wrote:
> In light of Hank Clark's recent notion about the 'offensive' North
> the 'defensive' South, I have another question.
> If, with Hank, we stipulate that "all CSA successes were strictly
> offensive" (whilst acknowledging that this is a mere stipulation,
> the Hunley, torpedos, etc.), then what, really, did the South
> gain by taking the offensive?
> My understanding is that the Confederacy's oft-repeated political
> (failing either European recognition or one grand knock-out Cannae
> would bring the North militarily to its knees) was simply to
> Union, keep up the fighting for so long that squeamish Northern
> (apparently assumed to be less stout of heart than their Southern
> counterparts) would sue for a cessation of hostilities, after which
> South would stagger away, content to be let alone. Winning by
> not-losing, so to speak; victory by endurance.
> So how does a flair for the offensive, with its glamor *and* its
> attrition rate, advance that rather low-keyed wait-'em-out grand
> Or does anybody in the Southern high command think that far ahead?
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now