Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: A "Proper" Defense in the West

Expand Messages
  • slippymississippi <slippymississippi@yah
    ... or ... I think the South s best bet is with a neutral Kentucky. I don t think that Lincoln would have been ballsy enough to break the neutrality for a
    Message 1 of 59 , Feb 4, 2003
      --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Smith <dmsmith001@y...>"
      <dmsmith001@y...> wrote:
      > Given what we know about the rivers running in the West, and given
      > the need, from a political perspective, of maintaining some form of
      > cohesion with all of the seceded states - was there a proper line,
      or
      > strategy, for the South in the west?
      >
      > Just curious, of course.
      >
      > Dave

      I think the South's best bet is with a neutral Kentucky. I don't
      think that Lincoln would have been ballsy enough to break the
      neutrality for a couple of years. Meanwhile, the CSA can threaten to
      rip up the rail lines into Nashville in the interest of national
      defense if Kentucky allows federal troops to move through the state.

      This allows the CSA to protect Nashville with a handful of troops,
      while concentrating their forces along the Mississippi. Personally,
      my plan would be hold Fort Pillow until it's untenable, then withdraw
      to Memphis, wait for the Union troops, then move rapidly again on
      Fort Pillow, forcing the Union to turn around and attack me in a
      fixed position.

      Hey! It would be more effective than what they actually attempted.
    • Alan Smolinski
      Sustaining your army off enemy resources while preserving you own is very useful to your moral. Will wrote:Two
      Message 59 of 59 , Feb 7, 2003

        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
        territory.

        ~Will


        --- In civilwarwest@yahoogroups.com, meheatherington@j... wrote:
        > In light of Hank Clark's recent notion about the 'offensive' North
        and
        > 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,
        yes yes
        > the Hunley, torpedos, etc.), then what, really, did the South
        expect to
        > gain by taking the offensive?
        >
        > My understanding is that the Confederacy's oft-repeated political
        aim
        > (failing either European recognition or one grand knock-out Cannae
        that
        > would bring the North militarily to its knees) was simply to
        outwait the
        > Union, keep up the fighting for so long that squeamish Northern
        civilians
        > (apparently assumed to be less stout of heart than their Southern
        > counterparts) would sue for a cessation of hostilities, after which
        the
        > 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
        hideous
        > attrition rate, advance that rather low-keyed wait-'em-out grand
        > strategy?
        >
        > Or does anybody in the Southern high command think that far ahead?
        >
        > Regards,
        > Madelon


        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.