Re: A "Proper" Defense in the West
- --- In email@example.com, "Dave Smith <dmsmith001@y...>"
> Given what we know about the rivers running in the West, and givenor
> the need, from a political perspective, of maintaining some form of
> cohesion with all of the seceded states - was there a proper line,
> strategy, for the South in the west?I think the South's best bet is with a neutral Kentucky. I don't
> Just curious, of course.
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
Hey! It would be more effective than what they actually attempted.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, 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