RE: [civilwarwest] Re: A "Proper" Defense in the West
- Not to defend Polk (I do not know if that is even possible) but Lee had
the same motive in invading Maryland. He thought they would join the
South. He was mistaken, as was Polk, if that was his Ky. Motivation. tm
From: Will <wh_keene@...> [mailto:wh_keene@...]
Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2003 12:55 PM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: A "Proper" Defense in the West
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Aurelie1999@a... wrote:
> I don't understand this defense of Polk. He entered the political
> and violated the borders of a neutral state. How is that
> understanding of the perceived threat is that it was a great excuse
> fact to mollify Davis and the government.
My understading is that he thought there was an imminent threat that
the enemy would get Columbus if he didn't act fast. He also beleived
he would be welcomed by the State of Kentucky. He may have been
wrong, but the actions he took are understandable based on what he
knew about the situation he faced.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
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