Re: A "Proper" Defense in the West
- --- In email@example.com, "Dave Smith <dmsmith001@y...>"
> To somewhat rephrase my question regarding Polk and the premature
> taking of Columbus: If Polk hadn't moved, and assuming that there
> was a standoff in Kentucky for some reasonable amount of time (it
> winter) and the entire Donelson episode doesn't unfold in February,it
> are the Confederacy's chances better under such a situation? Does
> swing emphasis more on the East - or the Trans-Miss?I find it hard to assume that there would be a standoff in Kentucky
for some reasonable amount of time. If Polk hadn't moved I think
Grant (under the direction of Fremont) would have, and probably
within a week from when Polk actually moved.
But I will try to put that aside and assume in order to address the
questions you raise. I think it would improve the Confederacy's
defensive position as the lines of advance around Kentucky are not as
easy as through Kentucky. I think the emphasis would shift to the
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