Let's talk strategy and war tactics

[Bugflipper]

 Alright guys. There are some true historians on this site. Lets talk tactics. The South was known for providing extremely small pockets of resistance that put a monkey wrench in the plans of Union aggression. So let's talk the theory of clandestine warfare. It's application and what made it so effective.

[SouthernByGrace]

Hey Bug. Welcome to the forum.  Ahhh... New Blood. (Just Kidding :-)  )
I think in the case of the War of Northern Aggression, What made it effective in the beginning was the complete inept abilities of the Union Generals that Lincoln put in charge. They just couldn't get into the minds of the Confederates. The war wouldn't have lasted half as long, had the Union utilized their evidently superior numbers, their abundant resources, and their capable military leadership.
One has to wonder, if Lincoln was just "testing the waters", to see if the South was serious.
There are numerous accounts of Union scouts coming across a few hundred Confederates, then reporting that they had encountered several thousands more.
The South was very limited in its troop numbers and it made since to use this kind of tactic to throw off the enemy, since those numbers were spread all over the Southern States.

[Bugflipper]

Very true. Faith and determination on the Confederacies part also played a large role. Facing insurmountable odds the bands of few would attack, run, regroup and attack again. A brilliant strategy for farm boys that were deemed inferior by their Union counterparts.

[Ga.windbreak]

First you have to understand that The South fought the only way it could have and have any chance to survive let alone win. Davis knew this and said so to his wife before taking the office of President. His main hope was that England and France would Welcome the CSA with open arms which they did not do. The North had it all and Lincoln said it best when he said " We have the Purse and the Sword, they cannot leave, we will not allow it." I believe that Lincoln truly thought it would be a cake walk and be over in 90 days or less. He surely did not understand his Southern brothers. What the South brought to the field was a true belief in the right of their cause and the willingness to die for it.

The North would have won sooner if Lincoln had been more knowledgeable about the men he had to lead the troops. Grant knew the only way to win was to crush not only the troops but also the civilians and this he had Sherman do.

So we fought a Defensive war and we fought it for two reasons: 1. First and formost we never had in mind to overthrow the US government, we only wanted to be left to go our own way in peace. and 2. Having less manpower to draw from the only way to win a battle is make it defensive in nature. Pick your ground well, as in the high ground, and let them come at you. If the ground is good 1000 can and have held off over 100,000.

[wncchester]

"... the complete inept abilities of the Union Generals that Lincoln put in charge. They just couldn't get into the minds of the Confederates. The war wouldn't have lasted half as long, had the Union utilized their evidently superior numbers, their abundant resources, and their capable military leadership."

Yep.  The core of the Union military's problems, then as now, was that it was a "professional" arm, complete with volumes of bureauticratic rules and methods, including the protection of senior officers by placing blame for any failures of leadership on lower ranks. 

The South suffered no such handicaps.  They faught to win, and by winning they meant to run the blue bellies out of the Confeceracy, not take their government. 

And that difference in goals alone means 1861-65 was a war of Succession, never a "Civil" war at all.  In CIVIL WARS there are insurrectionests from all regions with the common goal of taking over the government. As a percentage of the participants, there were more families split by loyalties in WWII than there were in our so called civil war.  Proving only that the winners get to frame not only the issues but the labels, truth be damned.

[littlecanoe]

wnchester and Bugflipper,

Where ya been? and welcome!

Good discussion.

In bringing up Sherman and his tactics you have to start thinking that if the Confederate armies had gone more toward a clandestine mode of operation they would still have been forced out of that simply to try and stop the civilian carnage.  As stated, these men were fighting for hearth and home along with Liberty. 

[Dee]

Just got back for Atlanta. Good topic. lc you hit the nail on the head here. The northern soldier was not necessarily fighting for what he believed in. He was fighting for what he was told to fight for.
The southerner was fighting not only for his freedom, but to protect his home. A guerrilla war was what he understood. His education of fighting and how it should be done came from the American Indian. This people whom I know a little about did not look at war as the white northerner did. The white northern Generals would wave their mighty hand and two armies would annihilate one another on a battle field.
The American Indian would hit and run, and when the odds were against them, they learned to just disappear, and fight another day. Survival was the Indian goal, and the southerner adopted it. To loose a battle completely meant loosing irreplaceable man power, and a provider for a family.
This the northerner could not wrap their minds around.
The white northerner had learned the scroched earth policy Sherman later used in fighting the Indian. Go after the families. Win with women, and baby killers.

[williamlayton]

The South DID fight the only war it could fight. Defense is always the easier. It does not win wars, however.
Blessings

[littlecanoe]

A modern example would be the Afghan's defeat of the Soviet Union.  However, they had the support of a superpower for training and munitions.

If the Confederacy had the support of just one of the nations France or England the we would probably enjoy a higher level of freedom today.  Those countries were likely just waiting so that they could have the economic benefit of which ever side won.  I'm probably wrong there as I'm not up on all the economic issues surrounding the war.

[Dee]

You are exactly right littlecanoe. Afghanistan vs the Soviet Union is but one of many examples that a defensive war CAN BE WON.
Another modern example is Vietnam. There was an endless supply of warriors for the other side, and financing from without.
HOWEVER, yet another example of a defensive war being successful is the Afghanistan's DEFENSIVE WAR fought against Alexander the Great. He was worn down, and driven out. Not thru outside support but, thru dedicated persistence.
The bloody soulless tactics ordered by Lincoln, and carried out by Grant and Sherman, is what won the war of northern aggression. GENOCIDE was their answer. Rape, Kill, and Burn the innocent. They were in my opinion, WAR CRIMINALS REWARDED.

[Totenkopf]

 One ingenious tactic I read about was the attack on the railways by the Southerners. Obstacles and removal of track causing derailment put a very big hitch in the Northern plan and allowed a little more time for the Southerners. One only has to look at the tactics of WW II Germany to see how effective trains were in warfare for moving large amounts of troops and equipment.
 The Southerners did not have much of a naval campaign, yet  were able to effectively control the waterways which goes along the same lines as the attacks on the railways. If the North was allowed to get a foothold in the Southern ports or river towns and use them as a base for stockpiling troops and equipment the war would have been over quickly.
 These two approaches allowed better circumstances for the South to hold their ground for much longer than they should have been able to.

[SouthernByGrace]

Dee, you are right about the Yankees being war criminals and being Rewarded.

Case-in-point;
   If Lincoln had been a truly compassionate human being, then he would have tried to prevent needless human suffering, even the suffering of those who apposed his government's policy on armed aggression. I'm speaking of NEEDLESS suffering; NOT accidental casualties as a result of war. I'm speaking of intentional crimes committed by United States forces against civilians held to be enemies of the Federal Union. Such acts were committed by Colonel John B. Turchin.
   Colonel Turchin commanded the 8th Brigade, 3rd Division, of the Army of the Ohio. His command included the 19th Illinois, 24th Illinois, 37th Indiana, and 18th Ohio.
   Col. Turchin's activities came under question early on in the war. On July 16, 1861, Brig. Gen. Stephen A. Hurlbut, Commanding Headquarters Brigade, Illinois Militia, Quincy, Illinois, notified Col. Turchin of the 19th Illinois that some of his troops "violated private rights of property and of persons..."
   The next year, on June 30, 1862, Major General Ormsby M. Mitchell informed Gen. Don Carlos Buell, commander of the Army of the Ohio, that "The pillage of the town of Athens [Alabama] by the troops under the command of Col. Turchin is a matter of general notoriety." Gen. Buell issued orders to have Turchin court-martialed.
   On August 6, 1862, Gen. Buell published the finding of the court-martial against Turchin:

"[He] allowed his command to disperse and in his presence or with his knowledge and that of his officers to plunder and pillage the inhabitants... they attempted an indecent outrage on a servant girl... destroyed a stock of fine Bibles and Testaments... Defaced, and kicked out the floor and trampled under foot... A part of the brigade went to the plantation and quartered in the negros huts for weeks, debauching the females... Mrs. Hollingsworth's house was entered and plundered... The alarm and excitement occasioned miscarriage and subsequently her death... Several soldiers committed rape on the person of a colored girl... The court finds the accused guilty as charged... and does therefor sentence Col. J. B. Turchin to be dismissed from the services of the United States... It is a fact of sufficient notoriety that similar soldiers have marked the course of Col. Turchin's command wherever it has gone."

   One would imagine that the court-martial of a ranking officer was not done overnight, or in secret. The officials in Washington were aware of the crimes being committed by their military personnel in the name of the United States. Yet even though Col. Turchin was under court-martial  for horrible crimes against innocent civilians and was even found GUILTY, President Lincoln actually PROMOTED Col. Turchin to the rank of Brigadier General of the United States Volunteers on August 5, 1862!!! Turchin accepted his gift from Lincoln on September 1, 1862, and CONTINUED his "service" to the United States in its war of aggression against the Southern nation until October 4, 1864.   

I guess you could say this was just one tactic the North used. Pardon your convicted criminals and keep 'em in charge. Hell, even Promote the bastards.

[SouthernByGrace]

Good point about the railroads, Totenkopf. The Confederate troops often used a "Trojan Horse" tactic of overtaking a known Northern shipment and loading the stock cars with Confederate soldiers, and upon arrival, the Confederate soldiers would simply exit the rail cars and essentially be "delivered" unto the enemy. It probably didn't take too long before the Yanks to catch on, and this eventually became less and less effective. But it was Very effective as long as there was the element of Surprise.

[williamlayton]

There are several reasons why France and England did not enjoin with the South and recognize the Confederacy and offer aid.
We have looked at this before.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

Twice, Lee attempted too invade the North. He said the South could not win by defense alone.
The first attempt was in Maryland and could have been the end of the war except for the hesitancy of the commanding General.
We know what happened at Gettysburg.
One, on one hand must admire Lee.
he was willing too fight a fight he could not win---yet we despise a government who would create a devine wind and sacrifice its war potential with less thought about those lives than did Lee.
Blessings

[littlecanoe]

he was willing too fight a fight he could not win---yet we despise a government who would create a devine wind and sacrifice its war potential with less thought about those lives than did Lee.

Let's not place that burden on Lee alone.  I believe that the tactical mid set of the day, both north and south practiced it,  viewed the individual soldier in the same manner.  It's the same mentality that killed so many British in the Revolution.

[Graybeard]

Littlecanoe if you're gonna use quotes please learn to do it correctly. After you've copied and pasted the quote then again highlight it. Next while it is highlight click on the quote icon and it will turn out as I have fixed it to in a couple of your posts now.

[littlecanoe]

Sorry about that GB.  I was reading back through the posts and wondered how my quotes ended up in that pretty little box.

[williamlayton]

I would agree that this is true LC.
There are several examples, on both sides, of folks that saw the futility of this kind of warfare and deviated from it with great success.
One command at Gettysburg simply refused the wheat field. A most favorable act, IMO. The carnage would have been complete.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

You are exactly right littlecanoe. Afghanistan vs the Soviet Union is but one of many examples that a defensive war CAN BE WON.
Another modern example is Vietnam. There was an endless supply of warriors for the other side, and financing from without.
HOWEVER, yet another example of a defensive war being successful is the Afghanistan's DEFENSIVE WAR fought against Alexander the Great. He was worn down, and driven out. Not thru outside support but, thru dedicated persistence.
The bloody soulless tactics ordered by Lincoln, and carried out by Grant and Sherman, is what won the war of northern aggression. GENOCIDE was their answer. Rape, Kill, and Burn the innocent. They were in my opinion, WAR CRIMINALS REWARDED.

So very true, what with their will and our lack thereof, we were bound to lose! Lincoln and LBJ, two of a kind in that way, wanting to micromanage. If Joe Johnston hadn't quit and Davis had made it to Forrest and Waite the war would have kept going, no doubt about it.

[williamlayton]

I say there is great doubt that those two factors would have been the turning point,
Wars are not won with defense--but battles sure can be and, in this case the odds and the landscape are hard cast in favor of the Union.
Lee was a beaten man at this point in the war, both physically and spiritually.
This was a desperate gamble by a desperate man. He was advised of the futility and ignored the advice.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

With us it was never a lack of will only a lack of cordination:

"Governor, if I had foreseen the use those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox Courthouse; no sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my brave men, my sword in this right hand."
General Robert E. Lee, August 1870 to Governor Stockdale of Texas


"The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern states."
Charles Dickens, 1862

''...the contest is not over, the strife is not ended. It has only entered upon a new and enlarged arena.''
President Jefferson Davis, C.S.A., address to the Mississippi legislature in 1881.

[williamlayton]

Let's look at this two ways.
It is true that reconstruction was harsh. There were some in the North who would have made it far harsher, this is of course the cry of the general public who wished retribution.
In no war, civil or otherwise, has the defeated foe ever been treated with less retribution.
There was no pillaging, though I am sure you will bring up carpetbagging.
There was no mass executions of the belligerents.
There were few war crime trials and they were soft in comparison too other wars.
Some may say there was a period of mistreatment. I would say that for the results it was far less than most in the North cried for, far less.
We lost and you expect a pat on the back and "good try boys, welcome back", I would suggest that is an illogical expectation.
There were safeguards established too see that further conflict was not possible, with futility, I might add.
In retrospect the war hastened the growth of the West.
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

In retrospect the war hastened the growth of the West.

I would tend to put that the other way around. If California hadn't been so quick to want to join the US as a state the war just might have been avoided, IMHO.

Sorry I'm OT but I felt compelled to put the horse in front of the cart.

[williamlayton]

Can you explain that a little more fully GW?
Blessings

[Ga.windbreak]

Can you explain that a little more fully GW?
Blessings

I want to answer you on this wl and will do my best to post it within the next 24 hours, ok?