should the south have fought a more offensive war

[williamlayton]

The study of war is interesting. Defensive wars are particularly hard as they are fought on old homesteads. Defensive wars cannot be won the best that can happen is a draw. Defensive wars can only be fought to a draw if the defenders have at least a numerical draw.
When you are not numerically strong, the only war that you can wage, effectively, is a strategic offensive war. Strategic meaning a gurella war attacking strong points and industry of the opponent but that weakens your defense to attack from your opponent.
Viet Nam is a prime example. The Americans failed to apply pressure in the north. There are political reasons we did not---but that also is a good reason to never let politics interfere with war.
Should the south have expnded the war into the North more than it did and could tis have been done with more statregic thought than it was?
Blessings

[subdjoe]

You bet.  They should have put the federal troops from Ft. Sumter to the sword.  Followed up First Manassas killing every federal soldier that was taken, captured Washington City and put it to the torch.  Hanged Lincoln, his cabinet, and every northern member of Congress they could catch.  Then sent part of the army to the coast to work its way up, torching every shipyard, every warehouse, every wooden pier and dock.  The other part of the army should have gone after all iron and bronze foundries, destroying them as well as blasting closed all mine shafts and destroying all mining equipment.  All northern food stores should have been destroyed, and any citizen of the north put to death. 

[williamlayton]

That is what war is about and how it should have been fought.
Would that have left the South opento the same invasion?
Blessings

[reliquary]

This is an oversimplification, but has the framework of the correct answer:
 
The South certainly should have been more agressive in pursuing the war, and certainly had leaders (Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart, for example) with that attitude.  There were two mitigating factors:
 
(1).  The South hoped, after First Manassas, that the Federals would leave them alone to chart their own course.
 
(2).  The South did not have the war materiel to pursue an aggressive war.  Most states were doing well to furnish and maintain a militia, and were mainly dependent on captured Union supplies for the general war.

[hillbill]

This is an oversimplification, but has the framework of the correct answer:
 
The South certainly should have been more agressive in pursuing the war, and certainly had leaders (Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart, for example) with that attitude.  There were two mitigating factors:
 
(1).  The South hoped, after First Manassas, that the Federals would leave them alone to chart their own course.
 
(2).  The South did not have the war materiel to pursue an aggressive war.  Most states were doing well to furnish and maintain a militia, and were mainly dependent on captured Union supplies for the general war.

in my opinion the south just didnt have the means

[subdjoe]

This is an oversimplification, but has the framework of the correct answer:
 
The South certainly should have been more agressive in pursuing the war, and certainly had leaders (Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Stuart, for example) with that attitude.  There were two mitigating factors:
 
(1).  The South hoped, after First Manassas, that the Federals would leave them alone to chart their own course.
 
(2).  The South did not have the war materiel to pursue an aggressive war.  Most states were doing well to furnish and maintain a militia, and were mainly dependent on captured Union supplies for the general war.

in my opinion the south just didnt have the means

The South didn't have the means for a long war.  As Reliquary said, well, expanding on it a bit, the hope was that the show of willingness to fight, or one strong victory, would cause the federals to back off. 

They did have the strength, I think, to have followed up on First Manassas and taken Washington.  With the strong anti-war sentiment in the north, the capture of Washington would likely have caused the north to sue for peace.  But the defeat at Manassas, and the humiliation of the Great Skedaddle, got the backs of the northern citizens up.  Enough to cause the man in the street to change his attitude from "let 'em go to hell in their own way" to "no one can do that to us!"

But, as pointed out over and over on this forum, the South was not out to take over the north.  The original seven states of the Confederacy just wanted to go their own way.    So following up and capturing Washington, acting like conquerors, was not in the plans.   Neither side thought the War would last very long - after all, the initial call by the federals was for 90 day enlistments.  Confederate enlistment at the start was for one year.

[BUGEYE]

my choice would have been guerrilla warfare.  harrass the snot out of them till they asked for peace talks.  a lot less people would have been killed IMO.

however, if the south did as subdjoe suggested and murdered lincoln, his cabinet, congress and all citizens, that would justify the north to completely annihillate every living thing in the south.

[subdjoe]

my choice would have been guerrilla warfare.  harrass the snot out of them till they asked for peace talks.  a lot less people would have been killed IMO.

however, if the south did as subdjoe suggested and murdered lincoln, his cabinet, congress and all citizens, that would justify the north to completely annihillate every living thing in the south.

I wrote all that kind of tongue in cheek because some of northern apologists have, in other threads, said that rape, torture, and murder of civilians, in fact any means at all, were justified by the north, and that war always means total war. 

I guess I should have used some of the little smiley faces.

[BUGEYE]

my choice would have been guerrilla warfare.  harrass the snot out of them till they asked for peace talks.  a lot less people would have been killed IMO.

however, if the south did as subdjoe suggested and murdered lincoln, his cabinet, congress and all citizens, that would justify the north to completely annihillate every living thing in the south.

I wrote all that kind of tongue in cheek because some of northern apologists have, in other threads, said that rape, torture, and murder of civilians, in fact any means at all, were justified by the north, and that war always means total war. 

I guess I should have used some of the little smiley faces.

the north used total war which I have always been against.  now the war on terror can only be fought that way because terrorists use civilians as cover.
wasn't it Mckenzie that destroyed the shenendoah valley?  to me that was sinful.
anyway, wouldn't guerrilla warfare have been effective? just striking supply lines, bridges etc.
I think the yanks would have tired of that pretty soon.

[hillbill]

yu guys know more than me but is it possible that the south thought that they were in a gentlemans war?hit hard, back off and dont kick the enemy while he is down?

[BUGEYE]

yu guys know more than me but is it possible that the south thought that they were in a gentlemans war?hit hard, back off and dont kick the enemy while he is down?

I don't know much at all.  but it seems to me that the south may have been a bit surprised when the north resisted as they did.

[hillbill]

is it possible they thought just a show of resistance would of left such a bad taste in the north that they would of just allowed sucession?no one really wants to kill ones own countrymen.?

[BUGEYE]

is it possible they thought just a show of resistance would of left such a bad taste in the north that they would of just allowed sucession?no one really wants to kill ones own countrymen.?

that's very possible.  it's too bad that it didn't happen way.  lots of good men died.

[hillbill]

is it possible they thought just a show of resistance would of left such a bad taste in the north that they would of just allowed sucession?no one really wants to kill ones own countrymen.?

that's very possible.  it's too bad that it didn't happen way.  lots of good men died.

that is very true, probably some of the best men ever to walk our country on both sides.they died for what they believed in,right or wrong still very much worthy of admireing.i just wonder how far our country would of advanced at this point if we didnt have this dissagreement that killed some of our finest, bravest young men.

[williamlayton]

I think that--given the resources of the South--Captureing some of the resources that they needed was/should have been of primary concern.
I disagree that DC could have been taken as easily as thought. McClellan had DC pretty well protected with about 100,000 troops.
Powder manufacturing and armories would have been a first choice of capture.
I do know what the South wanted the North to do was to just back off---there was a good amount of support for that in the North. However; that support quickly faded.
I think that the Souths hopes were ill thought out. The North was made of the same stock as that of the South and the South considered teirownselves to be an island unto themselves. It wasn't and where they got that idea has always baffled me.
The first tenants of war  is to NEVER underestimate your opponent.
That is the reasons most wars are lost.
The South had limited choices for offense but they could have used them more effectively/affectively.
Joe--I knew what you were sayin and what you meant without the smiley--no offense was taken.
Blessings

[reliquary]

The reference is Shelby Foote's Volume One of "The Civil war-A Narrative: From Fort Sumter to Perryville" (a three-volume set).  On pages 56-58, he discusses the South's beginning strategy...uses Jeff Davis' quote..."All we ask is to be let alone."  The rest of seems to be (my words), when battle seemed inevitable, to get in one good lick on the Federals, even to the point of occupying Washington and dictating peace terms to Lincoln, in order to establish their independence.
 
The Federal defeat at Manassas, though,  had the opposite effect.  It solidified the North's opposition to the South and precipitated a long struggle. 
 
So, this book verifies the South's strategy, as some of us in this thread have speculated.  The discussion on whether they should have been more aggressive, as Williamlayton has asked in the beginning of this thread:  Yes, they should have been.  So now...why weren't they?   I'll look at the references more, but I still think it's because they didn't have the materiel and manpower. 
 
More ideas, anyone?

[williamlayton]

When considering this monday morning quartereback question, there are obvious things that must be considered.
You can't use all of your manpower--some must be kept in reserve.
The enemy will still have forces in the field on offense.
The enemy will have mobil reserves.
Both DC and Richmond were entrenched fortress's.
There were powder reserves and production in Maryland. Armories would be better targets than production because all production of Arms were well inside the North.
Transportation and communications are soft targets that small mobile forces could have been attacked---much better and more effectively than they were, if they were co-ordinated.
This last is a part of the make-up of the South that was totally ignored by the leadership & I think is the real soft underbelly of the South. They did not  have a cordinated command.
Blessings

[williamlayton]

How many "total" troops were at the disposal of the army of northern Virginia ?
Blessings

[no guns here]

I still think that coordinated guerilla strikes on northern supplies would have been effective in several ways.
One, it would have forced northern troops to stay home for protection.
Two, disrupted supplies to the troops in the field.
Three, demoralized and terrified the locals.
 
Sending 500-1000 men in small groups (3-4) on a circuitous route to reenter the north through Canada would have given a large surprise when crops were burned before harvest, foundries burned, powder mills and stores destroyed,
and generally the countryside set ablaze.  Wouldn't have been a bad idea to set a couple of large cities on fire also.  100 men throwing torches from the upwind side would have probably burned New York or Boston or Philly to the ground.
 
 
NGH

[BUGEYE]

NGH,  that's how I would have done it.

[AtlLaw]

Sending 500-1000 men in small groups (3-4) on a circuitous route to reenter the north through Canada would have given a large surprise when crops were burned before harvest, foundries burned, powder mills and stores destroyed,
and generally the countryside set ablaze.

Sounds like the Doolittle Raid, Civil War Style!

[williamlayton]

I agree that offense would have been good--3/4 I am not sure about.
It would take just one mishap to destroy the mission of 3/4.
I think raids in force for specific targets--supplies that were needed to sustain--would have been far more effective.
Some here, seem to take the attitude that these were urban folks. They were much like he Southern Boys for the most part, with the same guts and determinations.
Blessings

[no guns here]

Yep but Doolittle was purely psychological and the calculated effect was intended to rally the US and allies from the despair of Japanese domination of the Pacific through mid-1942.  It didn't really accomplish much militarily.  The Japanese military was already spread across the Pacific at that point.  My Civil War plan would have worked best at the beginning of the conflict by keeping the northern states which hadn't committed large numbers of men at that point from doing so.  Attacks on them would have forced their state legislatures to support a militia or army of their own to protect their own state.  This would have KEPT the northern army smaller and less well supplied.  I guess a comparison for WWII would be if the Japs really did have sleeper cells in the mainland and they were able to disrupt rail lines, manufacturing, etc here.  We would have had to divert many more resources to guarding the homeland and infrastructure just so we could prepare for the real war at a much slower pace.
 
 
NGH
 
 

[no guns here]

WilliamLayton is right... the whole war turned on a single unit from Maine.  It held against great odds.
 
 
NGH

[reliquary]

Been doing some reading; don't have a specific, single reference for these tidbits:
 
Most Southern states began building up their militias in 1859, but by secession time they were still poorly equipped.  After secession, they took over the Federal arsenals, depots, and forts.  A few of the Federals were able to destroy their stocks, but most were just forced to leave it behind.  The US arsenal at Harper's Ferry was raided for manufacturing equipment, which was taken to Richmond.  The South had one large powder-manufacturing plant at Augusta, Ga, and other smaller ones.
 
Bottom Line:  The South had only enough supplies for about a year of warfare at any given time, and less than that, most of the time.  sometimes it was just enough for "one more battle".  They captured quite a bit from the Union defeat at Manassas.  But they did not have the supplies for a protracted offensive war.  The best they could do was to try to hold out long enough for the North to get tired of fighting....that didn't work.  The push into the supply depots in Pennsylvania in 1863 was to capture enough stocks to keep going AND to demoralize the North, but neither idea worked. 
 
The only long-range "raid" on the North was the St Albans, Vt, thing in Oct 1864. 
 
The fight at Gettysburg was definitely the turning point of the war.  From then on, it was downhill all the way.

[reliquary]

Ran out of space in the other post:  To expand on no guns here's statement...
 
The turning point of the battle of Gettysburg was Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's actions as commander of the 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment.  Defending Little Round Top against the 15th and 47th Alabama, in danger of being overrun, out of ammunition, outnumbered 15- or 20-to-1, he led a bayonet charge that saved the day.
 
Lee had to have Little Round Top in order to dominate the battlefield with artillery, but Chamberlain saved the day.  After the war, as folks began to study the war, they realized that this battle saved the Union from defeat at Gettysburg.  In 1893, Chamberlain was belatedly awarded the Medal Of Honor
 
"Pickett's Charge" on the third day was primarily meant to enable Lee to disengage.  Of course, if he had broken through, it might have turned the battle back to the Confederates. 

[williamlayton]

War, like life, turns on unexpected events---kinda like God IS in control.
See the battle of Mid-Way.
Blessings

[reliquary]

Williamlayton's question about the strength of the Army of Northern Virginia...round numbers:
 
1861-62, 55-90k (peaked at Manassas)
 
'63, 75-50k  (decrease as a result of casualties in Pa campaign)
 
'64-'65, ~peaked at 85k at Richmond-Petersburg; ~ 50k surrendered at Appomattox
 
These numbers may not reflect all the attachments, reinforcements, etc, but are a good ballpark of the nominal strengths.
 
William, when you ask hard questions, it takes a few days to look up the references....not a real problem, just time-consuming.
 
 
 
 
 

[williamlayton]

I had always placed the maximum forces available to the ANV at 100,000.
The point of the question was to show that any offense would need to be tempered with a need to have enough to defend.
Blessings

[missouri dave]

I think the smart play WAS a defensive war. The south didn't want or need to conquer the north and couldn't hope to hold it if they did. Their best hope was to kill enough bluebellies that the north would decide the war wasn't worth the cost. Had the south had more manpower and material it might very well have worked. Guerilla operations are fought that very way.