As Brad said, it was a situation that had been allowed to develop and gone too far. From the start of the war, the South defended the huge area of the western Confederacy with a completely inadequate number of troops, supplies, strategy, commanding generals, everything, and lost the war as a result. -- Al
150th Anniversay of Gettysburg (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rob
- Start date
Poppo
In the Cooler
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,457
Yes, I also said that, the war was lost for the south since the beginning , though you can' t say that southern strategy and generals were inadequate!! Come on, the south had the best generals, and by far....And also the flexible defense strategy with sudden attacks was good....The evidence is that they inflicted to the yankees so heavy losses, and resisted almost 5 years against a so much bigger and modern army.....Really incredible.
Southern strategy simply did not work and while I agree that many of the Southern generals were superior to Northern generals, this certainly did not hold true in the western theater. Two words - Braxton Bragg. -- Al
Poppo
In the Cooler
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,457
No strategy could be winner against so superior forces. The only chance for the south was that the bleeding of the Union army and a long time war could raise the norther public opinion against the war and leave the south alone.....And this almost happened.
In the west were also Johnston, Forrest, Morgan...
Albert Sidney Johnston was indeed a good general and what qualifies as a theater commander. Only problem was he died at Shiloh in April, 1862, much too early in the war to have a real influence. Forrest and Morgan were excellent cavalry commanders. Forrest proved himself much more than that and proved to be one of the best commanders of the war, but neither he nor Morgan were theater commanders. It is hard to find two poorer theater commanders than what the South came up with in the west, Bragg and Hood. Even a good commander like Joe Johnson could only stall and delay the inevitable. Commanders like Bragg and Hood rushed to disaster and brought the end closer. All these men, the two Johnston's, Bragg, Hood, Beauregard, were traditionally trained military men who fought the way a man in charge of a traditional army would fight, some with more success than others. As you say, it is likely no one could have rescued the situation in the west, given the large geographic problem, the huge disparity in numbers, and especially after the early war loss of Tennessee. Too many factors to overcome, and remember, a strategy to bleed your enemy of men and morale is just as likely to do the same to your own army/nation and when dealing from a position of vastly inferior numbers, it becomes a bankrupt strategy. -- Al
Poppo
In the Cooler
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,457
Unfortunately president Davies chose sometimes the wrong generals ( like Hood and Bragg). Beauregard was one of the best ones, he admirably defended Charleston till the end.
About strategy, well, defending from the invasion or surrender, no other strategy was possible.
jazzeum
Four Star General
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 38,444
In his blog, in Lincoln Chides Meade, Brooks Simpson discusses the letter Lincoln wrote to Meade, but never sent, http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/july-14-1863-lincoln-chides-meade/
Combat
Brigadier General
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,528
Contrary to prior reports, President Obama will not be attending the 150th anniversary of the Gettysburg address on Nov. 19. I assume the security and logistics were just too much to overcome. The good news is that this should significanty reduce the crowds and hassle of attending.
