Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by decaro »

As a Connecticut Yankee, I must admit to being a little slow when it comes to understanding the South, but after reading H. W. Crocker's P.I.G. to the Civil war, I may finally be getting up to speed.

According to Crocker, Lee's Virginian lieutenants "sought audacious offensives" to shock the Federals into thinking that the human cost of the Civil war was too great. But Longstreet longed for tactical defensive postures even during strategic offensives so as to avoid casualties the Confederacy could ill afford.

"But if the South could not afford a long war, it could not afford Longstreet's strategy," concluded Crocker. But was Lee living on borrowed time too? Judging by his furious assaults at Gettysburg against prepared Union defenses on good ground, after attacking and failing both left and right, it wasn't difficult for Meade to realize the only attack left for Lee was "dead center," a fitting description for marching en masse into defilade fire.

So, for this Northerner, it seems that both Lee and Longstreet's strategies were ultimately doomed to fail: the South would either run out of troops, or time, but at least with Longstreet there would be more Confederate vets alive when it was finally over.

What do "y'all" think?

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
wings7
Posts: 4586
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2003 4:59 am
Location: Phoenix, Arizona

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by wings7 »

Joseph, interesting topic, I need to study it more for a intelligent opinion. [&:]

Patrick
Please come and join and befriend me at the great Steam portal! There are quite a few Matrix/Slitherine players on Steam! My member page: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561197988402427
gradenko2k
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:08 am

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by gradenko2k »

The question is, in my opinion, similar to the difference between a WITP Japan player that tries to push for an auto-victory in 1942/43 versus a player that tries to defend well in order to score a "win" on points by doing better than historical.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: gradenko_2000

The question is, in my opinion, similar to the difference between a WITP Japan player that tries to push for an auto-victory in 1942/43 versus a player that tries to defend well in order to score a "win" on points by doing better than historical.

When Crocker compared Southern pride to Northern industrial power, he spoke of the South's martial prowess -- "it's men born to the saddle and to arms" and the military tradition of its aristocrats, which all reminded me of Imperial Japan's "warrior spirit" vs. America's ever-expanding war industry and pacific fleet.

Crocker also wrote that while the North read "Uncle Tom's Cabin," the South read "Ivanhoe" and dreamt of chivalry, so I did some comparisons of my own and came up with this calculation:
Chivalry + Bushido = Southern Samurai

Almost sounds like the plot for "The Last Samurai".

Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Ostwindflak
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:36 pm
Location: New Hampshire

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by Ostwindflak »

As a fellow Northerner living in New Hampshire Joe, I believe that the South had the ability to knock the Union out of the war as early as 1862 after the Second Battle of Bull Run. My opinion is their problem was they were too content with their victories and always pulled back after they won; instead of taking the Patton approach and continuing to push forward. The South undoubtedly had some superb generals, especially early in the war, I feel they were too timid at times and gave up the initiative. Just my two cents.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by Curtis Lemay »

I would point out that the South's worst defeats occurred when they were at their most passive: Fort Donaldson and Vicksburg.

But, beyond that, I think that focusing on the ground campaigns is just misdirection. The war was decided by the navy more than anything. I believe the majority of losses in the war were due to disease, not combat. And desertions were even greater - Jeff Davis estimated that the South had 1,000,000 deserters by the end of the war. So, blaming the result on combat casualties is dubious. How many did the south actually lose in "Picket's Charge"? Maybe 7,000? (That's assuming none returned from wounds suffered). It was the blockade and the river invasion routes that broke the south's economy and lines of defense.

In fact, a case could be made that Lee did as well as he did because he fought in the one sector where the rivers were defensive barriers instead of arteries of invasion. The Minie rifle ensured that combat was attritional because it placed the decisive weapon in the hands of the infantry. The losses at Gettysburg were about 30,000 southern vs. 28,000 northern. Had Lee won, those numbers probably would have been reversed. Big deal! Had Napoleonic tactics still prevailed, the South might have won a series of decisive victories. As it was, it was almost impossible due to the lack of an effective cavalry arm and artillery only being effective in a defensive role.

Furthermore, it was the South's tragedy that she rebelled in a unique period in naval history. It was a period when naval vessels could thumb their noses at shore defenses. Before steam power, sailing ships couldn't sail past the fortresses guarding port and river defenses because they were placed in bends in the river and so at some point the ship would have to beat against the wind - at which point the fort guns would pound it to pieces. Steam powered ships avoided this, rendering those forts ineffective. But by World War I shore guns were so deadly that even Dreadnought battleships couldn't force their way up the Dardanelles, much less a river. Only during the short period inbetween could rivers serve as arteries of invasion. Imagine how WWI or WWII would have proceeded if the RN could sail up the Rhine at will.

My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
gradenko2k
Posts: 930
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:08 am

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by gradenko2k »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
The losses at Gettysburg were about 30,000 southern vs. 28,000 northern. Had Lee won, those numbers probably would have been reversed. Big deal!

This hits upon an important point insofar as any scenario resulting a Southern victory assumes either a political/morale-based collapse of the North and/or Lincoln's electoral defeat followed by some kind of peace deal made by the Democrats (which is itself piled on top of the assumption that the Democrats could all agree on what kind of peace they actually wanted)

Problem is that such assumptions are akin to speculation that the Soviet regime would have collapsed in the wake of the fall of Moscow in 1941/42 or that American public sentiment in WW2 would have turned bad enough to make an armistice possible if the Axis were successful enough. They're assumptions that have to be made just for the scenario to work, but it's a pretty big leap regardless.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

As a fellow Northerner living in New Hampshire Joe, I believe that the South had the ability to knock the Union out of the war as early as 1862 after the Second Battle of Bull Run. My opinion is their problem was they were too content with their victories and always pulled back after they won; instead of taking the Patton approach and continuing to push forward ...

I don't think the South had the supplies and infrastructure to support an extended push into the North; even a Patton could run out of gas and at Gettysburg Lee's troops were foraging for footwear.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Ostwindflak
Posts: 667
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:36 pm
Location: New Hampshire

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by Ostwindflak »

Rightfully so, however the Army of Northern Virginia never seemed to far away from Washington D.C. whenever they won the major battles in the north. Had they pushed on to D.C. and captured it, even without the U.S. Government still there, it would have been a tremendous blow to the North's morale. It would have been a gamble, but one I don't think was so far beyond reach that it couldn't have been accomplished.
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

Rightfully so, however the Army of Northern Virginia never seemed to far away from Washington D.C. whenever they won the major battles in the north. Had they pushed on to D.C. and captured it, even without the U.S. Government still there, it would have been a tremendous blow to the North's morale ...

If so, the North would just move their capital back to where Washington said goodbye to his troops -- NYC, and maybe we would all be the better for it!
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
sullafelix
Posts: 1521
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:17 am

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by sullafelix »

I would compare Lee to Yamamoto. They both knew that they would have to do some incredible damage and fast to have any chance and if that didn't happen it was over.

I would take Longstreet's writing with a grain of salt. He had many years to try and explain away the defeat and his part in it. If he was so keen on defense then how does he explain his Tennessee campaign?

A command study book by U.S. Army professors , sorry cannot remember the name, pretty much blew Longstreet's " plan " for Gettysburg out of the water.

It would have been sheer madness to wander off to the right into God knows what. Also the Southern supplies came from the gaps to the west. He would have either had to just cut his supply lines or he would have had to leave many troops behind to secure the lines.

The book also goes into the fact that to them,Lee planned an echelon attack on both the 2nd and 3rd days of Gettysburg. I think it is a great Southern victory on the 2nd if A.P. Hill was there and did what he was supposed to.Some Southern troops were on missionary Ridge on the 2nd. Had they been supported, who knows?
Windows 7 home premium 64
Intel quad core I7
16 gig
AMD R9 200 series

Di! Ecce hora! Uxor mea me necabit!
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: sulla05

I would compare Lee to Yamamoto. They both knew that they would have to do some incredible damage and fast to have any chance and if that didn't happen it was over ...

Lee's attacks at Gettysburg had a sense of urgent desperation about them, a "now or never" offensive that must have appeared to Longstreet as throwing away good soldiers for nothing.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

Rightfully so, however the Army of Northern Virginia never seemed to far away from Washington D.C. whenever they won the major battles in the north. Had they pushed on to D.C. and captured it, even without the U.S. Government still there, it would have been a tremendous blow to the North's morale ...

If so, the North would just move their capital back to where Washington said goodbye to his troops -- NYC, and maybe we would all be the better for it!

The fall of Washington would be the sort of victory that could have brought British (& therefore French) recognition. If so, that would have radically altered the naval situation, among other things.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Yogi the Great
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:28 pm
Location: Wisconsin

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by Yogi the Great »

This I know is a bit over simplistic and you can point to many examples that don't fit but what the heck.

It seems in general that the overall attacker had the bigger burden in the civil war. Yes you can find individual battles and/or examples of great charges that prevailed, but the need to continue the strategic advance was difficult to do. Lucky for the North that they had supplies and man power to continue and eventually prevail.

But how many true strategic advances (despite Lee or Jackson) was the South able to sustain? Antietam, Shiloh and Gettysburg campaigns come to mind. The North had no choice but to continue the strategic advance or lose the war. The South could just hope for the North to give up.

Hooked Since AH Gettysburg
User avatar
rodney727
Posts: 1457
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2011 4:53 pm
Location: Iowa

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by rodney727 »

Southern strategy? Come on folks the south really lost the war in late 1862 in the west. So tired of the myth that all rested in the eastern campaign. The south couldn't defend their back door nor did they have the resources to take and hold Washington for any given period of time. By 1863 the federal army was the equal of any southern army and by late 1863 the federal cavalry was much better and better organized than their southern counterpart. When you can't defend your back door the front door will collapse.
"I thank God that I was warring on the gridirons of the midwest and not the battlefields of Europe"
Nile Kinnick 1918-1943
User avatar
decaro
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:05 pm
Location: Stratford, Connecticut
Contact:

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by decaro »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

Rightfully so, however the Army of Northern Virginia never seemed to far away from Washington D.C. whenever they won the major battles in the north. Had they pushed on to D.C. and captured it, even without the U.S. Government still there, it would have been a tremendous blow to the North's morale ...

If so, the North would just move their capital back to where Washington said goodbye to his troops -- NYC, and maybe we would all be the better for it!

The fall of Washington would be the sort of victory that could have brought British (& therefore French) recognition ...

After abolishing slavery, it would prove problematic for Britain to recognize a pro-slave nation.
Stratford, Connecticut, U.S.A.[center]Image[/center]
[center]"The Angel of Okinawa"[/center]
Home of the Chance-Vought Corsair, F4U
The best fighter-bomber of World War II
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Joe D.




If so, the North would just move their capital back to where Washington said goodbye to his troops -- NYC, and maybe we would all be the better for it!

The fall of Washington would be the sort of victory that could have brought British (& therefore French) recognition ...

After abolishing slavery, it would prove problematic for Britain to recognize a pro-slave nation.

But not impossible. They were, after all, already recognizing at least a couple: The USA and Brazil. I'm pretty sure there were a few more in the Caribbean. So, we'll never know. For sure, if it happened, it would have radically altered the situation, so I wouldn't be so cavalier about the loss of Washington.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
User avatar
Anguille
Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: Hyper-cruiser "Phantom"

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by Anguille »

ORIGINAL: Ostwindflak

As a fellow Northerner living in New Hampshire Joe, I believe that the South had the ability to knock the Union out of the war as early as 1862 after the Second Battle of Bull Run. My opinion is their problem was they were too content with their victories and always pulled back after they won; instead of taking the Patton approach and continuing to push forward. The South undoubtedly had some superb generals, especially early in the war, I feel they were too timid at times and gave up the initiative. Just my two cents.
I agree...they should have tried to obtain the surrender of the North very early in the war...the longer it got, the worse it became.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by warspite1 »

Good stuff chaps - keep this going, I like hearing views on the US civil war [&o].
Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
Josh
Posts: 2568
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Leeuwarden, Netherlands

RE: Southern Strategy: Lee vs. Longstreet

Post by Josh »

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Good stuff chaps - keep this going, I like hearing views on the US civil war [&o].

+1 here.
Absolutely no expert here so I'm quite surprised to read what Curtiss here writes...that many deserters and that many sick? Ofcourse it makes perfectly sense but until now I wasn't really aware of it, always thought the majority of casualties was on the battlefield. So thanks.
Even *more* surprised to hear about the role of the navy.. it was *that* important? I always thought of it as a footnote. Guess you're neve too old to learn eh?
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”