STRATEGIC SITUATION: The South is losing the war. In Virginia the armies have battered themselves into a bloody stalemate with neither gaining a real advantage. Nashville and New Orleans, the two biggest cities in the Confederacy, have been captured. The border states are lost. Much of Tennessee and Arkansas are under Union control. Union troops are threatening Vicksburg, the last major Confederate position on the Mississippi. The naval blockade has successfully stopped well over 90% of the South's foreign trade. The situation does not look good.

ARMY OF NORTHERN VIRGINIA: Currently licking its wounds after another brilliant but inconclusive victory. If Lee can get his army ready to fight quickly, he does have a brief window of opportunity. He knows that the AofP's many two-year and nine-month regiments will soon be going home and that opposition to enlistment and the draft is growing in the north. Lee will soon have numerical parity with the AofP if it does not receive reinforcements from the Washington garrison.

ARMY OF TENNESSEE: Significantly outnumbered by the Union Army of the Cumberland, Bragg is guarding the mountain passes on the roads leading to Chattanooga. He's not strong enough to take the offensive without help. If Chattanooga is lost, the major rail line between east and west is also lost and Georgia open to invasion.

VICKSBURG: Grant has just started crossing the Mississippi south of Vicksburg. Pemberton has a slight superiority in numbers over Grant's field army if he can unite all his forces. BUT he doesn't know the route Grant will take to Vicksburg. There are also large numbers of Union soldiers in Memphis who could attack Vicksburg by the backdoor if Pemberton uses his entire command to go after Grant.

Something has to be done and done quickly to change the course of the war. The question is what?

Surrender Immediatly :D

Firstly, tell Britain that we will end the cotton embargo if they relieve the Union Blockade.

To secure their support, we shall have to strike a great blow, and quickly. Lee shall strike north immediately, to discourage the Union and make Britain more interested in aiding us. Our troops will mask Washington, almost ignoring the city, and attempt to inflict a defeat on the AotP. Once this is achieved, we are to march north to capture Philly, and take the Liberty bell as well as a lot of loot, raw material, factory machines, etc. down south. This will be a great victory, and Britain might recognize us then. Note that all this time the masking force around Washington will attempt in every way to make their force seem much larger than it really is.

Cumberland... Hmm... Put Longstreet in command, and have him be on the strategic defensive. Try to block all moves towards Chattanooga, by setting small tactical traps and such, defend it at all costs. IT should be a battle where we try to minimize casualties on our side and wear the other side down.

Vicksburg: Concentrate our forces to destroy Grant, then go on the offensive swiftly thereafter.


HOPEFULLY, we would win in most theatres and convince Britain to join the war on our side. This would assure our independence.

Frankly, I think the political reasoning of Lee to invade the north was fairly sound if overoptimistic. And if Stuart hadn't lost contact with the AotP as well as Lee, the outcome at Gettysburg (or someplace else) might have been different. (Stuart's failure certainly belongs in the "worst mistakes" thread.)

But when looking for alternatives ... How about a variation of Longstreet's idea. Transfer by rail three or so divisions from the Army of Northern Virginia to the Army of Tennessee, with Lee as commander. Achieve the quick victory over Rosecrans in Tennessee that Longstreet desired.

If the Confederates are fortunate in Tennessee, by now Longstreet's idea of a drive on Cincinnati is rendered problematic by the fiasco in Mississippi. Leaving a covering force to monitor Rosecrans, drive west to recapture Corinth (drawing some strength from the remains of Pemberton's forces not caught at Vicksburg and then Memphis in an effort to disrupt Grant's supply lines to Vicksburg. If Grant is forced to retreat north, try to engage and defeat. (Though if forced to retreat for reasons of supply, it's quite possible Grant might have retreated south toward Baton Rouge.)

Of course, this probably means assigning Joe Johnston to the Army of Northern Virginia ...

Try and reinforce Pemberton and do all possible to hold Vicksburg. IIRC after Grant landed he headed north east to attack a relief force headed to Vicksburg. The only hope would be to stop him doing so by meeting his forces before he singled out the Southern troops east of Vicksburg. You would have to leave Vicksburg undefended but if Grant was defeated the Northern troops would be demoralised and the campaign against Vicksburg abandoned for a while.

I agree with Noth King, give Tennessee to Longstreet, build up your breastworks and engage the enemy in small, defensive battles help by a bit of partisan work and cavalry raids.

Most of the public attention during the war was focused in the battles in the east so slow progress here and high casualties for the North wouldn't have done Lincolns rep much good. The only hope there was bleed the enemy white as there was no chance Lee could capture Washington. Let the Army of the Potomac over stretch their supply lines and then hit back hard.

I don't Britain would have ever gone to war with the Union.

Firstly, tell Britain that we will end the cotton embargo if they relieve the Union Blockade.


problem: eygpt and india had recorded cotton crop's in 1861 & 1862, they embargo had no bite.

What cotton embargo?? The South was desperately trying to run cotton through the blockade because that, and tobacco, was its only source of revenue/trade goods with England.

The South did not have the resourse to pull off the plan suggested above. Its only hope was a quick victory in the eastern campaign in Virgina. The Union never really had a shortage of troops, just good generals who could use them properly. Yes, and even McCellan could win a defensive battle. Once Grant came on the field, it was all over for the South. Just a question of time...

[QUOTE=Ace]What cotton embargo?? The South was desperately trying to run cotton through the blockade because that, and tobacco, was its only source of revenue/trade goods with England.
/QUOTE]

in the beginning that did try and threatened but no one cared, so then your right, they started blockade running

England could have entered if the Trent Affair went different. The Royal Navy would sweep away the blockade and then British and French troops would land and fight.

European intervention althought highly unlikely was the only concevivable way the South would ever win.

The Cotton Embargo was in effect for the entire war, IIRC, and it did ahve an effect, if smaller than the South had hoped for. It was counterproductive, but they could use liftin it as an excuse for European intervention.

England could have entered if the Trent Affair went different. The Royal Navy would sweep away the blockade and then British and French troops would land and fight.

European intervention althought highly unlikely was the only concevivable way the South would ever win.

Dunno if the British would kick the Union Navy so quickly. Didn't the North have Ironclads before the Europeans?

I think if the South could held on for a bit longer and cost the Union thousands of more casualties then the troops and people of the North would really tire of the whole affair.

The French and the Brits had the first ironclads, HMS Warrior and cant remember the French one.

And the North's Ironclads were coastal monitors meaning if they were in a storm or off the coast in the sea during high waves they would sink. If the Brits and therefore the French went to war, Nap III wanted to but would only if GB lead, then the Union Blockade will be destroyed, Britan and France supply the South and eventually land armies or attack overland from Canada.

I don't think the British were likely to come to the aid of the south given the political problems of supporting a slave country. The only concievable time that may have happened was either before the Empancipation Proclomation, or with Lee's troops camped out on the White House lawn.

Drop a couple of nukes :nuke: :nuke: take some snipers :ar15: then sit back in a comfy chair and watch a tape of the Army Navy game.

Try and reinforce Pemberton and do all possible to hold Vicksburg. IIRC after Grant landed he headed north east to attack a relief force headed to Vicksburg. The only hope would be to stop him doing so by meeting his forces before he singled out the Southern troops east of Vicksburg. You would have to leave Vicksburg undefended but if Grant was defeated the Northern troops would be demoralised and the campaign against Vicksburg abandoned for a while.



The challenge here is trying to reinforce Pemberton in time to be effective. With the Union in control of Corinth, the most direct rail route toward Vicksburg was blocked, requiring the more time-consuming route along the Alabama & Mississippi Rivers Railroad, a route that required disembarking troops at least once between Selma and Meridian to be ferried by steamboat along a short stretch of the Tombigbee River. It is questionable that troops could have been transferred in time to prevent Grant from beginning his siege at Vicksburg (two weeks after Chancellorsville). The question then becomes, Can the Confederacy concentrate enough troops to break Grant's siege?

One advantage of reinforcing the Army of Tennessee for a move against the Army of the Cumberland is the direct rail link between Richmond and Chattanooga; based on the later move of Longstreet's two divisions to reinforce Bragg before Chickamauga, rapidly reinforcing the Army of Tennessee is much more feasible. Likewise, a reverse movement of troops would be quicker should the Army of the Potomac stirs back to life is also less problematic; i.e., there's the greater benefit of the central position.

If such strategy succeeded, with Nashville and Memphis recaptured during the summer of 1863, and Grant forced to retreat from Vicksburg due to supply problems, it's possible that these reversals of the losses of 1862 might have given the "peace party" in the North enough of an early boost to make the 1864 reelection of Lincoln even more problematic ...

I don't think the British were likely to come to the aid of the south given the political problems of supporting a slave country. The only concievable time that may have happened was either before the Empancipation Proclomation, or with Lee's troops camped out on the White House lawn.

I agree p h !!! ;) I feel the only real option for Lee was to choose a better
defensive position while still threatening Washington, forcing the Union
to attack him when and where he picked. I fear that around Vicksburg and
in Tennessee the Confederates were in almost untendable situations, that
would sooner or later have to be given up anyway :( . Defensive withdrawal
should have been the order of the day ;) .

I don't think the British were likely to come to the aid of the south given the political problems of supporting a slave country. The only concievable time that may have happened was either before the Empancipation Proclomation, or with Lee's troops camped out on the White House lawn.

I argee completely this too much support in the UK for the North and anti slavery. I was mereing stating that European intervention was the only possible way IMO short of Lee taking Washington that the South could the war.

Dunno if the British would kick the Union Navy so quickly. Didn't the North have Ironclads before the Europeans?

I think if the South could held on for a bit longer and cost the Union thousands of more casualties then the troops and people of the North would really tire of the whole affair.

Britain did get Ironclads before hand (IIRC) and there weren't too many in existance anyway. I don't think Britain would simply sweep away the blockade, America's navy wasn't that crappy (and it would be better supplied as it was close to home).

Plus, keep in mind that, if the war could be seen as a war to end Slavery in the south, Britain would be philosophically opposed to helping out.

One note, both previous attempts to invade Union territory by the Army of Northern Virginia were either ineffective or disasterous. I don't think the Confederate Army could have captured Philadelphia, and certainly not Washington.

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to answer the question (aside from saying that the South is hopeless ;) ). I don't even think digging-in for a defensive position could help too much, because they would eventually run out of supplies.

Well, we have the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. The chances of Great Britain and France of even recognizing the C.S.A. as late as 1863 were slim at best. Defeating Lincoln in 1864 may have represented the last real chance for the Confederates.

And, with 20-20 hindsight, I'm inclined to think that defeating and embarassing Grant is a priority insofar as it might prevent him from taking over as the overall commander of the Union armies. Unlike McLellan and Halleck, he knew how to effectively bring the Union's superiority in numbers to bear against the rebellion.

The French and the Brits had the first ironclads, HMS Warrior and cant remember the French one.


the Glorie

British and French Ironclads are irrevalant! They could not cross the open seas. Our Monitor barely made it, under tow, to Hampton Roads to fight the Merrimac, and she did sink later on the way home!

The only hope for the South, short of a British intervention, which was always just a hope, was if the South had managed to Assassinate President Lincoln in 1862 or early 1863. Lincoln was the glue that held the Union together. With him out of the picture, lesser men probably would have made peace with the South and the war would have ended in a draw, which would have been a Southern victory since the mere survival of the confederacy would be a Southern victory!

British and French Ironclads are irrevalant! They could not cross the open seas. Our Monitor barely made it, under tow, to Hampton Roads to fight the Merrimac, and she did sink later on the way home!


they are irrevalant because of #'s , not sailability. the english had the warrior and black prince in 1860 [ not sure if others ] but these were ocean going ironclad warships, not monitors.

Yeah, the HMS Warrior was a much more seagoing vessel. But I don't think they would have much affectiveness 3000 miles away. They could sail along the coast to sink any Union Wooden ship before returning to some Brittish coaling base (or they could try to fight there way to a Confederate harbor and hope they don't get trapped there by more blockading ships, although I'm not sure if its possible to trap an Ironclad, since it really isn't easy to sink).