Andrew Murphy
3/31/2010

The North used the Anaconda Plan, developed by General Winfield Scott. The plan involved:

A naval blockade of the South's coastline. In a blockade, armed forces block the traffic of goods or people.

Taking control of the mississippi river. This would split the confederacy in 2. It would also block the support packages coming from the river.

Capturing Richmond- The confederate capital.

The book

Reply
Ruben
4/5/2010

Union Strategies:

"the border strategy." The notion here was to establish "borders" around the periphery of the Confederacy, assure the Southerners of the goodwill of the North toward them, and wait for pro-Union sentiment in the South to manifest itself and lead to a negotiated peace. This strategy virtually conceded the slavery issue in favor of restoring the Union.
The strategy proposed by Welles likewise rested on the assumption that there were large numbers of Unionists in the South, simply waiting for indications of Northern support to declare themselves. "Instead of halting on the borders, building entrenchments, and repelling indiscriminately and treating as Rebels--enemies--all, Union as well as disunion, men . . . we should Both strategies were based on an overestimation of the strength of Union sentiment.
A third "strategy," one almost indistinguishable in its practical effect from that of Welles, was based on the assumption that only an overwhelming display of superior force demonstrated by an invasion of the South at every vulnerable point could force the Confederacy back into the Union.


http://www.civilwarhome.com/unionstrategy.htm



The South's Plan was to play offense. Jefferson davis said "All we ask is to be let alone." and he put this in his strategy. His plan was to defend the South until the North could no longer fight. " In order to increase morale, defeat the will of the North, and receive foreign aid, the South did make a few attempts to push into Northern territory; hence, Gettysburg."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071202204316AAFZ6ki

Reply
Cimone
4/7/2010

The North pursued an offensive strategy and the South pursued a defensive strategy. The Confederacy had all their battles on their land. They were hoping to fight until the North would just give up.

Reply
Cimone
4/7/2010

The North pursued the Anaconda plan. This was a blockade. This blocked naval ships and the South from exporting and importing goods. Their plan was to basically strangle the South's economy so that they would not be able to function on their own.

Reply
Andrew Bates
4/13/2010

In this military art, troops are maneuvered outside the battlefield to achieve success in a large geographic area. That geographic expanse can be a "front" (in the Civil War, part or all of one state) or a "theater" (several contiguous states possessing geographical, geopolitical, or military unity). When the expanse encompasses an entire country, the corresponding waging of war on the largest scale to secure national objectives is called "grand strategy."
"Offensive strategy" carries war to the enemy, either directly by challenging his strength or indirectly by penetrating his weakness." Defensive strategy" protects against enemy strategic offensives. And "defensive-offensive strategy" (which Confederates often practiced) uses offensive maneuvers for defensive strategic results (e.g., Gen. R. E. Lee and Maj. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson took the offensive May-June 1862 to defend Richmond and Virginia).
Strategic objectives include defeating, destroying, or forcing enemy armies to retreat; seizing enemy strategic sites (supply lines, depots, arsenals, communications centers, and industry) crucial to his military effort; capturing the enemy capital; disrupting his economy; and demoralizing his will to wage war. While seeking such goals, the strategist must correspondingly protect his own army, strategic sites, capital, economy, and populace. He must strike proper balance between securing his rear and campaigning in his front. Supply lines and homelands must be guarded; especially in war between 2 republics, which the Civil War really was, the compelling necessity of protecting the political base cannot be ignored. Yet if too many troops are left in the rear, too few remain to attack or even defend against enemy armies at the front.
Again, each side, particularly the Confederates, used "interior lines" to move forces from quiet fronts through the interior to threatened fronts more quickly than the enemy could move around the military border. But, in practice, Southern supply lines were so primitive and Federal supply lines were so good that, despite longer distance, Northerners often moved in shorter time due to their "superior lateral communications." Even more effective against Confederate reliance on interior lines was Ulysses S. Grants grand strategy of concerting the armed might of the Union for simultaneous advances to pin and defeat Confederate troops on all major fronts.
Besides these approaches, Civil War strategists, especially Union commanders such as William T. Sherman and Philip H. Sheridan, usually reluctantly but increasingly came to make the enemies economy and populace suffer. For the first time since the Thirty Years War, those 2 targets regained legitimacy. While free from the brutality of 1618-48, Federal strategy eventually crippled Southern capability and will to wage war though, to be effective, such strategy could only complement Northern success in maneuver and battle.
Long-range strategic cavalry raids -- in brigade to corps strength -- played some role in such crippling, but those raids rarely had much military effect before collapse became imminent in 1865. Instead, the principal unit of strategic maneuver was the infantry corps, and the basic element of strategic control was the army. And in theaters where I side had several armies, those armies themselves became maneuver units, and control resided at military division headquarters or with the general-in-chief himself.

Sources: Textbook, http://www.civilwarhome.com/strategycivilwar.htm

Reply
Ruben
4/21/2010

The border strategy was not a war tactic, but more of a peace tatic. Welles, the creator of the tactic, beleived that there were many unionists in the south waiting for the chance to reveal themselves. Welles thought that the border strategy would let unionist southerns come to the north. ""Instead of halting on the borders, building entrenchments, and repelling indiscriminately and treating as Rebels--enemies--all, Union as well as disunion, men . . . we should Both strategies were based on an overestimation of the strength of Union sentiment.".


The third strategy was a offensive strategy. It was made to strike fast, and hard at the enemies weak points.


I blieve that both these strategies were affective. The border strategy was a twist from your average strategy. It gave believers a oppertunity to become safer in a place that share the same views.

Reply
Andrew Murphy
4/22/2010

My opinion is that the Union had a very good plan. Not to offensive, but not to defensive. They would cut off all of their communication and support, then go in for the kill. But if that did not work, they had back up people for defense.

Reply
9/11/2012

kudos! A trustworthy blog, thanks for putting an effort to publish this information. very informative and does exactly what it sets out to do. thumbs up! :)

Joseph Aidan
www.arielmed.com

Reply
9/25/2012

I am really impressed from this post! The person who created this post is a generous and knows how to keep the readers connected. Thanks for sharing this with us, i found it informative and interesting. Looking forward for more updates.

<a href="http://www.guyfix.com">progtech</a>
www.guyfix.com

Reply
11/6/2014

In this military art, troops are maneuvered outside the battlefield to achieve success in a large geographic area. That geographic expanse can be a "front" (in the Civil War, part or all of one state) or a "theater" (several contiguous states possessing geographical, geopolitical, or military unity). When the expanse encompasses an entire country, the corresponding waging of war on the largest scale to secure national objectives is called "grand strategy."
"Offensive strategy" carries war to the enemy, either directly by challenging his strength or indirectly by penetrating his weakness." Defensive strategy" protects against enemy strategic offensives. And "defensive-offensive strategy" (which Confederates often practiced) uses offensive maneuvers for defensive strategic results (e.g., Gen. R. E. Lee and Maj. Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson took the offensive May-June 1862 to defend Richmond and Virginia).
Strategic objectives include defeating, destroying, or forcing enemy armies to retreat; seizing enemy strategic sites (supply lines, depots, arsenals, communications centers, and industry) crucial to his military effort; capturing the enemy capital; disrupting his economy; and demoralizing his will to wage war. While seeking such goals, the strategist must correspondingly protect his own army, strategic sites, capital, economy, and populace. He must strike proper balance between securing his rear and campaigning in his front. Supply lines and homelands must be guarded; especially in war between 2 republics, which the Civil War really was, the compelling necessity of protecting the political base cannot be ignored. Yet if too many troops are left in the rear, too few remain to attack or even defend against enemy armies at the front.
Again, each side, particularly the Confederates, used "interior lines" to move forces from quiet fronts through the interior to threatened fronts more quickly than the enemy could move around the military border. But, in practice, Southern supply lines were so primitive and Federal supply lines were so good that, despite longer distance, Northerners often moved in shorter time due to their "superior lateral communications." Even more effective against Confederate reliance on interior lines was Ulysses S. Grants grand strategy of concerting the armed might of the Union for simultaneous advances to pin and defeat Confederate troops on all major fronts.
Besides these approaches, Civil War strategists, especially Union commanders such as William T. Sherman and Philip H. Sheridan, usually reluctantly but increasingly came to make the enemies economy and populace suffer. For the first time since the Thirty Years War, those 2 targets regained legitimacy. While free from the brutality of 1618-48, Federal strategy eventually crippled Southern capability and will to wage war though, to be effective, such strategy could only complement Northern success in maneuver and battle.
Long-range strategic cavalry raids -- in brigade to corps strength -- played some role in such crippling, but those raids rarely had much military effect before collapse became imminent in 1865. Instead, the principal unit of strategic maneuver was the infantry corps, and the basic element of strategic control was the army. And in theaters where I side had several armies, those armies themselves became maneuver units, and control resided at military division headquarters or with the general-in-chief himself.

Reply



Leave a Reply.