Chapter 5

In This Chapter

Tying strategy to political objectives

Understanding the role a nation’s resources play in forming a strategy

Examining the role of geography in shaping strategy

W ars are fought with armies. But what guides the actions and purpose of armies in war? That’s where strategy comes in. Strategy is developed at the national level. In the case of the Civil War, the president and his military advisors dictated the strategy.

Strategy takes into account a number of important considerations. One of these is an assessment of the resources of the nation — essentially a measurement of its ability to conduct a war and sustain armies in the field. Another is the analysis of the geography. Geographical features can serve as an advantage or disadvantage, depending on your point of view.

Comparing Northern and Southern Resources

For the North and the South, any strategy had to be based on an assessment of resources. What were the elements of power for both nations? How could they be used to accomplish the war aims of each nation? These elements of power become the resources (both tangible and intangible) that the Union and the Confederacy would rely on to fight this war. Whoever would win would apply these resources in the best manner over time. Sometimes, as in the case with the Union, some resources are not instantly apparent before the war. During the course of the war, the Union’s moral power proved to be a very important factor in negating the South’s resources. But no one understood it or appreciated it until two years after the war began. Let’s take a look at the resources the North and the South possessed at the beginning of the war and compare them by category. This military strategy stuff is a lot more complex than it seems. The military men of both sides had a very tough assignment. Much would depend on that intangible resource mentioned earlier in this chapter: morale. Success in the war would ultimately boil down to a question of who could take the most punishment for the longest time before giving up. Generally speaking, certain resources are needed to fight a war.

Industrial power

Industrial power includes raw materials (coal, iron, salt, nitre, oil, copper, tin) and the factories to produce weapons, clothing, equipment, engines, rails, and munitions. Southern factories were insignificant in comparison to the production capacities of factories of the North. Northern factories were able to move very quickly to war production, manufacturing every item (no matter how insignificant) needed to sustain an army in the field. From the onset, Southern factories were undermanned and overwhelmed by wartime production demands.

Agricultural advantages: Food and crops

Agricultural resources include food for the population and their animals, as well as nonfood crops (dyes, tobacco, cotton, hemp, timber); they also include the numbers of animals available both for food and for transportation. The South, a predominantly agricultural society, produced some food crops, but, ironically, not in the amount that Northern farms did. The reason for this is the heavy reliance on staple, or cash, crops — tobacco and cotton. “Cotton is King!” was the motto of the pre-war South. Indeed it was. The South’s money and wealth came from cotton and tobacco, not food crops. The Southern economy depended on being able to sell both cotton and tobacco on the international market. No other region of the nation, or the world for that matter, could grow these crops in abundance. It is not surprising then, to see that economically, food production was less important to the South than cotton and tobacco production.

Cotton: The double-edged sword

In peacetime, all the world, but especially Great Britain and France, needed Southern cotton to feed their factories. For the South in wartime, though, cotton became a double-edged sword. Cotton hurt the South by taking up acreage that could be used to produce food for the Southern armies and civilian population. On the other hand, cotton represented a powerful strategic weapon for the South. Without cotton, European industries would have to shut down, causing great economic distress. European manufacturers could put pressure on their governments to do something about the lack of cotton. Cotton for the Confederacy could become a political bargaining tool to gain diplomatic recognition from the European nations.

Where size sometimes doesn’t matter

During the Civil War, about 45 percent of the eligible males in the North served in the army. In the South, about 90 percent of eligible men served in the army.

Cotton as collateral

Financially speaking, cotton was white gold. Cotton shipped to European markets would fetch high prices, especially when the Europeans began to feel the pinch of cotton shortages as a result of the war. In turn, money from cotton sales could be used to purchase the weapons and supplies for Southern armies that the Confederacy could not produce itself. In addition, cotton could be used as collateral for foreign loans to support the Confederate government. Cotton became both a diplomatic and a financial advantage that Davis hoped would be the decisive factor that would win the war for the Confederacy.

Soldiers and laborers: Population

The population needed during a war includes the number of men available to fight, skilled workers and agricultural laborers, and a governmental and industrial bureaucracy to run the war effort. You must also take into account the level of military skills within the population.

Men fought the Civil War providing the soldiers for the armies. In 19th century America, the labor pool was male for skilled workers in industry and the vast majority of agricultural laborers. However in both the North and the South, women workers were very important for specific jobs in factories.

Financial wealth

The financial advantages include the structure and soundness of the banking system; availability of credit; specie (gold and silver) available in reserve or in circulation; debt structure of the government and the financial system, as well as the government’s tax system. The availability of ready cash reserves (gold and silver) and numerous banks in the North allowed the government to borrow and pay for the costs of raising armies. The South, lacking these financial resources, was crippled from the very beginning to finance the huge expenditures necessary to fight a war.

Analyzing the statistics for both sides

Statistics and numbers can be a useful tool, but the insightful interpretation of them actually makes the picture of events crystal clear. See Table 5-1 for the major resources of the North and the South (excluding the Border States) in 1861. Without making too much of these statistics, some points need to be made. At first glance, the manpower resources of the North appear dominant. In actuality, the South had a slight strategic advantage. As an industrial society, a significant proportion of the North’s manpower was tied up in the factories. Also, many farmers needed to remain home to produce food, further cutting into the manpower pool. The three and a half million slaves in the South, a predominantly agricultural society, represented a significant strategic resource. Black Southerners worked the farms and factories, and served as teamsters, or as laborers digging fortifications. Black manpower released higher numbers of White Southerners to serve in the army in far greater numbers, proportionately, than Northerners.

Clearly the North had all the advantages in the areas of railroad mileage, manufacturing, and finance. Railroads became a strategic asset quickly in this war to gain the advantage over the enemy. For the first time in history, men and equipment were moved across long distances by rail. Railroads also moved supplies to the armies and raw materials to factories. They became the lifeline of modern war. Do not get the idea that just because the North had more advantages than the South that the war was a predetermined victory. If that were the case, the war would have been over very quickly. Remember, these advantages do not by themselves determine victory. It is how well they are used to support the war’s ultimate goal that makes these resources decisive. The South with fewer resources, used theirs more efficiently than the North at first, giving the Confederacy an initial advantage. It took the North far longer to harness its resources and apply them to the war effort.

Wartime Strategy: North and South

As the leaders of each nation had made their determination to move toward war, they now had to huddle with their military advisors and determine how the military strategy would be shaped to support the overall political goals each president had defined for his nation.

The North’s strategy

Based on the political objectives and the assessment of its resources, the Union had a simple military strategy: divide and conquer. Northern armies would have to invade the Confederacy, split it in half, and capture and control its territory. General Winfield Scott, the commanding General of the U.S. Army, developed what was termed “the Anaconda Plan.” His strategy for defeating the Confederacy contained three objectives. The first goal of the strategy was to capture the Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia, only 100 miles from Washington, D.C. The second goal was to strangle the Confederacy through the use of a blockade. This blockade would employ the U.S. Navy in a cordon around the 3,350-mile seacoast of the Confederacy to prevent any seaborne commerce from entering or leaving Southern ports. The third part of the strategy was to advance down the Mississippi River, cut the Confederacy in half, and defeat its armies.

The South’s strategy

Confederate military strategy can be stated in far simpler terms — survive . To win, the North had to invade and attack Southern resources and its military strength. By remaining on the strategic defensive and protecting its critical weak points, the South could conserve its limited resources and simply hold out until the North gave up. If the Union did not give up easily, the South included as part of its strategy a plan to end the war through the intervention of a major European power on the Confederacy’s behalf. This scenario may sound familiar. It is the same strategy that won the 13 colonies their independence from Great Britain in the American Revolution.

Geography and Strategy: Theaters of War

In formulating these two strategies for the North and South, geography played an important role. The Confederacy’s land area roughly equaled that of Europe, minus the Scandinavian countries. This is a huge area of land — extremely difficult to conquer and equally difficult to defend with limited resources. Geography in strategic military terms signifies the general layout of the land and how it assists or hinders the movement of armies or naval forces. Strategists look for barriers to movement (mountains, rivers, coastlines, swamps, forests); areas that allow rapid movement (rivers, mountain passes, all weather roads, major rail lines, valleys, plains); and key areas (industries, cities, ports, road/rail junctions).

From the point of view of Union and Confederate strategists, the geography of the southeastern United States divided itself into three main areas, or theaters . A theater is a subdivision of a larger geographical area where military operations take place.

The Eastern Theater

The first of the three main theaters was the Eastern Theater, a relatively small triangle of territory in Virginia bounded by Washington, D.C., in the north, Norfolk to the east, and Lynchburg in the west. Within the three points that made up this triangle, was Richmond, the capital of the Confederacy. The capital cities of both nations became strategic priorities. Both had to be protected at all costs — the effect on each nation’s morale would be devastating if either city was attacked and captured.

In strategic terms, Richmond was also a critical road and rail network, and the location of one of the Tredegar ironworks — one of the most important factories in the South. At Norfolk was the Chesapeake Bay, a water invasion route that led to both Washington, by way of the Potomac, and Richmond, by way of the James. Norfolk and Chesapeake Bay had to be controlled by friendly naval forces. As a major outlet to the Atlantic, the Confederacy needed Norfolk and the Bay to sustain commerce and protect Richmond. Just as importantly, the North had to cut off Confederate commercial and military access to the Bay. The western leg of the triangle included the Shenandoah Valley, a critical food-producing region for the South, as well as a major invasion route into and out of Virginia. Over the next four years within the Eastern Theater, hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be killed or wounded.

The Western Theater

The Western Theater was a vast area that stretched from the Appalachian Mountains to the Mississippi River. The Mississippi was a significant east-west barrier to movement, but an excellent north-south corridor. The South had to keep the river under its control to avoid being split in two, which was part of the North’s strategy; for the North, control of the river was a key to success. To control the river, you had to control both New Orleans and Vicksburg, the two main cities on the river. Other important rivers, such as the Tennessee and the Cumberland, served as invasion routes deep into the interior of the South that also had to be defended against invaders. The Western Theater also had most of the South’s agricultural land and its east-west railroad lines. The railroads were vital to the Confederacy’s survival. Supplies and troops moved along these lines. Without them, the Confederacy would be unable to defend or sustain itself. There were two critical rail junctions in this theater: Chattanooga and Atlanta. Nearly all rail traffic in the South went through these two cities. Protecting these cities became a centerpiece of Confederate strategy. The coastline of the South offered invaders opportunities to strike from the sea inland at harbors, ports, inlets, sounds, and rivers. For the South, its major port cities had to remain open. Both sides knew that the Confederacy’s survival depended on international commerce. Union strategy would focus on maintaining a tight, effective blockade to shut down the ports; the Confederate strategy would focus on breaking the blockade or minimizing its effect to allow the ports to operate freely.

The Trans-Mississippi Theater

The third theater was the Trans-Mississippi Theater, which covered the territory west of the Mississippi all the way to New Mexico. Although not an area where there would be much fighting, Texas, Arkansas, and Missouri were nonetheless critical for the Southern war effort. Food grown in these areas, as well as war supplies from Mexico, moved by rail from these states to the east. The Trans-Mississippi Theater shared a border with Mexico, a prime-trading partner for the South. Mexico offered blockade-free access to European suppliers. Military supplies brought in through Mexico had to travel through this theater. Some of the most famous fighting units in the Civil War came from the states of the Trans-Mississippi Theater. Control of the Mississippi River would ensure that this theater would continue to sustain the Confederacy with supplies and manpower.

Civil War Strategy in Retrospect

Despite all of the different angles, advantages, disadvantages, and elaborate strategies, winning the war would depend on who could hold out the longest, although this fact was not obvious to most strategists in 1861. Many strategists believed that a couple of big, largely bloodless, battles would settle the whole conflict. In their view, the war, such as it was, would only last a few months, six at the most. Only a very few saw what this war actually meant and what it would cost to win. Very soon, both sides would learn hard lessons about modern war and adjust their strategies to adapt to the new circumstances they found themselves in.