In the Civil War...?

Question

What would have been the benefit to the Soth of opening conflict in morhtern territory?

I've looked in my book for almost an hour for this one and cn't seem to find it. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!!!!

Sorry about the spelling, I really do know how to spell I was just doing this in a hurry.

Here is the question again:

What would have been the benefit to the South of opening conflict in northern territory?

Answer 1

I think this question needs to be examined in time order. We will first look at how the war actually started in April 186l, and then the two unsuccessful invasions in 1862 and 1863.

The start of the Civil War occurred when the South fired on Ft. Sumter, which is just a short distance from Charleston. Since most of the odds were against the Confederacy, avoiding the war if at all possible would have been wise. The Confederate thinking was that they were trying to establish themselves as a nation; having a United States fort just a few miles away challenged this. Even the powerful United States has considered Communist Cuba an embarrassment, and we tried a "Bay of Pigs" invasion against it. Ft. Sumter has been debated. Some historians, such as David Potter, argured Lincoln wanted the attack to make the United States appear on the defensive. The fact remains President Lincoln could not actually force an attack, and the Confederates should have let the Union fort stand.

General Robert E. Lee's invasions of the North at Antietam and Gettysburg are a different matter. The supposedly great Lee lost one-fourth of his army in the Maryland campaign. From the outset it got no support from Marylanders. His men were barefoot, sick from green apples and corn, and in no position to win any kind of convincing victory that possibly could have gotten diplomatic recognition from Great Britain for France. Lee could have escaped and not lossed so many men. It was evident on Sept. 16, 1862, with heavy dissertions and less than 40,000 effective troops that withdrawal would have been the better choice. But Lee never seemed to recognize that the Confederates had limited manpower. In June and July of 1862 Lee lost 20,000 men in the Seven Days' Battles.

His Gettyburg invasion was also dubious. He thought it might weaken Northern morale, but the reverse happened in this Pennsylvania town. He lost one-third of this army there, and was never able to be on the offensive again. He just got hammered at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Court House, and Petersburg.afterwards. His brilliant campaign at Gettysburg was to attack the Northern Army that had a superior defensive position on its left, then its right, and finally the center (the infamous carnage of Pickett's Charge, more properly called Longstreet's Assault). General George Meade of the Union anticipated an attack on his center. The famous attacks of Lee, Malvern Hill at Seven Day's and Longstreet's Assualt were not battle, but suicide. I could to further point out the flawed Confederate strategy of overagressiveness with limited manpower, but that does not pertain to your question. I do recommend as reading, "Attack and Die"; Alan Nolan, "Lee Reconsidered," and Thomas Connelly, "Robert E. Lee: The Marbel Man."

The failure of Lee, he surrendered totally surrounded and battered with rag-tag Army of Northern Virginia of about 20,000 troops, completely at the mercy of whatever terms Gen. Grant would offer, is clear. The South should have fought more like Gen. George Washington in the American Revolution. He recognized the folly of reckless attacks. In fact, the final significant battle of the American Revolution at Yortown in 1781, was a classic patiently conducted siege that cost the Americans and French few losses. Washington was not concerned about his won loss record, and recognized occupying territory was not so important. Cities like Philadelphia could be re-taken, but the loss of troops with limited manpower, could be fatal. One Civil War general recognized this, Joseph E. Johnston. He never suffered the beating Lee took, and very effectively evaded McClellan and Sherman. The latter tremendously respected Johnston. J.E. Johnston does not get proper credit. An exception was an excellent biography of him, "A Different Valor: Joseph E. Johnston by Gilbert Govan and James Livingwood.

Douglas Freeman's lengthy, laudatory biography of Lee in the 1930s did much to romanticize him. But the facts remain the best chance for the Confederacy lay in saving men, being strong on the defensive, and getting the North to tire of the war. The United States won all the battles in Vietnam, but we tired of the war and lost. The British won many battles in the American Revolution, but they tired of the war and lost.

Answer 2

Well I would think that the American Revolution is stated as that and not as a civil war because we were not really part of Britain but a series of colonies seeking independence. We were trying to become an independent nation as opposed to taking over Britain itself. The Civil War although composed of 2 separate nations was really between 2 factions of the same nation. The union objective was to retain the southern states that had left the union. The United States never really recongnized the south as another nation, nor (I believe) did any other nation. In the American Revolution France recognized us. Had the Confederacy won the war it might have then become a revolution if they decided to stay a separate nation and not overtake Lincoln's government. Had they taken over the other government then it would have still been a civil war. The defination of civil war is that the 2 waring sides come from the same soverign nation.

Answer 3

The invasion of the North, most particularly looking at Bobby Lee's army, would've meant a quick end to the war, or at least a high probability that it would end the war in the South's favor. Lee knew that the South could not win a war of attrition, waiting for the North to attack. The only gambit or 'play' that he had was something spectacular, ie, taking the conflict into Northern territory. He nearly achieved his goal at Gettysburg, but lost by making a few blunders during that battle,...but that's another discussion.

Answer 4

By invading the North in 1863 , Lee hoped to gain support and recognition of the European nations, especially Britain. A successful invasion of the North would show Britain that the South's military was viable and capable of doing more than defensive fighting.

In 1862, when KY was invaded, the South hoped to pick up numerous recruits to the cause-another reason for invading. They didn't succeed, by the way-Kentuckians didn't flock to the Cause, which made the whole northern thrust a waste of time and manpower.

I put both instances in because I wasn't sure exactly what northern invasion you wanted to know about. Other minor reasons were to get supplies and money (some towns had to pay tribute to the Confederate raiders) and to scare Northerners (Early's raid on Washington was designed to pull Northern troops from the front to defend the Capitol).

Answer 5

A few things would be gained. Lee was the best military commander of his time and the North new it. By putting the North on the defensive would have demoralizing. Also, most of the world powers of the time saw this as a war of one nation, not two like the South saw it. By gaining victories he would prove to other nations, that would be in the position to help the South, of their legitimacy. Another reason is that almost all of the industries were in the north. To keep his army equipped he would need these resources.

Answer 6

If I understand your question correctly the benefit to the South would be twofold.

Firstly fighting in the Northern territory allowed Southern armies to acquire badly needed supplies and to loot Northern farms and towns. The South's armies were chronically short of supplies, in particular food and clothing, many of Lee's troops were without shoes prior to the battle of Gettysburg. In fact, one of the reasons Lee moved on Gettysburg was to capture a shoe factory so his men could obtain footwear.

The second reason is a corollary of the first. Attacking Northern territory forced the northern armies to respond, thus leaving Southern territory and providing a respite to those areas that had been occupied by the north.

Answer 7

The South invaded the North in Pennsylvania. They fought and lost the battle of Gettysburg. Had the South won that battle, they could have gone on to attack Philadelphia or New York demoralizing the North's population and convincing them they should sue for peace with the South, thus resulting in a successful cessation.

Answer 8

The benefit was that the Southerners could get to the Northern capital faster.

Answer 9

move the theater of fighting away from the Southern States into the North causing a certain amount of relief of invasion. also let the North have a taste of its own medicine to see how they liked warfare being done on their front yard and having the aftermath problems.

Answer 10

it would have put the union army on the defensive early on. and before grant took over they had bad leadership. it may have bottled them up in the north although i do not believe the south was strong enough to assault the north