Compare the Union and Confederate military strategies.???

Question

who do you think had the better stragies. I know everyone still argues about who was the better of the two so I was just wondering....and this is one of my U.S. history questions. =]

Answer 1

Folks confuse the words "strategy" with "tactics".

Strategy is another word for goal. A tactic is a tool one uses to accomplish a goal or meet a strategy.

For example, I have a goal of hanging a picture above my couch. I need to install a couple of nails. The best tactic would be to use a hammer, but I could use a shoe, a frozen steak or the leg bone of a dinasaur.

In your question, the strategy of the North was to fight an offensive war, whereas the South fought a defensive one. The South resorted to that strategy when it figured out it had a third of the men and a tenth of the material resources of the North. It simply couldn't supply its troops with ammo, food or clothing if it ventured too far north.

Since, the South lost one can reasonably conclude that their strategy failed.

However, tactics are another matter altogether. The Southern Generals were more inventive in how and when they engaged the enemy. The South had a better officer corp and promoted aggressive leaders within their ranks. The officers in the Army of the Potomac under Mead was a bloated collection of ribbon collectors. If you were fat, rich and white you could be a General; while in the South they had more West Point Grads and they knew how to fight. What they didn't have were bodies or bullets to stave off the North.

It wasn't until Grant took over that aggression became the rule. As ruthless as Grant was, Sherman was Death in a pair of pants. Sherman carved a swath through the South 50 miles wide and hundreds long. Farms, cities and towns were burned to the ground. Crops destroyed. Livestock slaughtered. Women, children and men put to the sword. Carnage on a massive scale.

Could it have been different? A more humane war? Doubtful.

The central belief in the South was that they had the right, under the constitutional provision of State Rights, to own other human beings. Slavery is at the core of the conflict.

No slavery. No war.

So, which side had the better Strategy: the North; which side used better tactics: the South.

I believe Julius Ceasar wrote in "The Gaulic Papers": Tactics follow Strategy. Meaning that a failed strategy will never be achieved with superior tatics. Eventually it will fail.

America had superior tactics in Vietnam. Bigger guns, better planes, trained soldiers; however, our Strategy was wrong.

If your strategy is correct almost any tactic will work: you can use a frozen steak, or a dino bone. But if you don't have a nail no amount of hammering is going to get that picture up on the wall.

Answer 2

Union Military Strategy

Answer 3

Well, the strategy employed must naturally evolve from the resources (both men and materiel) available to each side.

The Confederacy (at the start of the war at least) had almost no large scale munitions works, no heavy industry, no navy and no shipbuilding industry. They also had a fraction of the population of the north. They therefore could not hope to invade the north in any serious manner. In addition, Jefferson Davis' policy was that the south "just wanted to be left alone", so invasion of the north was politically undesirable even if it had been possible. Thus, the strategy of the Confederacy necessarily had to be one of defensive resistance to invasion by the north. That the war lasted as long as it did is testament to the south's determination to resist and a vindication that, for them, the defensive strategy was the right one.

The Union had a large polulation, many munitions factories, heavy industial works, a navy and shipbuilding facilities. Abraham Lincoln's policy was "to preserve the Union" and it quickly became apparent that that would mean a military subjugation of the south. The northern strategy should, therefore, have been one of mass invasion of the south on all fronts, much like that which was eventually undertaken under Grant in 1864. That the north failed to sucessfully employ this strategy early in the war is due to many factors, not the least of which is their failure to find competent generals to lead their armies. Lincoln must also share some of the blame though, he tended to meddle in the affairs of his generals which hampered most of them (until Grant). So it can be safely said that the north failed to implement their best strategy.

So which was best? Well, they both were but for different reasons. What happened was that the south sucessfully implemented their best strategy for as long as they were able, whereas the north took almost 4 years to finally implement their best strategy and finally win the war.

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Compare the Union and Confederate military strategies.???
who do you think had the better stragies. I know everyone still argues about who was the better of the two so I was just wondering....and this is one of my U.S. history questions. =]

Answer 5

I think the Condfederate side had better stratgies. Confederate forces won battle after battle due to the sufficent skill of their generals. Fredricksburg for instance was fought in December of 1862. Confederate forces were entrenched on Maryes Hieghts. Knowing this Union General Burnside still made the orders for his men to march up that hill under cannon and musket fire to certain death. 16 times Burnside did this until finally he got the idea that the entrenchments would not fall then retreated. The same thing happened in Cold Harbor in 1864. Even after the Union had witnessed and learned about Fredricksburg they still pressed on in Cold Harbor onto the Rebels unpenetrable defences. If the battle of Gettysburg had not occured the USA would be paying their taxes to Richmond and not Washington. LONG LIVE THE SOUTH.

Answer 6

The Confederate was to fight back against invasion by the North and its destruction The North was to invade the South and bring them back into the Union against their will. Its a good thing that Grant gave Lee and his soldiers proper terms, many wanted to continue fighting guerilla style, and Lee would have none of it.

Answer 7

I guess the Union side, because they were willing to attack in enemy territory first. but maybe some people consider that stupid, attacking in enemy territory.

I think overall the Confederates had better military men, they just died in wrong situations

Answer 8

It changed throughout the war. The union eventually resorted to sledgehammer tactics of Grant and total war tactics of Sherman. The rebels had to resort to fakes, flanking movements, and outwitting their opponents...psychologically. In the end, the war of attrition won out.

Answer 9

You should be doing your own research. I hope your high school history teacher finds your question. So here's my answer, now give it to your teacher & get the BEST grade you ever had: Hitler had the best strategy because he sailed down the Volga river past Chief Sitting Bull and captured the Confederate flag in California. ;)