central_va:
"The Confederate threat to the North was tactical not strategic.
Even a partisan like you knows that." Obviously depends on what you define as "tactical" and what "strategic".
- In March of 1861, Virginia was certainly "strategic" in that Lincoln was willing to surrender Fort Sumter, if he could get a pledge from Virginia not to secede.
But Virginia refused to promise, and then declared secession after Lincoln's response to Fort Sumter.
- In 1861 Lincoln considered Kentucky strategic, saying that if the Union lost Kentucky, it would lose the war.
- But more than just the "strategic" states of Virginia and Kentucky, the entire Border South -- Maryland, western Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri -- would be an existential threat to the United States, if they all seceded, adding their resources to the Confederacy's already considerable strength.
Both of Lee's invasions of Union states, Maryland in 1862, Pennsylvania in 1863, are often described as "raids", but both had strategic goals as well:
- In Maryland, Lee was hoping to support pro-Confederates there, and enlist more Marylanders in his army, perhaps turning Maryland into a Confederate state.
- In Pennsylvania, Lee was hoping to split the Union, defeat the Union army, occupy Union Harrisburg, PA., threaten Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York, and so force the North to negotiate peace on Confederate terms.
Finally we could note that in 1862, Jefferson Davis planned a major strategic invasion of Illinois, the invasion only cancelled because of Grant's victories on the Tennessee River.
central_va: "OTH the Union strategy was to conquer and occupy the South."
The Union plan was to defeat the Confederate military and then restore constitutionally mandated republican government in those states, but this time with the full voting participation of emancipated former slaves.
The Union plan was to defeat the Confederate military and then restore constitutionally mandated republican government in those states, but this time with the full voting participation of emancipated former slaves. Since the Union was planning on keeping slaves in slavery, giving them votes would have simply given more votes to their masters. The idea of an Australian Ballot hadn't arrived here yet.
Stop pretending the Union wasn't planning on keeping them in slavery during the first two years of the war.
I am not going to let you take credit for something you had no intention of doing in the first place, and only did out of spite when you did finally do the right thing.
The Union was fighting for dominance, not freedom. Get the History correct.