The History of the Confederate War, Its Causes and Its Conduct, Volume 1 (of 2): A Narrative and Critical HistoryEggleston, George Cary
History
The History of the Confederate War, Its Causes and Its Conduct, Volume 1 (of 2): A Narrative and Critical History
Eggleston, George Cary
United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865
A second defect in this scheme of defense was that the line thus
formed was traversed by two rivers, the Tennessee and the Cumberland,
both practically navigable by steamboats. It was obvious to ordinary
common-sense that should both or either of these rivers at any time
fall under control of the enemy, with his multitudinous gunboats and
other river craft which could easily be made to carry guns, the western
half of the Confederate force must be completely and at once cut off
from all but a very roundabout and slow communication with its allies
on the east.
Here was a danger which must have presented itself obtrusively to the
minds of those who formed and ordered this military arrangement. It
is difficult for a military critic in this later day to understand or
to conceive upon what principle of scientific warfare such a line was
accepted as even tolerably judicious. Its adoption seems in fact to
have been determined more by political than by military considerations.
In order to meet the difficulty the Confederates created the two great
fortresses--Henry and Donelson--to defend the rivers. These forts were
curiously misplaced. They were located one upon the one river, and
the other upon the other, at a point near the dividing line between
Kentucky and Tennessee. At that point the two rivers run within eleven
miles of each other. But a little farther down the streams--that is
to say a little farther north--their course brings them within three
miles of each other. Here obviously on all accounts was the point at
which the defensive works should have been constructed. In that case
the two forts would have been within easy supporting distance of each
other and neither could have been assailed from the rear. Moreover,
we have the authority of no less eminent an engineer than General
Beauregard for saying that the ground at this point is well fitted by
its natural conformation for purposes of defense, while at the point
actually selected for the two fortresses it is peculiarly lacking in
that advantage. But the more defensible position was in Kentucky and
purely political considerations had weight in determining the choice of
the less advantageous point of defense in Tennessee.
The defective character of this line of defense and the mistake
underlying its acceptance were strongly emphasized after the overthrow
of Zollicoffer at Mill Springs and the pushing forward of General
Thomas's forces to more southerly points. This movement placed a
threatening force on the right flank of the Confederate line of
defense. Nevertheless, the Confederate War Department clung to its
mistaken policy. It lived at that time in a fool's paradise in which
facts counted for little in comparison with theories, and in which
optimism was expected to serve the purpose of guns and brigades and
defensive works.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account