Tuesday, October 2, 2018

The Anaconda Plan

The Anaconda Plan

This specific plan in the Civil War was proved to be ineffective, was also crucial to the development of the war. It was brought forward by a Union general by the name of Winfield Scott that advocated for a naval blockade of Confederate forces. The plan would include the Union surrounding the Confederacy on all sides from Missouri all the way around the Confederate states and up the Atlantic Ocean to Virginia where the Union Border started.

This plan was first proposed at the start of the Civil War because the North believed that they blocked all Southern ports, it would eventually leave the Confederacy worn out and struggling. The plan was formed in response to the Confederate attack that was held at Fort Sumter. Because the North wanted to preserve the Union, they thought that the Anaconda plan was proposing a more humane and practical way to end the war that would still result in the South wanting to rejoin the Union.

However, a lot of Union forces did not support this plan because they thought it was too nice and most of the North wanted to take a more violent approach. The North had felt betrayed by the South and their decision to leave the United States, and the North wanted to retaliate to gain revenge. If the plan had had a large amount of support, it would have saved a lot of lives and would’ve led to an end to the conflict if given time. When George McClellan proposed a plan of attack with 80,000 soldiers, the Anaconda Plan was quickly overlooked.

Because of the lack of Northern support of the Anaconda Plan, it was never given the chance to be put into action. If it was implemented and tried, it would’ve led to a more peaceful end to the war that would have spared the lives of thousands. But, because the tension between the North and South was so strong, it made the Anaconda Plan seem too mild and ineffective.



4 comments:

  1. I find it interesting that although we learn about McClellan as a careful and not so aggressive leader, here he is going in favor of an offensive action.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I really enjoyed reading this post about the Union's plan. Just based on my knowledge of war strategies, it looks like this plan could have worked because of the superior manpower advantage the North had. It was interesting that you mentioned this plan would have saved lots of soldier's lives, yet Union soldiers still opposed it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like how you pointed out how the Anaconda Plan was supposed to be a peaceful way to fight the war, and how you related that to the North's desire to keep the union intact. This article is really interesting, and you did a really good job of highlighting the failures and opposition to the plan.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like how you chose to focus on a plan that was not as successful. This is not usually something that we focus on in class so it is cool that you chose this topic.

    ReplyDelete