The war would have started one way or another, I doubt this made any kind of difference.As a disclaimer this is strictly from the standpoint of military tactics.. thank god they lost...
Imho most of not all of the confederacies major military blunders were all couched in southern pride.. so I wonder how it goes if they had taken a more logical and unemotional approach..
1) Firing on sumner was of zero strategic value and was ONLY about politics.. there were like 80 guys totally surrounded and about to starve.. hell they could let them be resupplied and the fort was still basically meaningless..
They sacrificed “the moral high ground “ politically just because they didn’t want sumner to besmirch southern honor..
We are talking about massed volunteer forces here, who had little to no time for training. Furthermore, hindsight is hindsight. Dropping all the tactical and operational knowledge would just result in chaos, especially when no one knows what to replace them with. The lessons about fortified positions were learned, but there was little else to do.2) marching on the north...
IMho napoleonic tactics were dead.. and had been for a generation at least , even though the military brass refused to drop it..
When you attack a fortified position using napoleonic tactics , when the enemy has even civil war area weaponry.. your screwed.. and both sides found that out the hard way..
This is essentially what the war in the west was.So if the south played defense in depth tactics, and let the union break over and over again on their fortified positions..
They'll just march through in the east, as they did historically. Wishful thinking of northern population tapping out is not a sound military strategy either.How long till the northern population taps out??