Southern Strategy, fighting with Longstreet's perspective

Geno56

I believe that with keeping the ultimate goal of the south in mind, that the south did not need "win the war" per say. Only to frustrate the North into suing for peace. Of course, Lincoln would have to be defeated in the 64 election. As it is, this almost happened, If not for some late victories by Sherman and others. So, in that spirit I say what if at the beggining of the war.the south chose to fight a strategicly defensive, tacticaly offensive war. Another words, When the North would start an advance into Virgina. The ANV would find good ground and set up a defense. Either wait for them or try to ply them to the attack. Then after the AoP had worn itself down and was demoralized, launch devestating counterattacks led by Aggresive commanders like Lee and Jackson. Yes I know, I imagine Lee as a corps commander because his blood was Not suited for defense. This we know from his battles with Lonstreet. I believe Longstreet, who understood the manpower limatations of the south and the fruitlesness of charges against fortified rifles was better suited for this. In this scenario, Perhaps Aneitam never happens, The Emansipation Proclimation never happens. Perhaps England, Hatefull of America and desperate for cotton, DOES break the blockcade. I believe the South might well have acheived it's goal under this scenario asthe south would have also lost less men in this style of war and this influx of manpower would have been of great benefit in the west! well, let fly with your responses as I am interested to hear them and I will help clarify any questions you may have. Thank You