Why was the Anaconda Plan ridiculed at first?

• A. The Navy was not big enough early in the war to make this plan effective
• B. It relied on foreign intervention to succeed
• C. It required immediate victory through large-scale land battles
• D. It depended on aerial reconnaissance that did not exist

Answer: (A)

The idea being tested is why a broad, patient strategy relying on naval power was criticized at the outset: it depended on a sustained blockade of Southern ports and control of the Mississippi to squeeze the Confederacy economically and split its territory. Early in the war the Union did not have a large enough Navy to enforce a comprehensive blockade across thousands of miles of coastline and river mouths, so many observers doubted that this approach could quickly achieve victory. They expected faster, more direct land offensives and doubted that simply “choking” the enemy would end the war. The other options don’t fit because foreign intervention wasn’t a feature of the plan, it didn’t require immediate massive land battles, and aerial reconnaissance didn’t exist in this era.