Did the North at beginning of Civil War feel Anaconda Plan was a viable plan?

The Anaconda Plan was a Union strategy for winning the American Civil War. It was developed by Secretary of War Edwin Stanton and General in Chief Henry Halleck in the spring of 1861. The plan called for a naval blockade of the Confederate coast and a slow, strangling advance of Union armies down the Mississippi River and through the Shenandoah Valley. The Union believed that this strategy would eventually cut off the Confederacy from its sources of supplies and manpower, and force it to surrender.

At the beginning of the Civil War, the North was confident that the Anaconda Plan would be successful. The Union navy was much larger than the Confederate navy, and the North had a significant advantage in terms of manpower and resources. However, the Union also underestimated the determination and resilience of the Confederacy. The war dragged on for four years, and the Union eventually won, but not without great cost in terms of lives and resources.

In retrospect, the Anaconda Plan was a sound strategy, but it was not without its flaws. The plan was slow to get off the ground, and the Union underestimated the Confederacy's ability to resist. However, the plan ultimately proved successful in cutting off the Confederacy from its sources of supplies and manpower, and it played a major role in the Union victory.