Would a capitol change have helped the South in the ACW?

[MetalDog]

While I was mowing the lawn today, it occurred to me that the proximity of Richmond to Washington D.C. made it inevitable that the North would concentrate the vast majority of its forces in taking the rebel capitol.  What if the original plan had been followed and Montgomery, Alabama had been the capitol of the Confederacy?  How would the strategy have changed in fighting the war, if at all?  Without the, "protect Richmond at all costs," mentality, would Lee have been able to trade space for time until Britain and France could bring themselves to recognize the South?  Failing recognition, hence international legitimacy, would the North finally give up if you were to tack on one, two or five years to the length of the conflict?

[GDS_Starfury]

to scratch the surface I would say no because Washington was just as vulnerable.  the dual proximity defined the main battle space and Washinton was still on the edge of Confederate territory.  by default the Confederation would still have fought over the land that they did.

[MetalDog]

to scratch the surface I would say no because Washington was just as vulnerable.  the dual proximity defined the main battle space and Washinton was still on the edge of Confederate territory.  by default the Confederation would still have fought over the land that they did.

That's true, but with the imperative to protect the capitol removed, Lee could have made several strong bases and raided incessantly and effectively.  The Union forces would have been split up to chase him down.  And the plan to take the capitol would have changed to an amphibious landing in Mobile Bay and a march north.  Or maybe go two prong from Tennessee and through Va., NC and Georgia.  Or something else entirely.

[GDS_Starfury]

in that era taking the capitol was winning.  in that light the South would still have fought mostly where they did.

[MetalDog]

True, but without the need to remain in theater to protect the capitol, the ability to leave a holding force in Virginia and come to the relief of the Confederate forces in any other state would have been the difference in many a battle.

[GDS_Starfury]

possibly.  but with the Norths capitol so close the temptation to grind it out and take Washington would be unavoidable.

[LongBlade]

The North had the luxury of being able to field numerous incompetent generals and fight a war of attrition.

Even so it took them four years to beat the South and only after Lee had been spanked at Gettysburg.

Probably more important on the what-if scale is: what if JEB Stuart had helped Lee at Gettysburg? Would it have allowed him to avoid the Union forces or at least fight a fight Lee wanted? Could the South have brought pressure from the Northwest on DC?

I suppose the converse is that, had Richmond not been the capitol it might have taken the Union many more years to take it.

However, Grant came from the western theater and had been doing an outstanding job of beating the crap out of the Confederacy. Moving the CSA capitol to Alabama might have ended the war earlier if Grant had simply been left to his own devices.

Then again, maybe Grant never would have risen to command if such an important theater had been continued to be given command to the string of losers who ran the eastern theater.

[MetalDog]

The other accepted turning point in the war is the death of "Stonewall" Jackson.  He and Stuart provided mobility and outside the box thinking.  One, or both, of them at Gettysburg would have changed things immensely.  Prolonging it would certainly have opened new avenues for peace on their terms, or at the very least, maybe outside aid from Europe.

[LongBlade]

Yeah. Lee was good, Stonewall was better.

[bob48]

Plus the fact that Richmond was also quite an important centre for what little industry the South possesed, and a comunications hub. Not sure that the south could have afforded to have given up large parts of Virginia without a fight.

Also, if you see it through the eyes of the southern leadership, they had no real reason to fear the Federal Army at the that point. Moreover, since the North had better LoC's they could shift troops very quickly to other theaters. Maybe it just would have been Sherman that fought the crucial battles rather than Grant?

[Martok]

Yeah. Lee was good, Stonewall was better.

You truly think so?  I've heard this sentiment whispered before, but I'm not familiar enough with either general's career to even remotely make such a determination myself.  (And of course, it doesn't help that Jackson died early on in the war, thus making direct comparisons more difficult.) 

Plus the fact that Richmond was also quite an important centre for what little industry the South possesed, and a comunications hub. Not sure that the south could have afforded to have given up large parts of Virginia without a fight.

I was thinking this as well.  With facilities such as the Tredegar Iron Works being -- for all intents & purposes -- critical to the Confederacy's war machine, I have a difficult time believing the South could've afforded to abandon (or at least be prepared to abandon) Richmond in any case.  Its proximity to Union territory (and Washington in particular) simply made it even more urgent for the ANV to protect it than it already was. 

[MetalDog]

Not knowing enough about Lee's philosophy, I have to go by what he did in the field.  He fought set piece battles.  Where he would stand toe to toe with the Union general de jour and it didn't matter whether he won or lost, he couldn't replace his losses like the North could.

Jackson lived be the creed of, "mystify, mislead and surprise."  His Shenandoah campign was brilliantly executed and his actions at Chancellorsville basically saved the Confederates bacon (mmmmm, bacon).  He used his troops as mounted infantry without the mounted.

As for the importance of Richmond as an industrial and commercial center, I don't dispute that.  It's value to the South was inestimable, but, if it wasn't the capitol, it's loss could be survived.  Especially if some of the things that made it important could be dispersed to other centers in the Confederacy.

Edited to change Shiloh to Chancellorsville.

[LongBlade]

Yeah. Lee was good, Stonewall was better.

You truly think so?  I've heard this sentiment whispered before, but I'm not familiar enough with either general's career to even remotely make such a determination myself.  (And of course, it doesn't help that Jackson died early on in the war, thus making direct comparisons more difficult.) 

I'm away from my library (which is in disarray anyway) so I can't pull chapter and verse to support this.

However, when Stonewall was killed Lee knew he was in trouble.

[LongBlade]

Here's a decent synopsis, though the source may be questionable.

Stonewall Jackson became know for defeating larger armies, by out marching, out-thinking and outfighting them. Union troops who would have had other missions were tied up trying to catch and destroy Jackson's troops. And when they did catch him, they usually got whipped by the out numbered and lesser supplied Southern Soldiers.

Source: http://voices.yahoo.com/thomas-stonewall-jackson-general-robert-e-lees-right-579748.html

[besilarius]

Think that saying Stonewall was better than Lee is simplifying matters a bit much.
He was superb at maneuver, there is no doubt of that.  I have to think, though, that his command style (which confused his subordinates as much as his enemies) meant he could not rise higher in command.  He just did not trust his subordinates, like AP Hill, to be more than battle marshalls.  Stonewall expected absolute obediance to his orders.  As long as his judgement and intuition were spot on, then this was fine.  However, he was going against amateurs who were often overpromoted.

My belief is that Lee recognized the value of his subordinates.  Those he did not like, were transferred away.  (think Shanks Evans who really knew what was happening at First Manassas and threw a monkey wrench into the yankee plans) or Prince John Magruder, who got transferred to Texas primarily because he was not an aggressive attacker.
Because he saw their ability, Lee promoted to wing command Stonewall and Old Pete Longstreet.  Stonewall could dazzle them with his his fast moving foot cavalry, but Old Pete was really the heavy hitter.  Of major attacks in which the South succeeded, Pete had four.
Second Manassas.  Second day of Gettysburg, Chickamauga, and the Wilderness.
Of major attacks, Stonewall really only had one, Chancellorsville.
Both had their strengths and weaknesses, but the team was superb.