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

[Airborne Rifles]

I don't think that strategy would have worked politically for the south since the states that would have to be sacrificed in a space for time strategy never would have agreed to the plan.  I don't think Virginia would have agreed to be slowly overrun as a strategy for winning the broader war.

[GDS_Starfury]

its not like Stalin asked how the Ukraine felt about the idea.

[MetalDog]

I don't think that strategy would have worked politically for the south since the states that would have to be sacrificed in a space for time strategy never would have agreed to the plan.  I don't think Virginia would have agreed to be slowly overrun as a strategy for winning the broader war.

Couldn't it be said that that is exactly what happened anyways?  And with the capitol in Alabama, you would still have Tennessee, North Carolina and/or Georgia to go through.  The Appalachins were a formidable natural obstacle and any additional time gained could only improve its chances of ending the war peacefully and (mostly) intact.

[Airborne Rifles]

The problem is I don't think you can look at the Confederacy as a whole nation that was considering the best interests of the whole.  If the Confederate government had announced that part of their strategy for victory was to slowly sacrifice those states closest to the federal forces than those states likely wouldn't have seceded in the first place or at very least have vetoed the whole plan.  Just my opinion though.  I don't have anything to back it up.  If you are arguing that in an ideal world for the Confederacy where all the leadership was far-sighted and all the states willing to sacrifice for the whole that this strategy might have worked than I think you are right, but I think in reality politically this was impossible.

[Staggerwing]

AR, I think you hit the nail right on the head there. Each Confederate State gov't had a bottom line of 'you go first' vis a vis it's neighbors when trading space for time was the best option.

[besilarius]

Have to look it up, but one of the wealthier states was North Carolina.  The govenor was a secessionist of extreme views.
To the point, that when he had a surplus, it was not shared with other states.  IIRC, Foote, in his three part history, mentions that this fellow had lots of food, munitions, and shoes, which were hoarded for the use of North Carolina only.
This is part of the reason that supply was so tricky for the south. 
If a govenor did not want to give up something that came from his state, by the constituion, they could not be forced to share.
With all the shortages caused by their agrarian economy, this was often a big issue.  Much of Jeff Davis' time was spent arguing with such folks.

[bob48]

^Didn't Jefferson Davis once say that 'To defeat the Union, we have to become like the Union'?

This was because of incidents such as the one you describe, where States Rights often meant that the kind of cooperation required was lacking.

I also seem to remember reading that, although the reasons for Lee to invade the North seemed valid, in fact, the Confederacy did not need to do so, but only to prevent the North from invading the South.

If the battle of Sharpsburg had not happened, there seems to have been a good possibility that both France and England would have had to recognise the Confederacy, which could have had a significant impact on events. The fact that Lincoln was able to put out the Emancipation Proclamation meant that neither France or England would recognise the South since that would appear to support slavery, something which both countries had already renounced.

[GDS_Starfury]

I love bringing up that point when people say that the civil war was fought over slavery.

[bob48]

Star, you have no idea how many times over the years I have had to try and explain to unenlightened folk just where the slavery issue figured in the war. Its one of those 'popular misconception' thingies.

The other one I have a hard time getting people to understand is that Lee was NOT the commander of the Confederate army.

Its this sort of thing that will make future generations believe that Hitler was some kind of hero >:(

[GDS_Starfury]

on the upside is the fact that we're smarterer then most.  ;)

[bayonetbrant]

Star, you have no idea how many times over the years I have had to try and explain to unenlightened folk just where the slavery issue figured in the war. Its one of those 'popular misconception' thingies.

To anyone who continues to claim that slavery was the primary cause of the conflict, I simply ask them this question:

"When were the slaves freed in Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri (and West Virginia)?"

(hint: it was after the war)

If slavery was the primary cause of the war, then why weren't the slaves freed in the non-seceding slave states as soon as the war broke out?

It's been much easier to spin the war as a noble crusade against those evil slave-owning Southerners than the nuanced shades of gray involving the combination of a new nation desperate to keep its pieces together, Northern industrialists afraid of losing access to Southern resources, political hubris, and a continuing supply of immigrants coming into Northern states that could immediately be fed into the fight.

It doesn't take much digging to find many historical records of opposition to the war in the northern states, the reality of slavery's continuing existence even after the war started and the Emanicpation Proclamation, and the end of the war, or Lincoln's own admission that he didn't care is slavery came or went, as long as the country stayed together.