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?
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.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on June 29, 2013, 10:07:59 PM
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.
in that era taking the capitol was winning. in that light the South would still have fought mostly where they did.
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.
possibly. but with the Norths capitol so close the temptation to grind it out and take Washington would be unavoidable.
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.
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.
Yeah. Lee was good, Stonewall was better.
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?
Quote from: LongBlade on June 29, 2013, 11:18:23 PM
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.)
Quote from: bob48 on June 30, 2013, 07:02:12 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Martok on June 30, 2013, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on June 29, 2013, 11:18:23 PM
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.
Here's a decent synopsis, though the source may be questionable.
QuoteStonewall 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
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.
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.
its not like Stalin asked how the Ukraine felt about the idea.
Quote from: Airborne Rifles on July 07, 2013, 02:38:06 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
^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.
I love bringing up that point when people say that the civil war was fought over slavery.
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 >:(
on the upside is the fact that we're smarterer then most. ;)
Quote from: bob48 on July 08, 2013, 12:58:00 PM
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) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
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.