Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
Very interesting EWC, considering that Montgomery became a city in 1819, the state capital of Alabama in 1846 and still was considered provincial by Davis (who preferred to live alone with Varina) AND a frontier town.
I will be buying the Wm. Davis book this weekend, if I can find it at our local B&N and giving it a read. I also have an excellent book on Davis (Here's a twist for you Neil, I have more books on Lincoln than I do on Davis - gives me more ammo for fighting with you! ) that I will try to wade through this weekend. Plenty of time for that, as my Mother-in-Law arrives on Sunday --- Oh please God, give me the strength!
Ron, Any chance I can borrow some of those Lincoln books from you?
Ammo is where you find it!
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Ron, I guess I'm surprised that you, the ultimate ornery reb, does not have this book. I am glad to see you're tracking it down. Again, I recommend the book, (I checked my copy- it is 'A Government of Our Own',) to all buffs, particularly of the pedigree represented on this fine board.
To be so bold as to correct an ill perception- it is not President or Mrs President Davis who did not like Montgomery, it is the Eastern Seaboard large landowner grandees. Then along came the Virginians of hauteur, determined to promote Richmond, and those who wished to placate them and the Northern tier of slave states. The move of the capital is pretty much a foregone conclusion. Davis, being a Westerner, of course accepted Montgomery as the capital, but as a good leader and commander of the armies, saw the advantages of the move and accepted it.
Interestingly, that first Confederate Congress, (many, like Wm Davis, consider it the finest American Congress ever assembled,) considered many places for the capital. Lots of cities and towns presented their names for consideration- alot I never heard of, but notably besides Richmond there were New Orleans, Nashville, Atlanta, Mobile, and Alexandria (across from the Capital.) Charleston's name is curiously absent. One theme of Davis's book is how the Southerners followed the fire eaters path into secession, but then drew back, and sent calm, sober, and steady men to Montgomery, many lukewarm or even opposed to secession. The South Carolinian delegation is even notably reticent about taking a proactive role in Montgomery, preferring to allow her sister states to set the new pace. Could these be reasons why Charleston was not considered for the Southern Capital?
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
Actually, I have tried for quite a while to find that particular Davis book, as I feel it would be very interesting. After looking at two different B&Ns this weekend, I guess it must now be ordered.
Neil, feel free to borrow any of my Lincoln books. You will find them in my reading room, I believe they are holding up the left leg of my computer table or is it the right?
Tanks EWC for the elucidation on Montgomery and Richmond and the Confederate government. Seems as in fighting the war, they could not decide the path to take very quickly either.
Ron, I was wondering what you were doing with all those books on Lincoln. You sure weren't reading 'em!
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I think it would have been better in Mongomery because it would have made the western theater stronger and may be the south would have taken more western states. It would probably be more defenceable than Richmond because the Union troops would have to go ****her from Washington and go threw more un loyal states than they would if Richmond was the capital, but I guess there was to much politics involed to kept Virgina in the Confederacy. So I don't really Know what would have been the best.
I agree with your reasoning as to Montgomery being a more defensible capital and make the West more central to the government's attention. The same can be said for Atlanta. Atlanta actually made a strong pitch to the Provisional Congress to be selected as the capital. There was little opposition, and in fact much favor, to the move from Montgomery to Richmond in the Congress. Mostly for reasons stated above, and to, as you say, political considerations.
There was a plurality of feeling among Montgomeryites as to their city's future as capital. According to Wm Davis, some worthy citizens felt the city as capital meant good fortune to the city as to prestige, business and finances, transportation nexus, jobs, etc. Others felt their city suffered from an unwelcome, uncouth, and immoral element, these political creatures, their hangers-on, and the inevitable corruption they spawn. Being a provincial town was the better life in their eyes. In the end, all pretty much felt snubbed by the relative eagerness of the politicians' move away.
Definitely the Rebels lost the war in the West, and started losing it from the get-go. More attention to the West by the Confederate Top Brass would surely have been indicated. However, let us not forget that President Davis is a Mississippian who knew full well the importance of the West and the Great River. He never lost focus on the West, but perhaps the disconnection to it in time and space was an unfortunate aspect of being in Richmond. He errored seriously with New Orleans and the Kentucky invasion; the loss of Fts Donelson and Henry too was a major if not disastrous blow. The loss of his most trusted commander, General AS Johnston, was also a very grievous disaster to the Confederates, and they could never recover their balance. But Davis always placed trusted commanders West (Generals Bragg, Pemberton, Polk, Van Dorn, Taylor, Holmes, Hood, Kirby Smith); men whose judgment he trusted and accepted so as to offset his being East. That his trust in some of these men may have proved injudicious to the Confederacy is a question of a different stripe. He also placed able commanders in the West in whom he was more reserved in his confidence (Generals JE Johnston and Beauregard, Price too). He offset this lack of trust where he could with an unfortunate divided command structure or nominal command which also proved injudicious.
With the capital at Richmond of course, that theatre became the Southern focus. Perhaps if Richmond were not the capital, it might have been lost to McClellan in the spring/summer of '62. Anyway, the Rebels fought long and hard and savagely to preserve it and its loss finally would mean the doom of the Confederacy. Losing Richmond at any time whether she be the capital of the republic or no I think would have meant 'giving up the ghost', Virginia being so important to the welfare of the Confederacy.
(Message edited by Ewc on December 15, 2002)
__________________ 'It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag'
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
) that I will try to wade through this weekend. Plenty of time for that, as my Mother-in-Law arrives on Sunday --- Oh please God, give me the strength! 
Linear Mode
