Civil War History - The South & Western TheatersCheck this forum for all South and Western Theater Questions. Included are the Western, Pacific, Trans-Mississippi, & Lower Seaboard and Gulf Approach Theaters.
Why all the fighting there? Why not mass your army at one point, cut a swath of destruction and capture Richmond, call it quits and go home? In short, why was so much effort spent on either side on the Midwest?
Does anybody have any statistics as to % of men or material were used there by either side?
Does anyone have production figures for food from each state? Or factory output whether it was clothing or raw material or what-not?
I don't ignore the Midwest but the majority of used books I come across concern the AoP and ANV. BTW, I enjoy the Midwest and have visited many of their battlefields & museums. Most of the blackpowder folks I know are from the Midwest too.
Couldn't resist but quote 30th. As a former Chicagoan of twelve years but born and raised for the better part of my years in sunny So. Calif....that was a classic!
Best regards,
Spartan
Why all the fighting there? Why not mass your army at one point, cut a swath of destruction and capture Richmond, call it quits and go home? In short, why was so much effort spent on either side on the Midwest?
Some thoughts:
1) In the East, narrow frontage and good defensive terrain (rivers) makes it difficult to advance. The more troops you put there, the more crowded the front becomes, the closer you will come to WWI conditions.
2) The biggest cities and armament centers in the Confederacy are New Orleans, Nashville, and Richmond. In early 1862, the Union occupied the first two of those.
3) There are very few routes available for invading the South from the North. They all follow the river systems and the RR lines west of the mountains, so the routes become a) the Mississippi River and b) the Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta RR line.
4) While a naval expedition against the coast looks tempting, it is very difficult to support a large force that way and the routes inland don't really lead anywhere in particular -- unless they are on the James River (Richmond) , the Mississippi (New Orleans) or to Atlanta-Chattanooga-Nashville.
5) Scott's Anaconda Plan, however ridiculed, shows great understanding. The idea is to pacify/suppress a widespread rebellion. Blockade followed by cutting the rebellious area into chunks to break the enemy up and quell the insurrection is perfectly sensible. McClellan's 1862 plan really wasn't so different (take Richmond, then keep moving the main force by sea from point to point to take all the ports.)
6) Spreading the offensive effort out makes it more difficult for the defender to concentrate, gives them more trouble to worry about. If you concentrate everything on a narrow front in Virginia, you get a situation much like Italy in 1916-18, with the 12 or so battles of the Isonzo River that accomplished nothing but mutual slaughter.
7) Supply problems are simplified. If you concentrate massive armies in NVa, how do you feed them, and all the animals that go with them? The Union might have been able to do it with ships and RRs, but the armies would have been tied to them and generally unable to maneuver.
I think I see our confusion. Here, in the land of grass, what we now call the midwest was called the Northwest and, before that, The Northwest Territory (southern boundary, the Ohio River). What you are likely talking about is the Western Theater, and why didn't Lincoln assemble every avalable man and take Richmond? See Tim's post, above.
With the exception of a few cities and prime agricultural areas, the South was not heavily settled and what industry she did have was scattered. The Confederacy could have survived the loss of Richmond. What she couldn't survive was that slash from Memphis to Savannah. Sometimes an army can be too big to fight in the space available.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Spirit, us midwesterners are wimps for those folks who live in Montana, Minnesota and upper Michigan. I liked your post (lol)!
I like to experience all four seasons, but some of those far northern types seem too willing to do without the essential one -- Construction!
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
I would have to say that the superhighway of the 19th century, the Mississippi River, was the main reason why the midwest was (and still is) important. I have lived on that river all my life, and know that no matter what happens in the US of A, it will somehow involve the mighty Mississip.
On a non-CW note:
I feel like when this continent or civilization implodes, (whichever comes first) it'll more than likely start with the dropping off of either coast. And I have relatives aplenty on the west coast, so I'm not too excited about that.
I'd also say that the cold shakes out a lot of the weaker sort! I loved 30th's 'weather gauge'. Ain't it the truth? When it is 50 degrees here in the spring, all of my students can't wait to be out in shorts!
__________________ "Live in the world you inhabit. Look upon things as they are. Take them as you find them. Make the best of them. Turn them to your advantage." - R. E. Lee
Last edited by Miss Markie; 08-22-2006 at 01:22 PM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
