Unimportant Confederate Victories-Arkansas and Louisiana

[whitworth]

While western Louisiana and western Arkansas were successfully defended by the Confederates, what meaning did it have to the Civil War?
Certainly it did not contribute to a Confederate victory, nor prohibited the U.S. from winning the war.

The U.S. had previously held ground in eastern Arkansas and eastern Louisiana, the more critical areas needed for the defense of the Mississippi River.

In a way, it was better to let the Confederate troops, out on a withering vine, of no use in more critical areas. New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Little Rock and Helena Arkansas, in the eastern parts of those states proved critical in getting and keeping control of the Mississippi River.
The Confederacy would lose more because they lost the Mississippi River, than in any importance of keeping control of Shreveport, La. and western Arkansas.

The Confederacy would cease to exist, and it mattered not, in the end, which army controlled western Louisiana and western Arkansas.

[timewalker]

The move into Western Louisiana and into Texas was politically, not militarily motivated. Napolean III had conquered Mexico in clear violation of the Monroe Doctrine and was making noises about supporting the Confederacy in return for recognition of his annexation of Mexico. Licoln and Seward thought it important to have a U.S. presence close to Mexico to signal to France what they thought of the Mexican Annexation.

But for that, Grant had proposed using the troops to capture Mobile, which probably would have fallen much sooner than it actually did.

[ole]

Two informative and thoughty posts gentlemen, thanks. Are a few possible deep background explanations as well:

Cotton. Cotton confiscated and sold to England was as good as gold (although much more cumbersome). A secondary objective, to be sure, but one that adds attraction to the primary objective.

Initiative. Leaving alone scattered, ineffectual pockets of opposing troops is not a good idea. They can consolidate and refit at their leisure, thus becoming formidable.

I'm figuring that the biggest mistake made in the Red River Campaign was in letting Banks run it.

ole

[30th_il]

Horses and salt were another reason to fight for trans-MS states.

[Tennessee Boy]

Guys

Jeff Davis all the way over there in Virginny, was determined to defend every inch of the Confederacy, rather than sacrifice less important areas, to marshall forces to keep or win back important areas.

Guess its difficult to pick important and less important parts of the Confederacy, especially when resources are so critical!

Often wonder what would have happened if KirbySmith had properly supported Taylor and he could have destroyed Banks' army and captured a few ironclads. Guess that's another discussion in a different forum

regards
Ian

[OpnDownfall]

There were strategic possibilities West of the Mississippi, especially early in the war.
Lincoln, considered losing Mo., as good as losing the war. Texas, Ark and West La. were potential staging points (and source of supplies and manpower) for a concerted effort to regain New Orleans or, at least, closing the Mississippi, between New Orleans and the mouth of the river.
The war in the Trans-Mississippi, was a back-water of the war, in the end. But at the time, there were possibilities that could have been very important in the course of the war.

[M E Wolf]

Dear Tennessee_Boy/Ian,

In today's hindsight --there were many a missed opportunity, regardless of which 'theater' you peer into.

I also think on the 'commitment' of the 'Confederate States' as 'states and or commonwealths forming this Confederacy. Not all states when in with full measure and commitment as the years passed on.

Most of the battles would have been in the original 'capital' of the Confederacy if it wasn't later moved into Richmond, Virginia. If they moved the capital--then, I must wonder why it was so important to move it from the origins of Montgomery, Alabama; until May 29, 1861-when it was transferred to Richmond, VA on 5/29/1861-4/2/85.

I am sure if the Civil War would have continued with the capital of the Confederacy in Montgomery, Alabama -- I'm sure the 'heat' of battle would have been at their doorsteps in Alabama. Perhaps, the 'politicians' knew that Richmond, VA would be the ones who would be more passionate and labor under the rifle.

I am glad I wasn't in a position to make such choices. However, I contend that being a capital for Confederacy in war was a hot potatoe and nobody tossed it to another confederate of states member.

Just some thoughts.

M. E. Wolf

[cw1865]

Ultimately the Union gains control of the Mississippi....but they certainely had Banks going around in circles for a while, didn't they?

[5fish]

What about Gen. Richard Taylor the best kept secret in the west? Here's a general if given a chance could have been up there with Jackson, Longstreet and other notables of the war.

He was like by Forrest and his brigade was usually lead when Gen. Jackson army was in a fight; but at last he was not a West point Grad, his only sin.

He was politically well connected and his father was Pres. Zach Taylor..

[M E Wolf]

Dear 5fish,

I think both sides, especially in the beginning of the rebellion/Civil War; felt that West Point Grads had the 'smarts' in all things 'war' and, true many did have previous fighting experiences, .e.g. Mexico, Indian Wars, etc.

However, as these 'gold nuggets' fell away--it became clear that 'citizen soldiers' could do a really good job and use common sense, problem solve and take some initiative, e.g. General Richard Taylor, General Gordon, General Vincent, General Chamberlain, etc.; have proved --you don't need West Point to teach you what can and or will be taught; in the field of battle and could be killed in the blink of an eye.

Men those days were a totally different breed of men. I'm sure we could use some of the excellent gentlemen of leadership now days.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf