Confederate Capitol

[jnyreb]

I realize that this is a stretch, because so many factors entered into the change in location, but here goes, anyway.

How would the war have been different had the Confederate capitol stayed in Montgomery, Alabama?

Any thoughts?

As with any what if, there are lots of variable. I have not slept in 36 hours so I will just go into one. I think the outcome in the war both in the west and east would have drastically been changed. Now if Lee still gets command it would have surely been in Virginia..I think he would. I think Longstreet could well have worked his way to the command in the west. Bragg nor Johnston would not have been tolerated if the capital was in jeopardy. Giving Lee room to maneuver rather than forced to defend Richmond would have been a Southerner's dream I'd think. Especially for instance against a foe like Grant. Heck...any foe he fought.

Longstreet was a very capable man. Good to his troops. Hard fighter. Good tactician. Excellent strategist. Excellent logistical ability as long as he had time to move. He was well suited to opposing Grant in the west. Sherman too. I know the railroads were considered crucial in making Richmond the capital but I would state that if more importance had been placed on the west, namely Nashville and the Mississippi and Tennessee river...I think much of the railroad issue would been null and void.

Do I think it would changed course of the war. Yep.
Do I think it would have changed the outcome? Very possible. If Sherman did not take Atlanta....by 1864....who knows....Mac in White House?? That is not an impossible scenario.

Not the first time that What if and been asked......With good reason.

YMOS
tommy

[unionblue]

Not bad, Tommy, but you don't think Grant's Vicksburg campaign would not have scared the dickens out of those folks in the Montgomery capitol? Would not the same Generals on the Southern side in the West still been in place despite the fact that Lee could maneuver in the East? Would Richmond STILL have to be defended to some degree?

Interesting, isn't it?

Unionblue

Neil,
That is basically my point. The west value would have been considered more accurately to it's true worth. Albeit for the wrong reasons. Insuring protection of the capital of the nation etc.

I think Grant's entire western campaign would been nullified rather than accepted. Not just Vicksburg. Remember the Tennessee river runs into Alabama. Securing that waterway was mandatory for it's defense.

As to Richmond. I think that the union would have had to divert far more resources to the west, especially material, early in the war. And that would been guaranteed in later stages, due to the lack of wholesale plunder of civilians thru Tennessee. I think giving Lee comparable numbers in the east that the confederacy had in the west would been more than adequate for him and Jackson to defend Richmond if he so choose. Yet early in the war....they had to react in certain subscribed manner. That was what made some of his decisions so brilliant. Without the weight of it being the nations capitol, I think it would have truly lessened the load and made many more options available.

One thing to seriously consider. Richmond could have become the political goal in 64 rather than Atlanta.

I think the trick there for the Union would be securing New Orleans and the Tennessee rather than the Mississippi river. And REALLY shutting down on blockade runners in the gulf. The effectiveness of those gulf blockade runners would be invaluable to the south with it's "main" army in the west.





YMOS
tommy

I should note that I am a firm believer that once middle tennessee was lost....once control was gained of the railroad hub in Nashville...and the Tennessee river....once these were firmly in Union hands. The war was lost...barring a miracle..it freed up far too many men and added to material....I remember Louis L'Amour saying lots of men can take it on the chin. You got to hit them where they live. Right in the stomach. This was more a kidney punch but the analogy is still viable...

[jac]

Really interesting question!
It would seem to me that the situation in the east might not change as much as first glance would have us think. Richmond would still be a very important logistical center, and therefore target for the AOP. Tredegar Iron Works, etc. Also, maybe Richmond isn't the Confederate capitol, but Washington still is the union capitol, so I don't think there would be less troops in the east, on the union side.
I don't think the Confederacy is viable if Virginia is in union hands. I believe the ANV would have had to defend Richmond as staunchly as they did.
In the west, you'd have to think that there would have been more emphasis on holding ground there. But....that might have meant LESS troops in the ANV, if troops were shifted west...
Worth noting, too, that Braxton Bragg's most ardent supporter was Jefferson Davis. I wonder if Bragg would have been gotten rid of any sooner.

Virginia, would still have been a valuable prize, for the Confederacy, to have fought for. I've read where it supplied more servicemen, than the other states, also it had some, of the more important industry, that was needed, especially after the loss of supply routes, in western Tenn. and later Vicksburg. As mentioned, for defense, the west would have had to been set up better. As to the outcome of the war, if this was the only change. I still don't think, that the south, could have pulled it out. Internal conflict, hurt the Confederacy badly, to win a war, everyone needed to be of one mind, and one purpose.

Gunsmoke

I am not saying that Virginia wasn't important. I am just saying that defending a city and defending the nation's capitol are not the same. Lee's credit of a risk taker and military genius was he split is army in front of Richmond. Richmond downgraded to a city rather than nation's capitol would have opened up so many more available options for him. The same goes to having the Capitol in the west. I think a much more determined defence of the west would have certainly occured.

As to supply. Virginia supplied much of the ANV but by no means all. The loss of the easily mined iron ore in western middle Tennessee was a devastating blow. I live in Dickson County. The ore pits here are everywhere. Once Cumberland furnace (south of Ft. Donelson) was in union hands. It gave the north even more iron ore. While taking it from the south. When at this juncture of the war it was so crucial. Also to minimise the productivity of middle Tennessee is a grave mistake. It was for the Confederacy. I mean....it practically supported the vast army of the Union in the west. Not to minimise the River supply system the north instituted. Which also pointed to the value of Tennessee River. But the level it supplied the Union even without cooperation is testement to the material output potential of Tennessee

YMOS
tommy