Movement through Vicksburg

[Carronade]

Yeah, I don't doubt that the Trans-Mississippi was an 'exporter' of goods to the "Core Confederacy." I'm just not sure how great an impact the severing of the T-M had in that regard... say, if the decision had been made to basically abandon the T-M to its fate and concentrate on holding (say) Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia, would that area be able to sustain itself in raw materials? But maybe that's a moot question-- a Confederacy that didn't pledge to defend each of its States would likely see a number of those States go off on their own, so the Richmond government was basically forced to try to defend the T-M and Mississippi Valley.

They certainly couldn't formally abandon part of the Confederacy, but perhaps they could do so on a de facto basis. Indeed it could be argued that they did. As noted the flow of supplies, including military supplies, was west-to-east, and Texas and Arkansas troops were sent to the Army of Tennessee and even the ANV. Did the "core Confederacy" send any significant forces or supplies to the Trans-Mississippi?

From the point of view of the "core", holding onto the Trans-Mississippi basically meant holding the left bank of the river, which they needed to do as long as possible in any case. Ceding control of points like Vicksburg would invite the Yankees to move inland, with a secure supply line to their base of operations - not even Forrest could burn a river Letting an army get trapped in Vicksburg was a mistake, but until then they had been tying up substantial Union forces that otherwise would have been advancing into the heartland.

 

[Red Harvest]

They certainly couldn't formally abandon part of the Confederacy, but perhaps they could do so on a de facto basis. Indeed it could be argued that they did. As noted the flow of supplies, including military supplies, was west-to-east, and Texas and Arkansas troops were sent to the Army of Tennessee and even the ANV. Did the "core Confederacy" send any significant forces or supplies to the Trans-Mississippi?

I'm fairly positive that some military supplies were being supplied to the T-M from east of the river although not nearly enough. At the beginning of the war captured weapons from the Baton Rouge arsenal were shipped to St. Louis for the secessionist sympathizing militia (two 12 pdr howitzers, two 32 pdr siege guns, 500 muskets, and ammunition.) These were captured by the Federals in the Camp Jackson Affair. The T-M lacked cannon foundries so prior to the fall of Vicksburg, Memphis, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, etc. any newly manufactured pieces they received would have come from that direction. I don't know what their source of powder was. A few weeks ago I was examining a Burton shell with flame grooves that had been fired into a Union position in southwest Missouri in Sept. of 1862. Burtons were confederate products. I don't believe this was produced in the T-M as my understanding of their home grown artillery ammo is that it was generally crude at the time. Arms production in the T-M was limited, as was the amount of blockade running.

The big loss to the T-M of course was when Van Dorn stripped it of its only major army (made up of veterans from Missouri, Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana) sending them east to the Western theater. And this of course removed many of the best weapons that had been accumulated in the T-M. So the net effect may have been an outflow of arms as a result of this action.

Letting an army get trapped in Vicksburg was a mistake, but until then they had been tying up substantial Union forces that otherwise would have been advancing into the heartland.

As you note, holding a natural strongpoint like Vicksburg and maintaining the river as a barrier was a force multiplier for the CSA. 30,000 or so could easily thwart 60,000 or more if the 60,000 couldn't establish a firm beach head. But once that 60,000 is free to maneuver on the same side of the river and can be supplied, then the smaller force is likely to get pushed around, flanked out, or defeated outright.

As important as this was for the army, it seems even more critical for the naval efforts as it frees them up to strike in other places much sooner.

 

[Mark F. Jenkins]

This question came up again in a Pemberton thread, and is worth revisiting.... how strategic was Vicksburg, really?

 

[rhp6033]

I can't speak to 1862, but by the summer of 1864 Kirby Smith received a request from higher command to send most of his avaiable troops across the Mississip, there not being much risk of Union operations in the Trans-Mississipi after the Red River campaign. He sent Taylor to investigate, who reported that Union steamboats and gunboats were on constant patrols, and only a handful of men in a rowboat could hope to cross at night. No substantial movement of men was considered possible.

I've always thought that the value of Vicksburg was that it cut the flow of commercial goods downriver from the mid-west. Once Vicksburg was captured, midwestern farmers and merchants could ship their crops and goods without impediment.