Richmond

[rhettbutler1865]

Please pardon my ignorance, but why didn't the Confederacy establish at least a temporary provisional capital down in the Deep South, so it was not so vulnerable to Union attack/occupation?

 

[MRB1863]

Good question! According to a Washington Post article:

It was in Montgomery, in February, 1861, that the seceded southern states established the governmental structure they came to call the Confederate States of America. The new government did not stay long in Alabama, however. The important state of Virginia remained out of the Confederacy, so Jefferson Davis sent his vice president Alexander H. Stephens there to try to coax secession. Virginia seceded on the 17th of April, offered Richmond as national capital ten days later, and on May 20th the Confederate Congress took up the offer.

Thus, Montgomery was not the Confederate capital for long. It was too small, its population consisting of only 9,000 people with but half of these being white. The city's infrastructure was too small to support the added population the government would attract, and its location in the Deep South was not easy to reach.

Conversely, Richmond's 1860 population was 38,000, over sixty percent of which was white. Serviced by five railroads, it was easy to reach. Steamboats connected it to Washington and Baltimore. It had spacious halls, good hotels, appetizing restaurants, and the heritage of the Founding Fathers.

It was also a center for industry and business, including the second largest slave market on the continent. The Tredegar Iron Works complex was one of the most extensive of such industries in the nation, and the Confederacy needed all the products it was able to manufacture. Twelve flour and corn meal mills produced necessary food for the civilian and the soon-to-be large military population.

It might be argued that, based on strictly military considerations, the Confederacy would have been wiser to have stayed in Montgomery or some other interior location. However, the Confederacy had little real choice but to unite its political and industrial capitals. Richmond was that place. Montgomery was not.

 

[Sid J.]

Please pardon my ignorance, but why didn't the Confederacy establish at least a temporary provisional capital down in the Deep South, so it was not so vulnerable to Union attack/occupation?

Historically, the Union occupied many Deep South Cities ( New Orleans, Jackson, Atlanta, Columbia, Savannah, Charleston, etc) before Richmond, in some cases long before. Also, they occupied Montgomery only about 10 days after taking Richmond.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

But those cities were not the Capital; a true figure-head of morale for the South.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Good question! According to a Washington Post article:

It was in Montgomery, in February, 1861, that the seceded southern states established the governmental structure they came to call the Confederate States of America. The new government did not stay long in Alabama, however. The important state of Virginia remained out of the Confederacy, so Jefferson Davis sent his vice president Alexander H. Stephens there to try to coax secession. Virginia seceded on the 17th of April, offered Richmond as national capital ten days later, and on May 20th the Confederate Congress took up the offer.

Thus, Montgomery was not the Confederate capital for long. It was too small, its population consisting of only 9,000 people with but half of these being white. The city's infrastructure was too small to support the added population the government would attract, and its location in the Deep South was not easy to reach.

Conversely, Richmond's 1860 population was 38,000, over sixty percent of which was white. Serviced by five railroads, it was easy to reach. Steamboats connected it to Washington and Baltimore. It had spacious halls, good hotels, appetizing restaurants, and the heritage of the Founding Fathers.

It was also a center for industry and business, including the second largest slave market on the continent. The Tredegar Iron Works complex was one of the most extensive of such industries in the nation, and the Confederacy needed all the products it was able to manufacture. Twelve flour and corn meal mills produced necessary food for the civilian and the soon-to-be large military population.

It might be argued that, based on strictly military considerations, the Confederacy would have been wiser to have stayed in Montgomery or some other interior location. However, the Confederacy had little real choice but to unite its political and industrial capitals. Richmond was that place. Montgomery was not.

Thank you for clearing that up; although it still sticksin my craw they didn't find a less accessable capital like Atlanta

 

[MRB1863]

Thank you for clearing that up; although it still sticksin my craw they didn't find a less accessable capital like Atlanta

Choosing Atlanta would have not kept the Confederate Capital completely intact either. Richmond, having many features and attributes, was politically and economically the better choice. Richmond may not have been, however, the ultimate tactical choice.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

That's what I'm saying--Tactically it was too close to the Union lines.

 

[Sid J.]

But those cities were not the Capital; a true figure-head of morale for the South.

But the implication that merely locating the Capital "somewhere" in the Deep South would make it less vulnerable is not supported by the historical record.

Richmond, as the 2nd largest city (behind New Orleans) in population in the 11 state "CSA", and possessing a transportation and industrial infrastructure lacking throughout the rest of the South was well worth protecting, whether the Capital or not. Richmond is still the Capital of Virginia, and it's status is quite important to the many Virginians supporting the Confederacy.

The implication in this scenario is that the assets used to protect Richmond would have been better utilized elsewhere (Montgomery?). If you allow Richmond to fall, a rather large chunk of Virginia then becomes Union occupied, a huge loss to the CSA.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

Thank you for that enlightening information--you're right.

 

[Carronade]

Richmond and Virginia would have been important to the Confederacy whether or not the capital was there. It's also almost inevitable that that would be one of the Union's major theaters of operations, capital or no. The Confederates could not neglect Virginia, but they needed to balance the needs of that theater with all the others.

Perhaps the best example is the shift of Longstreet and two divisions from Virginia to the Army of Tennessee before Chickamauga, which facilitated the Confederates' most significant victory in the west. Lee's reduced army was still able to keep things under control in Virginia, even though the aftermath of Gettysburg ought to have been an opportunity for the Union. Of course this was accomplished with the rebel capital in Richmond, so we might ask whether having it in someplace like Montgomery or Atlanta might have helped them conduct the whole war with the flexibility they demonstrated in summer 1863.

 

[rhettbutler1865]

I see your point--well taken. I am here to learn, since I have such an obsession with the CW. If I play devil's advocate, it is only to LEARN.

 

[OpnCoronet]

A combination of the 'law of unintended results' and the dangers of Symbolism. The Capital was moved to Richmond for perfectly good political and symbolic reasons. But, as is usually the case in such matters, the symbolism soon overshadowed the original reason's for the move, in the first place.
From cementing Va. with its resources and manpower within the confederacy and symbolize the strength and unity of the new confederacy(as opposed to the original 7 'Gulf Squadron' states). the capital so close to the border between North and South, Richmond soon became a symbol of for continued southern resistance to Reunion and, as a result, became a magnet, slowly but surely drawing the attention and war making potential of the Union into an overwhelming mass against it.

 

[Jamieva]

Even if the capital had not been moved to Richmond, once VA seceeded it would have been an important strategic goal for the Union to take out Richmond due to it's transportation and manufacturing there. Also would have given the Union a nice buffer between the deeper south and DC.

The series of west-east running rivers in VA actually made Richmond easier to defend than some locations that would have been further inland in the south.