Petersburg/Richmond Why the Apparent Lack of Interest in the Late War?

I think I should learn more about the Western Theatre see how it contributes to the Union Victory. But where to start? Suggestions.
Steven E. Woodworth's Jefferson Davis and His Generals is a good analysis of the Western Theater from start to finish on the Confederate side. Despite the title, it does not include much about Lee and Davis. Woodworth has all of that in a second book, Lee and Davis at War.
 
Jubal's threat was more imagined than real but it demonstrates perfectly the burden Grant was working under always having to listen to the shrieks of the administration ninnies that the sky was falling. You are of course right however about the effect it had on the administration.

Even if no meaningful damage was done to the capitol and no members of the administration or Congress were captured or harmed, a Confederate army capturing Washington DC even briefly would have been a public relations disaster, perhaps even cost Lincoln reelection.
 
Even if no meaningful damage was done to the capitol and no members of the administration or Congress were captured or harmed, a Confederate army capturing Washington DC even briefly would have been a public relations disaster, perhaps even cost Lincoln reelection.
There was also, presumably, gold in the Treasury, Greenback currency at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and a POW jail at the Old Brick Capitol.
 
One last site I'd recommend for people interested in Petersburg is The Petersburg Project, run by professionals Julie Steele, Phil Shiman, and David Lowe. They know the ground intimately around Petersburg, and our sites complement each other very well, IMHO. I utilize their site all the time in my research. Here's the contents of their About Us Page:


Dr. Philip Shiman is a professional historian whose primary interest has been military engineering of all periods, but especially focusing on the evolution of field fortifications during the American Civil War. During the 1980s Dr. Shiman invested six summers as a seasonal interpreter at Petersburg National Battlefield, where he designed and oversaw the construction of a full-scale replica of the Union siege line that the park still maintains as a permanent exhibit at Tour Stop Six. (The park's display is informally referred to as "Fort Shiman.") In 1992 he cofounded the Civil War Fortification Study Group, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting the interpretation and preservation of Civil War earthworks. During his career he has lectured in public and professional military forums and participated in numerous engineering-related living history demonstrations. He has been described as the "Master of the Gabion." Although in his other life he studied the history of modern military technology for the US Department of Defense, he has recently shifted his career emphasis to cultural resource management and battlefield archaeology. Dr. Shiman holds degrees in history -- a B.A. from Yale College and a Ph.D. from Duke University. He lives in Springfield, Virginia.


David Lowe has been a National Park Service historian for the last 25 years and spent much of his career applying the technologies of geospatial analysis (GIS) and geographic positioning systems (GPS) to the study of historic battlefields. His work for the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission in the early 1990s led to methodologies used to survey battlefields today. The concepts he developed of "defining features," "study area," and "core area" have been used to determine the extent and condition of hundreds of battlefields from the War of 1812, the Revolution, and the American Civil War. In his work for the park service, he has supervised mapping of more than 130 miles of surviving fortifications. As co-founder of the Civil War Fortification Study Group, he has tramped over and documented many more miles of earthworks. Lowe has a BA in Anthropology from the Ohio State University and holds a masters degree in American history from George Mason University. He is editor of Meade's Army: the Private Notebooks of Lt. Col. Theodore Lyman (Kent State University Press, 2007). He resides in Washington, D.C.

Julia Steele grew up near Washington Crossing, PA, and developed an early interest in the Revolutionary War which expanded to the Civil War after family trips to Gettysburg. At the start of her professional career she recorded and assessed WWII and Cold War sites in Alaska. She joined the National Park Service Northeast Region Archeology Program in 1994 and has worked on Civil War era projects at Petersburg, Gettysburg, Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. She was part of a five year research project at Valley Forge, which led to reinterpretation of significant aspects of the encampment. Since 2006, she has been Cultural Resource Manager at Petersburg National Battlefield, served as archaeologist for other Virginia parks and is now Chief of Resource Management at Petersburg. Steele has a B.A. in Anthropology from the University of Pennsylvania and a masters in Anthropology from Binghamton University. She has contributed publications, grey literature and presentations on military archaeology and other archaeology topics. She lives in Colonial Heights, Virginia.
 
Of course Sherman enjoyed two advantages over his friend Grant during this period: Firstly, he had much more room to maneuver - essentially all north Georgia - which was how he continually nudged Johnston ever closer to Atlanta; and secondly, he didn't have the albatross hanging around his neck of having to constantly keep between Washington and his adversary. The distance away from D.C. was another positive boon too, keeping Lincoln's and Stanton's prying eyes from looking too closely over his shoulder.
He old redhead definitely had the advantage of room to maneuver and he fully capitalized it...and then took it to extremes no one expected. But that room also led to a much more vulnerable line of supply than Grant was dealing with. Once Sherman had his "aha" moment about that problem, he sped the war to a much quicker end. And for that, I will always admire him.
 
Sherman had a greater numbers advantage over his opponent, an overly cautious opposing general (who was switched later for an general who was aggressive to a fault), and generally faced less difficult terrain (Virginia's E-W rivers provided Lee with a series of defensive lines.)

The AOTP made numerous attempts to outflank the ANV during the Overland Campaign. Grant and Meade maneuvered Lee into Petersburg as much as Sherman maneuvered Johnston into Atlanta.

After the initial assaults, the offensives at Petersburg (except for the Crater, which was a fine plan if it had been executed properly) were not WW1 "over the top" affairs but rather involved trying to turn Lee's flank and cut his railroad supply lines - essentially the same thing Sherman did at Atlanta.
Joshism, I agree that Grant was looking for ways to maneuver and turn Lee out of Richmond. After all, Grant devised the greatest campaign of the entire war (IMHO) at Vicksburg, which was all about maneuver, speed and surprise. But in Virginia, Grant was faced with a snarling Doberman of an opponent. The initial move at Petersberg surprised Lee, that's for sure. But he recovered quickly, and things went right back to the stagnant death match. There are too many accounts of Federal soldiers -- and their generals -- who no longer had the stomach for the offensive. Grant did have Lee trapped, and Lee knew it. The longer the trench war continued, the weaker Lee's position would become. Just not enough manpower to replace attrition. Grant had a winning hand, but a costly one.
 
Spring of 64 till the end especially in the West have recently passed all my other interests. Finding relatives info that took part in this area/period has fueled that interest along with the BOFT great presentations on Franklin. I saw a debate clip recently where Eric Jacobson from the BOFT was arguing the importance of Franklin and it really hit home.
 
Back
Top