Why wasn't Charleston, SC captured sooner?

[MikeyB]

The Federal captured Port Royal early on and had a land presence in Beaufort, SC (this was depicted in Glory).

Why did it take so long for them to march inland and capture Charleston from the land? Would think this would be a major psychological victory for the North.

 

[NedBaldwin]

The Federal captured Port Royal early on and had a land presence in Beaufort, SC (this was depicted in Glory).

Why did it take so long for them to march inland and capture Charleston from the land? Would think this would be a major psychological victory for the North.

becuase the CS defense was good

 

[Irishtom29]

Maybe because it was only worth so much effort once the port was effectively closed. Strategically the city itself had little value.

 

[Desolu64]

The campaign for Charleston Harbor strikes me as the Civil War's version of the Italian campaign in WWII. Both were undertaken in large measure for symbolic reasons, both proved to be quite difficult, and neither significantly shortened their respective wars.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Why did it take so long for them to march inland and capture Charleston from the land?

The terrain had a lot to do with it.

Notice that even in 1865 Sherman bypassed Charleston.

Charleston back then was entirely on the peninsula formed by the two rivers, Ashley and Cooper. The surrounding area was just plantations and swamps; very different than today. The British successfully besieged a smaller version of the city in the American Revolution, but the defenders failed to use the substantial natural barriers as defensive lines. The Confederates parried every overland thrust by the Union.

The Union also never committed overwhelming force against the city, especially not enough for a Vicksburg-style siege.

It would have been a morale victory, but of limited strategic benefit. Capturing James and Morris Islands, plus blockading the port, were sufficient to minimize Charleston's strategic value.

Beauregard also did quite well organizing the defenses, and none of the Union Army commanders facing him was better than mediocre.

 

[jackt62]

Capturing Charleston was not a major strategic objective of the United States. The failed army and naval attempts to seize the harbor and city between April and August 1863 were meant to close off one of the remaining southern ports that was defying the blockade. But despite that failure, the slow strangulation of the southern coastline proceeded year by year. Because it was a strategic backwater, (although hostilities were set off in South Carolina), that state was generally untouched by war until Sherman's march through in 1865.

 

[USS ALASKA]

Naval War College Review
Volume 49
Number 1 Winter Article 4
1996

A Littoral Frustration: The Union Navy and the Siege of Charleston, 1863-1865
Robert J. Schneller Jr.

Civil War Joint Operations Papers | Naval War - At Sea & Along Inland Waterways

Naval War College Review Volume 49 Number 1 Winter Article 4 1996 A Littoral Frustration: The Union Navy and the Siege of Charleston, 1863-1865 by Robert J. Schneller Jr This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has...

civilwartalk.com

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[Stryker65]

I'm not an expert on this, but I'm pretty sure the Union tried to capture Charleston in 1862 -- they came the closest with the unsanctioned Battle of Secessionville on June 16. The Union didn't attack James Island again until two years later.

 

[USS ALASKA]

A Global Forum for Naval Historical Scholarship
International Journal of Naval History
Volume 1 Number 1
April 2002

'The fiery focus': An Analysis of the Union Ironclad Repulse at Charleston, 7 April 1863
Howard J. Fuller
King's College, London

It was a vicious circle of strategic, tactical and political misconception. DuPont, increasingly skeptical of the defensive, let alone offensive capabilities of the monitors against fortifications, was nonetheless obliged 'to take Charleston'. The pressure was far too great to back down; there was national as well as private professional reputation at stake.

"The opportunity to punish their infamy"
On the morning of April 7 1863, a small but powerful squadron of Union ironclads waited impatiently inside the bar of Charleston harbour to begin the long–expected attack against Fort Sumter—if not also against the city beyond. Here was where the great 'Rebellion' began. Two years earlier South Carolina was the first American state to declare its secession from the Union. Moreover, the Civil War itself (1861–1865) was precipitated by the surrender of this Federal installation in the middle of the outer harbour, following a three day bombardment from the surrounding Confederate batteries. As a result Fort Sumter became the most potent symbol of both Southern and Northern patriotism—in a 'peoples war' where morale was everything and the 'will to fight' was becoming more and more a target in itself.

https://ijnh.seahistory.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2012/01/pdf_fuller.pdf

Please use above link.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[genbeau]

The relevant time for Charleston to be captured by land would have been when Sherman was coming through South Carolina. With the path that his army was taking, charleston would have been a big detour and for what. The port was blockaded anyway and it was causing little damage to the union.