I realize Virginia’s importance to the Confederacy, but Richmond’s location made it the prime military target in the East. If choosing the Capital of the CSA were placed upon your decision, which city would you have chosen?
Richmond, being the armament center of the South, would have been well defended without the political pressure of a capital city.
What’s your thoughts?
Morning Worsham.
I see your reasoning, but I think it could only have been Richmond.
Its close proximity(is it about 100 miles?) to Washington made it an ideal staging area for offensive actions. I know the South’s primary goal was defensive, but any good commander knows attack is the best form of defence. I also appreciate many Southerners only wanted to be left alone and offensive action was anathema to them (see the large scale desertions prior to Lee’s very important 62 Maryland invasion.)
Possibly the leading argument for Richmond is political. Virginia had always been the lead state in the fledgling America and its importance as a symbol could not be negated.
All this of course only led to theSouth’s downfall and loss to the Federal government, as the West was lost while Virginia and the East was saved.
I have said before that I think the loss of the Western States and cities lost the war(the 1864 election) for you.
I don’t know enough about the South’s mid-19th century urban demographics to choose any candidate cities on this question, but I’ll just make the observation that there are two basic options that are open to a country (or state or province) in regard to its capital. The first option is for the capital (the centre of political power) to be the same city as the metropolis (the largest city, and typically the centre of economic power). In France, Paris plays both roles; ditto in Britain for London. The second option is for these two cities to be separate. This is the case for the US and Canada, in which Washington and Ottawa are the capitals and New York and Toronto are the metropolises.
As regards the Confederacy, I guess I’d argue that it’s more important for a warring country to defend its prime economic and industrial centre than its political capital. Political centres (say, from Paris to Vichy) can be moved much more easily than industrial ones (as the Russians had to do in 1941). This portability can be illustrated by the answer than an official (I can’t recall who) of the newly formed Confederate government once gave to a visitor who asked him where he could find the State Department. “Under my hat,” he said, “and the archives in my coat pocket.”
Atlanta did make a bid to become the capital, so it would have been better defended against Sherman’s march, at least.
Atlanta did make a bid to become the capital, so it would have been better defended against Sherman’s march, at least.
I think that would have been the logical alternative (and perhaps Worsham’s thought too).
Nashville was a trap, noted early on by ASJohnston, because of the state dissecting Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Otherwise, it would have been a good choice again.
Considering the majority of conflicts the world had seen prior to the ACW, I don’t see Richmond as being viewed as “too close” to be a capital.
Look at europe, and the stagnant conflicts that lasted for 100’s of years over considerably smaller distances.
As for an alternative choice. Wittmann would know best. I would put him in charge.
The Tredegar Iron Works was located in Richmond and produced many CSA war materials, the city had to get protected.
True. Behind Virginia was the wealthy state of North Carolina, which sent much in the way of supplies to the front, as of course was the grain rich Shenandoah. ( I am still desperate to drive up it.) Richmond was ideally positioned to guard and watch that part of the state.
I do wonder how big and important Atlanta was before the fall of Nashville and whether it only grew in importance as a supply base as a consequence of its early fall.
Somewhere had to replace it.
