Conference smurf::civil_war

    Clearly the strategy of Lincoln would have changed but Richmond would
    still have been a major objective of the Federals because of it's
    manufacturing capacity.
    
    I do believe that the war would have ended sooner had the capital
    remained in Montgomery. The Confederacy would not have fought so
    tenaciously to save Richmond which would have fallen along with
    Petersburg. These losses would have deprived the Rebel armies much
    needed munitions and wiped out major rail centers. 
    
    Rich
    

No question in my mind that the strategies for both sides would have
been different.

It became important to the Federals early on (in the mind of McClellan)
to take the Confederate capital, and a great deal of mucking about was
devoted to it in the form of the siege of Richmond in '62.  Had Little
Mac gotten his sh*t together enough to *use* his troops instead of just
making them into the world's best drill team, it is likely that the war
could have been cut short by about three years.  On the other hand, had
the Southern capital remained at Montgomery, it would have been rather
more difficult logistically for the Federals to launch a campaign to
take the capital.  Going overland would have been harder given the need
for greatly extended supply lines for a hundred thousand troops.  Going
around Florida would have required far more oceangoing ships than were
available early on, and there would still have been a long march to the
north across much of Alabama.

The Confederates would have had to develop a whole different strategy
of defense to deal with a massive thrust into the deep South.  If the
Federals had begun an overland campaign, it is possible (nay, likely)
that the Southerners would have done two things differently:  They would
have engaged in a scorched-earth policy to force the Federals into 
maintining an effective supply line, and they would have spent far more
of their military effort on destroying that greatly extended supply line
with the intent of making it simply too much work for the Federals to
re-extend dominion.

-d

    Probably Lee would have been moved to the western theatre; we might
    have seen a different end to the vicksburg campaign.
    
    Would the Union have in fact mobilized as much effort to capture
    Richmond? Were they geopolitically astute enuf to see its
    importance as a rail/manufacturing center? I think they might have
    felt that the QUICKEST way to end the rebellion was to capture the
    capital.
    
    Ken

I agree with .1 that the war would have been shorter.  In fact, the
answer that I had composed in my head before seeing any replies was
exactly what Rich wrote.

To expand, I believe that the campaign in the East would have been
much less important.  I believe that the "Anaconda Plan" would have
followed (as it was) but without the additional effort that was
expended in the "On to Richmond" movement.  I believe the Union
effort in the East would have been reduced to defending Washington,
and that more effort would have been expended in taking the
Mississippi, capturing the key coastal ports/cities, and driving into
the heart of the Confederacy via the Western Theater.

I think the war might have been 1 - 1� years shorter, but still
very bloody.

Ben

    One must consider what the manufacturing capacity of the Confederacy
    was. Richmond/Petersburg were, perhaps, the most industrialized areas
    of the entire South. Without the goods from Tredegar Ironworks, the
    Rebe armies would be sadly in need of arms. Surely the Federals would
    have recognized this fact and moved on it.
    
    Secondly, it is important to think about how much the Confederacy
    prized the city of Richmond. It sacrificed Norfolk to reinforce the
    capital. But, had it not been the capital, the Confederates would not
    have expensed the effort or manpower to defend it. A Peninsula campaign
    with half the amount of Federals would have been able to march on, and
    take Richmond in 1862 while Confederates scrambled to defend a
    non-strategic city in Alabama.
    
    If Richmond/Petersburg had fallen in 1862 Atlanta would have been the
    only city capable of manufacturing war goods in relative safety. The
    capacity just wasn't there.
    
    A third factor consists of the decision to locate the capital in
    Richmond to begin with. The fact that it was but 100 miles from
    Washington was a signal to the world that the Confederacy had
    "chutzpah", to say the least. This close proximity caused foreign
    nations to be more "aware" of the CSA's existance while fueling
    anti-war sentiment in the North. "If the US government can't even march
    100 miles and take control of a city, what's all the blood beinmg
    spilled for?"
    
    With a capital in Montgomery, the CSA would have been isolated from
    world events, the seige of Vicksburg would probably never have occured,
    the Confederacy itself would have been little more than a paper stamp
    after 1863, Gettysburg never would have occured and the war would have
    lasted a shorter amount of time.
    
    Recall that a lot of thought went into moving from Montgomery to
    Richmond. It was a political/strategic move that bolstered the
    fledgling government. It also guaranteed maximum protection for some of
    the few manufacturing centers that existed in the South at the time.
    
    Rich
    

    One factor to remember is that the North _had_ to defend Washington. 
    Loss of the South's capital, whether Richmond or Montgomery, would have
    been serious, but loss of Washington would have ended the war.
    
    So, Federal strategy would still have had a major _defensive_ focus in
    the east, but if Montgomery had stayed the South's capital I suspect
    there would have been more "tug-of-war" between the eastern and western
    theaters - looking to the west for attack, but needing to defend in the
    east.  Remember, too, that one of the reasons for the Pennensular
    Campaign was to get the Confederates out of northern Virginia - and
    away from Washington.  I suspect that the North's "best soldier" at any
    time would _still_ have been given the AOP, so McClellan strategy would
    have been used in the east in 1862.
    
    But I wonder if Bull Run would have happened.  "On to Montgomery" isn't
    as easy to do as "On to Richmond", and the political froth that sent
    untrained troops out might not have been strong enough to force a
    campaign that needed to go several hundred miles.  Perhaps, though, the
    need to drive off Confederate forces from northern Virginia would have
    produced the same result.
    
    I think in the South's case that the main strategy still would have
    been offensive in the east, and defensive in the west.  The most
    worthwhile targets for Confederate attack were in the east, especially
    when distance is considered.  Remember, too, that the Shennandoah
    Valley was important for its food, so the South could ill afford to
    give up Virginia too easily, capital or not - so they would have kept a
    major army there.  In the west, the South had too much to defend with
    too few resources - and making Montgomery the capital might have made
    this _worse_, since forces would have been held there to the detriment
    of other points along the border.
    
    I wonder, too, what would have happened if Lee, as Davis' advisor, had
    been a week away from Johnston's army when he was wounded at Seven
    Pines instead of an hour away...
    
    MikeR
    

    Richmond was one of three cities in the South that had sufficient
    stature and facilities to be the capitol.  The other two were New
    Orleans and Atlanta.  Atlanta was too far from the ocean and
    trade/diplomatic routes to Europe.  New Orleans was on the Gulf
    Coast and too far from the Atlantic routes.
    
    I'm not sure how much a factor Richmond's industry woulda have been
    had the capitol been in Montgomery.  The Tredegar works and the
    Richmond arsenal were vital, but a lot of that machinery could have
    been moved.  Atlanta had a huge amount of industry (by Southern
    standards, that is).  There were arsenals in Macon, Little Rock,
    New Orleans, Nashville [I think] and one in Texas.  Oh, yes, and
    Charleston.
    
    I think there are two tactical factors in the choice of Richmond
    as a capitol.  First, the choice limited the maneuverability of
    the Southern armies.  Classically, a smaller, faster fighter must
    keep maneuvering room, but placing the main objective of the U.S.
    army so close to the lines eliminated much of the large-scale moving
    of troops.  The shape of Virginia dictated a relatively small theater.
    
    Second, the choice of Richmond forced the Federals to come to the
    Confederates.  Johnston and Lee had a darned good idea where the
    next attack would fall, and were able to use their shorter interior
    lines with brilliant success.
    
    I'm not sure which of these two factors was the more important,
    but I'd be willing to bet I'll hear some opinions!
    
    The second factor - localized defense - was important only because
    the Federals chose to go after Richmond so hard.  Had the commanders
    of the AOP taken Sherman's approach and concentrated on war-making
    ability, rather than real estate,  this factor woudl have been negated.
    
    I have read that one other factor in the choice of Richmond was
    the fact that Davis wanted to be the commander in chief, and figured
    the war would be fought at the border near the Yankee capitol. 
    Thus, Richmond was the major city nearest where he figured the fight
    would be, and he woudl be able to tinker with the army.  I do not
    know if there is any hard evidence for this theory, but Davis certainly
    enjoyed tinkering with his army!
    
    Wess

    I think that the fact that Richmond was the capital contributed a 
    lot to the pride of the Virginia troops. The bulk of troops in the
    Eastern were Virginians and the fact they defended their homestate
    and capital against the invaders gave them more pride to fight to
    the bitter end.
    
    JGF.

    RE .8:
    
    I'm not sure what source you are using, or what time period you are
    referring to, but at Gettysburg the ANV had about 162 regiments of
    infantry, and only 40 of them (less than 25%, therefore) were Virginia
    regiments.  33 were from Georgia, and 32 from North Carolina, so while
    Virginia supplied the largest state contingent, it certainly could not
    be called the "bulk" of the troops.
    
    (Before anybody asks, the tally was:
    
    	40	Virginia
    	33	Georgia
    	32	North Carolina
    	16	Alabama
    	11	Mississippi
    	10	Louisiana
    	10	South Carolina
    	 3	Florida
    	 3	Tennessee
    	 3	Texas
    	 1	Arkansas
    
    		Separate battalions have not been counted, but there were
    only a few of those [ one from Alabama, right Slammer?  ;^} ].)
    
    	I don't _think_ anyone would accuse the Alabama troops of fighting
    with less stamina or pride than the Virginians [ at least not to their
    faces! ;^} ] just because the Confederate capital had been moved from
    Montgomery to Richmond, and as for those few Texans - and the regiment
    from Arkansas -, well, they constituted Hood's famous "Texas Brigade" -
    the acknowledged shock troops of the ANV.  (Acknowledged by R.E.
    Lee...)
    
    MikeR
    

    
    Re: .9
    
    		I'm sure I could think of one Alabama Battalion in
    	particular... :^)
    		Best nobody accuse the Alabama troops of fighting with 
    	less stamina or spirit or pride than the Virginians!! It was 
    	written by many other regiments and battalions of the snoby
    	attitude of the fabled Virginians!
    		I read once in a book (third shift foggies!) can't remember
    	the exact title, but the reason behind so few Virginian troops in
    	Gettysburg, is that they didn't want to leave Virginia... go figure??
    
    					The Alabama Slammer