From: robert@geoblue.gcn.uoknor.edu (Robert Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Winning the war in the West
Originator: usenet@kittyhawk.ecn.uoknor.edu
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:17:40 GMT
Organization: Geosciences Computing Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK

In article <1992Dec11.142021.29224@panix.com> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
>I said:
>>>That didn't mean there'd be no fighting in the East. As I noted, it
>>>was essential to divert the rebels. Lee and Davis made it easy; they
>>>tied their main army and best generals to a meaningless prestige
>>>objective while their enemy took the decisive military objectives.
>
>charbonn@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (gary charbonneau) writes:
>
>>in my opinion, a gross oversimplification.  Richmond was more than
>>the capital of the Confederacy; it was also one of the few cities
>>in the South with industrial significance.
>
>True, but much of that industrial base was built up during the war. It
>also would have been a lot better use of 100,000 men to rebuild it in
>Atlanta, which was far more protectible and had better communications
>with the rest of the south.

Why was Atlanta more protectable? Sherman didn't seem to have as much trouble
with it as grant did in virginia with Richmond.

>Richmond had enormous political significance. But that's mainly
>because the rebels made the mistake of siting their capital there. It
>wasn't necessary, and it certainly wasn't a foregone conclusion at the
>beginning of the war.

Where else could they have put it that would have been safer?

>Virginia as a whole was politically important.  But certainly not as
>important as protecting the logistical base in the west. And Sheridan
>proved that an aggressive commander could make Virginia untenable anyway.

I think Sheridan 'proved' that after a good chunk of the AofNVa was
pretty well plowed under. I don't think he would have had such a fun time
in 62 or 63.

>>It was more important for the Confederates to defend Richmond than
>>for the Federals to defend Washington.

I would disagree with this. Why is DC less important than Richmond?
It does not look good if you are trying to supress a rebellion and the 
rebels take your capital. That's why all the troops were there in the
first place.

>Sure -- but so what?
>
>Let's settle this nonsense once and for all. No rebel army was going
>to take Washington. Ever. Even if Lee had completely destroyed Meade
>at Gettysburg (which he could not have done.)
>
>It took *Grant* almost a year to take Petersburg, with the ability to
>call on all the resources of the Union, and with secure lines of
>communication. Washington had a better system of defenses than any
>place in the Western Hemisphere, and had an enormous garrison. Even
>*Lincoln* could go out to the forts to watch when Early came on his
>silly raid. Some rebel army, 100 miles -- across wilderness -- from
>the nearest rebel railhead is going to take it by coup de main? by
>seige?  *Nonsense*

Actually Grant has taken a lot of those troops with him during the
wilderness campaign, It wasn't quite as lopsided as all that, But I do
agree it was probably a hopeless task to take DC.

>>This is what makes the
>>Confederate invasions of the North in 1862 and 1863 particularly
>>audacious -- they were willing to risk uncovering Richmond in
>>order to seize the initiative.
>
>Audacious, yes. Also strategically silly, as I've pointed out before.
>
>>>Also, the strategic war in the West had been won. Grant had destroyed
>>>one major field army and scattered another. He had secured the
>>>Mississippi River and Tennessee and could move through Northern
>>>Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia with impunity. There was much to be
>>>done in the West to exploit the strategic victory and strangle the
>>>rebels, but Sherman and Thomas were certainly capable of handling
>>>that.
>
>>I don't think that you can say that the war in the West had been
>>won until after Atlanta had been taken and the Army of Tennessee
>>has been crippled.
>
>I didn't say it was over, I said it was won. Sherman proved (without
>much effort) that he could whip the AofT all the way to Atlanta, even
>with Joe Johnston commanding.

He never 'whipped' Joe Johnston, he proved he couid GET to Atlanta, but we
will never really know whether he could have taken it from him instead of
the opium-addicted Hood.

>>>"Lee's army will be your objective point. Wherever
>>>Lee goes, there you will go also". (Proving that Lincoln was a great
>>>prose stylist, as well as a great strategist.)
>
>>...or that he had read the Old Testament.
>
>I was going to say "as well as a reader of Ruth", but I didn't think
>the secular humanists would understand the allusion...
>
>dhs
>
>


Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa