Montgomery, Capital of the Confederacy

[Smellincoffee]

I live in Selma, Alabama, which is about an hour west of Montgomery. I spend a lot of time there, so historical issues surround it are of personal interest to me. Montgomery was the first capital of the Confederacy, until Virginia left the Union and the capital was moved to Richmond.

My question is this: had the capital remained in Montgomery, how would the war have progressed differently? What would the extent of fighting in the eastern theatre have been? (Even if the Rebel capital stayed in Montgomery, the Union capital would have still been in Washington...although this might not matter, since the bulk of Lee's actions are rooted in defense, not offense.) I realize the question's answer is subjective to exactly why Richmond isn't the capital -- so let's say Virginia technically remained in the Union, but was a border state with mixed loyalties, like Maryland.

 

[Irish Caesar]

My gut is that if Virginia had not joined the CSA, Lee wouldn't have been involved in the war at all, and the Rebels would have been slaughtered fairly quickly. I'll try and expand on my what-iffing later on...

 

[shortguy]

I don't know that they would have lost quickly without Lee--after all, he didn't become commander until 1862--but I think they may have lost quickly without Virginia. It was the most populous state in the South.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

My gut is that if Virginia had not joined the CSA, Lee wouldn't have been involved in the war at all, and the Rebels would have been slaughtered fairly quickly. I'll try and expand on my what-iffing later on...

Well, I know that Lee was torn between which side to fight for, and he eventually chose the South, since he didn't want to fight his family. Had Virginia not seceeded (since technicially no state ever left the Union,a key point of Reconstruction), I would say it's safe to assume that Lee would have taken the offer of Supreme Union Commander, or whatever the title was, and proceeded to stomp the South.

 

[Irish Caesar]

My reasoning for losing much more quickly is that the War in the West (Mississippi River and Tennessee-Kentucky-Atlanta) went much better for the USA than CSA. The holdup was that Lee was just so good at defending Richmond. Taking that out of the equation, USA would have been able to have a much smaller force guarding Washington, they would have had more troops to take out the Deep South and the West, and CSA wouldn't have had Virginia fighting for them.

Well, I know that Lee was torn between which side to fight for, and he eventually chose the South, since he didn't want to fight his family. Had Virginia not seceeded (since technicially no state ever left the Union,a key point of Reconstruction), I would say it's safe to assume that Lee would have taken the offer of Supreme Union Commander, or whatever the title was, and proceeded to stomp the South.

I doubt it, as Lee was fighting for defensive purporses. He refused to take up arms against his countrymen, and I would imagine that even if Virginia was part of the USA, he wouldn't have attacked the CSA.

 

[privatehudson]

Generally I agree that the loss of Virginia would have been a big blow for the south.

However the South's ability to hold the eastern theatre together didn't just rely on Lee's ability to defend Richmond. More often than not he was unwillingly helped by the incompetence (or in McClellan's case the severe paranoia and caution) of the commander trying to take it for example. In fairness to Lee however part of his talents lay in gauging the opponent and knowing how best to exploit their weaknesses.

 

[pboily]

Can we think of a situation in which Virginia was a member of the CSA and yet the capital stayed in Alabama?

In that case, would the strategy of the South have changed much? How much of the South's efforts were concentrated on protecting Richmond? Would the North have made a push for Montgomery a priority, possibly leaving the Northern Virginia front less manned?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I doubt it, as Lee was fighting for defensive purporses. He refused to take up arms against his countrymen, and I would imagine that even if Virginia was part of the USA, he wouldn't have attacked the CSA.

Lincoln offerred him head of the Union Army, the only reason he did not accept it, which he was willing to, was that his family was in Virginia, and he did not want to stand against his family.

 

[Irish Caesar]

Can we think of a situation in which Virginia was a member of the CSA and yet the capital stayed in Alabama?

In that case, would the strategy of the South have changed much? How much of the South's efforts were concentrated on protecting Richmond? Would the North have made a push for Montgomery a priority, possibly leaving the Northern Virginia front less manned?

I would imagine that this might have been good for CSA; USA just seemed to me like no army would be big enough to defend Washington, even if Lee wasn't right across the Potomac. I could be wrong...

But if the capital of CSA remained in Montgomery, it might have been easier to defend it, as Montgomery isn't really near anything. Either there would have been much more bloodshed and chaos fighting battles far away from major cities and supply lines, or it wouldn't have made a big difference...

Either way, CSA had minimal hope. With their manpower and supplies in comparison to USA's, I'm impressed that they strung out four years of rebellion...

Lincoln offerred him head of the Union Army, the only reason he did not accept it, which he was willing to, was that his family was in Virginia, and he did not want to stand against his family.

Perhaps he would have defended Washington, then, but I doubt he would be much for offensive campaigns. Just my impression of him, though.

 

[Quasar1011]

The Union would have taken Mobile, and marched up the river to Montgomery to take that city too. Alabama would have had much more action during the Civil War had Montgomery remained the capital.