As every ACW buff knows, Richmond was in many ways a poor choice
for the capital of the Confederate States of America, especially in
how
close it was to the border. That doesn't mean it didn't have
advantages, as
well...but could the CSA have picked somewhere else?
The CSA's big problem was that most Confederate "cities" barely
qualified as cities by Northern standards. (Montgomery, the original
CSA capital, was just too small to sup****t the government
facilities needed.) The biggest Southern city, New Orleans, was
probably unacceptable as a capital, due to its distance from
everything, its alien culture, and its poor reputation among other
Southerners. So any ATL capital would have to be smaller than
Richmond.
Atlanta is always brought up in these cases, due to its location
as a railway junction. It seems ideal; closer to both East and West
(allowing both theaters to get the attention they need), and will
appease Georgia, which in OTL was rather shaky in sup****t.
But it always gets forgotten how _small_ it was. In 1860,
Richmond had a population of 37,968, while Atlanta had a measly
9,554. Can it sup****t the CSA government?
Capitals further West probably can't happen, due to the dominance
of the Eastern states. If the capital must be Eastern, Charleston
and Norfolk are obvious choices...except the CSA might not
want a ****t city on the Atlantic, in the shadow of Union guns, as
the capital. And if Virginia gets the capital, Richmond probably
beats Norfolk.
There are two obvious downsides to not having Richmond. First,
Virginia is the richest of the Southern states, but also one of the
less enthusiastic about the CSA. Giving Virginia the capital helped
secure their loyalty. Second, Richmond has the Tredegar Iron
Works, the single most im****tant munitions facility in the CSA.
Putting the capital there is probably not necessary to run the place,
but the city is still a big target, and not something the CSA wants
to lose.
The obvious advantage is that the CSA will not always be one battle
away from losing its capital, which is so close to D.C. that the North
becomes obsessed with it. Only the North has to worry about losing
a border capital, and it means that the CSA can plan offense and
defense in the East at its leisure while the USA has to be careful.
OTOH, could this actually _help_ the North? If the CSA capital
is in Charleston or Atlanta, maybe the CSA gives the Virginia theater
the same neglect and carelessness that it gave to the OTL
Tennessee theater. (West Virginia is going to get very neglected.)
Also, the Army of Northern Virginia is likely to be less
impressive. In OTL, Robert E. Lee and the rest of the
Virginia "dream team" didn't get put in charge until 1862.
Without the capital at stake (and with Lee's black mark
from Cheat Mountain), do they get delayed even longer?
OTTH, the CSA might benefit from the Virginia superstars
being spread around.
Finally, how do the opening days of the war go, without the
North being hypnotized by "On to Richmond!" Is the Union
less convinced that one battle will finish it? Do they call
for recruits for more than 90 days in the ATL?
Anything else I missed?
|
