Thread: Which was more important: Western Theater vs. Eastern Theater?

Originally Posted by Shek

I just finished reading Amazon.com: Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War (9780374166007): Charles Bracelen Flood: Books, which was an enjoyable read. I hadn't read much on the Western Campaigns before, and so my question is which theater was more important? The focus of history and the east coast press was the Eastern Theater, but having read of the rise of the Union Generals from the West and the stranglehold placed on the South through the successful campaigns in the West, was it decisive theater during the American Civil War?

The East had the South's biggest field armies both protecting the Southern political center of gravity and serving as a force for invasion of the North.

The West was the gateway/ choke point for the economy and physical separation of the South. Cutting the Mississippi cut the South off from Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana. While taking New Orleans, Memphis, Vicksburg etc cut off its commerce. Plus the West served as the invasion avenue into the deep South and what industry the South actually had.

I'd wager they had equal roles. The CSA had to protect its capitol, but the west siphoned off troops. The CSA also had to protect its middle, but the ANV starved the rest of the confederacy for material.

I'd also point out the 3rd theater. The South Coast and the Blockade. Winfield Scott deserves a lot of the credit for beating the CSA. His Anaconda Plan proved to be a war winner. The CSA with its much smaller resource base simply could not fight on one front and win a decisive victory because they were being squeezed on three front, losing any of which would cost them the war eventually.

If the Confederate capital had stayed in Montgomery, Alabama, the 'feel' of the war might have been different, but with the opposing capitals ending up, what, less than 100 miles apart? ... the Eastern Theatre was always going to be the most important and the place of most effort. Losing Baltimore to Lee was going to have bigger ramifications than losing Kentucky to Bragg.

You could certainly say the West was the most decisive theatre, though.

Okay, I've got halfzeimers. I posted basically the exact same question two years ago: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/anc...civil-war.html. Can the two threads be merged

Originally Posted by Shek

I posted basically the exact same question two years ago: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/anc...civil-war.html. Can the two threads be merged

Depends at what phase of the war you are talking about.

Remember, that under Scott's Anaconda Plan the Western Theater was more important. And that is where he wanted to concentrate his forces. However, the Confederate success at Manassas suddenly raised the specter of Washington falling. Now the Federal givernment would have moved to York or Philly but it would have been a huge coup for the CSA.

That said, the loss of the Tennessee River valley in ealry 1862 took out almost 40% of the iron smelters in the CSA.

As long as the Union held serve in the East it allowed the Federals to reinforce success in the West which cleared the Mississippi watershed.

By early 1864 the center of gravity switched to the East with the Western Federals now centering on Atlanta....a location which was pretty far East.

Anything which was along the coasts other than how it related to the Mississippi and the blockade was a secondary consideration.

BTW,how'd you like the book? I am ramping up for a Saratoga Staff Ride so I have not had much time in the last 6 months to read abotu the Civil War.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Depends at what phase of the war you are talking about.

Remember, that under Scott's Anaconda Plan the Western Theater was more important. And that is where he wanted to concentrate his forces. However, the Confederate success at Manassas suddenly raised the specter of Washington falling. Now the Federal givernment would have moved to York or Philly but it would have been a huge coup for the CSA.

That said, the loss of the Tennessee River valley in ealry 1862 took out almost 40% of the iron smelters in the CSA.

As long as the Union held serve in the East it allowed the Federals to reinforce success in the West which cleared the Mississippi watershed.

By early 1864 the center of gravity switched to the East with the Western Federals now centering on Atlanta....a location which was pretty far East.

Anything which was along the coasts other than how it related to the Mississippi and the blockade was a secondary consideration.

BTW,how'd you like the book? I am ramping up for a Saratoga Staff Ride so I have not had much time in the last 6 months to read abotu the Civil War.

I enjoyed it very much, but then again, the kitchen and basement have been kicking my a$$ for two months, and so it was my first indulgence during that time period. I'm not read up enough on the Civil War to be able to dig at any of the theses he forwards in the book, so I'd be interested to hear others' take on the book if anyone else had read it.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Depends at what phase of the war you are talking about.

Remember, that under Scott's Anaconda Plan the Western Theater was more important. And that is where he wanted to concentrate his forces. However, the Confederate success at Manassas suddenly raised the specter of Washington falling. Now the Federal givernment would have moved to York or Philly but it would have been a huge coup for the CSA.

That said, the loss of the Tennessee River valley in ealry 1862 took out almost 40% of the iron smelters in the CSA.

As long as the Union held serve in the East it allowed the Federals to reinforce success in the West which cleared the Mississippi watershed.

By early 1864 the center of gravity switched to the East with the Western Federals now centering on Atlanta....a location which was pretty far East.

Anything which was along the coasts other than how it related to the Mississippi and the blockade was a secondary consideration.

BTW,how'd you like the book? I am ramping up for a Saratoga Staff Ride so I have not had much time in the last 6 months to read abotu the Civil War.

I enjoyed it very much, but then again, the kitchen and basement have been kicking my a$$ for two months, and so it was my first indulgence during that time period. I'm not read up enough on the Civil War to be able to dig at any of the theses he forwards in the book, so I'd be interested to hear others' take on the book if anyone else had read it.

BTW, it looks like you may have to change your avatar out to the Pats. It's pre-season, so it won't be too unrespectable

Its on my to read list later this fall. I just read the review online and I must say the description of Sherman is mirrored uncannily in Arnold durign the Saratoga Campaign. But Schuyler and Gates were no Grant!

And I won't change the avatar until they get officially eliminated...... probably sometime in the next 2 weeks!!!!!!