Originally posted by Shek
View Post
I agree Malvern Hill was badly fought, but having read a few of the reports on both sides I'm keeping an open mind as to who and what was to blame.
I've read enough and walked the ground enough times....I'm sold!
Richmond does seem a poor choice for the capitol. But back in those days the distance from Washington to Richmond must have seemed farther than it does today: 5 days march versus a 1 1/2 hr drive. Also, before transcontinental railroads the eastern half of the US economic sphere ended at Virginia's border.
Richmond was selected for political reasons. It was seen as a way to reinforce Virginia's late entry into the Confederacy; remember, there were those rambunctious western counties that were to soon go their own way. It was also a way to make sure Virginia was all in and stayed all in.
But as for distance? In 1861 the 135 miles was operational depth...it was not strategic depth. A 5 day march ws not considered a great distance in the day. It sat on a river navigable all of the way to the ocean. Richmond stood for as long as it did more from incompetency rather than from any great strategic play on the part of the Confederacy.
The Confederate capitol should have been no farher north than Raleigh and not too close to the Eastern seaboard.
As has been suggested, from a strategic perspective, Atlanta made more sense.
Comment