"ACW: Was it the West?" Topic

Would you agree that the American Civil War was won and lost in the Western Theater?

Yes

Yes

Yes severing the 2 parts of the rebellious states & the destruction of Atlanta sealed the fate of the confederacy IMHO.

Yes. When you look at it, the Union was mostly winning in the west very early in the war while merely performing a holding action in the east. The focus on the capitals made the east seemingly more important. It was too early for the term "fly over country" to apply to the west, at that time.

I am not so sure, the Eastern theatre tied down huge amounts of the Confederacies resources, allowing the western Union forces to eventually overwhelm their opponents. I suspect it would be better to say the decisive stroke was in the west, but the war was decided by both theatres. (Just my tuppence worth tho' !)

Absolutely. The loss of the western states deprived the Confederacy of its ability to sustain the war effort. Once the "Breadbasket of the Confederacy" was lost, the result of the war was a foregone conclusion (barring foreign intervention or Union apathy).

Eventually yes but the East tied up the best Confederate commanders and arguably the best troops not to mention a massive amount of their limited resources.

Also, thanks to the AoP no one ever had to find out what would happen with a Confederate Army sitting outside the defences of Washington!

I'd say that the taking of Vicksburg was as big a victory as Gettysburg. And certainly greatly influenced the winning of the ACW for the Union.

It was won in the East and the West.

No.

+1 Legion 4. Control of the Mississippi was a very heavy strategic blow.
However, it could never have finished until the CSA forces in the field were completely dominated and that meant the East. [And that didn't happen for almost two more years.]

What Herkybird said.

I would say Yes because the loss of Western resources was a crucial blow to the Confederates – in the East the strategic situation was pretty much fixed until quite late in the war

Won? Lost?

I thought it was made pretty clear in "How The West Was Won". :)

Dan

This is how I explain it to students I encounter. The war was not lost in the East but it was won in the East.

No. It was won with a multi-theater strategy.

This is the age-old question. I think neither front may be taken in isolation. Events in the west had an enormous influence on the war and indeed, were decisive. However, the resources used in the east made it almost impossible for the Confederacy to execute their grand strategy in the west.

The Vicksburg, Chattanooga and Atlanta campaigns taken as a continous chain of events, decided the outcome of the war. Hood's 1864 Tennessee Campaign was an outgrowth of this, but perfectly demonstrates how a lack of resources and manpower, greatly influenced by the cost of the 1864 overland campaign in VA, brought about total collapse.

No

Yes

I would perhaps take it even farther and say that if Missouri is not secured for the Union, then any western advance is doomed to failure. Thus, the fight for Missouri in 1861 and 1862 was more important than any action in the east.
Of course the war could be lost in a day (in theory ) in Virginia. However the tactics and new weapons made that outcome unattainable even though the generals could not know that, Longstreet excepted.

I DO agree that Vicksburg was more important from a strategic standpoint than Gettysburg.

I think Gettysburg showed that the South was not going to win the war, while Vicksburg showed that the South was going to lose the war.

I don't agree that weapons and tactics had any effect on the war. The mythical effect of the rifled musket is extremely extravaganted.
Hit rates stayed mostly the same, the average engagement distance increased mabye 100 yards.

The reason for the lack of decisive victories were mostly the same as during AWI, the terrain, any defeated Arny could slip away and could never be trapped. Plus that most generals in the start of the war bearly knew what they were doing.

Strategically stuff like rail and industrial capacity had much more effect than a slightly more effective gun.

I differ, as usual, with much posted here. ACW was the first modern war where logistics, manufacturing and mobility, ie RR, trumped tactics and elan. The North could lose the war by doing something stupid like letting Lee sack Washington DC, but the South could not win in the absence of a fatal Union error. And that error could only occur in the East.

So I think the East, not the West was the key theater. And rifled muskets totally changed the battlefield and tactics. They rendered heavy cavalry useless, and thus made cavalry charges, completely obsolete. That combined with the longer ranges of rifled artillery is what made ACW battles different than Napoleonic Battles.

It's also why it was hard to crush an army in a day like Napoleon often did. Compare Gettysburg and Picketts Charge to the Old Guards Charge at Waterloo. They look very similar but the absence of heavy cavalry combined with longer ranges rifles and artillery prevented Gettysburg from becoming a route like Waterloo. And no it wasnt because Meade let Lee get away.

Cheers!

it could never have finished until the CSA forces in the field were completely dominated and that meant the East. [And that didn't happen for almost two more years.]

Yes, as Grant knew and Sherman understood. To win a war you have to totally destroy all the enemies' assets, in both blood & treasure. Destroy everything he has to wage a war with including his will to fight.

As we saw e.g. in WWII that is basically how Germany and Japan were defeated.

For better or worse that is sadly the reality in a primarily conventional conflict, like the ACW, WWI, WWII, etc.

I don't agree that weapons and tactics had any effect on the war.

Tactics evolve with technology, or should, e.g. WWI. As we saw in the ACW, metal cased rounds, breach loading guns, the Gatling gun, etc., certainly influenced they way battles were waged. But like in WWI, it took tactics some time to catch up tech and how they affected tactics, etc. And that gap between the two can be very bloody in most cases.
Regardless … the North's industrial capabilities rapidly out paced anything the South could do in that area.

Doesn't look like many in the far West know that they had anything to do with it. They don't seem to even know who won:

YouTube link

Dan

The gains made in the Western Theater by the Union doomed the Rebels. Even trading land after a defeat didn't save them.

The Eastern Theater was distracting, when you two capitals are only about 100 miles apart it's too easy for the politicians to become fixated on their own back yards. Because of the defences built up around Washington, I do not believe that the city could have been taken. Even after defeats like those at Fredericksberg or Chancellorsville the South was not able to capitalise on the victory.

Doesn't look like many in the far West know that they had anything to do with it. They don't seem to even know who won:
YouTube link
Dan

If that's in any way representative of the USA population, or part thereof, it's staggering. And a little bit scary.

Yes, the war was won in the Western Theater.

Yes, the war was won in the Western Theater.

Basically. But it could have been lost in the Eastern Theater.