Richmond not the Confederate capital

I doubt that the planters of the East will accept anything west of the Appalachians. They still likely had a bit of snobbery based upon being able to grab the good land before it was opened to public sale to the peasantry. North Carolina might be good, though I am unsure if it was more powerful or less than South Carolina at that time. Charleston might be a bad option, as I see the state government trying to bully the Congress around.
 
So, if we actually look at the 1860 census, which lists the 100 largest cities in the U.S. (Atlanta, at # 99, is a good base line for the minimum size of the possible capitol) and look at all the cities that were in the Confederacy, we get:

6-New Orleans (large, but on the coast and Missisippi, so indefensible. also, not geographically central)
22-Charleston (on the coast, placing the capitol in SC just helps the fire eaters)
25-Richmond (OTL)
27-Mobile (on the coast, clearly defensible, but geographically very far south.)
38-Memphis (on the Missisippi, not defensible, too far west)
41-Savannah (on the coast, not too defensible)
50-Petersburg (if you control Petersburg, you control Richmond)
54-Nashville (close to Kentucky border, on river)
61-Norfolk (on the coast, again, why not go to Richmond if you have Norfolk)
77-Augusta(GA) (not on the coast, a bit small)
97-Columbus(GA) (geographically well placed but too small)
99-Atlanta (geographically well placed but too small)

This leaves Charleston, Mobile, Nashville, and Augusta as the other serious prospective options for capitol in my opinion, although they all have downsides compared to Richmond.
 
I think that a lot of people are ignoring an obvious reason for Richmond--the prestige Virginia had among southerners. It was the home of Washington and Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. A major argument of the Confederates was that *they*, not the Yankees, were the "true" United States, in that they were the ones who had kept faith with the Old Republic. Theirs was to be a project of restoration, not revolution. To have the Confederate capital in the Old Dominion was a perfect symbol of this continuity with the early United States. The most obvious reason the original Confederate capital was not there is that the state had not yet seceded.
 
It WOULD be a good choice, but the key is probably to present it as a new Washington if you can't get the District itself. What with Washington being a relatively new city as well, but poised to take advantage of rail and inland portage (and this includes pre-capital Georgetown, which was founded for shipping due to its location in the way Atlanta was as a rail terminus).

In my mind Atlanta would make sense for all the reasons listed since it would be fairly useful as a way to tie the Confederacy together. Then again this is the CSA we are talking about and they didn't exactly have a track record of making purely logical decisions...

I think that a lot of people are ignoring an obvious reason for Richmond--the prestige Virginia had among southerners. It was the home of Washington and Jefferson, Madison and Monroe. A major argument of the Confederates was that *they*, not the Yankees, were the "true" United States, in that they were the ones who had kept faith with the Old Republic. Theirs was to be a project of restoration, not revolution. To have the Confederate capital in the Old Dominion was a perfect symbol of this continuity with the early United States. The most obvious reason the original Confederate capital was not there is that the state had not yet seceded.

That's a very good point actually. It does have a lot of symbolism behind it that most Confederates couldn't overlook.
 
I feel like Virginia's the only real choice given OTL circumstances for the reason's David T has laid out so well. That said, maybe Virginia doesn't secede for some reason. Perhaps Lincoln could have the state legislature sequestered like he did the Maryland one, to head off a threat to the capital. Where would the Confederate capital go then? I feel like New Orleans, Montgomery and Atlanta are the only alternatives worth mentioning, the second only for inertia's sake though. That said, it seems like a CSA without Virginia would peter out with much less fighting overall, so the question would become academic in pretty short order.
 
I feel like Virginia's the only real choice given OTL circumstances for the reason's David T has laid out so well. That said, maybe Virginia doesn't secede for some reason. Perhaps Lincoln could have the state legislature sequestered like he did the Maryland one, to head off a threat to the capital. Where would the Confederate capital go then? I feel like New Orleans, Montgomery and Atlanta are the only alternatives worth mentioning, the second only for inertia's sake though. That said, it seems like a CSA without Virginia would peter out with much less fighting overall, so the question would become academic in pretty short order.

IMO the Union Army was still too small and scattered at that time to pull off an occupation of Virginia. Too big, too pro-Confederate, with too large and well-armed a state militia. It was all Lincoln could do to just prevent Washington from being seized by Confederate sympathizers, and even that took Ben Butler's rapid advance of the Sixth Massachusetts regiment to save the city. Before that, Washington's fall was almost assumed.
 
IMO the Union Army was still too small and scattered at that time to pull off an occupation of Virginia. Too big, too pro-Confederate, with too large and well-armed a state militia. It was all Lincoln could do to just prevent Washington from being seized by Confederate sympathizers, and even that took Ben Butler's rapid advance of the Sixth Massachusetts regiment to save the city. Before that, Washington's fall was almost assumed.

Huh. Has anyone done a WI about that? I assume that once the federal army mobilizes, the city would return to Union hands soon enough, but that would make for interesting results regardless.
 
I doubt that the planters of the East will accept anything west of the Appalachians. They still likely had a bit of snobbery based upon being able to grab the good land before it was opened to public sale to the peasantry. North Carolina might be good, though I am unsure if it was more powerful or less than South Carolina at that time. Charleston might be a bad option, as I see the state government trying to bully the Congress around.

North Carolina, in the eyes of the planter class, was infamous for both its relative lack of aristocracy compared to the other south-eastern states, but also for its initial lack of enthusiasm for the Confederacy. Not surprising since of all the early seceding states it had the highest White-to-Black population ratio to be found (2:1?). So less dependence on the institution of Slavery, less social chaos if abolition occurred. The governor of NC freely admitted that secession of NC was more an acknowledgement of the facts of geography than anything else. NC was the only Southern state to make a serious appeal for a piecemeal surrender to the Union, when Sherman entered the state.

With all but the last facts in hand, its hardly surprising that their fellow Southerners didn't trust the Tarheel State to post their capital there.

David T and EnglishCanuck are right about the symbolism of a Confederate capital in Virginia, BUT...

How about Winchester, Virginia? Just to dare the Damn Yankees to try to come after them!:p
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yes and no...

IMO the Union Army was still too small and scattered at that time to pull off an occupation of Virginia. Too big, too pro-Confederate, with too large and well-armed a state militia. It was all Lincoln could do to just prevent Washington from being seized by Confederate sympathizers, and even that took Ben Butler's rapid advance of the Sixth Massachusetts regiment to save the city. Before that, Washington's fall was almost assumed.

Yes and no...

Charles P. Stone, commissioned as colonel and inspector general of the DC Volunteers by none less than Winfield Scott on Jan. 2, 1861, mobilized 33 companies of infantry and two troops of cavalry by March; two regular companies, of engineers and field artillery, had also arrived in the City. In addition, the sailors and marines of the Washington NY were present before Inauguration Day.

The DC Volunteers were the troops who secured DC for the inagural, as well as rendering the first salute to Lincoln as commander-in-chief.

Best,
 
I feel like Virginia's the only real choice given OTL circumstances for the reason's David T has laid out so well. That said, maybe Virginia doesn't secede for some reason. Perhaps Lincoln could have the state legislature sequestered like he did the Maryland one...

That never happened. After the Baltimore riots of 19 April cut direct communication between and the North, Union troops landed at Annapolis and reached Washington indirectly.

Meanwhile, a state senator issued a call for the Maryland legislature to meet in Baltimore. To head off this wholly unauthorized meeting in the midst of a secessionist mob, Governor Hicks summoned a proper session of the legislature on 26 April. Since the state capital, Annapolis, was occupied by Union troops, he directed that the session be held in Frederick, about 100 km west of Baltimore, where there were neither mobs nor soldiers.

The legislature met as planned, voted 53-13 that it did not have authority to declare secession, and also voted not to summon a "sovereign" state convention to declare secession.

That was the end of any possibility of secession by Maryland. Late in 1861, a few pro-Confederate state legislators were arrested for activities such as raising money and recruiting troops for the Confederacy. But at that time there was not the slightest chance of any secessionist act by the legislature.
 
North Carolina... of all the early seceding states ... had the highest White-to-Black population ratio to be found (2:1?).

1) North Carolina was not an "early seceding state"; it declared secession after Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops.

2) North Carolina was 33% slave. The actual early seceding states (SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX) all were at least 44% slave, except TX (30%). NC had a higher slave proportion than the other three late seceding states (AR 26%, TN 25%, and VA 31%).
 
1) North Carolina was not an "early seceding state"; (1) it declared secession after Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops.

2) North Carolina was 33% slave. The actual early seceding states (SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, and TX) all were at least 44% slave, except TX (30%). (2) NC had a higher slave proportion than the other three late seceding states (AR 26%, TN 25%, and VA 31%). (3)

1) Bad reference on my part. Thanks for the correction:eek:

2) Texas had the fastest growing population of slaves in the South, (4) since it was a "developing state", with half the territory still inhabited by Native tribes, and by 1865 the Confederate Texans suffered having their controlled lands IN Texas driven all the way back to their pre-1850 borders. Probably the most successful counter-offensive (in land area, at least) by Native Americans against the White Man in the history of North America!:cool:

3) The latter two had serious issues with large sections of their states being pro-Union, so there.

4) Hence, their NEED for slaves was the greatest on a per capita basis, explaining much of their fire-eating feelings, despite their distance from the heart of Dixie.
 
Montgomery, Alabama was named the capital of the Confederacy in February of 1861.
Montgomery was the capital from February 4, 1861 until May 29, 1861.
Richmond, Virginia was named the new capital on May 6, 1861.
Suppose Richmond, Virginia was not the Confederate capital.
What city would have been the capital of the Confederate States of America?

Keep it in Montgomery maybe?

If they're not going to go to Richmond, why would they move it out of Montgomery?
EnglishCanuck said:
In my mind Atlanta would make sense for all the reasons listed since it would be fairly useful as a way to tie the Confederacy together. Then again this is the CSA we are talking about and they didn't exactly have a track record of making purely logical decisions...


Wiki said:
By 1860, Atlanta's population had grown to 9,554.[31][32] During the Civil War, the nexus of multiple railroads in Atlanta made the city a hub for the distribution of military supplies.

While Richmond was almost 38,000
 
Top