A choice of Confederate Capitals?

[Stauffenberg]

I'm posting a thread elsewhere on a CSA "Mississippi First" strategy, but am pulling out a part of it here, re a future patch allowing for Confederate options as to choice of capital.

The CSA historically committed itself to a “Virginia First” strategy the moment Jeff Davis moved the new Confederate States of America capital to Virginia on May 30th 1861, and it stayed fixed upon this strategy, with disastrous results for the Confederacy, until the collapse in 1865. The only ‘what-if’ that can be explored at present is a move of capital to New Orleans, but even so, the move of capital from Montgomery to Richmond is mandatory in the game for now. I think there should be far more options for the South, and that this is a critical issue to incorporate. A Confederate capital in the Deep South, where perhaps it should have been located, allows for a number of long-game strategies to be pursued.

The transfer of capitals is done automatically by a game event at present on turn 4, and the capital dome icon is moved from Montgomery to Richmond accordingly late May. As an alternative I’d like to suggest using the following scheme as an example:

Montgomery AL (stays from start of game = no cost: –3 NM)
Richmond VA (move on turn 4 = no charge – done automatically at present on turn 4)
New Orleans LA (move at any time = $50,000: –2 NM—already an option in game)
Charleston SC (move at any time = $50,000: –3 NM)
Atlanta GA (move at any time = $50,000: –3 NM)

Maximum two moves per game allowed. 2nd move to any location = $100,000: –5 NM)

Perhaps a +NM to move it to Richmond on turn 4.

[lodilefty]

AACW has a different system for options than other games, and so can be rather "modder hostile" to change....

...but it would be worth exploring as a mod.

[Stauffenberg]

AACW has a different system for options than other games, and so can be rather "modder hostile" to change....

...but it would be worth exploring as a mod.

OK I will let the more talented with program dynamics do the modding, I just come up with the ideas.
But I gather this would not be easy to add, assuming many would agree with it? I had thought that since the New Orleans option was already in there, it might not be too involved to add a few more cities....

[Captain_Orso]

As an idea to make the CSA more defensible and and thus flexible, I would agree. But historically it would be totally out of context. Virginia was the heart of the southern political base. Seven of the 16 presidents of the United States elected before the outbreak of hostilities were from Virginia. Richmond was from my understanding also regarded as the social and cultural center of the southern culture. To define Richmond as indefensible and move the capital to New Orleans--indeed much larger than Richmond and with a huge trade economy--would be IMHO akin to moving the US capital to Chicago

Just my $.02

[Stauffenberg]

As an idea to make the CSA more defensible and and thus flexible, I would agree. But historically it would be totally out of context. Virginia was the heart of the southern political base. Seven of the 16 presidents of the United States elected before the outbreak of hostilities were from Virginia. Richmond was from my understanding also regarded as the social and cultural center of the southern culture. To define Richmond as indefensible and move the capital to New Orleans--indeed much larger than Richmond and with a huge trade economy--would be IMHO akin to moving the US capital to Chicago

Just my $.02

Yes and from my readings, I get the impression that Jeff Davis never remotely considered moving the capital anywhere else, for the reasons you mention.

All the same, there was a war going on, and desperate straits require desperate measures. I'll just reiterate the obvious considerations here:

Virginia was absolutely essential to have onside for the South, the keystone in their arch as it were, and anything needed to placate the state politically was essential. That said, however, there were options—right from the start obviously, though at a political cost, and perhaps it was impossible to not move the capital to Richmond in '61. But surely the situation has changed by July-August '62 with the peninsula campaign at an end. McClellan pulled back from the gates of Richmond as Lee took over and counter-attacked. With the transfer of the Union army power-center north to the Potomac and the immediate threat to Richmond eliminated, a sound proposal to move the capital South would surely had some support after what was clearly a close call: the South had come within an ace of losing it's capital. Davis was not just the political first choice for the job in the new CSA; it was also well appreciated that he was from the military, and in fact a former US Secretary of War under Pierce in Washington. If he had pushed to have the capital moved to another city in the South, it likely would have occurred, at least at this juncture in 1862. At the very beginning of things in '61 it would have been more difficult.

This move need not result in a huge loss of morale, as in the perception that Virginia was being politically and militarily abandoned. The strongest army the South can put forward will still defend the state in almost all possible contingencies, and the Confederate GHQ for example could remain in Richmond.

The MF Plan (or something like it) recognizes the Mississippi heartland as key to the long-term prosecution of the war. Control of this massive waterway, militarily, economically, and politically, was at least as important as keeping Virginia in the war as long as possible. This is not at all to devalue the importance of Virginia, or to connote a decision not to fight long and hard with a forward defense strategy there; but it is to recognize that in a long drawn out war against the manpower and material resources of the Union, the Old Dominion will likely be lost in the end-game of the war. Virginia is not just a frontier state on the periphery of the confederate land-mass in America, it is also close to the enemy capital in Washington, and dangerously exposed to naval landings and advances facilitated by a Union fleet that will undoubtedly be unstoppable--as the peninsular campaign clearly demonstrated. The MF Plan with a CSA capital in New Orleans, or something like it with a capital moved to Georgia, Alabama, or South Carolina, will make sure that when Virginia does fall, it does not take the administrative center of the Confederacy with it.

The NO option is already in the game--I think adding the other locations would add quite a bit of depth and uncertainty to the game. As it stands now, the Union player is really motivated to capture New Orleans almost at all costs, asap, for the simple reason that the confederate capital will now be forever Richmond.

Whoops, that was a long-winded response.

[Captain_Orso]

We are definitely on different pages Staufi. There is little to disagree with as far as your strategy to make the south more defensible goes, but those plans have no reference to the reality of the southern people of that era. You can ask some of the many southerners here in the forum what their take is on the idea, I'm sure they will give you an more authentic answer than I as a northerner can.

But I'll to my best to explain my understanding of the south of the era as simply and shortly as I can put it. The reason the southern states seceded from the Union was not really slavery itself, but two thing:

1. Most of the south's Southern Baptists believed in the Old Testament's lessons of their granted nee required supremacy over the dark-skinned peoples--not necessarily that they must have slaves, but that they must have the right to have them. Anything else would be against "Gods Will". You might as well ask them to cut off their own hand for your entertainment.

2. The southern states insisted on being able to decide for themselves how they would handle there situation--state's rights over national rules. You can fill hundreds of books with discussions over the shift of political and economic power northward, where anybody could become successful and rich through their own industriousness and thus gain access to the 'high society' as opposed to southern values where family and tradition play a more prominent role. This clash of ideologies was the cause of the war.

The southern 'way of life' does not allow for moving the capital to some Creole backwater place where the interest in trade echoes the northern economy, and the culture is abound with mixed-races and multi-national culture.

My feeling is that removing the cultural background to the war is like leaving all the spice out of chili, the beans and meat and gravy are still there, all that you need to nourish your body, but it won't taste like much.

But if you're going to do it, you could fix things up so that the north's rotten generals can be sent off to some foreign land if they get too pesky about not being promoted or not getting an army to play with

[Philippe]

I'm not going to take issue with your two points without doing a lot of brushing up on a couple of interesting points that you raised. However, my initial reaction is that they may be a bit too modernist to fit the time period.

Even if I accept your first point (and I am sure that many sort of thought that way at the time) I can't help wondering if Southern Baptists were as politically prominent during this period as during the twentieth century. But without looking into the nexus of religion and political philosophy for the region(s) in that period and comparing it to the late twentieth century, I can't be so sure that what you describe is right. There is a social dimension to religion, and in states like Virginia (which has the oldest Episcopal parishes in the country) people that belonged to a mix of different religious groups were probably calling the shots. I can't help but wonder how many Southern slave owners were also Southern Baptists. I'm sure there were some, but I'd be really surprised if it turned out to be the majority. I have some books on this stashed away in my apartment somewhere, but whether I can lay my hands on them is another matter entirely.

Invoking the States Rights argument is not entirely anachronistic, but became a lot more popular after the mid-twentieth century than it probably was in the middle of the nineteenth. Be sure to take a look at what the Southerners said about the cause of the war at the time. If I remember correctly, the Texas declaration of secession makes for interesting reading and is pretty explicit that they're seceding over slavery, not States Rights. And the issue isn't about a theoretical right to own a slave, it's about economics. Any pseudo-Old Testament justification that anyone might have summoned up was, to a certain extent, post-facto window-dressing to make themselves feel more comfortable with the status-quo. As an aside, I can't help wondering how many Southern Baptists could afford to own slaves, though I'm sure many of them would have wanted to.

[Stauffenberg]

I am more in line with Phillipe’s nuanced take on this. Why the South had to have Richmond for its capital was my particular focus, without wishing to necessarily open the whole can of worms on the ultimate causes of the war.

I would argue that whatever it is you wish to emphasize as the primary movers in the drift to war: the right to own slaves, acute southern concerns over their economy and feeling their “way of life” was directly threatened, the clear issue of States Rights being violated… perhaps one can just agree to all of the above, in whatever proportions one is inclined to assign, and move on to the basic “cause” for your average non land or slave-owning southerner signing up to fight… that the signal issue here, surely, was the fact that the South was being invaded. This is almost an epiphany presented in that Shelby Foote anecdote about the Union officers questioning a captured southerner, a boy who obviously didn’t own slaves or land and knew little about politics: “Why are you fighting anyhow?” His perfect response: “Because you all are down heah…”

If the South’s bombardment of Sumter was meant to be a clear indication of its steadfast determination to defend itself against northern encroachments, it succeeded all too well and was a political disaster of the first order in uniting the north against “southern aggression,” when of course the South had no intention of forming up armies and marching to overthrow Lincoln in Washington whatsoever… It ranks up there with other notorious miscalculations that resulted in the onset of a massive conflagration no one really wanted; e.g. the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia, thinking it could begin and end with this as a localized conflict. It didn’t, and neither did Sumter.

But back to Orso’s main contention that there was no realistic chance of the South moving its capital anywhere else during the war. I am hoping he is not referring to New Orleans as a “Creole backwater”? It was the largest city in the South and a potent industrial, economic, and strategically located asset that would have made an obvious second or even first choice of confederate capital. It’s for this reason this option is already in the game. My point was to expand upon this precedent of capital relocation and suggest that choices could be further expanded—at a proper NM and monetary cost for the southern player. I think game play can only be enriched by it, and it might go far in redressing the perception among some out here that the recent patches are helping the Union cause more than that of the South.

[Jim-NC]

Dang I am getting old and forgetful, but,

IIRC - the move capital action usually/mostly allows for 3 choices (I have never seen less than 3 - or is it 2). It starts with Strategic cities (and then goes somewhere - I have never lost all my strategic cities, and so don't know where). Strategic cities defined as with NM (New Orleans, Atltanta, Charleston, Vicksburg, etc). IIRC, the starting 3 options are New Orleans, Atlanta, Charleston. Once I even had the choice of having my capital as Vicksburg, I chose Atlanta in that game however. So losing New Orleans does not force the capital to stay in Richmond.

[Stauffenberg]

I have manually moved the capital to New Orleans and it works as advertised, but with no other options given.

Perhaps you mean you are given these choices if you lose Richmond as the CSA, and it is (was) your capital?

[Jim-NC]

Nope, When you are on the F8 screen, you see the option under move capital, if you left or right click on the wording (not the sign here line), you are presented with different options. As the union, you get New York and Philadelphia (as they are the 2 NM cities the union controls).

You have the same options with several of the effects (5%, 6%, or 8% bonds, different levels of taxation, territory choices (bad name for it I know) - which is cotton embargo, and territorial concessions? + 1 choice - for the US, you get blockade, territorial concessions? + 1. I forget which side gets territorial concessions and which gets trade concessions. You also have a choice on the volunteers (volunteers, volunteers w/$1k, vol w/$2k), and Partial of full mobilization.

[Stauffenberg]

Nope, When you are on the F8 screen, you see the option under move capital, if you left or right click on the wording (not the sign here line), you are presented with different options. As the union, you get New York and Philadelphia (as they are the 2 NM cities the union controls).

You're right thanks. As the South you get New Orleans or Atlanta, besides Richmond. The move to Richmond on turn 4 is automatic from Montgomery, but I imagine this is canceled if opt to move to NO or Atlanta before then (I hope).

Later noticed that Mobile is also an option.

[Coldsteel]

You're right thanks. As the South you get New Orleans or Atlanta, besides Richmond. The move to Richmond on turn 4 is automatic from Montgomery, but I imagine this is canceled if opt to move to NO or Atlanta before then (I hope).

Later noticed that Mobile is also an option.

Good question. . . has anyone ever tried this before the Event occurs to move it to Richmond? If you move it to N.O., will it still be moved to VA?

Just curious,

Thanks,

[Stauffenberg]

Good question. . . has anyone ever tried this before the Event occurs to move it to Richmond? If you move it to N.O., will it still be moved to VA?

Just curious,

Thanks,

This was certainly worth digging into:

--Option to move the CSA capital to N.O. or Atlanta available turn 1; however...
--Move of capital to Richmond on turn 4 is automatic in any case.
--After capital is moved to Richmond turn 4 there is an immediate option to move capital to N.O., Atlanta, or Mobile. Usual cost.
--If capital is manually moved there is a 13 turn waiting period before option can be used again. Choice remains within the four cities: Richmond, N.O., Atlanta, and Mobile.
--I assume that after a second move is made there is another 13 turn waiting period to move the capital for a third time (have not tested it yet).

[Stauffenberg]

The capital of Alabama was Montgomery, not Mobile as indicated on the map. Change of CSA capital should therefore have Montgomery as an option, not Mobile.

And a few nits: Raleigh is not indicated as the capital of North Carolina on the map.
Likewise Tallahassee in Florida.

[GraniteStater]

I've seen this a few times now and feel I must point out, AFAIK, the 'starred cities' are not capitals - they're Objectives. Unless I'm mistaken that is.

Southern State Capitals, ca. 1861

AL - Montgomery (Tent)
AR - Little Rock (OBJ & Tent)
NC - Raleigh (Tent)
SC - Columbia
FL - Tallahassee (Tent)
GA - Milledgeville
KY - Frankfort (not broken out separately; kinda incorporated into Lexington, which has a Tent)
LA - Baton Rouge (Tent)
MS - Jackson
MO - Jefferson City (Tent)
TN - Nashville (OBJ)
TX - Austin (not on map)
VA - Richmond (OBJ & Tent & CSA capital)

Also, all the above have Depots, except Milledgeville, Columbia and Austin. Lexington, KY is a Depot.

[Stauffenberg]

I've seen this a few times now and feel I must point out, AFAIK, the 'starred cities' are not capitals - they're Objectives. Unless I'm mistaken that is.


Also, all the above have Depots, except Milledgeville, Columbia and Austin. Lexington, KY is a Depot.

Thanks for that, it was becoming clearer as various items came up.
Even so, my original concern here was in the transfer of the confederate capital at some point later on in the game. Montgomery Alabama was the confederate capital at the start of the war as you know, and is automatically moved to Richmond on turn 4 in the game; however, the only option for Alabama after this move at present is a possible move to Mobile (as well as Atlanta and New Orleans). I was arguing it should be changed to Montgomery. Not only is this more historical, but it would give the CSA the later game option of having another inland capital safe from immediate union invasion--not just Atlanta.

[GraniteStater]

But once they've seen Paree, how ya gonna get 'em back to the farm?

Think of it that way. If forced to leave Richmond, they're not going back to the charms of Montgomery.

No code is perfect and they didn't ask me to join the design meetings.

[Stauffenberg]

But once they've seen Paree, how ya gonna get 'em back to the farm?

Think of it that way. If forced to leave Richmond, they're not going back to the charms of Montgomery.

No code is perfect and they didn't ask me to join the design meetings.

It's a suggested improvement as per the forum section. The move capital dynamic already exists and is a legitimate 'what-if'. I was after a tweak on Alabama and had hoped it would be minor, coding wise.

[GraniteStater]

Ah, but why stop there? AACW 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Stauffenberg]

Ah, but why stop there? AACW 2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YES!!!
And get there fastest with the mostest!