Importance of opening the Mississippi

[RebelYell]

I propose a Tennessee state election event, it will bring men/units, NM and loyalty/production.

Knoxville was finally delivered into Union hands in 1863. Lincoln scholar Samuel Cole Williams wrote: "It was truly an anomalous situation: 'Middle and West Tennessee, strongholds of Confederate citizenry, were under the control of Federal troops, with the situation completely reverse in East Tennessee. Lincoln in 1861 insisted that East Tennessee be invaded from Kentucky so as to permit the restoration of civil authority in the entire State. Not until early in September of 1863 was Knoxville taken by the Federals and Cumberland Gap occupied. Before the battle of Chickamauga Lincoln thought the time for putting his plan into execution was ripe. To Johnson he wrote: 'All Tennessee is now cleared of armed insurrectionists. You need not be reminded that it is the nick of time for reinaugurating a loyal state government. Not a moment should be lost.'" 18

Johnson biographer Robert W. Winston wrote: "Lincoln's letters to Johnson, while Military Governor, were hearty and cordial. Johnson was his 'good friend.' Lincoln spoke of him as 'wise and patriotic.'"19 But the correspondence was also often laced with patient advice and suggestions for action. President Lincoln wrote Johnson in late April 1862: "Your dispatch of yesterday just received - as also, in due course, was your former one. The former one, was sent to Gen. Halleck, and we have his answer, by which I have no doubt he, Gen. Halleck, is in communication with you before this. Gen. Halleck understands better than we can here, and he must be allowed to control in that quarter. If you are not in communication with Halleck, telegraph him at once, fully, and frankly."20

Johnson was a difficult man to deal with and President Lincoln did so carefully and tactfully. Mr. Lincoln wrote Johnson in early July 1862: "You are aware we have called for a big levy of new troops. If we can get a fair share of them in Tennessee I shall value it more highly than a like number most anywhere else, because of the face of the thing, and because they will be the very place that needs protection. Please do what you can, and do it quickly. Time is everything. A word on another subject. If we could, somehow, get a vote of the people of Tennessee and have it result properly it would be worth more to us than a battle gained. How long before we can get such a vote?"

http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/Library/newsletter.asp?ID=58&CRLI=138

[RebelYell]

Looking at the map about cotton I would increase the number of plantasions and farms in the game even more and balance the numbers by taking it out from other sources.

The Mississippi river valley would have the biggest concentration of these plantasion regions, the Union could play colored regiment decision cards when capturing one.

[tripax]

If we wanted to move plantations around, a way to do it would be to look at population density by county or, in the south, slave density by county. Since a plurality of workers (including or not including slaves) in the south were in farming, population density is more of a measure where farmers (and businesses servicing farmers) were. Slave density is a indicator for productivity/profitability of farms (you don't need/want many slaves to work a substance-level potato farm), so this would work even better. Putting in more plantations would make the Mississippi more appealing. We could follow this map:

Where in the grotesque calculus of the age, more slaves = more productive plantations. Note that in Virginia the popular crop was tobacco, along the Atlantic Coast it was rice, and in the deep south, cotton.

For the North, industrialization changes the relationship between population density and farm productivity. But since farms weren't producing cash crops for export in the same way as they were in the South, I don't think a overhaul of farm counties is all that useful anyway.

[RebelYell]

If we wanted to move plantations around, a way to do it would be to look at population density by county or, in the south, slave density by county. Since a plurality of workers (including or not including slaves) in the south were in farming, population density is more of a measure where farmers (and businesses servicing farmers) were. Slave density is a indicator for productivity/profitability of farms (you don't need/want many slaves to work a substance-level potato farm), so this would work even better. Putting in more plantations would make the Mississippi more appealing. We could follow this map:

Where in the grotesque calculus of the age, more slaves = more productive plantations. Note that in Virginia the popular crop was tobacco, along the Atlantic Coast it was rice, and in the deep south, cotton.

For the North, industrialization changes the relationship between population density and farm productivity. But since farms weren't producing cash crops for export in the same way as they were in the South, I don't think a overhaul of farm counties is all that useful anyway.

Lincoln had that map always at hand, someone posted that here I think.

The farms in Union territory outside borders states are more for historical accuracy, but for Union attacking the CSA supply production should be a possible strategy.

[RebelYell]

Looking at the map Union attacked all those platasion regions one by one, coincidence?

[Gray Fox]

If Athena is scripted to do this as the Union, then she will be even weaker in the east against a charge on D.C. A human Union player can ignore the event to take eastern TN by 1863. I'll be in Richmond by then. You have revealed that the western campaign may have been centered around getting a pro-Lincoln electorate. So the battle-cry would shift from "Save the Republic!" to "Save the Republican voters!".

[GraniteStater]

Historically? Along Ol' Man River was not so much an acquisition strategy as as a denial and interdiction strategy. BTW, in Niall Ferguson's examination of the history of finance, he uses the seizure of New Orleans to illustrate a point and deems it the pivotal moment in the ACW; foreign credit dried up. If you can't deliver collateral, well, them bankers get fussy.

And BTW, Mr. Fox - it's May now - time to play wetware. We humans shall see how "On to Richmond!" plays out (or "On to DC!"). And, as I have said before, if you have evolved a strategy that can't be beat, I shall be sad - 'cuz you wudda broken my toy.

[RebelYell]

If Athena is scripted to do this as the Union, then she will be even weaker in the east against a charge on D.C. A human Union player can ignore the event to take eastern TN by 1863. I'll be in Richmond by then. You have revealed that the western campaign may have been centered around getting a pro-Lincoln electorate. So the battle-cry would shift from "Save the Republic!" to "Save the Republican voters!".

Yep but there is a Lincoln re-election event in the game, if the NM boost from East-Tennessee is not there it would be a big hit for the Union in 64.

I also suggest that KY and MO falling in CSA hands would give a big NM penalty for the Union, those combined should kill all to Richmond strategy.

[GraniteStater]

Yep but there is a Lincoln re-election event in the game, if the NM boost from East-Tennessee is not there it would be a big hit for the Union in 64.

I also suggest that KY and MO falling in CSA hands would give a big NM penalty for the Union, those combined should kill all to Richmond strategy.

NM has to be very low for Lincoln not to be re-elected, from my game with havi. Small sample.

Define "falling into CSA hands." There already is a mechanism - St. Louis & Louisville are Objectives, their loss affects NM adversely. Springfield is a Strat City and so are Bowling Green & Lexington - Loyalty & VPs.

[RebelYell]

NM has to be very low for Lincoln not to be re-elected, from my game with havi. Small sample.

Define "falling into CSA hands." There already is a mechanism - St. Louis & Louisville are Objectives, their loss affects NM adversely. Springfield is a Strat City and so are Bowling Green & Lexington - Loyalty & VPs.

How much does the NM fall for Union if those states are lost?

[Gray Fox]

And BTW, Mr. Fox - it's May now - time to play wetware. We humans shall see how "On to Richmond!" plays out (or "On to DC!"). And, as I have said before, if you have evolved a strategy that can't be beat, I shall be sad - 'cuz you wudda broken my toy.

Sir, the cadet has one more online final to complete, sir!

I should be available on Monday.

A politician says that men must die in TN so he can get re-elected. A finance jerk says that he's glad men died in NO so that stock prices leveled off. A General writes in his memoirs that he ordered men to die securing the Mississippi so that Jeff Davis could no longer enjoy a Texas T-bone. It really just makes me want to puke my guts out.

[Mickey3D]

A politician says that men must die in TN so he can get re-elected. A finance jerk says that he's glad men died in NO so that stock prices leveled off. A General writes in his memoirs that he ordered men to die securing the Mississippi so that Jeff Davis could no longer enjoy a Texas T-bone. It really just makes me want to puke my guts out.

I will enjoy the feedback of your game (may be an AAR ?) and, if nobody is available, I would be happy to be your opponent.

By the way, I see a difference between fighting on two fronts and fighting on the Mississippi theater : in the first case you are adding new ennemies (like Germany invading USSR) and everybody agree with you : it's a bad idea. In the second case not a single soldier is added (except if you assume western confederate states would not have agreed to send their troops in Virginia).

So I think the "two fronts" description can not be applied to the decision to attack along the Mississippi : what you are describing with your strategy is a very concentrated "schwerpunkt". To use the WW2 analogy, you are advising to concentrate all the forces on Moscow hoping it will break ennemy will to fight (with a difference : the road to Richmond is really shorter ).

In game terms, you might be right (we will discover it starting from Monday...) but I don't know if there is historical evidence that the loss of Washington DC or Richmond would have ended the war (may be brought England in the war if the loss of DC happened before emancipation declaration) : we are entering the realm of "what-if" conjectures.

[havi]

i agree gray fox for that 2 front isnt ideal thing to do but now i dont think u take considerations of political situation in 61-65 what would or should happend if south just steamrolled in west lets say they took st.louis,louisvile and cincinati isnt it game over for union in then RL?

[RebelYell]

i agree gray fox for that 2 front isnt ideal thing to do but now i dont think u take considerations of political situation in 61-65 what would or should happend if south just steamrolled in west lets say they took st.louis,louisvile and cincinati isnt it game over for union in then RL?

It should be IMO.

KY and MO could flip sides totally or just raise the NM values for their capture.

[Gray Fox]

The distance from Poland to France may be less than the distance from D.C. to St. Louis. Sending men, materiel and supplies to the west meant sending it a great distance (to another front) by European standards. MO was very much and KY was a slave state. The Union could have the pro-Lincoln citizens move to St. Louis-Louisville for defense. The population in MO was eventually taken to collection points where the Union could protect them. I do defend the big cities in the west. In 1862, the South has about 24 Divisions and the Union about 36. I have 10 Divisions with a reserve and two cav Divisions along the strongpoints on the major rivers which gives me a force equal to everything the CSA has and then some back east.

[GraniteStater]

How much does the NM fall for Union if those states are lost?

NM pertains to Objectives only, IIRC. There is no mechanism for 'losing a State', afaik. As a matter of fact, States are irrelevant, in either AACW or CW2, afaik - except there is a small bonus/malus to controlling a State or Territorial capital in CW2.

[GraniteStater]

Sir, the cadet has one more online final to complete, sir!

I should be available on Monday.

A politician says that men must die in TN so he can get re-elected. A finance jerk says that he's glad men died in NO so that stock prices leveled off. A General writes in his memoirs that he ordered men to die securing the Mississippi so that Jeff Davis could no longer enjoy a Texas T-bone. It really just makes me want to puke my guts out.

Just for the record, I'm going to have some responsibilities to assume starting next week and am going to be reluctant to take up any cyber-cudgels in the near future. After a while, I might be able to do a PbeM, aside from the one right now with RebelYell.

I truly think you're capable of a more reflective historical analysis than your 'gut reaction', above. Truly, with all respects.

This is a History thread and we invert the usual order here: in the main forum, IMHO, an extended historical diatribe is a wee out of place, 'cuz that forum is about the game. Here, the opposite. The game and history are inextricably intertwined.

Now, if you have that sharp a reaction to the decisions which were taken, to war beyond the Appalachians at all, well, you're entitled to your opinion - but please try to bear in mind that people, most people, try to do the best they can, given what they know and what they have at their disposal.

U. S. Grant was, personally, a man of the most exemplary self-control and very mild mannered. R. E. Lee was a gentleman, but everyone who knew him well knew he had a very sharp temper and could be quite intolerant of second-rate efforts - constitutionally, the two men were very different.

Lincoln threatened to put his wife in an asylum at one point, which I've always found a bit shocking, but that seems to be the case. I find Jefferson Davis to be a bit delusional, but R. E. Lee thought no one could have done a better job in his position - I'll yield to the general's opinion, he was there, I wasn't.

We can't interview these people, all we can do is read.

For a general inquiry into my attitude and an informed approach to historiography, I recommend Tuchmann's Practicing History.

[anjou]

It should be IMO.

KY and MO could flip sides totally or just raise the NM values for their capture.

Absolutely. Losing those States should be catastrophic, to be quite honest.

[GraniteStater]

But there's no mechanism for 'losing States'. "States" don't mean diddly, afaik. There are only Objectives and Strat Cities and a tweak for State capitals, which is very minor, afaik.

And as long as we're discussing this, there should be a way to destroy Industry in a captured city, I think - but there isn't.

BTW, Baltimore is an Objective, which is a not insignificant change from AACW - the CSA definitely gets rewarded for taking it. Furthermore, globally, Loyalty is not unimportant, it affects several mechanics. That's why Strat Cities are important - every time one changes hands, Loyalty checks are initiated across the board, with proximity being a primary criterion.

I like to give the devs some credit for knowing what they're doing, including the historical context.

[Gray Fox]

Mickey3D. I would very much enjoy a PbEM game with you. Just let me know what I must do.

GS-When I took ROTC back in the 70's I also majored in history and took historiography. The historiography of the Civil War can either be a lot of quoting dates and names or something more preceptive and critical. Historians agree that a nation of 22 million with three times the wealth and six times the industrial might took four years to crush an opponent with 6 million people. Political historians critique the political machinizations. Financial historians scrutinize the economics of the war. Military historians discuss the military strategy. Politicians and financiers have an honest criteria for judging these histories, and so do military historians. Were the strategies sound? If not, why not? The point of recording history is to be able to learn from it.

[Mickey3D]

Mickey3D. I would very much enjoy a PbEM game with you. Just let me know what I must do.

I've sent you a PM.