Does Anaconda on the Mississippi effect the CSA?

[Gray Fox]

Steamers built in St. Louis and named after cities were ironclad gunboats. The links mention the ships moving a brigade, wounded and government supplies...for the army. This doesn't mean that actual Union civilian commercial vessels conducted any trade on the Mississippi or needed to during the war.

http://www.nytimes.com/1863/10/04/news/history-of-a-western-iron-clad-the-gunboat-st-louis.html

[Rod Smart]

A quick google search tells me that 1864 was the all time low water mark on the river. That, coupled with the lack of federal maintenance (what little occurred in those days), and merchant and shipping focus on military dollars, tells me that very little commercial commerce happened after Vicksburg.

Past research on canals tells me that by the late 1850s, railroads had eclipsed water transport.
And speaking of canals, Chicago had a canal during that time that allowed trade to go NORTH on the rivers into the Great Lakes. That's reflected in the game.

There should be an economic and political impact from capturing major cities like Memphis and New Orleans. There should not be an economic impact from capturing meaningless Arkansas and Louisiana level 1 towns.

[DrPostman]

I do know that Memphis experienced an economic boom due to the
black market that flourished here once the city fell in 1862. When
it came to cotton there was a big trade that continued. Here's a
couple of interesting articles on the subject.
http://www.civilwarhome.com/transcom.html
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/trading-with-the-enemy/?_r=0

[tripax]

Surely private commerce on the Mississippi was quite heavy during the civil war after Vicksburg.

According to a Jun 19, 1864 NY Times article, in the 9 months between September 1, 1863 and June 10, 1864, 228,500 bales of cotton arrived in New York, 37% (83,500 bales) from New Orleans by sea and the rest by interior and rail routes. New Orleans had exported 113,300 bales in the same period, 106,800 bales from Louisianna and Mississippi and the rest "prize lists" from Mobile and Texas.

An April 5, 1864 NY Times article seeks to refute claims that commerce has not renewed on the Mississippi, writing: "...Here let me say that I see in rebel and European papers the statement that the navigation of the Mississippi is not open practically. This statement is moonshine. So far is it from the fact that steamboats are constantly arriving and departing at St. Louis, Louisville and Cincinnati, to and from New-Orleans, with heavy freights. They are rarely fired on, and none have recently been injured. So, too, they talk as if we had no cotton. More than 60,000 bales of cotton have arrived at Cincinnati in seven months, and more has been carried to Western ports than in any year; so, also, have heavy cargoes of Louisiana sugar. I say this merely to add that the reopened navigation of the Mississippi is of great practical importance. ..."

[BattleVonWar]

tripax,

if nothing else New Orleans was previously to NYC the largest Port in the Americas and correct me if I am wrong but reviewing ledgers on populations, was the most populace CSA city at the onset of war. The loss of that was early and easily done. In my opinion costing the CSA. Sure men can still run away from the cities and be volunteer-conscripted-drafted a few counties/regions away. Though if nothing else this does tie a hand. Also it just isn't good to for business as Jeff Davis to show that you cannot hold your own Major River. It should be a NM knock...but it should also be a NM knock on the Union if they cannot perform Anaconda forcing the Western Theater aside being a massive recruiting Depot to be of some value. In game, and out of game. Historians kicked out... What makes the real estate we fight for, more valued?

[DrPostman]

When I lost NOLA to the CSA briefly I think I should have taken a bigger hit
as the union than a few NM points. It was only for a few turns that I got
neglectful and Athena jumped right one it. I was actually rather pleased that
she was smart enough to do that, giving me a much better game. Would have
been right if I took like a 15 to 20 NM hit for losing it, and only half of that
back for taking it back.

[tripax]

tripax,

if nothing else New Orleans was previously to NYC the largest Port in the Americas and correct me if I am wrong but reviewing ledgers on populations, was the most populace CSA city at the onset of war. The loss of that was early and easily done. In my opinion costing the CSA. Sure men can still run away from the cities and be volunteer-conscripted-drafted a few counties/regions away. Though if nothing else this does tie a hand. Also it just isn't good to for business as Jeff Davis to show that you cannot hold your own Major River. It should be a NM knock...but it should also be a NM knock on the Union if they cannot perform Anaconda forcing the Western Theater aside being a massive recruiting Depot to be of some value. In game, and out of game. Historians kicked out... What makes the real estate we fight for, more valued?

I'm not 100% sure what the question is. I think I agree with your historical points. I'm just skeptical of how they can be imported into the game. Taking the Mississippi as a culmination of a campaign will certainly cost the CSA a lot of NM in the game as is. I'm not sure one way or another if it should cost extra by an event. The Mississippi was well blockaded even before New Orleans fell, so I'm not sure how economically valuable it was to the Confederacy as a port, certainly greater than zero but probably not nearly as valuable as a Northern non-blockaded second tier port such as Boston or Baltimore. If the Confederacy won independence, I think New Orleans would have been returned to the South. So from the perspective of the South's ability to pay its debts, I don't think control of New Orleans is key. Many of the South's high points in the war came with New Orleans in Northern hands - even when New Orleans was under Martial Law type conditions, so I don't see New Orleans' loss as crippling. Basically, I'm not strongly in support of any change to the theater that I've seen (except adding more plantations, maybe), but maybe I'm misunderstanding something in the discussion or in your comment.

[Gray Fox]

Obviously from the two links, the South was being plundered and the cotton was arriving in NYC. The "steamers" in these links arriving in the Midwest may indeed still be the same ones in the other post, i.e., ironclad gunboats and not civilian commerce ships. This also doesn't state anything about produce from the Midwest finally traveling down the Mississippi to NO and then elsewhere. The river was not vital to sustain the economics of that Union region. If the Mississippi was a vital highway to the Confederacy and the Union has NO, then it already was a vital highway that was blocked without the Mississippi Campaign.

The Anaconda Plan was ridiculed in Northern papers as armed diplomacy. Blockade the South and at some unknown point in the remains of the nineteenth century the Confederacy may rejoin the Union without a fight. Since the tool of diplomacy is compromise, this might be a South with guaranteed slavery. Parts of the plan were eventually adopted. However, Winfield Scott never planned on Total War with cities being burned or 2% of the population dying. The Anaconda plan was simply not the plan. The Mississippi was an easy supply route for an army and Grant made good use of it to take targets of opportunity that were then not exploited. The western Confederacy was cut off, but never destroyed. I doubt if many in the Union knew where Vicksburg was.