1119Re: [civilwarwest] Did they fight in the West?
- Aug 2, 2000Dear All
My feeling on this issue is that the South was so deeply into State's Rights
that the only way they would have looked seriously at the strategic
importance of the River - especially the Mississippi/Missouri highway - was
if they fell wholly within one state. Instead we have a situation where the
river divided four Confederate states (Mississippi and Tennessee from Arkasas
and Louisiana) and two states (Missouri and Kentucky) which had definite
Confederate sympathy yet nobody thought of viewing this situation on a global
scale. It was simply a question of nobody being prepared to take
responsibility for fear of "treading on the toes" of the states involved.
I only offer this as a suggestion but it is one which is borne out by
other things I have read which indicate the difficulties Davis and his
government had in operating the Federal System which was essential were the
Confederacy to have any chance of establishing the nationhood they were
claiming. This thinking had the effect of turning the WBTS into a war between
the Union and eleven individual opponents and the Union took full advantage
of this in the West by picking off states one at a time until the passage of
the Mississippi could be forced and the western portion of the Confederacy
It would be interesting to speculate on how long the war would have
lasted had there been a similar river system dividing the Eastern theatre,
would it not? Just a thought.
Best wishes to all
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>