Lee's Army of Northern Virginia

Top 2. Jun 27, 1999 2:30 PM

» mswogger - Melissa

Melissa:

You ask a very good question. It does seem that the fighting in the eastern theater receives much more contemporary attention. But I'm not sure that this was the case during the War. We see the War from perspectives of historians who may specialize in a particular area of their interest, and often that is centered around Lee's army or the Army of the Potomac. During the conflict, however, I think the west received just as much attention from the governments as the fighting in the east. From the newspapers, that might be a different story.

But both sides knew the importance of the west, and both carefully watched events unfold, from the fall of New Orleans to Vicksburg.

One of the reasons for the east seemingly overshadowing the west is because of the location of the capitals. Richmond and Washington were within 2 hours of each other, and much of the fighting was centered on the capturing of the other's capital and government. Additionally, perhaps the eastern theater seemed more important to some because of the nature of the land on which they fought. Virginia was by far the richest farmland for food in the South, and Pennsylvania was the easiest of the northern states to access because no river separated North from South there.

These are just some thoughts I have. I certainly am not basing all of this on something that I read. Anyone else, please feel free to throw in your two cents.

-- posted by mswogger

Top 3. Jun 29, 1999 8:58 PM

» Ulysses - Melissa

Being a bit of a cynic (okay, a HUGE cynic-he,he), I can only say that I believe the reason so much has been written of Lee's campaign in Virginia with his Army of Northern Virginia (not Potomac, Michael, although, curiously enough, at the start of the war, both Confederate and Union armies were called the "Army of the Potomac")is because it WAS a victorious army, at least for a while. I mean, although a number of books have been written of the hapless and perhaps mismanaged Army of Tennessee, it is the Army of N Va. and the quality of it's leadership, the resliliance of it's troops, as well as the location between Washington, D.C. and Richmond in which it operated, that continues to facinate civil war buffs and romantics alike (not that there may be much different between the too, if you want to be honest with yourself). And whereas the Army of Tennessee met it's ultimate demise as an organized fighting force at the Battle of Nashville in late 1864, Lee's army met it's end in an almost too romantic way; fading off into history in Appomattox Court House, proud to the end.
There are more reasons. But this is the one that comes first in my mind.

Ulysses.

-- posted by Ulysses

Top 4. Jun 29, 1999 10:25 PM

» Ulysses - Faith in Lee's army

I kinda missed the point I was trying to make in my previous post, Melissa. Sorry.
I think so much "faith" was put in Lee's army was because of Lee himself. He proved himself a capable commander in the 7 Days battles and led an army that had proven it's worth in countless battles right up to the end of the conflict. He was an old-line Virginian, of impecible character who even knew how to get along with the difficult Jefferson Davis, all the while exuding an aura of humanity and kindness that transended both the war and the times in which he lived. Even now, this great gentleman is regarded highly among both the decendants of his enemies and students of military history and tactics.
Such was his fame and status that, even on the retreat to Appomattox, in questioning the need for surrender, one of his commanders replied to him and said "...country be damned. There hasn't been a country for a year or more. You are the country to these men." That, to me, sums up just why so much faith was put in him. I hope that makes some sense.

Ulysses (Steven).

-- posted by Ulysses

Top 5. Jun 30, 1999 5:30 PM

» MelissaJames - Thank you for all the comments.

Thank you for all the comments. These points are well taken.
Proximity between Richmond and the Army of Northern Virginia seems like a good reason the Army of Tennessee was seemingly neglected. Even early in the war some incidents point to this. I am thinking back to Albert Sidney Johnston. Davis informed him he had no troops or resources to spare and Johnston would have to do the best he could.
Steven brings another good explanation that has to do with Lee's abilities. His penchant to take the offense, and ability to win many victories can not be under estimated. "As the war progressed, Confederate citizens increasingly relied on their armies rather than on their central government to boost moralee, and Robert E. Lee and his Army of Virginia eventually became the most important national institution."(Gallagher's THE CONFEDERATE WAR)
I am reading Peter Carmichael's book (LEE'S YOUNG ARTELLERIST WILLIAM R.J. PEGRAM) and another piece may lie with the perception of R. E. Lee. While army life brought out the best and worst in men, many southerners viewed their society as religious. The slaveholders created a perception or world view of their own. Here slavery was a duty as well as a burden. It was as old as time and ordained by the Bible. As the war turned increasingly brutal and even engaged the civilian population, Confederates became more convinced of the "ungodly inherent nature" of Yankees. Against this background Lee was able to win great victories and "emerged as a figure embodying the virtues of the Confederacy and gave determined southern soldiers reason for fighting even when the cause seemed hopeless to civilians." When they were losing, some soldiers felt the people back home were not keeping true to the faith or sacrificing enough. If they remained true, then surely God would not deliver them into the hands of their enemy. What do you think?

-- posted by MelissaJames

Top 6. Jun 30, 1999 11:10 PM

» Ulysses - Mel. James post/relgion

Mel said: When they were losing, some soldiers felt the people back home were not keeping true to the faith or sacrificing enough. If they remained true, then surely God would not deliver them into the hands of their enemy. What do you think?

Funny you should mention that. In a book I recently read, "For Cause and Comrades" by James M. McPherson (my fav. CW writer!!) wrote about the importance of religion in the Civil War and compared it to similar revivals in other wars. McPherson stated that the Confederate armies were more suseptible to this than the Union armies (which he says had no large scale revivals) especially after the reverses at Gettysburg, and Vicksburg, when the feelings of defeat hung in the air. Unfortunately, perhaps because of the nature of the book, he does not say clearly if the soldiers felt God was letting them down due to a lack of faith at the homefront. McPerson does quote many who, though desparing of the cause (Confederate), would fight on because they couldn't believe a merciful God would allow them to be subjugated by the Yankees. Still, it is an interesting book and I hope you have the privillage one day of reading it and getting a far better understanding than I could enlighten you with in this format.

Ulysses (Steven).

-- posted by Ulysses

Top 7. Sep 23, 1999 6:33 PM

» Outrider - Religion and the armies

Steve and Melissa:

Your discussion on the importance of religion to both the Northern and Southern armies is very interesting. I had a chance to observe some of this (almost) first hand.

One summer not long ago, I worked as a costumed interpretor in a historic house built in 1909. Among the artifacts at the residence that belonged to the original owners was book entitled Christ in the Camps - or something similar to that. The book was full of first-hand accounts of religious feelings and observances in the Confederate Army. And, by the inscription, it was obvious that the mother who gave to book to her son hoped he would follow its example.

I found this primary source material fascinating and have searched for a copy of the book since, but have been unable to find it. Thank you for the interesting discussion.

-- posted by Outrider

Top 8. Sep 27, 1999 1:35 AM

» not_him_again - I think there amy be another reason why the south placed so many

I think there amy be another reason why the south placed so many resources in the ANV; it was one of the few armies well placed for offensive action against the union, and while this didn't always work, it did tie up a huge amount of union soldiers in order to cover Washington.

The south's problem was that the proper course in their strategic position was a protracted was like Washington fought in the American Revolution, and the confederacy simply lacked the political will to do so.

In places where protracted war was possible, such as in "Mosby's confederacy" or in the areas where Nathan Bedford Forrest operated, the strategy of raids and guerrilla war were very successful.

-- posted by not_him_again