basically took his army out of the war. In the mean time, Sheridan utterly destroyed the Shenandoah Valley, Thomas liquified John Bell Hood and Sherman brutalized the last untouched heart of the confederacy. Grant made the CSA fight the war on the Union's terms and it was catastrophic for them.
Yes, he did. But you're not advancing the propositions that a) Lee lost because he was a mediocrity b) Losing a campaign proves that your opponents are more capable than you
Lee lost because he didn't understand that losing Richmond didn't mean losing the war but losing the Army of Northern Virginia did. He let himself get maneuvered into a position where he simply had no hope of winning. He should NEVER have allowed himself to be pinned in place but he did.
Yes, of course losing Richmond meant losing the war. The Confederate armies would not last long as more than bandits after losing their last administrative center, their last manufacturing center, their last primary source of tax revenue, with nothing but a bunch of manors and hamlets to sustain off
"of course losing Richmond meant losing the war" Where is this claim coming from? I've seen it before but people treat it as a given, as if real life is one of those strategy games where you occupy a certain point and it instantly declares you the winner. Real wars don't work like that.
Armies need resources to continue existing. Those resources are concentrated in and distributed from cities. Armies deprived of all access to cities become ramshackle things, forced to engage in desperate guerrilla struggle.
The resources that Lee's army needed weren't concentrated in Richmond though. It was opposite; everywhere they needed to draw resources from, in order to reconstitute themselves, was elsewhere in the confederacy. So why do you make the claim that losing Richmond would lose the war?
(So I am to understand that you’re proposing that Virginia was economically marginal compared to Georgia and the Carolinas?)
Given that my answer to your question is that I thought Richmond contained a good part of the small arms industry and practically all the artillery industry.
Interesting. Where where the remaining powder-mills and foundries?
Addendum: one of the most cited examples is the Franco-Prussian War, which formally ended surrender of Paris. But the only reason Paris was under siege was loss of the French armies, supporting what @mseraphimsl.bsky.social said.
Likewise, the Union was only in a position to take Richmond and Atlanta because the Confederate armies had been so reduced by three years of struggle.
Grant understood that keeping the Army of Northern Virginia tied in place meant that it couldn't help stop any of the other things that were actually important, unlike Richmond.
Let's say Lee adopts the (insane, frankly) plan to abandon Richmond and rescue Atlanta - what is stopping Grant from simply following him south and destroying him?
The better plan and the one Lee actually came to was to move into North Carolina, link up with Johnston to smash Sherman and then turn around and fight Grant. Frankly Sherman would have beaten him in that scenario too, but the ANV did essentially -nothing- for 9 MONTHS while the CSA burned.
Yeah but my question applies to that proposal as well.
Grant knew the USA had other armies and the CSA didn't so exchanging his army doing nothing for Lee's army doing nothing was a huge win. Grant wanted to win the war, not beat Lee in the field. Putting the main CSA field army in the shelf for most of a year was a prize almost beyond belief.
Extending the war by several months was a prize beyond belief?
Lee wanted desperately to slip out of Richmond, link up with Joe Johnston in North Carolina to try and knock out Sherman and then turn on Grant, but Grant -would not let him go-.