Decisive Theatre of the US Civil War

[Chomper98]

Culturally, when americans hear the words "civil war", they think of the great battles fought in Virginia, such as Bull Run, Seven Days, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, and the Overland Campaign. However, personally, I believe the fate of the south was sealed in the other area of the war.

I believe  the war fought along the Mississippi river, in Tennessee and Georgia was more decisive. Such actions such as the March to the Sea, Vicksburg, and other actions were more decisive then the dramatic battles fought in the east. In many ways, the War was won in the west. The Confederates were winning the war in Virginia until the Overland Campaign, in 1864. Despite this, they had been losing everywhere else since 1862.

To put it in perspective, it wouldn't really matter what happens in the east if the north wins in the west. The only way the east would really change anything is if Lee well and fully destroys the Army of the Potomac. Not forcing it to retreat, but annihilating it. When reversed, it doesn't really matter if your losing in Virginia if your holding off the North in the west. Virginia was only really important because of Richmond, which was simply a political target. I find it very hard to believe that the entire southern army would just go belly up and surrender if it lost Richmond.

These are my views, what do you think?

[Malte279]

The west was where the north won the Civil War, but ocassionally it got somewhat close to loosing it in the east. The south didn't have much of a chance to win the war based on numbers and industrial capacity, but at least prior to the proclamation of emancipation there was a (slim) chance that further victories in the east could have made England (and France in its wake) put pressure with the threat of war on the north.
Later on southern victories in the east might have resulted in protests against the war even stronger than those that were there (the New York draft riots being the most (in)famous). Perhaps it could have resulted in the election of McClellan instead of Lincoln in 1864. However, I think the will of the people in the north to see this through to the end rather than agreeing to peace terms that didn't include the maintainance of the union may sometimes be underestimated while McClellan's readiness to agree to such terms (he never suggested he would) may be overestimated.
The eastern theatre of the war got a lot of attention because the war was conducted in a much more condensed space there. The blood toll in the east was extremely high and it was an arrea much more densely settled than far parts of the west (which was still seen a bit like it was the frontier, in spite of that image not really holding up). The symbolic significance of the capitals was always in the minds of the people (loss of capital = end of the war, was a thought still very much in the minds of the people and which (notwithstanding the British conquest of Washington in 1814) often held true.
By the way, Richmond actually did have some significance beyond the symbolic part of being the capital. The Tredgar Iron Works there were number three among the largest iron manufacturers in north America and one of the very, very few facilities in the south capable of producing (among other) canon, locomotives and the armor for ironclads.