Confederates Capture Attack Washington, 1864

[ahscardinal]

What if for some reason, General Lew Wallace was unable to intercept General Early's 15,000 men marching towards Washington. Had this delay not happened Washington might have failed to be re-inforced as it was. Early's forces which in OTL attacked but failed to capture Ft. Stevens on the outskirts of Washington DC. What would be the result of Early capturing Ft. Stevens and possibly theaten Washington itself?

[maverick]

Too late to win the war, I think, but could have interesting ramifications during the war and maybe the post-war.

[M79]

I doubt that UK will grant recognition but it gives the CSA a desperately needed shot in the arm for morale while costing the Union dearly, maybe enough to switch winning sides in the election and give the CSA independence by default in 1865.

[ahscardinal]

Could be itneresting seeing how by this stage many of the slaves in the South are either freed or have escaped.

[Anaxagoras]

Early could not have held Washington for very long, but its capture would have thrown the entire Union war effort in the East into turmoil and quite likely have forced Grant to break off the Siege of Petersburg entirely.

Lincoln loses his bid for re-election for sure. And that opens up many possibilities.

[ahscardinal]

Indeed. It could have large effects upon the 1864 election which was only a short time away...

[Derek Jackson]

What month are we talking about?

[Anaxagoras]

It would have been July, 1864.

[Derek Jackson]

Where would Lincoln have been? Where would Hamlin have been?

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

Where would Lincoln have been? Where would Hamlin have been?

Lincoln was in Washington. In fact, he went right up to the front lines and nearly got shot. I don't know what Hamlin's whereabouts were.

IIRC, Secretary of War Stanton had prepared a steamer to be ready on a moment's notice if it was necessary to get Lincoln away from the city. If Early was able to capture Washington, I think it likely that Lincoln would have escaped.

[M79]

Could they also loot precious metals from the mint to bolster their economy?

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by M79

Could they also loot precious metals from the mint to bolster their economy?

Isn't the mint in Philadelphia?

[M79]

Indeed it is, I'd thought that a mint or the greenback printing presses would be there based on the existance of the sales office there. Neither was located in the city at the time, so much for a "rebels steal plates/dyes and flood Union economy with fake currency" trick.

[DMA]

I find it next to impossible that Washington would have fallen, considering that Washington, at this point in time, was the most fortified city on planet Earth!

Now if Lee could hold back Grant at Petersburg for several months, whilst Early was wasting everyone's time with his sortie, that lasted a few weeks in total disaster in the Shenandoah, I'd dare say it's a good bet that the defenders of Washington could have held on for a few days before reinforcements would have finally arrived.

Furthermore, because Early was operating in enemy territory, meant that he couldn't have even tried to set up a seige of Washington - even a temporary one - as his lines of communications could have been easily cut & his force surrounded by superior numbers of Union troops & destroyed. So whatever he was doing around Washington had to be done in short timing & required a withdrawal to friendly terrritory in order to persurve his forces. Not that it mattered as we all know what happened next anyway...

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by DMA

Furthermore, because Early was operating in enemy territory, meant that he couldn't have even tried to set up a seige of Washington - even a temporary one - as his lines of communications could have been easily cut & his force surrounded by superior numbers of Union troops & destroyed. So whatever he was doing around Washington had to be done in short timing & required a withdrawal to friendly terrritory in order to persurve his forces. Not that it mattered as we all know what happened next anyway...

It's quite true that Early could not have held Washington for very long had he taken it. No one, least of all Early, thought of the operation as being anything more than a glorified raid- it certainly was never envisioned as an invasion to take and hold enemy territory.

IOTL, Grant was forced to send substantial reinforcements northwards to protect Washington from Early, and this dislocated his Petersburg operations considerably. Had Early actually TAKEN Washington, if only for a brief time, purely political considerations would have necessitated the dispatch of far larger reinforcements than IOTL, possibly forcing Grant to break off the Siege of Petersburg entirely.

And all this, of course, would have thrown the political situation into even deeper confusion than it already was. I cannot imagine Lincoln winning re-election after suffering the humiliation of a Confederate occupation of the Federal capital, even if it was temporary, combined with yet another failure to take Richmond.

The slackening of the Federal effort in Virginia, meanwhile, may have allowed the Confederates to send reinforcements to the Western Theater, as had happened the previous fall.

In short, Early taking Washington would have allowed for completely new historical combinations to come into play, which could have allowed for any number of different outcomes.

[Nosb]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

It's quite true that Early could not have held Washington for very long had he taken it. No one, least of all Early, thought of the operation as being anything more than a glorified raid- it certainly was never envisioned as an invasion to take and hold enemy territory.

IOTL, Grant was forced to send substantial reinforcements northwards to protect Washington from Early, and this dislocated his Petersburg operations considerably. Had Early actually TAKEN Washington, if only for a brief time, purely political considerations would have necessitated the dispatch of far larger reinforcements than IOTL, possibly forcing Grant to break off the Siege of Petersburg entirely.

And all this, of course, would have thrown the political situation into even deeper confusion than it already was. I cannot imagine Lincoln winning re-election after suffering the humiliation of a Confederate occupation of the Federal capital, even if it was temporary, combined with yet another failure to take Richmond.

The slackening of the Federal effort in Virginia, meanwhile, may have allowed the Confederates to send reinforcements to the Western Theater, as had happened the previous fall.

In short, Early taking Washington would have allowed for completely new historical combinations to come into play, which could have allowed for any number of different outcomes.

But not military victory. A slight prolongment of the war is the only thing the South could have won at this point. A political victory on the other hand might have been possible with a peace-Democrat taking office in early 1865, but that still gives plenty of time for the Republicans to make the South hurt and make victory seem inevitable meaning the McClellan, or whoever, would have been forced to continue the war until victory or else appear weak (or maybe bring about some negotiated victory where the South keeps slavery and certain state rights in some form for a little while.) Of course, I doubt Washington could have been taken, it had at least 8 forts around and maybe more (I can't remember of hand) and I think a raid taking it at this point in a short period of time is pretty ASB. A better PoD is if Lincoln gets shot at the front, as came close to happening in OTL, leaving Hamlin as President (talk about sitting-duck, he wouldn't have carried more then New England and possible the Midwest.)

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Nosb

But not military victory. A slight prolongment of the war is the only thing the South could have won at this point. A political victory on the other hand might have been possible with a peace-Democrat taking office in early 1865, but that still gives plenty of time for the Republicans to make the South hurt and make victory seem inevitable meaning the McClellan, or whoever, would have been forced to continue the war until victory

I disagree. By mid-1864, public support for the war in the North was lower and getting lower every day- Lincoln himself expected to lose the election. If we assume that, by Election Day, no major Union successes had been gained and the result was the election of a Peace Democrat, there would have been no realistic way for the Republican administration to continue the fighting until the Democrat took over in March. The people would not have stood for it and you would have had riots in the streets of the major cities.

Besides which, the Republicans might not have even wanted to continue the war under such circumstances, because they would have expected an incoming Democratic administration to drop the abolition of slavery as a major war aim.

Finally, an incoming Democratic administration woulod have given the Confederates a immense morale-boost and a much stronger reason to fight. IOTL, desertion dramatically increased after the November election, because the men realized they had no chance. ITTL, such would not have been the case and they would have realized that if they could just hold on a few more months, they stood a good chance at winning.

[Derek Jackson]

I wonder if it also depends on what happened during the occupation. It must have been possible that stuff would have happened to make Northern Public opinion even more angry.

I believe that DC was then still a rather black City (subject to correction) Now I think it is possible that some outrages would happen.

Plus if Lincoln got captured or killed it would make Hamlin President or acting President and Lincoln look like a martyr.

[Anaxagoras]

Originally Posted by Derek Jackson

I wonder if it also depends on what happened during the occupation. It must have been possible that stuff would have happened to make Northern Public opinion even more angry.

I believe that DC was then still a rather black City (subject to correction) Now I think it is possible that some outrages would happen.

Plus if Lincoln got captured or killed it would make Hamlin President or acting President and Lincoln look like a martyr.

I doubt it. At this stage of the war, Northern public opinion was increasingly coming to see the Lincoln administration as incompetent. The temporary Confederate occupation of Washington would have simply verified this belief. It would have made the Nothern public more angry at Lincoln than at the Confederates.

[Max Sinister]

Originally Posted by Anaxagoras

At this stage of the war, Northern public opinion was increasingly coming to see the Lincoln administration as incompetent.

They did? For what? And if, why did they re-elect Lincoln?