Here on the boards, the term "Sealion" has become a watchword for a commonly-known, but extremely unlikely alternate history. Virtually everyone here knows about Hitler's plans for the invasion of England, and almost as many people know about the problems associated with any invasion -- the lack of effective transport, insufficient training for the landing force, the continuing resistance of the RAF, and the undimmed might of the Royal Navy. All these factors combined to foil the invasion. On the surface, a successful invasion seems likely, but as we examine the facts, the truth comes out -- it simply wasn't possible.
The American Civil War is no more immune to these Sealion moments than is the Second World War. One instance in particular stands out, however -- capture of Washington, D.C. by the Confederacy. Despite innumerable stories and threads discussing the contrary, at no time during the course of the war was the Army of Northern Virginia in position to capture the Union capital. Insufficient forces, a shaky logistical train, Union defenses, and the personalities of those involved make it virtually impossible for the Confederacy to have captured Washington during the war.
In 1863, Washington could boast over 60 forts and 93 batteries containing 837 guns and manned by 25,000 men. The defenses of Washington contained more artillery than the combined total of the Armies of the Potomac and Northern Virginia. 13 miles of trenches supported the forts, which were arranged in a then-unique supporting structure. Rather than standing alone, the forts of Washington contributed to each others' defense, and were positioned so they could cover the dead spots in their neighbors' fields of fire. This was a new development in the history of fortifications, and the technique would be used in both of the World Wars and every war since. At the time, Washington was the best-defended city in the world. Until the trenches of the First World War were dug, no fortification system in the world even came close to the interlocking system of defense that covered Washington.
A contemporary army would be forced to besiege, batter, and wear their way through the defenses in a costly, months-long (if not years) campaign. During that time, the attacking army would be vulnerable to the Union Army outside the defenses, while the city's defenders would continue to receive supplies via seaborne supply lines protected by the US Navy. The entire perimeter of the defenses was 37 miles, necessitating a massive covering effort required to besiege the city would leave the attackers vulnerable to an outside army coming to relieve the city. The sheer logistics of a siege make it impossible to attempt.
Of course, if you have a Point of Departure prior to the beginning of the war or even the intervention of Alien Space Bats, all these arguments go out the window. The best instance of this is in Harry Turtledove's Guns of the South, in which Confederate forces armed with AK-47s are able to overrun the Washington defenses to capture the city. Even this scenario, however, has its problems -- Turtledove conveniently overlooks the existence of two additional bridges across the Potomac (Long Bridge is listed as destroyed in the text) that would have allowed Grant's forces to reinforce the city and prevent its capture. Even with weaponry nearly a century more advanced, the capture of Washington in GoTS is a close-run event.
In our timeline, of course, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia did not have AK-47s. Indeed, until the capture of the Federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry in 1862, there weren't enough rifled muskets to arm the entire Confederate force with the most modern weapons. The shortage of weapons wasn't limited to individual weapons -- the Confederacy had a severe lack of artillery as well. In 1861, more guns were produced in the state of New York alone than in the entire Confederacy. This lack of heavy artillery would hamper Confederate armies at every turn, and if the Army of Northern Virginia had attempted to capture Washington, this lack would have been a massive disadvantage. If, of course, the guns could even get into range.
That fact is not one to be disregarded. During the entire course of the war, Washington came under direct, large-scale attack only once. In 1864, 20,000 Confederate soldiers under the command of Gen. Jubal Early snuck across the Potomac and attacked the northwestern defenses of the city in an effort to distract U.S. Grant from his attack against Richmond. After trying to force the defenses for two days, Early's force retreated. Confederate forces never even reached the walls of Fort Stevens, the main fort under attack.
Though this was one isolated event, the Army of Northern Virginia did have three main opportunities to attack Washington: in the wake of the Battle of Bull Run, during Lee's Maryland invasion, and during what would become known as the Gettysburg Campaign.
(To be continued...)
The American Civil War is no more immune to these Sealion moments than is the Second World War. One instance in particular stands out, however -- capture of Washington, D.C. by the Confederacy. Despite innumerable stories and threads discussing the contrary, at no time during the course of the war was the Army of Northern Virginia in position to capture the Union capital. Insufficient forces, a shaky logistical train, Union defenses, and the personalities of those involved make it virtually impossible for the Confederacy to have captured Washington during the war.
In 1863, Washington could boast over 60 forts and 93 batteries containing 837 guns and manned by 25,000 men. The defenses of Washington contained more artillery than the combined total of the Armies of the Potomac and Northern Virginia. 13 miles of trenches supported the forts, which were arranged in a then-unique supporting structure. Rather than standing alone, the forts of Washington contributed to each others' defense, and were positioned so they could cover the dead spots in their neighbors' fields of fire. This was a new development in the history of fortifications, and the technique would be used in both of the World Wars and every war since. At the time, Washington was the best-defended city in the world. Until the trenches of the First World War were dug, no fortification system in the world even came close to the interlocking system of defense that covered Washington.
A contemporary army would be forced to besiege, batter, and wear their way through the defenses in a costly, months-long (if not years) campaign. During that time, the attacking army would be vulnerable to the Union Army outside the defenses, while the city's defenders would continue to receive supplies via seaborne supply lines protected by the US Navy. The entire perimeter of the defenses was 37 miles, necessitating a massive covering effort required to besiege the city would leave the attackers vulnerable to an outside army coming to relieve the city. The sheer logistics of a siege make it impossible to attempt.
Of course, if you have a Point of Departure prior to the beginning of the war or even the intervention of Alien Space Bats, all these arguments go out the window. The best instance of this is in Harry Turtledove's Guns of the South, in which Confederate forces armed with AK-47s are able to overrun the Washington defenses to capture the city. Even this scenario, however, has its problems -- Turtledove conveniently overlooks the existence of two additional bridges across the Potomac (Long Bridge is listed as destroyed in the text) that would have allowed Grant's forces to reinforce the city and prevent its capture. Even with weaponry nearly a century more advanced, the capture of Washington in GoTS is a close-run event.
In our timeline, of course, the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia did not have AK-47s. Indeed, until the capture of the Federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry in 1862, there weren't enough rifled muskets to arm the entire Confederate force with the most modern weapons. The shortage of weapons wasn't limited to individual weapons -- the Confederacy had a severe lack of artillery as well. In 1861, more guns were produced in the state of New York alone than in the entire Confederacy. This lack of heavy artillery would hamper Confederate armies at every turn, and if the Army of Northern Virginia had attempted to capture Washington, this lack would have been a massive disadvantage. If, of course, the guns could even get into range.
That fact is not one to be disregarded. During the entire course of the war, Washington came under direct, large-scale attack only once. In 1864, 20,000 Confederate soldiers under the command of Gen. Jubal Early snuck across the Potomac and attacked the northwestern defenses of the city in an effort to distract U.S. Grant from his attack against Richmond. After trying to force the defenses for two days, Early's force retreated. Confederate forces never even reached the walls of Fort Stevens, the main fort under attack.
Though this was one isolated event, the Army of Northern Virginia did have three main opportunities to attack Washington: in the wake of the Battle of Bull Run, during Lee's Maryland invasion, and during what would become known as the Gettysburg Campaign.
(To be continued...)