If the Confederacy Wins the Civil War, Does the United States Move Its Capital?

[PhilKearny]

Oh, darn--someone caring about facts in a history forum. Why the next thing you know, he'll use reason and logic.

TFSmith and civil war facts!

TFSmith presents facts and reason. You should be grateful he posts here, if for no other reason that his posts are intelligent and benefit all of us, even if he lets the axe fall where it may.

If facts and logic make you uncomfortable, perhaps you should consider the ASB form. There you would have to worry about historical facts and logic. You might find that less stiffling.

Less about facts and more stiffling any discussion that doesn't match his view.

I think you miss the point, Not Henry, G. This is alternate history, not fantasy.

Alternate history is based on a reasonable point of departure. If you want fantasy timelines, there places for that, such as the ASB forum or the Sandbox.

I think you're missing the little fact this is ALTERNATE HISTORY. You know, things happening different from OTL? In an alternate history the South could, shock gasp, do better than OTL and wear down the Northern will.

But enough, this is just derailing the thread. Back to Anaxagoras's question, no I don't think they'd move the capital. It might look like weakness if they did. But, as some people have said and as one of the few things people agree Turtledove did good, there would be a "backup" capital somewhere else for times of war.

 

[TFSmith121]

In all honesty this proves precisely the opposite of the point you're trying to make. New York requires that kind of investment in its defense to protect it from naval attack. It's not necessarily a question of if the Royal Navy can sail up and take New York City, but of the scale of the forces that have to be reserved to protect it. If those forces are protecting New York, then they can't be used for something else. And if you take them away from the City to do something else, then the Royal Navy can sail in and take the city. So it's a matter of the opportunity cost, as well as the financial expense, of defending the city, because New York is vulnerable. Moving the capital there just makes it even more so, because the cost of losing it is even worse. So you need to defend it with even more forces. And as a consequence all of those soldiers and guns are spending the war sitting around New York, instead of doing something useful somewhere else where they might be important.

Realize that the garrison, like the men who defended Baltimore at Hampstead Hill the same year, were largely part-time state militia who garrisoned the defenses in rotation and would have been called out when needed. They were organized under Gov. Tompkins authority, and so were funded by New York State (and Tompkins directly, from his own fortune) and so like Samuel Smith's Marylanders, were "local" troops, not regulars or volunteers in federal service.

Again, two historical examples of many as to the capabilities of the US to defend itself in the Nineteenth Century using other than federal resources.

The individual states, even today, have the legal authority to raise their own forces, to whatever level they are willing to pay for, entirely separate from the National Guard.

Best,

 

[redlightning]

It's not very likely that Maryland will secede with the Confederate states after the war ends. Washington still exists. I see Richmond being moved as the Confederate capital however.

 

[Kevin C. Smith]

Since the OP's premise is that a war did break out, I think the only way for the Union to "lose" (if the criteria is that the Confederacy leaves substantially intact) is if the war is as short as many originally envisaged. High casualty/low gain battles, along with inept political handling, cause the Union to bow out. This, I think, will leave the border areas much less militarized and allow both Washington and Richmond to remain their respective national capitals-if the Union either manages to capture or (by treaty*) occupy some area of northern Virginia to provide a buffer/fortress/defense zone.

*This would require some major political cojones on the part of Virginian politicians to surrender even a small amount of territory, though the idea of avoiding making their state the battlefield of the rest of the war might convince them. But, the CS government might very well leave it as a state issue as long as the Union border didn't get too close to Richmond. The rest of the CSA might very well not object if it meant allowing them to leave in peace (though not necessarily friendship).

In short, the capitals might be able to live together if their countries didn't want to duke it out.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Oh, darn--someone caring about facts in a history forum. Why the next thing you know, he'll use reason and logic.

More like, somebody caring about facts when they support his own pre-conceived notions, and completely ignoring them when they don't.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Well, there are the ones from the spiritual leader of the usual suspects... He got banned for them, however.

Best,

I'm afraid I've got no idea who you're referring to here. Maybe you'd like to actually, y'know, quote some actual examples of people getting all excited about the idea of "grey-clad cavaliers (or red-coated ones, sometimes) holding down the lower sorts and aligning with their betters".

Preferably someone who's also posted on this thread, since it was the people posting here whose motives you decided to impugn.

 

[Saphroneth]

NYC is aobut as vulnerable as London or Rome. Yet no navies steamed up to them.

The Thames estuary was heavily defended by the British fleet, because it was seen as a possibility - for example, in early 1862 it had two ironclads protecting it - and had several forts built around the area. Also the UK wasn't really at war with anyone with the capacity.

Similarly with Italy, the Italians were never really at war with anyone with the capacity. Probably influenced their diplomacy, though - much as it influenced US diplomacy and invasion literature, as well as driving their fort construction program.

So wait are you suggesting the USA couldn't in the aftermath of a likley British or French Incursion build up their naval forces as well as their naval defences which it should be noted were already formidable.

Well, nothing on the Potomac as of 1862 could have stopped the CSS Virginia (the guns in Fort Washington weren't large enough and she can cross the limiting draft shoals at high tide) so they'd have to do a lot of buildup. Of course it's possible (indeed inevitable) that TTL they wouldn't neglect their naval defences as much as OTL; however, I think that if the city had actually been under the guns of an enemy fleet there might be a public will (and desire) to move the capital just so it doesn't happen again.

Didn't happen in 1815, of course, but - as I say - this is mostly about perception.

 

[Falecius]

Similarly with Italy, the Italians were never really at war with anyone with the capacity.

Except that time Benny chose to enter a war against France, Britain, the Soviet Union, the United States and a bunch of smaller countries at the same time. Unsurprisingly, an Allied army eventually entered Rome, despite a considerable German military effort to prevent that. It is also true, however, that at that point there was also an Italian government and several different Italian armed formations fighting on the Allied side.

 

[Saphroneth]

Except that time Benny chose to enter a war against France, Britain, the Soviet Union, the United States and a bunch of smaller countries at the same time. Unsurprisingly, an Allied army eventually entered Rome, despite a considerable German military effort to prevent that. It is also true, however, that at that point there was also an Italian government and several different Italian armed formations fighting on the Allied side.

True, but what I mean is that by that point submarines, aircraft and the like made directly steaming up rivers prohibitively difficult. You can't really argue that it's impossible to sail a hostile ship into New York in the late Victorian era because of Reasons - there has to be actual defences there.
NY's a relatively easy one to defend if you put the money in - but what it means to put the money in is large, continuously updated fort programs with a combination of powerful naval guns, rapid firing guns, mines, torpedo gunboats and searchlights. OTL the US ignored fortification basically from 1866 to the late 1880s, and the fortification plan on New York (which was extensive and sufficient to protect the city) - lots of batteries covering narrow points and areas ready to emplace minefields - was not finished until 1904. This stuff's expensive!



Eastern New York (via Long Island Sound)
Fort Schuyler was an old third system fort, which they started to modernise in 1896:
1. Battery Hazzard (2x 10”) – 1898 (commenced 1896)
2. Battery Gansevoort(2x 12”) – 1900
3. Battery Bell (2x 5”) – 1900
4. Battery Beecher (2x 3”) – 1900
Fort Slocum on David’s Island was commenced 1892:
1. Battery Haskin and Battery Overton (16x 12” Mor) – 1897 (commenced 1892)
2. Battery Practice (2x 8” Rodman RML) – 1896
3. Battery Fraser (2x 5”) – 1901
4. Battery Kinney (2x 6”) – 1904
Fort Totten was a third system fort modernised:
1. Battery Graham (2x 10”) – 1897 (started 1896)
2. Battery Sumner (2x 8”) – 1899
3. Battery Stuart (2x 5”) – 1899
4. Battery King (8x 12” Mor) – 1900
5. Battery Mahan (2x 12”) – 1900
6. Battery Baker (2x 3”) – 1900
7. Battery Burnes (2x 3”) – 1904
Southern New York
Fort Jay is a disused first system fort.
Fort Lafayette is a disused second system fort.
Fort Tomkins is a disused second system fort.
Fort Hancock on Sandy Hook:
1. Battery Dynamite (1x 8” and 2x 15” Air-Torpedo launchers) – 1896
2. Battery Potter (2x 12” on gun-lifts) – 1898
3. Battery McCook and Battery Reyonds (16x 12” Mor) – 1898
4. Battery Granger (2x 10”) – 1898
5. Battery Engle (1x 5”) – 1898
6. Battery Alexander (2x 12”) – 1899
7. Battery Bloomfield (2x 12”) – 1899
8. Battery Halleck (3x 10”) – 1900
9. Battery Peck (2x 6”) – 1903
10. Battery Urmston (6x 3”) – 1903
11. Battery Richardson (2x 12”) – 1904
12. Battery Morris (4x 3”) – 1904
13. Battery Gunnison (2x 6”) – 1905
Fort Hamilton has:
1. Battery Spear (3x 10”) – 1898
2. Battery Gilmore (4x 10”) – 1899
3. Battery Griffin (2x 4.72”) – 1899 (expanded with 2 more 3” in 1902, then another 2x 3” in 1903)
4. Battery Doubleday (2x 12”) – 1900
5. Battery Neary (2x 12”) – 1900
6. Battery Piper (8x 12” Mor) – 1901
7. Battery Harvey Brown (2x 12”) – 1902
8. Battery Johnston (2x 6”) – 1902
9. Battery Burke (4x 6”) – 1903
10. Battery Livingstone (4x 6”) – 1905
11. Battery Mendenhall (4x 6”) – 1905
Fort Wadsworth has:
1. Battery Upton (2x 10”) – 1897
2. Battery Duane (5x 8”) – 1897
3. Battery Barbour (2x 4.72” and 2x 6”) – 1898
4. Battery Hudson (2x 12”) – 1899
5. Battery Richmond (2x 12”) – 1899
6. Battery Barry (2x 10”) – 1899
7. Battery Bacon (2x 3”) – 1899
8. Battery Mills (2x 6”) – 1900
9. Battery Ayres (2x 12”) – 1901
10. Battery Turnbull (6x 3”) – 1903
11. Battery Dix (2x 12”) – 1904
12. Battery Catlin (6x 3”) – 1904

 

[Saphroneth]

And here's the Potomac and Chesapeake area.




Baltimore
Fort McHenry is as it was in 1814.
Fort Armistead
1. Battery Winchester (1x 12”) – 1900
2. Battery McFarland (3x 8”) – 1900
3. Battery Irons (2x 4.72”) – 1900
4. Battery Mudge (2x 3”) – 1901
Fort Carroll
1. Battery Towson (2x 12”) – 1900
2. Battery Heart (2x 5”) – 1900
3. Battery Augustin (2x 3”) – 1900
Fort Howard
1. Battery Sticker (2x 12”) – 1899
2. Battery Key (8x 12” Mor) – 1900
3. Battery Nicholson (2x 6”) – 1900
4. Battery Harris (2x 5”) – 1900
5. Battery Lazear (2x 3”) – 1900
6. Battery Clagett (2x 3”) – 1901
Fort Smallwood
1. Battery Hartshorne (2x 6”) – 1900
2. Battery Sykes (2x 3”) – 1905
Potomac River
Fort Hunt
1. Battery Mount Vernon (3x 8”) – 1898
2. Battery Porter (1x 5”) – 1901
3. Battery Robinson (1x 5”) – 1901
4. Battery Sater (3x 3”) – 1904
Fort Washington is the old fort, modernised as:
1. Battery Water (1x 10”) – 1898 (simple barbette hastily made)
2. Battery Decatur (2x 10”) – 1899
3. Battery Emory (2x 10”) – 1899
4. Battery Humphreys (2x 10”) – 1899
5. Battery White (2x 4”) – 1899
6. Battery Meigs (8x 12” Mor) – 1902
7. Battery Wilkin (2x 6”) – 1902
8. Battery Smith (2x 3”) – 1903
9. Battery Many (2x 3”) – 1905
Chesapeake Bay
Fort Monroe is an old fort modernised as:
1. Battery Humphreys (1x 10”) – 1897
2. Battery Bomford (2x 10”) – 1897
3. Battery Anderson and Battery Ruggles (16x 12” Mor) – 1898
4. Battery Barber (1x 8”) – 1898 (simple barbette mounts)
5. Battery Parapet (4x 8”) – 1898 (barbette)
6. Battery Gatewood (4x 4.7”) – 1898
7. Battery Eustis (2x 10”) – 1901
8. Battery Church (2x 10”) – 1901
9. Battery Irwin (4x 3”) – 1903
10. Battery DeRussy (3x 12”) – 1904
11. Battery Montgomery (2x 6”) – 1904
12. Battery Parrott (2x 12”) – 1906
Fort Wool is opposite and similar:
1. Battery Hindman (2x 3”) – 1905
2. Battery Lee (4x 3”) – 1905
3. Battery Claiborne (2x 6”) – 1908
4. Battery Dyer (2x 6”) – 1908
5. Battery Gates (2x 6”) – 1908


This is the kind of time and expense required to make your coast safe from intrusion. Though obviously it's possible Fort Monroe and Calhoun (I assume unrenamed) would be in CS hands.

 

[Falecius]

True, but what I mean is that by that point submarines, aircraft and the like made directly steaming up rivers prohibitively difficult. You can't really argue that it's impossible to sail a hostile ship into New York in the late Victorian era because of Reasons - there has to be actual defences there.

I can't say anything meaningful about New York, but I think it is considerably more vulnerable to attack from the sea than Rome is. I think that steaming into the Vatican would be, for a large seagoing vessel, problematic. Rome DID have a busy riverine port, but AFAIK seaships never went there, except maybe the smallest ones.
This is not the case for London, by the way.

 

[Saphroneth]

I can't say anything meaningful about New York, but I think it is considerably more vulnerable to attack from the sea than Rome is. I think that steaming into the Vatican would be, for a large seagoing vessel, problematic. Rome DID have a busy riverine port, but AFAIK seaships never went there, except maybe the smallest ones.
This is not the case for London, by the way.

Yes, I looked into it for my TL last week. Depth wise it's extremely easy - there are essentially no draft limits on the New York Narrows, you could fit a battleship in there even in the 1860s. There's also the fillip of the Kills river system which goes around the back door, and Long Island Sound which is the other back door. (I had HMS Warrior lay off 600 yards from the ACW batteries and reduce them to rubble with no effectual return fire.)

Mind you, sometimes the USN made some very questionable fortification decisions. I think my favorite is the defence of Providence, RI - there's three routes into the bay, one of them has a very impressive fort and the other two have squat.

 

[Saphroneth]

Incidentally, one of the OTL war scares of the US was this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_battleship_Riachuelo

This is a battleship with 18.4 foot draft, armoured with compound armour (first! This was about 250mm thick, equivalent to 300mm+ of wrought iron) and 4 9.2" guns. Not only was she effectively invulnerable to ACW era weapons, but she was shallow draft enough to sail right up the Potomac (at low tide) let alone into New York. The war scare was basically that Brazil had a vessel which could sink the entire American navy and shell Washington if it wanted to, and it was essentially unstoppable.

The CSA will be trying to have a ship with similar relative capability to this at all times.

 

[Not Henry G.]

Well alternate history requires some basis in actual reality. Which well you see you cannot just make things out of thin air.

Of course, but even when providing possibilities grounded on reality people just go "Well no it can't work. Why? Because they lost OTL, dummy. That means they can't win no matter what."
When the explanation is "They lost OTL" and not "it wouldn't work because X" then we have a problem

 

[TFSmith121]

I'm afraid I've got no idea who you're referring to here. Maybe you'd like to actually, y'know, quote some actual examples of people getting all excited about the idea of "grey-clad cavaliers (or red-coated ones, sometimes) holding down the lower sorts and aligning with their betters".

Preferably someone who's also posted on this thread, since it was the people posting here whose motives you decided to impugn.

Sap has the black confederates meme going right now; this time they're Zulus assigned to the Army of Northern Virginia at Gettysburg. No, seriously.

That would seem to speak volumes, but what would you call that, AIGF?

The equivalent is the IDF attached to the SS at Bastogne.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Of course, but even when providing possibilities grounded on reality people just go "Well no it can't work. Why? Because they lost OTL, dummy. That means they can't win no matter what."
When the explanation is "They lost OTL" and not "it wouldn't work because X" then we have a problem

So how is asking for an explanation - not provided - somehow beyond the pale?

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Yes, I looked into it for my TL last week. Depth wise it's extremely easy - there are essentially no draft limits on the New York Narrows, you could fit a battleship in there even in the 1860s. There's also the fillip of the Kills river system which goes around the back door, and Long Island Sound which is the other back door. (I had HMS Warrior lay off 600 yards from the ACW batteries and reduce them to rubble with no effectual return fire.)

Mind you, sometimes the USN made some very questionable fortification decisions. I think my favorite is the defence of Providence, RI - there's three routes into the bay, one of them has a very impressive fort and the other two have squat.

Given the reality the US Army was responsible for harbor defense, your grasp of these issues seems somewhat suspect, Sap old man.

Best,

 

[dartingfog]

My two cents: No (if we assume the CSA somehow wins the war and includes all of AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, NC, SC, TN, TX, and VA)

However, when I was doing my Hannibal Hamlin timeline I considered moving the US capital, but I thought that moving it would be admitting defeat (although a "shadow" capital is plausible). Unless you end up with a situation where Maryland also secedes, then I think the capital moves as it is surrounded by the Confederacy. A similar situation happened with West Germany, where the capital was moved from Berlin to Bonn. Someone upthread suggested the possibility of having multiple capitals for each branch of government, similar to South Africa. While this an intriguing idea, it's doubtful on two counts: 1) the USA (even with the South) is far more vast than South Africa and each section of the country (West, Midwest, and Northeast) would demand a capital in each section (too far apart to be practical) and 2) the multi-capital situation in South Africa is the result of merging four separate territories together, and each capital was formerly a capital of one of the territories.

But let's say you're a member of Congress on the New-capital search committee in the 1870s. Where does it go?

Not the Northeast: The Western States would balk: "it's too far"
Not the West: The Eastern States would balk: "it's too far"
So the new capital probably ends up somewhere in the Midwest. Remember that Washington, D.C. was located where it was because it was located on the border of the North and South, close to the 1790 population center. In 1870, the population center of the rump-USA would be (by my calculations) be somewhere around Bowling Green, Ohio. But I think Ohio is unlikely for several reasons described below. So what states can we rule out?

All of the states east of the Appalachians - too far from the West and too close to large cities
All of the states west of the Mississippi (except maybe Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri) - too far from the East and too vulnerable to Native American raids
All of the border states (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware) - too many southern sympathizers and too close to the CSA
All of the states bordering the border states (Iowa, Illinois, and especially Indiana and Ohio) - too close for a repeat of Morgan's Raid and too many Copperheads.
All of the states bordering Canada by land or water (rules out Minnesota, Michigan, and Ohio) - too risky for British invasion: remember this is only 60 years after the War of 1812

So that leaves only Wisconsin. My best bet would be Madison, as the government infrastructure is already there. It's also pretty close to major rail lines and Chicago, but not too close.

 

[Japhy]

I think you miss the point, Not Henry, G. This is alternate history, not fantasy.

Alternate history is based on a reasonable point of departure. If you want fantasy timelines, there places for that, such as the ASB forum or the Sandbox.

Well besides asigning me the wrong name even when you quoted me, you've missed the point. TFSMITH is yet again not trying to use facts to promote discussion but is attempting to use determinism to kill it. My problem is that he does this all the time, with any ACW discussion for his own ego. He further showed though discussion here that he really does view doing this as some important battle against neoconfederates, which based on who is posting this is the actual fantasy. People can ask questions that don't fit into the situation on the ground without thinking the Confederacy was right. This isn't a matter of facts it's a matter of ego and a matter of respect, one of which he shows an abundance of when he tries to crush discussion and another he shows none of at the same time.

 

[TFSmith121]

Well besides asigning me the wrong name even when you quoted me, you've missed the point. TFSMITH is yet again not trying to use facts to promote discussion but is attempting to use determinism to kill it. My problem is that he does this all the time, with any ACW discussion for his own ego. He further showed though discussion here that he really does view doing this as some important battle against neoconfederates, which based on who is posting this is the actual fantasy. People can ask questions that don't fit into the situation on the ground without thinking the Confederacy was right. This isn't a matter of facts it's a matter of ego and a matter of respect, one of which he shows an abundance of when he tries to crush discussion and another he shows none of at the same time.

I asked what was meant by "lose" and where the alleged border was, including whether Maryland and Virginia both seceded or not, since there was no detail in the OP; the OP responded, and I responded to that. How the hell is that "crushing discussion?"

Best,