Wrapped in Flames: The Great American War and Beyond
- Thread starter EnglishCanuck
- Start date
Thank you! I've yet to move everything over to Civil War Talk, but its on my to do list!
Deleted member 2186
Take your time, think i read it here more as i spend more time here then on Civil War Talk.
As I think DC could have reasonably held on its own with the I and III corps and what was left of its garrison, I see McClellan trapping himself there as the worst possible outcome. Let's hope he is not Bazaine at Metz and won't surrender that easily.
Given the relative strength of each side, 95,000 Federals against 112,000 Anglo-Confederates, McClellan has still the open option of breaking out. That's feasible if he can properly coordinate with the Army of the Chesapeake under Thomas. But still, what worries me the more here is the level of food supply. DC could have perhaps supported a smaller garrison such as in the way I thought of, but 95,000 men plus the civilians?
Besides, where is Rosecrans? I read he was left on the rear to hold off against Jackson, so I may be tempted to wonder if he was able to escape the trap of DC and reach Baltimore.
Given the relative strength of each side, 95,000 Federals against 112,000 Anglo-Confederates, McClellan has still the open option of breaking out. That's feasible if he can properly coordinate with the Army of the Chesapeake under Thomas. But still, what worries me the more here is the level of food supply. DC could have perhaps supported a smaller garrison such as in the way I thought of, but 95,000 men plus the civilians?
Besides, where is Rosecrans? I read he was left on the rear to hold off against Jackson, so I may be tempted to wonder if he was able to escape the trap of DC and reach Baltimore.
I thought again of this passage (as I don't remember the detail of the Confederate order of battle). Does that mean Davis is pulling back some of Lee's troop back to Virginia or stripping Fredericksburg to bolster his numbers?
It's that I thought illogical and dangerous not to blockade the city from the South and risk opening northern Virginia to the defenders' raids, since I guess the bridges are still much intact.
In fact, the opportunity that is open to McClellan now that he has an entire army in DC and still control of the bridges, is that he can in a typical Napoleonic style try to defeat the Confederates in detail, or part of Lee's forces at least. Leaving a good portion of his men to man the trenches and the forts north of the Potomac, he could bring the remainder south of it in a lightning offensive to achieve huge numerical superiority over Confederates south of the river, especially those at Fredericksburg, before turning back north to DC and eventually catch during or shortly after crossing whatever Lee would have sent to Virginia.
Of course, he could also just try Lee's way of sneaking out, making a diversion towards Fredericksburg while his actual force get to the Shenandoah, cross at Harper's Ferry and cross into Maryland and then to Pennsylvania to get to nearest railroad station, before being ferried all the way to Baltimore.
Tell me which of these courses seem to you the more realistic.
The former option is supposing McClellan will do everything to stay and defend DC, while the latter one is a way out for his army to avoid capture and an ignominous surrender (which would lead back to my previous idea of a big army at Baltimore in the back of DC's besiegers).
McClellan won't surrender easily, and he's still in the fight with some powerful fortifications in front of him. Though you raise a good point in that DC is not really well suited to support its population and a large army in a siege. This is why the siege must be broken at all costs.
V Corps is in the defences of Washington. There's more than enough men and ammunition to give the Confederates pause, but there's also about 24,000 Federals massing at Baltimore, but they're leaderless at the present and XII Corps is exhausted while the two Volunteer/militia divisions are technically not under the command of any high ranking officer. It's a confused command situation, which is why Thomas is being called to the East.
Lee ordered the division left behind from Magruder's Corps to join him in the lines to bolster his numbers. There's still a division worth of troops at Fredericksburg, facing two Federal divisions at Fredericksburg with I Corps.
There is the possibility of McClellan moving against Lee to the south, but he has some problems with that. Firstly if his offensive fails he is using supplies he presently cannot replenish, and he still needs to know the position of his remaining forces. He also believes the force at Fredericksburg is a full corps (rather than just a division) and believes he is significantly outnumbered rather than slightly. This will constrain his reactions, and so will make June-July something of a stalemate as both sides are probing at one another or shuffling around forces.
Lee still has to stabilize his siege lines as well, so there will be a bit of back and forth for some time.
The question is, is McClellan the man to lead the breakout?
Thomas seems to be the sort who seems to be the one to break through to him and McClellan seems to cautious for his own good in a situation like this
Deleted member 2186
It has a What if section where this timeline is posted on.
This is turning out To be a pretty wild ride. Baltimore is a very tempting target, but the Washington siege needs more men as is. I really get the impression that the Confederates are spread thin on a lot of fronts.
How are the Confederates viewed in Annapolis? Possession of a state capital is always great propaganda and is probably a small blow to Lincoln's reputation and a boon to the Confederate cause. Did the Maryland government flee elsewhere, or is there two rival governments now operating for Maryland?
Napoleon III is probably watching this great aplomb. Things are going pear shaped in Mexico for him but he's got to be planning to do something to take advantage of Britain and the CSA's goodwill as well as American desperation .
How are the Confederates viewed in Annapolis? Possession of a state capital is always great propaganda and is probably a small blow to Lincoln's reputation and a boon to the Confederate cause. Did the Maryland government flee elsewhere, or is there two rival governments now operating for Maryland?
Napoleon III is probably watching this great aplomb. Things are going pear shaped in Mexico for him but he's got to be planning to do something to take advantage of Britain and the CSA's goodwill as well as American desperation .
Baltimore is tempting, but controlling the rail lines south of it and the Chesapeake effectively cut off McClellan and his army from resupply and leave them to wither on the vine unless they can break out. Going south means certain doom since the Confederates control the ground behind them and the British control the sea, their only hope is Thomas can organize the new Army of the Chesapeake with all speed and take Washington back or break the siege.
McClellan, were he more offensive, might try to organize his troops to break out and beat up Lee, but they've just suffered a pretty comprehensive defeat and XII Corps is hanging on to its meager morale by a thread.
The Confederates are tolerated in Annapolis, while people who remember the Union occupying Baltimore in 1861 are weighing the odds. Britain isn't exactly popular in the state, but with the Confederates occupying the capital and paying good money (as opposed to worthless greybacks OTL) the populace has an overall good opinion of them for an invading army. That doesn't mean that there's much in the way of overt support for them though.
Napoleon III is still licking his wounds and wounded pride after First Puebla, however, since then the troops who were historically dispatched have made their way across the Atlantic and are working up for round 2. He's pretty excited things are going badly for the Union as he is now free to take a heavy hand in Mexico, which he plans on doing. Lots of imperial ambition there for sure.
I'm really enjoying this TL, @EnglishCanuck. Do you reckon there's a fair amount of buried tension in the alliance between Britain and the Confederacy? The British leadership will obviously seek to frame the conflict in a way such as to avoid slavery altogether, but there's thousands of ways that conflict will manifest regardless in the the interactions of ordinary soldiers, sailors, civilians, diplomats, etc. British abolitionism and revulsion towards slavery was widespread and sincere. Don't forget Uncles Tom's sold a million copies in Britain, far more than in the United States. And what of the free black folks in all of Britain's possessions in the Caribbean? I wonder what will they be thinking about this turn of events. Particularly in the Bahamas, which I imagine will now find itself playing a very important part in the war. Interaction between the free black inhabitants there and any Confederates who happen to be passing through will be interesting to say the least.
Thank you! I'm glad you've been enjoying it!
The British have somewhat sidestepped the issue of slavery by framing this as a war to defend British interests. The Confederacy is largely secondary to their concerns, which means up til now the British really haven't paid much mind to the whole slavery issue. The Emancipation Proclamation has brought it somewhat forward, but by and large its something only the most committed abolitionists are concerned with.
My understanding of the rather complicated OTL sympathies for the Confederacy (which isn't as simple as aristocrats supported the Confederacy and laborers supported the North mind you) is that many Liberals early on supported the Confederacy because they earnestly believed that it should be allowed to separate on principles of determining its own future, or that they believed slavery would go away once the South could manage its own institutions. Gladstone's famous historic speech at Newcastle paid particular lip service to slavery while saying the South had a right to be acknowledged as a nation as an established fact. Even OTL there was nuance on the matter which the Emancipation Proclamation didn't completely put down. The slavery question wasn't finally settled until December 5th 1865, or one could say even April 9th 1865.
As to Britain's free blacks, well, it really depends. I've read that in the Bahamas black sailors regularly sang pro-Southern songs outside the Union consuls house in Nassau. The reason being that they had made lots of money in the pre-war cotton trade and his efforts to stop their lucrative blockade running were hurting them economically. ITTL most free blacks in Canada (roughly 17,000 though probably closer to 20,000) are resolutely pro-British, since a large portion of their number are either escaped slaves or the descendants of escaped slaves themselves. They sincerely remember how in 1861, John Anderson was wanted by the United States and it was pushing for his extradition, but he was saved by the British courts, so they have no reason to love the Union. There's 400 serving in the colors who played a pivotal role at Mount Pelion. A large number of blacks are also serving in the Royal Navy as well. As to their interaction (now or future) with Confederates, well it would be largely very similar to that with most whites. Race relations weren't all rosy, and the n-word was used pretty commonly. Unless said Confederate is in the astronomically unlikely position of trying to enslave them, a black person would probably give them the same treatment they would any other white person they encountered.
The most interesting thing would be, what would happen if the British found themselves embroiled in a diplomatic incident if an escaped slave was found on one of their vessels? The incident would depend in all upon the inclination of whatever officer happened to be in charge, but if they declined to recognize the slave in question as property, it might cause a row. The Confederates of course, could claim a grievance and demand the slave back, but they can't really do anything if the British say no. They might try, but it would be in vain. That's about the only way they could really sour themselves for Britain at this point, until then they're merely useful to the British war effort.
For all that they are cooperating at present, Britain probably still sees the confederates as an unpleasant and unfortunate cobelligerent. If the Union offered the British empire a separate peace which met most of British war goals, they would probably gladly accept it and leave the confederates holding the bag.
Yup. The British have so far been cagey on the issues of recognition and alliance, partially because they don't want to jump feet first into the quagmire, and partially because they realize this might back the North into a corner. There's certain people in government who believe that recognizing the Confederacy is akin to a 'win' button, but Palmerston is still canny enough to realize that while kicking the North around is feasible, he's also a realist who sees the South for what it is. It would be nice if the Union split, but that's a separate issue from dragging reparations from Washington.
OTL there was little consideration given to outright cooperation with the Confederacy, and even Admiral Milne was only enthusiastic for what could be accomplished in conjunction with the fleet and I feel the British would wait on that. They had the experience of coalition warfare in the Crimea, and the differing objectives and values of their French and Ottoman partners left a bad taste in their mouths.
Speaking of the committed abolitionists, I bet they're rather unhappy with the way things have gone here. There's a decent few of them in Parliament, mostly Liberal backbenchers like William Edward Forster. Although it may not influence public opinion as long as the war goes well the roots are there for an anti-war movement in Britain involving all the elements of British society that had reason to sympathies with the Union OTL.
Would you believe I've lived in Newcastle my whole life and somehow never heard of this speech until now? I did a little googling and as far as I can tell I've walked through the square where he gave the speech a number of times completely oblivious to this little bit of local history.
That's genuinely one of the most bonkers things I've ever heard, which is why I have no doubt whatsoever that it is true! Do you think the coatwise slave trade will be occurring here given the lack of blockade? I wonder about the explosive diplomatic consequences of anything resembling the Creole case during the war.
OTL the prospect of war horrified them. I'd have to look for them, but there's quotes to the effect from abolitionists at the time thinking its the worst thing that could happen. Essentially a fatalistic attitude that if Britain had to fight, she would, but it was the last thing they wanted. TTL, while they would cheer the Emancipation Proclamation, they'd think it had very little to do with Britain's grievances.
Fascinating! I've had similar experiences living in Ottawa. Amazing how you can live someplace so long yet still have so much unknown?
It really is! Until I read it I wouldn't have believed it myself! Though it a way I suppose it makes sense, the blockade hurt the local economy, and if the blockade runners were making money they had every reason to resent the person they felt was depriving them of their livelihood.
Coastwise slave trade will happen, but it would be rarer. As I understand it most slaves were shipped on the internal waterways of the Confederacy, but I could see slaves being shipped along the coast for work.
Anything where a freeman was seized by Confederates would be more explosive than the Trent affair almost. Though with British interaction with the Confederacy coming almost exclusively through merchant ships, warships and the like, its only a could happen scenario. An interesting one to be sure.