DC taken early in Civil War.

[NapoleonXIV]

AFAIK at the time of First Manassas, Washington D.C. was not yet heavily fortified.

And the end of the battle saw a rather ignominious defeat for the Union, with Northern observers who had come to watch the few and disorganized Southrons be chased home.

WI somehow (lots of handwaving here, maybe) the defeat is even worse. The Union Army is routed and scatters in panic and the Confederates take full advantage, falling on a helpless Washington. By the next day a Southron flag flies over the Capitol and the entire Union govt is in jail.

What would happen next? Would the Union rally since they are still rather unscathed and vastly superior in nos and equipage or would they surrender since all their leaders have been captured?

 

[wkwillis]

In OTL the Union forces were outnumbered and taken by surprise. In this ATL the Confederates do an even better job of switching troops around without the Union noticing and after the battle the extra troops come in behind the Union troops and round up the retreating rabble. In OTL the retreat was fast because the troops didn't wait for orders to retreat, but took off immediately. In this ATL they are beaten, but disciplined enough to avoid just scampering off and are therefore captured.
When the Confederates round them up that night, the staff will be laying plans for the attack on the Capital. They send a cavalry unit that was not used that day to sieze the bridge over the Potomac. After an epic siege the Confederate army relieves the besieged cavalry unit holding the bridge and takes the Capital.
However, in April of 1861 the Union government is the previous government, the Buchanon proConfederate government. It's not so much they arrest them as they recruit them. Only a thousand Union office holders are on hand to be arrested and they will just mount up and ride away. No prisoners except those at Manassas.
Now the Confederacy has Maryland. What's the effect? The Union isn't going to be able to hold Baltimore, I bet, so the Union is dug in along the line of the Susquehanna, south of Wilmington.
This is important. Baltimore had a lot of manufacturing facilities. The Confederate army will be defending a river line just north of Baltimore to protect them.
Furthermore, the B+O is now behind Confederate lines. That's important for moving troops around.
It's also important for coaling British blockade runners. They don't have to haul coal for the return voyage.
Will the Tories in Britain get the British government to authorise the British navy to convoy blockade runners to Confederate ports?
Will the Union match the Confederate conscription with Union conscription to build a big enough army to invade the Confederacy and Canada at the same time?
Will they start building factories to replace the stuff they won't be importing from Britain now that they are at war?

 

[robertp6165]

However, in April of 1861 the Union government is the previous government, the Buchanon proConfederate government. It's not so much they arrest them as they recruit them. Only a thousand Union office holders are on hand to be arrested and they will just mount up and ride away. No prisoners except those at Manassas.

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGG!!!!! <choking noise as my face turns purple> WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. The sheer level of ignorance is truly frightening. First, Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. So Buchanan is out. Second, Buchanan was not pro-Confederate. He was indecisive, but not pro-Confederate. Third, the first Battle of Manassas was fought in July 1861, not April 1861. There was NO WAY IN HELL that a major battle was going to be fought in April 1861. Neither side had an army ready to fight until the mid-summer.

 

[robertp6165]

AFAIK at the time of First Manassas, Washington D.C. was not yet heavily fortified.

And the end of the battle saw a rather ignominious defeat for the Union, with Northern observers who had come to watch the few and disorganized Southrons be chased home.

WI somehow (lots of handwaving here, maybe) the defeat is even worse. The Union Army is routed and scatters in panic and the Confederates take full advantage, falling on a helpless Washington. By the next day a Southron flag flies over the Capitol and the entire Union govt is in jail.

What would happen next? Would the Union rally since they are still rather unscathed and vastly superior in nos and equipage or would they surrender since all their leaders have been captured?

It is hard to say. There is some reason to believe that the shock effect of instantly losing the national capital and having the government captured would be enough to force the North to give up the war. There was, at that time, still some sentiment in the North that the war should not have been started at all...that the erring sisters should have been allowed to go in peace.

In the OTL, of course, defeat at First Manassas rallied the North and ended the last major talk of compromise in the North. So it could have had that effect too. But the defeat here is MUCH worse, so I think that the shock value may cause a different reaction...giving strength to those who want a negotiated peace.

 

[wkwillis]

The civil war was fought in 1861, not 1961. Things moved slowly, slowly, slowly. Very slowly.
In 1861 the Union sent essentially half it's army to the first battle of Bull Run (a creek, the Union named battles for rivers or mountains, the Confederates for towns). The civil war buildup had not occurred yet because the Union thought that the Confederacy was kidding, not really serious.
Then after Bull Run the Union realised that the Confederacy was going to fight more than one battle and got real. Lincoln issued a call for a large army and they got down to business.
Richmond in 1861 was also a very small and slow moving town. It expanded in size by ten or so in three years, like Washington. If the Union had captured it in 1861 it would have made no military difference to the war.

 

[zoomar]

In 1861 Few northerners really wanted or expected to fight a Civil War which would cost a lot of lives. On the basis of no real evidence, I am convinced that had Confederate armies marched into DC after Manassass, Lincoln might have been impeached or forced to resign and negotiations would begin to establish a legal mechanism for Confederate secession (or possibly a new constitutional arrangement or treaty keeping the two regions still vaguely aligned with each other but essentially independent in domestic policies). But maybe I'm also full of it.

 

[Chrispi]

In 1861 Few northerners really wanted or expected to fight a Civil War which would cost a lot of lives. On the basis of no real evidence, I am convinced that had Confederate armies marched into DC after Manassass, Lincoln might have been impeached or forced to resign and negotiations would begin to establish a legal mechanism for Confederate secession (or possibly a new constitutional arrangement or treaty keeping the two regions still vaguely aligned with each other but essentially independent in domestic policies). But maybe I'm also full of it.

It would have been far uglier. With the shock of Washington in the Confederacy's hands, the North would form a rump United States in Philadelphia or even New York, with or without Lincoln. I don't think the Rebs would be able to march as far as Baltimore, much less Wilmington (the du Pont munitions factories.)

 

[Ace Venom]

The Confederacy would indeed catch some attention for taking Washington, assuming they could get past the fortifications. It may not have been as fortified as it was later in the war, but the citizens of Washington really never forgot when the British entered the city.

I believe the Confederates would have received a sound thrashing if they tried to take Washington. While an interesting POD, it was about as likely as the Ships scenario in Dixie Victorious.

 

[Brilliantlight]

The Confederacy would indeed catch some attention for taking Washington, assuming they could get past the fortifications. It may not have been as fortified as it was later in the war, but the citizens of Washington really never forgot when the British entered the city.

I believe the Confederates would have received a sound thrashing if they tried to take Washington. While an interesting POD, it was about as likely as the Ships scenario in Dixie Victorious.

Agreed, cities are easier to take in games then in real life! If it did fall I think it would be as likely to stir the Union even more up then allow it to split apart.

 

[Chrispi]

The Confederacy would indeed catch some attention for taking Washington, assuming they could get past the fortifications. It may not have been as fortified as it was later in the war, but the citizens of Washington really never forgot when the British entered the city.

I believe the Confederates would have received a sound thrashing if they tried to take Washington. While an interesting POD, it was about as likely as the Ships scenario in Dixie Victorious.

Better for the Rebs to outflank Washington--then cut it off from the rest of the Union and lay siege. Should the Union government escape, they'll reform in Philadelphia or New York. Should the Union government be captured, the North basically forms its own Confederacy in Philadelphia or New York.

 

[Grimm Reaper]

Lincoln impeached and a pro-peace government takes over? More likely the Republicans, especially the Radical branch, take full power and we see martial law in the North, followed by an all-out effort against the South. Losers like McClellan vanish from history and we see an early outbreak of Sherman-type ruthlessness. If the Democrats, even a few, stay in DC and attempt to negotiate, we may well see an America with a very different political system. The Populist Party replaces the Democrats in the North, and the South remains loyal to the Democrats, leaving the GOP as the one national organization.

 

[robertp6165]

The Confederacy would indeed catch some attention for taking Washington, assuming they could get past the fortifications. It may not have been as fortified as it was later in the war, but the citizens of Washington really never forgot when the British entered the city.

I believe the Confederates would have received a sound thrashing if they tried to take Washington. While an interesting POD, it was about as likely as the Ships scenario in Dixie Victorious.

Washington was a Southern city. That's one reason why it was so important to the Lincoln Administration to get Northern troops to the city as quickly as possible in 1861. You would probably be surprised at how little resistance there would be to the entrance of a victorious Confederate army in the aftermath of Manassas.

 

[Sean Swaby]

Well, if DC was taken, what would happen to it? How would it be governed? It was created by the cession of 100 sq. miles of land from Maryland (the current area) and Virginia (about a third of the territory south of the Potomac) and it was a southern city, so might the South try to arrange a vote in DC on its status (whether in the Union or to secede and join the Confederacy)? Might the CSA move its capital (eventually after possible peace negotiations) to DC?

 

[Ace Venom]

Well, if DC was taken, what would happen to it? How would it be governed? It was created by the cession of 100 sq. miles of land from Maryland (the current area) and Virginia (about a third of the territory south of the Potomac) and it was a southern city, so might the South try to arrange a vote in DC on its status (whether in the Union or to secede and join the Confederacy)? Might the CSA move its capital (eventually after possible peace negotiations) to DC?

I highly doubt the Confederates would move their capital to DC, seeing as how Richmond is actually more defensible.

On the issue of the District's secession, that's highly possible depending on what they are offered by the Confederates. Enfranchise the citizens as voters and you would have given them something the Federal government didn't. That's a pretty interesting thought.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Washington was a Southern city. That's one reason why it was so important to the Lincoln Administration to get Northern troops to the city as quickly as possible in 1861. You would probably be surprised at how little resistance there would be to the entrance of a victorious Confederate army in the aftermath of Manassas.

Easier said then done, it was actually highly unlikely that Northern troops would surrender the city without a fight.

 

[Brilliantlight]

Lincoln impeached and a pro-peace government takes over? More likely the Republicans, especially the Radical branch, take full power and we see martial law in the North, followed by an all-out effort against the South. Losers like McClellan vanish from history and we see an early outbreak of Sherman-type ruthlessness. If the Democrats, even a few, stay in DC and attempt to negotiate, we may well see an America with a very different political system. The Populist Party replaces the Democrats in the North, and the South remains loyal to the Democrats, leaving the GOP as the one national organization.

That seems more likely to me as well.

 

[Sean Swaby]

I highly doubt the Confederates would move their capital to DC, seeing as how Richmond is actually more defensible.

On the issue of the District's secession, that's highly possible depending on what they are offered by the Confederates. Enfranchise the citizens as voters and you would have given them something the Federal government didn't. That's a pretty interesting thought.

It is, isn't it? Enfranchise the citizens in DC and perhaps after the war (if the Union wins as is likely with a long war) the Federal government would decide to give DC the vote. It probably wouldn't change much in terms of Presidential elections from the 1860s onwards, but it might spur some debate about DC's status, maybe DC even becomes a state. Washington, D.C.- nickname: the Capitol State (or the Capital State).

Then again, if there is a big fight for DC then perhaps DC as a whole and in particular White House is rebuilt (again) and DC gets fortified since that would be the second time since its 60+ years as the functioning capital whereby it had been consumed in flame. I wonder what the radical republicans will want done with DC after the war? Might they seek to extend its territory in Virginia? (seems unlikely to me, but hey..it's a thought). It seems likely that Grimm's scenario for the radical republicans taking power would occur at least in part, so any ideas Grimm?

 

[Grimm Reaper]

And the party's over...and it's time to get over my awesome hangover...uh, I mean, I'm having a headache right now...heh heh...

I doubt enfranchisement would have worked, or even been thought of. Today DC is a prominent second-rank city in the US, but back then was another story. Living conditions were sufficiently unpleasant that many European diplomats considered it a hardship posting and many politicians, jokingly or otherwise, wanted to move it entirely. I would personally doubt the city itself, or even the entire district, had sufficient population to claim a single member of the House of Representatives. Further, back then, the only basis for the city's survival was the presence of the US government. Had the seat of government been moved it is not hard to foresee DC in the early 21st Century as a minor suburban area.

As late as the 1930s it qualified as a minor, if more pleasant, southern city.

More importantly, the original founding of DC came from land provided by Maryland and Virginia, and when the area from Virginia was found to be surplus, it was simply returned. No debate over a new state, or who would get it. It left Virginia solely to be part of the federal district and had no legal basis outside Virginia otherwise. It is certain that in the 19th Century the same would have applied to the rest, vis a vis, Maryland. In fact, a strong argument could be made today to this effect.

Sean, I don't see how expanding would be useful once the war was won, neither does the likelihood of a peace-time fortification program seem likely. If people think the Brits were quick to gut the military once peace broke out, they should see how the US went for the 'peace dividend' back then.

It's hard to see where the changes would take place, presuming an early loss of the capitol in 1861. I really can't see an instant expansion of the military or the capacity to field armies. Allan Nevins, one of my favorite historians on the subject, examined this in some detail and considers it a major success for the Union to hold what they did in 1861. Also, given that the hard-liners were the ones calling for the advance which had now blown up so badly, it might be that the more pragmatic elements of the GOP might have been encouraged.

We should bear in mind that this situation presumes the CSA managed to combine two smaller armies for the Battle of First Bull's Run, and used them even more effectively(I don't see where more armies would have come from) to crush the Union forces. This leaves the Confederates tired and bloodied, and the second Union force unscathed, not to mention any Union forces in DC itself or on the south bank of the river. Yes, let's not forget that there was a great river between the CSA and DC, not to mention some kind of Union flotilla. I think we need more info to start a CSA assault on DC at this time.

 

[Sean Swaby]

We do need more info. I was just working with what was on hand. Didn't think expansion was likely, but with politicians you can never be too sure what they will do. It would be illogical though, so probably wouldn't happen since it would be a waste of time and paper.

So DC could very well continue on as usual and remain a nice minor southern city? Perhaps some of the politicians would use the chance to re-model DC more to their liking(if (and this is a big if) the CS armies had fought the Union army for control of DC and managed to damage a few portions of the town). Just as likely though, DC's damaged sections (if any) get rebuilt as though nothing happened.

Good point on the US peace dividend, never thought about that.

So could it be possible that the seat of government gets moved (probably to Philly) and after the war the government doesn't bother moving back?