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

[Jared]

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

Strangely enough, people can be interested in exploring the idea of alternate history - of which the ACW going differently would be a big example - without being spiritual disciples of the Neo-Confederate Grand Poobah.

 

[Indicus]

If the Union loses the Civil War, would the United States move its capital from Washington City to some other place?

Unofficially, of course, but it would de facto be moved.

 

[Japhy]

Von Clausewitz?

He's a Rebel, and we're going to build a wall...

Best,

I mean if you think he's going to appreciate your I'M THE ONLY VOICE THAT MATTERS SPAM thats cool, I guess.

Instead of trying to be a smartass, or view everyone who disagrees with you as a neoconfederate, how about you actually learn to partake in these discussions in a manner that promotes, rather than kills them. You have single handedly turned ACW writing into a virtual dead space on the site, just let it go.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

If the Union loses the Civil War, would the United States move its capital from Washington City to some other place?

Baltimore and Philadelphia always seem to be the default places.

For better or worse though, why not New York. Place is a natural fortress.

 

[Anaxagoras]

For better or worse though, why not New York. Place is a natural fortress.

Only if one has command of the sea. Against the Confederacy? Ha ha. Against Britain? Uh oh.

 

[Darth_Kiryan]

Only if one has command of the sea. Against the Confederacy? Ha ha. Against Britain? Uh oh.

Depends if Briatin is your enemy.

 

[TFSmith121]

Only if one has command of the sea. Against the Confederacy? Ha ha. Against Britain? Uh oh.

Yet oddly enough, in 1812-14, when the RN was allegedly everything anyone could ever want, the RN never came closer than Sandy Hook ...

And that was in 1814.

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

Baltimore and Philadelphia always seem to be the default places.

For better or worse though, why not New York. Place is a natural fortress.

By 1814, NYC was defended by 25,000 troops, 900 guns, and a flotilla of harbor defense craft...

Which probably explains why the British stayed south of Sandy Hook until 1814... And even then, they didn't cross Lower New York Bay.

Best,

 

[Avrorrange]

By 1814, NYC was defended by 25,000 troops, 900 guns, and a flotilla of harbor defense craft...

Which probably explains why the British stayed south of Sandy Hook until 1814... And even then, they didn't cross Lower New York Bay.

Best,

So what are you trying to say?NY is indeed a good place as capital?

 

[TFSmith121]

So what are you trying to say?NY is indeed a good place as capital?

Well, apparently the RN chose not to try and make a fight of it there in period when they had a shot, despite Anaxagoras' comment above..

But I realize using factual examples from history is seen as unfair by some...

Best,

 

[Anaxagoras]

So what are you trying to say?NY is indeed a good place as capital?

I don't think so. They'd have to consider the possibility of a future conflict with an enemy that might have naval superiority. But I would imagine that many NY politicians would lobby hard for it.

 

[The Tai-Pan]

I don't think so. They'd have to consider the possibility of a future conflict with an enemy that might have naval superiority. But I would imagine that many NY politicians would lobby hard for it.

I doubt they would move it to such a large city. Surely you'd want space to expand?

 

[Spengler]

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.

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

 

[Captain Jack]

By 1814, NYC was defended by 25,000 troops, 900 guns, and a flotilla of harbor defense craft...

Which probably explains why the British stayed south of Sandy Hook until 1814... And even then, they didn't cross Lower New York Bay.

Best,

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.

 

[Spengler]

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.

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

 

[frustrated progressive]

Probably not for official purposes, but the day-to-day business of government would be carried on at Philadelphia, at least initially.

 

[Spengler]

Probably not for official purposes, but the day-to-day business of government would be carried on at Philadelphia, at least initially.

Yeah thats if the USA doesn't maintain northern Virginia for itself which it would still certainly control.

 

[Captain Jack]

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

Both of those cities lie significant distances inland along rivers. I'm highly sceptical that they are comparable to NYC in terms of vulnerability to naval forces. In any case, even if we accept that they are comparable one still has to ask what the requirements in terms of defense were and what the cost of keeping those troops there was.

 

[tallthinkev]

They could keep DC as the capital but move the government somewhere else. New York 'is' the capital of the USA and DC just happeneds to be where the government is, if you know what I mean.

 

[Spengler]

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.