Maryland secedes
- Thread starter Jasen777
- Start date
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
The Union is in a very dangerous position -- the capital city is surrounded by enemy territory. This could get the CSA recognition by the US if DC can be besieged quickly enough...
First, D.C. goes bye-bye 
. Second, Lincoln goes bye-bye. Finally, No more Union.
I mean, seriously, the Union would've been f***ed if Maryland had
seceded.
. Second, Lincoln goes bye-bye. Finally, No more Union. I mean, seriously, the Union would've been f***ed if Maryland had
seceded.
Well, if the government can get out, it goes north to Pennsylvania and continues on with the first big battles of the war being an effort to retake Baltimore and DC. There's no reason it couldn't have continued to function in Philadelphia. IIRC, the Union garrison was fairly large in DC at the time; it would fight its way north, which isn't that far. The question I have though is what effect this might have had on other border states. Delaware, for one, would have been in a pretty perilous position.
There's a big difference between voting for secession and successfully seceding.
A secession in late April 1861 would have meant surprisingly little change, in my opinion. Probably more effects on Missouri and Kentucky than on Maryland itself (which is going to come under occupation, as it did in OTL, far too quickly to do much of anything).
Maryland, like Virginia, isn't going to realistically consider secession until after April 12, 1861 (the battle of Fort Sumter), when Lincoln called for troops to suppress the rebellious Southern states. (Incidentally, like Virginia, the western portion of Maryland will not consider secession, and would claim to be the restored, legitimate, non-rebel Maryland government). By April 19, Union troops have already arrived in Baltimore. The next day, Maryland militia cut rail and telegraph lines north of Baltimore, but five days after that (April 25), Union troops are in Annapolis. Sure, there'd be more fighting in April than in OTL, but Maryland would not be able to organize enough manpower fast enough to avoid occupation.
Nor is Virginia going to be coming in to rescue Maryland, for that matter - the militia was not mobilized until April 17 and was busy seizing Harpers Ferry (across from Frederick County, the heart of pro-Union Maryland) and the navy yards at Norfolk on April 18. For that matter, the state didn't formally hold its referendum on secession until May, and had only provisionally seceded on April 17. The militia was poorly organized, and was out of position - as it was, when Virginia formally seceded on May 24, Alexandria (i.e., Northern Virginia, the only way to get troops into pro-Confederate Maryland) was ceded to the Union without a fight. Regardless, the Northern states mobilized before the mid-Atlantic states did. Thus, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts are sending troops into Maryland in April, while Virginia is trying to assemble its own militia and Maryland hasn't even decided to secede (in OTL).
By the way, there were already troops in DC as early as April 10, reinforcing Fort Washington, so Maryland is not going to be able to take Lincoln or the capitol hostage without a fight. Since it's going to be too busy trying to hold Baltimore and Annapolis, I don't see it being able to spare the troops to take (or even besiege) DC.
In short, April 1861 is too late for Maryland to secede successfully.
A secession in late April 1861 would have meant surprisingly little change, in my opinion. Probably more effects on Missouri and Kentucky than on Maryland itself (which is going to come under occupation, as it did in OTL, far too quickly to do much of anything).
Maryland, like Virginia, isn't going to realistically consider secession until after April 12, 1861 (the battle of Fort Sumter), when Lincoln called for troops to suppress the rebellious Southern states. (Incidentally, like Virginia, the western portion of Maryland will not consider secession, and would claim to be the restored, legitimate, non-rebel Maryland government). By April 19, Union troops have already arrived in Baltimore. The next day, Maryland militia cut rail and telegraph lines north of Baltimore, but five days after that (April 25), Union troops are in Annapolis. Sure, there'd be more fighting in April than in OTL, but Maryland would not be able to organize enough manpower fast enough to avoid occupation.
Nor is Virginia going to be coming in to rescue Maryland, for that matter - the militia was not mobilized until April 17 and was busy seizing Harpers Ferry (across from Frederick County, the heart of pro-Union Maryland) and the navy yards at Norfolk on April 18. For that matter, the state didn't formally hold its referendum on secession until May, and had only provisionally seceded on April 17. The militia was poorly organized, and was out of position - as it was, when Virginia formally seceded on May 24, Alexandria (i.e., Northern Virginia, the only way to get troops into pro-Confederate Maryland) was ceded to the Union without a fight. Regardless, the Northern states mobilized before the mid-Atlantic states did. Thus, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts are sending troops into Maryland in April, while Virginia is trying to assemble its own militia and Maryland hasn't even decided to secede (in OTL).
By the way, there were already troops in DC as early as April 10, reinforcing Fort Washington, so Maryland is not going to be able to take Lincoln or the capitol hostage without a fight. Since it's going to be too busy trying to hold Baltimore and Annapolis, I don't see it being able to spare the troops to take (or even besiege) DC.
In short, April 1861 is too late for Maryland to secede successfully.
I suspect any month is too late for Maryland to secede. Its northern border is an artificial line, Chesapeake Bay practically splits it in two, and west of Baltimore its population is mostly Unionist.
Even if Maryland secessionists do somehow manage to take Washington, they almost certainly don't capture the government, which can escape by river. Congress doesn't meet until July 4, so most of its members are probably out of town. Lincoln et al find a temporary refuge in Plilly or wherever, and a fortnight or so later Union troops retake the Capital.
Even if Maryland secessionists do somehow manage to take Washington, they almost certainly don't capture the government, which can escape by river. Congress doesn't meet until July 4, so most of its members are probably out of town. Lincoln et al find a temporary refuge in Plilly or wherever, and a fortnight or so later Union troops retake the Capital.
Last edited:
I'm no expert on the civil war, but I find the previous threads very conclusive, hence Maryland declares secession, but the government is evacuated to Philadelphia and those parts of Maryland which actually promoted secession come under occupation.
The main point therefore would be the butterfly effect on other states. First, the capital evacuated is quite a big propagnda success for the CSA. Dependent on how the union acts in Maryland, this might induce other states (Missouri and Kentucky) to cecede as well. And it may have a more personal effect, with more northern individuals joining the South or opposing the Northern effort?
The main point therefore would be the butterfly effect on other states. First, the capital evacuated is quite a big propagnda success for the CSA. Dependent on how the union acts in Maryland, this might induce other states (Missouri and Kentucky) to cecede as well. And it may have a more personal effect, with more northern individuals joining the South or opposing the Northern effort?
On the other hand, the propaganda success might also work the other way as well: Northerners get angrier that the southerners have 'invaded' their capitol and forced them to move their government, enrollment in the Union Army increases, and northern politicians increase their support for the war.
John Fredrick Parker
Donor
There seems to be an assumption in the past posts that an evacuation of the US Capitol was possible, and that the government escaping north would likely succeed.
I'm not so sure about the former, and the latter I'm highly doubtful of.
I'm not so sure about the former, and the latter I'm highly doubtful of.
How much government was there to evacuate in April 1861? It was a lot smaller than today's.
If worst came to worst, I'd have thought a few gunboats could have got at least the more important figures out. Congress, by far the most numerous body, is not in session, and its scattered members can be summoned to Philadelphia or somewhere.
I think they could manage a minor evacuation. Virginia never seriously contested the Potomac, let alone the Chesapeake. DC is accessible from the sea and steamboats would have been available, so worst case scenario they leave by sea rather than overland.
As for fighting in Maryland, you've got the foothills to the west, the bay to the east and a plateau in the middle interupted by a series of steep-to river valleys. Of course the Potomac separates it from Virginia and there are surprisingly few good crossings, making Maryland rather isolated from southern support.
If southern forces can coalesce quick enough to take DC before it's reinforced, they'd certainly buy themselves more than two weeks. After all, Union forces wouldn't leave Baltimore behind them, and that will probably involve some house-to-house fighting. After that the Marylanders can stage a fighting withdraw from river valley to river valley, falling back on DC.
If they're very lucky the rest of the south reinforces them in enough time to attempt an expulsion of the Union (Army of the Chesapeake, woo!) But they still have to contend with a precarious supply situation. If union gunboats can make it past Ft Washington (assuming it falls to the Confederates at all) they can bomb the bridges and bottleneck all efforts to supply Maryland.
It might be a state too far.
I'm not convinced that Washington needs to be evacuated at all. Washington, as has been pointed out in a lengthy and well-researched essay on this very site, was nigh impregnable to the Army of Northern Virginia. Why would the fact that there are troublemakers in Baltimore (which can surely be put down) require a withdrawal from an impregnable fortress?
One interesting knock-off effect is the three western counties of Maryland were planning to secede from Maryland if the state voted in favor of succession. I'm fairly sure the U.S. wouldn't allow them to be recognized as their own state, but they could fall in with the West Virginian counties, leading the state to be renamed Kanawah.
But overall I agree that the U.S. would have little trouble holding the state even if it voted in favor of succession. There might be bushwhackers in the Eastern Shore and more rural areas, but the Baltimore-DC corridor should be easy to hold.
But overall I agree that the U.S. would have little trouble holding the state even if it voted in favor of succession. There might be bushwhackers in the Eastern Shore and more rural areas, but the Baltimore-DC corridor should be easy to hold.
I was thinking the same thing. After the Union wins they may reinstate those counties back into Maryland, but until then I would see them fused with W Virginia. THe counties of Maryland on the Delmarva Peninsula may be fused with Delaware also.
Last edited:
Another likely development is that the First Battle of Bull's Run does not take place as the Union is occupying Maryland, instead deploying sufficient forces to hold Washington DC and the areas just over the Potomac in Virginia.
Instead of an early Confederate victory in battle you have one of the (now) twelve Confederate states crushed at the very start. Or, given the value Maryland would have brought the CSA perhaps it is the CSA which is forced to attack in hopes of saving Maryland and suffers an early defeat?
Instead of an early Confederate victory in battle you have one of the (now) twelve Confederate states crushed at the very start. Or, given the value Maryland would have brought the CSA perhaps it is the CSA which is forced to attack in hopes of saving Maryland and suffers an early defeat?