WI: Confederate Army Captures Washington D.C. After First Battle of Bull Run

What if following the failed invasion by the Union of Bull Run after the Civil War, the Southern troops kept up their momentum and sacked Washington D.C.? How does this affect the later outcome of the war?
 
After OTL Bull Run, the Confederate troops were as exhausted and desorganized as the defeated army. Advancing towards Washington and taking it was out of the question, even to the feverish mind of Beauregard...
 
What if following the failed invasion by the Union of Bull Run after the Civil War, the Southern troops kept up their momentum and sacked Washington D.C.? How does this affect the later outcome of the war?

How? There was another fresh Union army blocking the route to DC that was held in reserve and the CSA Army was almost as disorganized as the Union one. Considering that they were green as grass that is almost inevitable.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
How? There was another fresh Union army blocking the route to DC that was held in reserve and the CSA Army was almost as disorganized as the Union one. Considering that they were green as grass that is almost inevitable.

I'd much rather see that fresh Union force attack the disorganized mess that was the Confederate Army...


Why didn't they?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The rebels didn't have any momentum

What if following the failed invasion by the Union of Bull Run after the Civil War, the Southern troops kept up their momentum and sacked Washington D.C.? How does this affect the later outcome of the war?

The rebels didn't have any momentum; Beauregard's and Jackson's commands were as battered as the divisions of McDowell's army that actually crossed Bull Run Creek were, and only about half of McDowell's force ever went into action. He had two divisions (of five) that basically hadn't suffered any casualties, so call it at least 16,000 men, plus another 16,000 or so who had seen action and crossed back north across the creek

In addition, Mansfield commanded another 6,000 or so in the defenses of Washington, and Patterson had something like 18,000 to the northwest of Washington who didn't face any significant rebel forces and could have been brought into the Washington and Alexandria defenses.

It's militarily impossible.

This has been asked before; do a search for similar threads.

Best,
 
and let alone, if every single thing lines up cosmically for the Confederacy to take D.C. they won't hold it for long. and it would likely leave them in an even more unwinnable situation than OTL, because they are getting wiped out in D.C. with all likelihood.
 
I think the confederates had a chance (albeit a very small one, to attack DC, but capturing it was not possible. Nothing short of ASBs wiping out every soldier in the entire Union Army would allow the Rebs to capture the city.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Something to keep in mind is Washington City is north and east

I think the confederates had a chance (albeit a very small one, to attack DC, but capturing it was not possible. Nothing short of ASBs wiping out every soldier in the entire Union Army would allow the Rebs to capture the city.

Something to keep in mind is Washington City is north and east of the Potomac, and the Potomac is not a minor obstacle.

Given the bridges and Alexandria were all defended, and the rebels were never known for their abilities to mount a contested river crossing - especially in 1861 - it's not like even if Beauregard or Johnston thought this was a good idea they were going to get anywhere.

Best,
 
Last edited:
I used to have an old idea of the CSA going all the way to DC after First Bull Run but, being as green and disorganized as the Union, they "lay siege" on it, basically just being near the city but unable to take it. That leads the a panicked Union (and this is where I really didn't think of the details) asking for an armistice.

I know it won't work, but it was a bit more plausible than actually taking DC
 
I used to have an old idea of the CSA going all the way to DC after First Bull Run but, being as green and disorganized as the Union, they "lay siege" on it, basically just being near the city but unable to take it. That leads the a panicked Union (and this is where I really didn't think of the details) asking for an armistice.

I know it won't work, but it was a bit more plausible than actually taking DC

But how can they siege Washington?

The Union still has tons of troops in the deserve. Additionally, the Confederate forces were exhausted, disorganized, and at the end of their supply chain. Not to mention, they would be in Union territory and would risk being cut off...
 
But how can they siege Washington?

The Union still has tons of troops in the deserve. Additionally, the Confederate forces were exhausted, disorganized, and at the end of their supply chain. Not to mention, they would be in Union territory and would risk being cut off...

He did say he knew it wouldn't work but it would be closer than just assaulting it which may be right.
 
But how can they siege Washington?

The Union still has tons of troops in the deserve. Additionally, the Confederate forces were exhausted, disorganized, and at the end of their supply chain. Not to mention, they would be in Union territory and would risk being cut off...

He did say he knew it wouldn't work but it would be closer than just assaulting it which may be right.

True, that's why I used the quotation marks. Basically it's the Confederates saying "we're gonna hang around nearby while we rest and refit, okay?" and the panicked press calling it a siege even though it's actually not one.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
So while Beauregard et al are camping, then what?

So while Beauregard et al are camping, then what?

They need food, water, fodder for their horses, and ammunition, at least.

McDowell, Patterson, and Mansfield have all that and then some, including much of it coming by rail.

And they outnumber the rebels by a significant margin.

There's a reason the rebels, historically, stopped at Centreville; they needed a railhead.

Best,
 
Top