And this afternoon we're at Chapter 55, soon to reach the next hiatus point where I do all the detailing for the campaign with the Army of Canada and the Army of the Hudson.
Lemon Hill, the temporary Executive Mansion in 1863
Very cool! I remember reading Turtledove's series on a Confederate Victory and he too had the Union government move to Philadelphia. Instead of Lemon Hill he has the Powel House becomes the Presidential Residence. Very very cool.
Given it's said temporary and I don't see Philadelphia taken within the same year (it could also mean the mansion changed place within Philadelphia, but I find more logical to assume a change means also a change of town), I guess the government will return to DC soon enough.
Youre missing a threadmark for chapter 54. Loving it, keep churning these out please.
In the greater scheme of things this doesn't mean much, but to Lincoln's opponents (and a few of his supporters) I think it's going to cause real angst.
Lincoln will certainly face flak from this, though how bad it is remains to be seen...
Still plenty of time for the offensive to go tits up
Anyway, taking DC wouldn't be an easy task. I've read that McClellan had made it one of the most fortified place on the planet at the time, and that's keeping in mind the man has seen the siege of Sevastopol so he might have transposed some of its lessons while building up the Capital's defense, all the more ITTL I suppose because of the threat of a British attack in the rear.
If we are heading to an American remake of Sevastopol, and I'd love reading that, the British and the Confederates are going to have a very hard time I think.
Is it plausible to see something in the direction of the Cleburne proposal, with the help of British pressure?
Washington is actually not quite as well defended as it was in 1863 or 1864 OTL. It is marginally better defended by sea, but that comes at the cost of the landward fortifications. Guns meant for the capital's defences had to go north or to the coasts when they would have been mounted in the forts springing up around the city OTL. Here, the defences are formidable, but no fortification is impervious.
It could be the American Sevastopol, but Washington has a number of disadvantages in that regard. With British control of the seas supplies and reinforcements can only come overland, while it can only be supplied by the railroad that goes through Baltimore in any meaningful sense. An Army in Washington would be very dependent on keeping that line open, lest it be forced to endure a long siege.
One of the problems for any besieger of Washington however is that south of the city its not exactly a great time bringing supplies north either. If you control the waterways you can send supplies by sea, but the overland route would be long, arduous, and extremely hazardous. It's not a win-win scenario for either side immediately.
Is it plausible to see something in the direction of the Cleburne proposal, with the help of British pressure?
Even disminished compared to OTL, I imagine it's still a very tough nut to crack, way tougher than Portland was.
So, beyond the question of supplying the siege, it's the siege itself that is going to be a good point for the Union. As in Sevastopol and IOTL Richmond-Petersburg, the fact is that entrenched and fortified defenders will be able to pin down a much larger force.
And the Confederates, if they don't storm Washinton DC outright, which I doubt (but I can be wrong), would have to settle into a siege. That means immobilizing a sizeable part of their army into a siege corps, and a sizeable artillery, though that would matter more heavy artillery than the lighter one involved in the field campaign. That means that's a force they won't be able to count on to pursue or defend against a federal counter-offensive. That plays into Union hands if they are to launch an offensive to relieve DC from siege.
Unless of course the British are willing to throw a sizeable contingent of their own into the siege, but though I may have misunderstood, that's not exactly what they wish for, yet.
Also, by comparison to Crimea, the geography is much more friendly to Union forces if they were to launch an offensive to break the siege (the isthmus of Perekop). They have a much more extended railway system and by extension logistical network, and the new base of the Army of the Potomac would be way closer to DC than the Russians were to Crimea, or so I think.
On matter of artillery, what the Confederates actually have in terms of heavy artillery for sieges? Because I guess that unless they got that artillery, they won't be able to mount a proper assault before long. And that would mean waiting the British to supply them some.
And on matter of naval mines, what did the Union into mining the Potomac and Patuxent rivers and the shores of the Chesapeake? I've not yet caught up with the TL (I'm about middle of it and it's great), but I guess they would have had to mine the rivers to impede any supply route the British and Confederates might want to establish to supply a siege of either DC or Baltimore.
Else, the I and III corps mentionned at Fredericksburg are Federal ones, right?
If DC is cut off, I figure they would be compelled to retreat to the capital and bolster its defenses. How many men and artillery is that?
If I followed correctly, much of the Confederate forces except the screen force in front of Fredericksburg, are north of the Potomac, right?