Taking Washington

Taking Washington (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865

Message

ElGuapo -> Taking Washington (11/26/2006 12:42:40 AM)
Hello, I'm new to this forum although I've been a long time lurker. I've always been interested in the Civil War, yet I've not had enough study into all of its strategic concerns to answer the following question. Why, if Lee had the impressive Army of Northern Virginia sitting so close in proximity to Washington D.C., did he not try and quickly take the Capitol in the opening stages of the war? It is my understanding that the Union was quite unprepared militarily in the beginning and it seems that some sort of faint and then blitz into Washington would have made sense for the South. I would love to hear some opinions on this from the more knowledgeable members of the board. And, if this is a stupid question, please forgive this newbies ignorance! [&o]

Airborne82nd -> RE: Taking Washington (11/26/2006 12:56:02 AM)
Actually, Lee wasn't in command of the ANV at the start. It wasn't until June 1st, 1862 during the Pennisular campaign, that he took over. Washington was a huge camp of soldiers, not easily taken--even by seasoned troops which neither side was at the beginning.

Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: Taking Washington (11/26/2006 1:00:38 AM)
Others can probably answer this better than I can, but as far as I know the answers are quite simple: that the Confederates in the east, as elsewhere, were considerably outnumbered by their opponents, and attacking a larger force in prepared and fortified positions around Washington would have been even more difficult than attacking the same force in open countryside.

chris0827 -> RE: Taking Washington (11/26/2006 1:03:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElGuapo Hello, I'm new to this forum although I've been a long time lurker. I've always been interested in the Civil War, yet I've not had enough study into all of its strategic concerns to answer the following question. Why, if Lee had the impressive Army of Northern Virginia sitting so close in proximity to Washington D.C., did he not try and quickly take the Capitol in the opening stages of the war? It is my understanding that the Union was quite unprepared militarily in the beginning and it seems that some sort of faint and then blitz into Washington would have made sense for the South. I would love to hear some opinions on this from the more knowledgeable members of the board. And, if this is a stupid question, please forgive this newbies ignorance! [&o] Lee didn't take command until June 1st 1862 when the Union army was only 6 miles from Richamond. Washington was also the most heavily fortified city in the Americas and even if surrounded could be supplied from the sea. The best chance the south had of taking Washington was in the weeks following the fall of Fort Sumpter before the union army could mobilize but the souhern troops weren't very numerous even then. For Lee to capture Washington he would've had to totally destroy the Army of the Potomac then regroup and attack Washington before union reinforcements could arrive. Even a success would leave a greatly weaken Army of Northern Virginia facing a growing Union force. Perhaps it would've been enough to convince the north to make peace but I doubt Lincoln would've given up even then. It probably would've taken declarations of war against the USA from Great Britain and France plus the fall of Washington to convince Lincoln but the British and French weren't likely to ally with a slaveholding country. The south's best bet was to wear the North down and hope Lincoln would be defeated in the 1864 elections.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Taking Washington (11/26/2006 1:08:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Airborne82nd Actually, Lee wasn't in command of the ANV at the start. It wasn't until June 1st, 1862 during the Pennisular campaign, that he took over. Washington was a huge camp of soldiers, not easily taken--even by seasoned troops which neither side was at the beginning. ...And by the Summer of 1862 Washington was well on it's way to being the most heavily fortified city in North America. Short of chasing a routed Union Army into the works, there was little chance of the South EVER taking Washington. Had they noit been "as disorganized by victory as the Union was by defeat", they might have had a very slim chance after First Manassas. But even then, storming the "Long Bridge" across the Potomac would have required a LOT of luck..., and probably a Napoleon to boot.

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Taking Washington (11/26/2006 3:27:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElGuapo Hello, I'm new to this forum although I've been a long time lurker. I've always been interested in the Civil War, yet I've not had enough study into all of its strategic concerns to answer the following question. Why, if Lee had the impressive Army of Northern Virginia sitting so close in proximity to Washington D.C., did he not try and quickly take the Capitol in the opening stages of the war? It is my understanding that the Union was quite unprepared militarily in the beginning and it seems that some sort of faint and then blitz into Washington would have made sense for the South. I would love to hear some opinions on this from the more knowledgeable members of the board. And, if this is a stupid question, please forgive this newbies ignorance! [&o] "ElGuapo?" Don't have a self-esteem problem, do we?[:D]

Gil R. -> RE: Taking Washington (11/26/2006 3:54:25 AM)
Mike Scholl's answer is the correct one. Lee himself recognized the impossibility of getting past those forts and fortifications. In researching the game, Eric and I visited Fort Ward in Alexandria, Virginia, and had a fascinating talk with the curator, a guy who has written the definitive book on Washington's defenses during the Civil War. He told a great anecdote of Lee being at a family get-together soon after the war and being asked by a child relation why he hadn't appeared at their house after taking Washington when the ANV had been so nearby (as the child had expected), and Lee had to explain that his army could not have overcome the defenses.

ElGuapo -> RE: Taking Washington (11/26/2006 4:57:22 AM)
Thanks for the great responses. Very interesting stuff. I'm thinking of picking up Shelby Foote's 3 volume set to learn more about the intricacies of the conflict. I can't wait for this game!

AU Tiger_MatrixForum -> RE: Taking Washington (11/26/2006 6:55:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ElGuapo Thanks for the great responses. Very interesting stuff. I'm thinking of picking up Shelby Foote's 3 volume set to learn more about the intricacies of the conflict. I can't wait for this game! Stop thinking about, and get it ASAP.

Airborne82nd -> RE: Taking Washington (11/26/2006 3:09:32 PM)
I've got Foote's 3 vol series (which I got for a Christmas present probably 2 or 3 years ago) but have yet to read it. I'll have to put that on the "to do" list.

andysomers -> RE: Taking Washington (11/27/2006 3:20:59 AM)
There were two instances where the South had in my mind a reasonable shot at DC. The first was immediately after 1st Manassas. The US Army was in complete confusion, and a coordinated, well-managed assault on the capital I think could have gone through. The CS forces were too disorganized and tried to have pursued on PM July 21, but could I think more than likely picked up on July 22 and had a great shot. Again, you go back to early in the war, untrained forces on both sides, etc. It would have been a tall order for Beauregard/Johnston - but if anyone could have carried it through - the man was Jackson. he was on the scene, just not in a high enough position at that time to have any real weight on the deicsion. Beauregard and Johnston were too cautious (traits they both carried through the war). The second actually occurred. Early's '64 Valley/PA campaign was close to breaking the US line at Ft. Stevens. The US action at Monocacy just prior bought a lot of time for Grant to move reinforcements into DC. Washington was by mid war the most heavily fortified city in the history of the world up until that point. Richmond was second. AS

Mike Scholl -> RE: Taking Washington (11/27/2006 4:29:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: andysomers There were two instances where the South had in my mind a reasonable shot at DC. The first was immediately after 1st Manassas. The US Army was in complete confusion, and a coordinated, well-managed assault on the capital I think could have gone through. The CS forces were too disorganized and tried to have pursued on PM July 21, but could I think more than likely picked up on July 22 and had a great shot. Again, you go back to early in the war, untrained forces on both sides, etc. It would have been a tall order for Beauregard/Johnston - but if anyone could have carried it through - the man was Jackson. he was on the scene, just not in a high enough position at that time to have any real weight on the deicsion. Beauregard and Johnston were too cautious (traits they both carried through the war). And you still have the problem of trying to force a river crossing of the Potomac to get into the City. It would only take a couple of "rallied" Union regiments and a few batteries to turn the "Long Bridge" into a total slaughterhouse...., Pickett's Charge on a four-man front The second actually occurred. Early's '64 Valley/PA campaign was close to breaking the US line at Ft. Stevens. The US action at Monocacy just prior bought a lot of time for Grant to move reinforcements into DC. Problem here is that the Washington Garrison outnumbered Early even without reinforcements. They weren't "field regiments", but Ft. Stevens was only part of the "Outer Works". It's capture would only take the Rebs to the next line of fortifications..... Washington was by mid war the most heavily fortified city in the history of the world up until that point. Richmond was second. AS

andysomers -> RE: Taking Washington (11/27/2006 5:33:17 AM)
Yep - a crossing at the long bridge or the chain bridge would have been a tough one to do. IF the US rallied, etc. etc. A vigrous pursuit may have futher destroyed them and made that rally difficult. Also, a crossing upstream of DC above the Great Falls could be accompished. There are some fords in that area if memory serves me. Monocacy is often called "the Battle that saved Washington" - bought time for Grant to commit the remainder of the VI Corps to the DC defenses. I think that swung the balance back on manpower. Not 100% sure of the garrison strength without the VI Corps. Early had about 15,000. And I mean here REASONABLE shots - by no means sure things!!! DC would be a VERY tough nut to crack once the fortifications were up - for sure. AS

siRkid -> RE: Taking Washington (11/27/2006 5:11:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gil R. Mike Scholl's answer is the correct one. Lee himself recognized the impossibility of getting past those forts and fortifications. In researching the game, Eric and I visited Fort Ward in Alexandria, Virginia, and had a fascinating talk with the curator, a guy who has written the definitive book on Washington's defenses during the Civil War. He told a great anecdote of Lee being at a family get-together soon after the war and being asked by a child relation why he hadn't appeared at their house after taking Washington when the ANV had been so nearby (as the child had expected), and Lee had to explain that his army could not have overcome the defenses. And the name of the book is?

Mike Scholl -> RE: Taking Washington (11/27/2006 5:35:28 PM)
"Yep - a crossing at the long bridge or the chain bridge would have been a tough one to do. IF the US rallied, etc. etc. A vigrous pursuit may have futher destroyed them and made that rally difficult. Also, a crossing upstream of DC above the Great Falls could be accompished. There are some fords in that area if memory serves me." "The Chain Bridge". Thanks..., that was the one I couldn't think of. A direct push behind the retreating Yankee's would have been difficult. MacDowell had a fresh Division in reserve in addition to his relatively unengaged Left wing to "cover his retreat". And by the time the Rebs could go upstream and ford and come back down, the Union would have been granted at least a full day to rest, rally, re-group and become ashamed of themselves for running. As they still had superior numbers. while the Rebs would be worn down from the additional marching, I'd say the chances of Washington falling would still be somewhere between "silm and none". And if the Confederates "routed" while North of the Potomac, things might have gotten really grim for them. I think the only real chance of Washington falling was if McClellan had had his way, and gathered every "bluebelly" East of the Alleganies into his force on the Penninsula. Then Lee could have left 10,000 men to baffle him with "smoke and mirrors", marched the rest North to take Washington, and still march back to cover Richmond before "Little Mac" could "get organized" and work up his courage to begin moving.

andysomers -> RE: Taking Washington (11/27/2006 5:41:11 PM)
Great point on McClellan! I hadn't thought of that one but you are absolutely right. AS

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.5