Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
I know its probably been discussed before, but what if Jackson was allowed to go on to Washington after 1st Manassas. Do you think that Washington might have fallen? It's probably the "What If" I ponder most, because a lot of lives would have been spared.
Based on several accounts, that I've read the road to Washington was wide open after 1st Manassas. Washington would have been a prize for the picking. But do to the troops being so disorganized after the battle the opportunity wasn't taken. But as you stated many lives could have been saved.
From what I've read, Jackson's 1st VA Brigade suffered the most casualties of any other brigade during this battle. Perhaps his brigade was so disorganized that a counter attack would have been impossible.
At this point in the war Jackson had yet to gain the fame he enjoyed later in the war. Granted he achieved fame for the day, but he was still just a brigadier general at the time, and perhaps somewhat of an unknown or untested general. Perhaps Davis was uneasy about giving a Brig. General a chance to destroy himself and his men in enemy territory. Had Jackson been givin a chance, however, he very well may have been able to pull it off.
I was under the impression that it was never in the plans of the Confederacy to take Washington at any time.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
Jackson couldn't have crossed the Potomac from where Alexandria or Arlington was. He'd have to do it under fire from the guns surrounding Washington.
Even if Jackson had the approval to lead a division, unless he did so on the heels of the fleeing Union Army, he wouldn't have gotten across. He'd also need a lot of cavalry too.
At that point in time were there a lot of guns defending Washington? I believe that it was mentioned somewhere that there was a false belief that taking the Capital was the way to end the war. Was that not McLellans strategy? I think it may have worked for the Confederacy at this early stage in the war. Even if the plan of the Confederacy was not to take Washington, from what I have read, I believe it certainly was Jackson's.
I would say that in 1864 Jubal Early definately had a plan to take Washington, on the third and last organized move northward by Confederate forces during the war. He had 14,000 good men with which to do it. He was stopped just short by Gen. Lew Wallace at the battle of Monocacy. Wallace had to eventualy withdraw his men from the field, but he held up Early just long enough for much needed re-enforcements to backtrack to Washington while en-route to the Western theatre.
Logistically, both armies were worthless more than five miles from the battlefield.
It wasn't until 1864, that Grant perfected the counter-punch, side-step, counter-punch, side-step, move.
Early in the war, the size of the armies made it the battle of amateurs.
The capture of Washington, might have caused the capital to be sent to Philadelphia, out of reach of the Confederacy for the entire war.
The capture of Washington might have ended the war, a year and a half earlier, as the Union army would have more mobility in Virginia, unimpeded by the necessity to protect the capital at Washington.
Americans might have reacted to the capture of Washington, like the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I doubt the nation would surrender.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
