Could Early have captured Washington?

OldReliable1862

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 2, 2017
Location
Georgia
I'm basing this on @JeffBrooks' article on his blog: Link

Had Early not waited at Harper's Ferry for two days and Ricketts not gone to join Wallace at the Monocacy, could Early have managed to capture Washington for a brief time? Even if Early is in the city for a few hours, the damage to the Lincoln administration is sure to be great, likely costing him reelection.
 
A lot of If's... But do find it way more interesting that the usual "what if Jackson had lived"

Just using what I can read about the battle online... (and not digging into the OR)

If he had not spend the two days at HF he would still have run into Wallace. (who had men in position at Monocacy on the 4th)
And that would still have cost Early, at least a few hours... making him end his march near Monocacy on the 7th. Instead of the 9th.

When Ricketts arrived in Baltimore by ship, he would then have taken the train to Washington instead of heading for HF...

And getting his experienced men out of the forts would have been very costly... if even possible.
 
IIRC, Breckenridge's command (about 2200 men) was held in reserve by Early guarding the Confederate supply trains but could have been committed to the battle. Now whether or not this would have made much of a difference in the actual battle or not would be pure speculation. In addition Ricketts was missing several regiments that were expected to arrive during the day of the battle...the 6th Maryland Infantry, the 67th Pennsylvania Infantry and the 122nd Ohio Infantry (about 1300 men total). Just to add to the "what ifs" during the day of the actual battle...
 
When Ricketts arrived in Baltimore by ship, he would then have taken the train to Washington instead of heading for HF...
Luckily for the Federals, Ricketts, when he didn't find Lew Wallace waiting for him upon his arrival in Baltimore, took the initiative and commandeered rail transportation to get his command to the Monocacy River just in time.
 
All very interesting, BUT one cannot escape the fact that Gen. Early was in command of very run-down troops. Sure, they were battle hardened, but the meager rations combined with a brutally hot and humid march would have made any successful assault difficult. Remember, these Confederates had been experiencing a rather difficult summer in the field, and had been 'quickly' marched out to the Monocacy.

In my opinion, while they might have made a serious ruckus at the gates of Washington City, I don't believe for a minute that they could have breached the defenses.
 
Assuming Early is able to capture Washington, D.C. and hold it for a while then there's going to be reprecussions.

On one hand the fall of the United States' most important city and capital by the Confederates is going to anger a lot of people towards the Abraham Lincoln administrartion but on the other hand the same people angry at Lincoln will also have a "rally round the flag" moment and be even more ruthless towards the Confederates when Reconstruction comes.

Unlike 1861-1862 where there was some chance of the Confederacy winning either during the Trent Affair or the counteroffensives in the East and West 1864 is just too little too late and I doubt it would win the war for them.
 
Assuming Early is able to capture Washington, D.C. and hold it for a while then there's going to be reprecussions.
Even without Early ever taking Washington, there were repercussions. After he fell back, seeing the Washington defenses too strong to attack, he had at least partially accomplished his mission; he had diverted Federal forces from the vicinity of Richmond-Petersburg relieving some of the pressure. But now the Yankees would be dead serious about getting rid of the threat posed by Confederates using the Shenandoah Valley to launch raids toward Washington in the future. Soon the Federal Army of the Shenandoah would be created under the command of General Phil Sheridan, composed of Wright's VI Corps, Emory's XIX Corps, and Hunter's former command...the future VIII Corps...which was then arriving in the Harper's Ferry region under George Crook. Early's days were now numbered.
 
Even without Early ever taking Washington, there were repercussions. After he fell back, seeing the Washington defenses too strong to attack, he had at least partially accomplished his mission; he had diverted Federal forces from the vicinity of Richmond-Petersburg relieving some of the pressure. But now the Yankees would be dead serious about getting rid of the threat posed by Confederates using the Shenandoah Valley to launch raids toward Washington in the future. Soon the Federal Army of the Shenandoah would be created under the command of General Phil Sheridan, composed of Wright's VI Corps, Emory's XIX Corps, and Hunter's former command...the future VIII Corps...which was then arriving in the Harper's Ferry region under George Crook. Early's days were now numbered.
Something similar would probably occur had Early actually captured Washington, D.C.
 
If Early's decisions change, the General Wallace and General Rickets change their decisions too. If Early pushes on they probably retreat towards Washington, D.C. In the actual campaign, they both knew that both the VIth and XIXth Corp were close to disembarkation.
The problem for Early was not getting into Washington, it was getting back out.
 
If Early's decisions change, the General Wallace and General Rickets change their decisions too. If Early pushes on they probably retreat towards Washington, D.C. In the actual campaign, they both knew that both the VIth and XIXth Corp were close to disembarkation.
The problem for Early was not getting into Washington, it was getting back out.

Agreed, though I believe if push came to shove, Early's command could have exited by way of Point Lookout, escorted by boys in blue!
 
It never fails to astonish me that even when we have a category explicitly called "What if", we always have a few people mocking the exercise or making other unhelpful posts.
 
If he had held it, he had no reserves. The Union would have retaken it shortly thereafter.

Almost certainly correct, but the damage to the Union war effort would still have been stupefying. Due to the perceived lack of progress against both Richmond and Atlanta, and especially the astronomical casualties of Grant's Overland Campaign, the credibility of the Lincoln administration was at rock bottom and he was on track (by his own admission) to lose reelection in November. If the rebels had taken Washington City, even temporarily, it would seem to justify all the Democratic charges of incompetence and stupidity on the part of Lincoln and his team and would certainly guarantee Lincoln's defeat at the polls, with all the potential history-changing consequences.

Moreover, from a logistical point of view, even a temporary rebel capture of Washington City would be devastating. Think about all the Union warehouses bulging with all conceivably types of military supplies going up in smoke, along with the navy yard and the railroad depots. Early's men would only be able to carry off so much (they did pretty much restock their artillery and cavalry units with new horses during the raid, if I recall correctly) and whatever they couldn't take they would do their best to destroy.

Also, if I remember correctly, there was one moment when Lincoln and Stanton nearly lost their cool and considered ordering Grant to break off the siege of Petersburg and bring the entire Army of the Potomac back north to defend Washington. If Washington actually had fallen, I have little doubt that Grant would have been ordered to do just that. At the very least, he might have had to send more than the two corps and cavalry divisions that he dispatched historically. This would have significantly reduced Union strength in front of Petersburg, or perhaps ended the effort altogether.
 
It never fails to astonish me that even when we have a category explicitly called "What if", we always have a few people mocking the exercise or making other unhelpful posts.

Look, this is one of my favorite, "what ifs" of the war and it's my favorite, private joke.

"Who saved the Union?"

Lew Wallace, that's who.

U.S. Grant cleared out the garrison defending Washington to support his 1864 Overland Campaign. There was nothing but a skeleton crew left to defend the Capitol City.

When Jubal Early and something like 14,000 Confederate soldiers marched out of Petersburg, up the Shenandoah valley and then sharply southward, there was nothing between them and Washington, DC.

That is, until Wallace mustered his force out of Baltimore and got in between Early and DC. Wallace was whipped at the Battle of Monocacy, MD, but slowed the Confederates for long enough that Grant (informed by telegraph) was able to reinforce the city from central Virginia. Nearly a full Army Corps was dispatched via steamboat, up the Chesapeake Bay and Potomac River to keep Early out of Washington.

Morale in the North was at its lowest point during August, 1864. It's only my opinion but had Early entered Washington at that time it would have been curtains for Lincoln and "preservation of the Union."

Excellent thread, @OldReliable1862
 
Nobody has mentioned the extreme heat Early’s men faced while marching towards Washington and the large amount of stragglers and men that dropped out due to heat exhaustion.

Yes, becasuse they fought and beat Lew Wallace at Monocacy. That's tiring.

Without Wallace, they surely would have taken Washington, DC, for the Confederacy.

"What if" is fun, isn't it?
 
There are so many "What ifs" about the war, starting with what if the hot heads hadn't fired on Sumpter. The biggest I have run across lately, rereading "Mr. Lincoln's Army", Grant applied for a job on McClellan's staff. What if he had gotten it?
 
Back
Top