SpudNutimus
I make maps and things.
- Pronouns
- he/him
So, to preface this, I know essentially nothing about military tactics. I've spent several years reading up on the economic, social, and political aspects of the Civil War and Reconstruction era to the point that I feel confident writing about its peacetime consequences, but to be frank, I know jack shit about how actual armies in the war functioned. So please be nice about it and let me know if this is really stupid.
For a Confederate victory timeline (once again otherwise pretty much entirely focused on the post-war situation rather than the war itself) with a typical Order 191-based point of divergence where the three Confederate armies under Jackson, McLaws, and Walker successfully take Harper's Ferry and regroup as one, would it make sense for Lee to head east and score his seminal victory against McClellan at Frederick, Maryland, then take Baltimore via the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad as McClellan gets skittish and runs off like he seemed to always do without direction, rather than Lee heading north and winning an earlier version of Gettysburg as is often depicted? The reason I bring this up is because it seems to make more sense as a path to victory politically to me than a campaign into Pennsylvania, but as mentioned I don't really know that much about the tactical aspect of it.
Lee's aim in the Maryland Campaign was to score a single major victory against McClellan after capturing Harper's Ferry in order to leverage European support and demoralize the North, forcing the Union to the negotiating table. Many Order 191 timelines such as the one by Harry Turtledove have the Confederate victory come in Pennsylvania in a symbolic mirror of real-life Gettysburg, particularly through a quick capture of Philadelphia, but Baltimore seems like a much more obvious target city for a major public relations victory in the eyes of Europe to be honest.
Philadelphia was one of the largest and most politically Northern cities in the country at the time, served as a hub for the American abolitionist movement, and was by and large not supportive of the Confederacy. While it would be a stunning prize for Lee's army, its capture would be defined by utter panic and shock among the local population, and likely stiff local resistance. News stories of the fall of Philadelphia in Europe would show panicked residents of the city fleeing, Confederate troops marching past a horrified populace, and in all likelihood some stories of confrontations with civilians and pillaging.
Baltimore, while a bit smaller, was much more sympathetic to the Confederate cause, lying within a border state which especially in its southeast somewhat resented Union rule, with a series of pro-Confederate riots taking place near the start of the war and Abraham Lincoln having to suspend habeas corpus in the state to secure Washington, D.C. from being surrounded by Confederate forces. If you wanted to leverage Europe to publically support you, it'd make a lot of sense to go for a city where you can march your army in to the sound of cheers from the population and write about stones being thrown at the departing Union army.
Additionally, it makes sense as a way to demoralize the North right before the 1862 midterms, not merely riling the North up into a panicked fervor after an abolitionist city's sack, but making a significant number of voters think "why are we doing this anyway" shortly before a new Congress is elected. Washington, D.C. itself would be surrounded (it definitely wouldn't actually fall while the Army of the Potomac still exists, but it might seem like a possibility to the voting public at the time amidst fog of war) right at the same time Britain and France are taking the final steps to recognize the Confederacy, and all the public would see on the front page every week would be a picture of Union soldiers getting tomatoes thrown at them by a random Marylander and a print story about the people of Baltimore whistling Dixie while McClellan flees the scene and Lincoln tries to cover his ass. With a fuck-up that bad and the war seeming lost anyway, a newly elected Democratic Congress might even stop funding the war and put Lincoln's numerous expansions of federal power under a pretty invasive microscope, sealing the deal and making international arbitration a reality.
Is there any reason this wouldn't work that I've forgotten? Once again if so, please tell me politely but bluntly so I can rework this concept.
For a Confederate victory timeline (once again otherwise pretty much entirely focused on the post-war situation rather than the war itself) with a typical Order 191-based point of divergence where the three Confederate armies under Jackson, McLaws, and Walker successfully take Harper's Ferry and regroup as one, would it make sense for Lee to head east and score his seminal victory against McClellan at Frederick, Maryland, then take Baltimore via the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad as McClellan gets skittish and runs off like he seemed to always do without direction, rather than Lee heading north and winning an earlier version of Gettysburg as is often depicted? The reason I bring this up is because it seems to make more sense as a path to victory politically to me than a campaign into Pennsylvania, but as mentioned I don't really know that much about the tactical aspect of it.
Lee's aim in the Maryland Campaign was to score a single major victory against McClellan after capturing Harper's Ferry in order to leverage European support and demoralize the North, forcing the Union to the negotiating table. Many Order 191 timelines such as the one by Harry Turtledove have the Confederate victory come in Pennsylvania in a symbolic mirror of real-life Gettysburg, particularly through a quick capture of Philadelphia, but Baltimore seems like a much more obvious target city for a major public relations victory in the eyes of Europe to be honest.
Philadelphia was one of the largest and most politically Northern cities in the country at the time, served as a hub for the American abolitionist movement, and was by and large not supportive of the Confederacy. While it would be a stunning prize for Lee's army, its capture would be defined by utter panic and shock among the local population, and likely stiff local resistance. News stories of the fall of Philadelphia in Europe would show panicked residents of the city fleeing, Confederate troops marching past a horrified populace, and in all likelihood some stories of confrontations with civilians and pillaging.
Baltimore, while a bit smaller, was much more sympathetic to the Confederate cause, lying within a border state which especially in its southeast somewhat resented Union rule, with a series of pro-Confederate riots taking place near the start of the war and Abraham Lincoln having to suspend habeas corpus in the state to secure Washington, D.C. from being surrounded by Confederate forces. If you wanted to leverage Europe to publically support you, it'd make a lot of sense to go for a city where you can march your army in to the sound of cheers from the population and write about stones being thrown at the departing Union army.
Additionally, it makes sense as a way to demoralize the North right before the 1862 midterms, not merely riling the North up into a panicked fervor after an abolitionist city's sack, but making a significant number of voters think "why are we doing this anyway" shortly before a new Congress is elected. Washington, D.C. itself would be surrounded (it definitely wouldn't actually fall while the Army of the Potomac still exists, but it might seem like a possibility to the voting public at the time amidst fog of war) right at the same time Britain and France are taking the final steps to recognize the Confederacy, and all the public would see on the front page every week would be a picture of Union soldiers getting tomatoes thrown at them by a random Marylander and a print story about the people of Baltimore whistling Dixie while McClellan flees the scene and Lincoln tries to cover his ass. With a fuck-up that bad and the war seeming lost anyway, a newly elected Democratic Congress might even stop funding the war and put Lincoln's numerous expansions of federal power under a pretty invasive microscope, sealing the deal and making international arbitration a reality.
Is there any reason this wouldn't work that I've forgotten? Once again if so, please tell me politely but bluntly so I can rework this concept.