GDG- Neither this Capital nor Harpers Ferry could long hold out against a...
CWMHTours at aol.com
CWMHTours at aol.com
Wed Jan 25 18:39:23 CST 2012
Meade had nothing to do with the Circle of Forts around DC. Where do you
come by that?
"Not fully manned"... It was NOT intended to be fully manned except in
the case of a military emergency. Ie July 1864.
There was 30K troops, trained as Heavy Arty. They knew how to shoot a
100lb Parrott which is not something you undertake lightly. These guys were
damn good professionals.
Not fully manned....What do you want them to do? Stand at full alert upon
the ramparts when there was no Rebel withing 20 mi?
The Circle of Forts was in constant flux, Gen John Barnard, et all were
always trying to tweek the defenses just a little better. They did a damn
You don't need to man the ramparts when there is no one around. When they
were not skinny dipping in the Potomac or partaking of the 600+ brothels
[I think that # is in Margaret Leech's book "Reveille in Washington"
-Fabulous book. You gotta buy it. It is very hooomoorous.]
"AoP was first line of defense for DC" No no no!
First line of defense was the forts.
The AoP could go away and with 30k men plus the Veteran Reserve, plus the
staff of the Navy Yard, plus the quartermaster corps in west DC and
Georgetown, plus the quartermaster staff in Alexandria, plus the quartermaster
staff at Giesboro Point manning the re-horse station that's a LOT of dudes.
Benjamin Franklin Cooling wrote an excellent book on the matter. "Sword
In his book he compares the DC forts to the anvil and the AoP as the
hammer. Read the book. Difficult toi refute.
And the west side of Balt was pretty open to invasion. Defenses were
No no no, Jack!~
Don't make me tell you again!
A Loyal Neo-Anti Unionist,
In a message dated 1/25/2012 4:28:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jlawrence at kc.rr.com writes:
Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
Meade had construcyed a multiple fort defensive line of some 33 miles
It is my impression thoyugh that it wasa not fully manned,
rom Coddington we know that defending Pennsylvania was the bigger concern
than DC though, with Stanton establishing the first ever National Reserve
with a commanmd center i Harrisburg, under Curtain (even though it was a
A I read your blurb (did not go into the OR you cited), Halleck was just
pushing Hooker, whom he did noot like, a little harder.
Obviously, the AoP was the DC first line of defense, which is that Halleck
But who knows.
To respond to some earlier speculation about a what happens if Lee defeats
the aoP in detail, which means renders it militarily ineffective as a
fighting force, obviously they exfiltrate to Dc and see if Bobby lee wants
to test his luck.
Lee, if he is smart, goes home anyway. He might try Philidelphia or
baltimore though, as the British learned, it was defensible to a fault.
The Harrisburg thing is, IMHO, militarily unsound.
More certainly though is Lee is not going to defeat Meade in detail, but
rather drive him off the fish hook. In which case he goes back to Pipes
And Lee gets degeated in detail.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Mills" <amills at jplcreative.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 10:08 AM
Subject: GDG- Neither this Capital nor Harpers Ferry could long hold out
against a large force
> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
> In reading one of the articles posted earlier (
> , on page 144, Halleck is quoted as to have said: "Neither this
> Capital nor Harpers Ferry could long hold out against a large force.
> must depend for their security very much upon the co-operation of your
> It has been said in this forum that Washington was a nearly impenetrable
> fortress and the ANV could never actually capture the city.
> But this quote makes it seem that he feared very much for the safety of
> and I have to believe Lincoln would also feel this way, or Halleck
> wouldn't be able to send such telegrams to the army.
> Did they see a reality that is we don't see today? Were the forces that
> defending Washington DC impressive on paper, but troops to which you
> couldn't rely on when the fighting got heated? In 1863, how many troops
> defended the capitol and were they mostly green troops with short
> enlistments? What makes us today claim DC was unable to be taken when
> the military men of the time thought the exact opposite?
> I know there are a lot of questions, but I am trying to figure out the
> differences in beliefs and if this is all with the hindsight of history
> know Lee / ANV / Confederacy never had the capabilities the Union / US
> high command believed they were capable of.
> -to unsubscribe
> http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
http://arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg_arthes.com/ for Archives
More information about the Gettysburg