English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It bordered right on Confederate territory, and its capture would have been a serious blow to the Union war effort. So why wasn't it moved?

2007-05-13 07:38:09 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities History

4 answers

As mentioned in another answer, Maryland certainly was a factor; there was a lot of Southern sympathy in Baltimore, and if the capital moved out of Washington, Maryland could have aligned with the South.

More importantly, a move away from Washington would have been generally viewed as a retreat, and retreat is not what Lincoln wanted.

There were a couple of times early in the war when removal from Washington was a distinct possibility, and I read somewhere that plans were in place to cover that eventuality. The first battle of Bull Run (first Manassas) was a Confederate victory just outside Washington, and Lee's end run around Hooker just before Gettysburg was another threat to Washington. Either could have resulted in removal of the capital.

Washington, however, had very strong perimeter defenses. The main mission of the Army of the Potomac was to defend Washington, and General Lee (who was similarly charged with defending Richmond) always faced a formidable barrier (McClellan, Pope, Hooker, Meade) to the north.

Washington was also a primary mustering depot for new Union recruits, who often traveled through Baltimore en route to their field assignments. Washington, therefore, was a heavily armed and fortified camp during the Civil War. By remaining where he was, Lincoln remained close to the action, kept up morale as best he could, and never had to signal retreat.

2007-05-13 17:12:06 · answer #1 · answered by bpiguy 7 · 1 0

Washington D.C. is both in Maryland and Virginia. The D.C. stands for the District of Columbia which is a separate entity. Also, Maryland was a border state. If the federal government left, Maryland could have become a Confederate state.

2007-05-13 08:23:39 · answer #2 · answered by kepjr100 7 · 0 0

all and sundry which would be antigun at that factor would be ineffective. or enslaved. the worst human beings would be the protection stress and gangs. they are going to rape women and infants relentlessly if there are any survivors. there'll be human beings shot in basic terms for food, if there's no food obtainable. its all unhoy, and atheists declare they are ethical beings, atheists might beleading the way and crying bigotted words of hatred against the harmless human beings. its all been completed till now it is going to ensue returned. yet besides the incontrovertible fact that there can be a nuclear holocaust. there could not be any survivors different than the very few. yet besides the incontrovertible fact that there should be sufficient of a residing inhabitants that has to worship devil and can get carry of a mark interior the hand or brow or be beheaded for the testimony of jesus. such unbeliever/atheists have tried to kill me for years. a heart attack and strok at age 27. maximum cancers at 34, 3 loss of life threats interior an identical month, secondary heart assaults and poison in my mattress for years.

2016-12-11 08:21:29 · answer #3 · answered by okamura 4 · 0 0

because Virginia became a confederate state

2007-05-13 07:47:11 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers