"Defending Washington" Topic

I have been doing some reading that seems to suggest Lincoln hampered the war effort by insisting large amounts of troops stay in and around Washington to protect it and that an unnecessary amount of fortifications where built with this goal in mind as well.
Some accounts suggest that Lincoln went so far as to not release troops for front line service that could have made a difference in several battles. Is this incorrect or have some of you read similar information to suggest this? Curious for sure??

In that period of history, capturing the enemy capital meant victory.
Considering the results the generals were getting, protecting the capital was more important that winning victories.

It also made the Locals(Congress) feel safe and several time Lee had to send troops to cover Richmond and its massive defences.

Also, the reason why if Lee had won at Gettysburg he would have been too shot up and low on supplies to captured fortified Washington. Another reason Gettysburg is overrated in its importance.

I got this from here:
link

Civil War Defenses of Washington
Historic Resource Study NPS Logo
PART I

CHAPTER VII:
JUBAL EARLY'S RAID ON WASHINGTON, D.C./BATTLE OF FORT STEVENS

Before the Battle

During its existence, the Civil War Defenses of Washington were under almost constant rumor of threat and suffered various Confederate raids, especially on its southern and western sides. In the aftermath of the First Battle of Manassas, the routed Union troops streamed back into Washington as a disorganized mob and, theoretically, that should have made it easy for enemy forces to follow up and seize the capital. Thankfully, the Confederate forces were also disorganized, tired and in need of food, supplies, and ammunition, which made it impossible for them to follow up on their victory. Following the Confederate victories at the Second Battle of Manassas and the Battle of Chantilly, the defeated Union troops returned to the capital dejected but not in rout; again the Confederates did not followup by attacking Washington. Similarly, during the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns, fears that the Confederate forces might some how elude their Union pursuers and turn south to Washington kept the capital in a heightened state of insecurity. At other times, rumors of intended attacks on Washington sent chills through the hearts of many of the Washington, D.C. area inhabitants, except for the numerous Confederate sympathizers. [1]

Although an all out attack and/or siege of Washington was unlikely, most of the time, the threat of enemy raids was a constant threat and rumors of intended excursions circulated almost daily. The greatest threats of intended raids concerned the most frequent raiders, Colonel John Singleton Mosby's Confederate guerillas, the Forty-third Virginia Cavalry Battalion. Mosby and his men did carry out raids on the defenses and related troops at times and the threat of such raids was realistic. But, Mosby and his men did not perpetrate all raids on the Defenses of Washington; Major, later Lieutenant Colonel, Elijah V. White's Thirty-fifth Virginia Cavalry Battalion was one of the other raiding units. [2]

The greatest enemy threat to the Defenses of Washington occurred in July 1864, when Confederate Lieutenant General Jubal A. Early led his "Army of the Valley" to within six miles of downtown Washington in view of the new Capitol dome. In mid-June, Early left Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia at Cold Harbor. He marched to the Shenandoah Valley where his army provided the deciding numbers in defeating Union Major General David Hunter at Lynchburg. Early then headed down the valley and across the Potomac River into Maryland, defeated another Union army under Major General Lew Wallace at Monocacy, and then marched his men to the outskirts of the Union capital. Could Early and his men accomplish the unthinkable and capture Washington, D.C., a feat that no other Confederate army, even one commanded by the consummate commander, Robert E. Lee, had accomplished?

Thanks guys, in terms of gaming I am asking this question because I am wondering if it would be justified, to reflect historical thought at the time that a Union player would be required to keep X amount of forces in our around Washington, even when they were needed somewhere else or if that would be going a step to far, be to restrictive of the players and not fair to the Union side???

@gamer1

I wouldn't. I'd just make D.C. worth a LOT of victory points and then leave it up to the Union player- do they dare leave it without an adequate garrison? That was the conundrum faced by the Union in real life. Why not make it one for a Union player?

The political blow of losing Washington would have been severe--I think especially early on, but at any stage it's hard to convince people you're winning if you've been chased out of your capital. There was a garrison in Richmond, come to that, and fortifications.

Lincoln could be flexible about garrison strength while the Army of the Potomac stood between the Confederates and Washington, but when McClellan opted for the Peninsular Campaign, that wasn't the case and Lincoln specified a number of armed trained troops. Little Mac promptly cheated--counting raw recruits and convalescents, and Lincoln held back real units when he found out about it. McClellan was inclined afterward to claim that he would have attacked given even more men, but I've never taken him seriously.

For the Overland Campaign, Grant took the heavy artillery units of the Washington garrison and turned them into infantry for the Army of the Potomac without complaint from Lincoln.

Hmm. Does your campaign system allow for a field commander to lie to the President about troop strength and disposition? Might be interesting. But I think Tgunner has the right of it.

While the fortifications were certainly deterrents

Since DC was only 95 miles away from Richmond – I wonder if the Union didnt have troops and the fortifications if the confederate strategy might have included an attack on the capitol.

Some more links on Earlys attack

link

PDF link

link

Lincoln could be a bit unfair at times. At the start of the Gettysburg campaign when Hooker was still in command of the Army of the Potomac, Hooker wanted control of the garrisons at Harpers Ferry and Washington, but Lincoln (and Halleck) refused. But when Meade was ordered to replace Hooker, Lincoln gave him full use of both garrisons.

Of course McClellan accused Lincoln of ruining his Peninsula Campaign by withholding the 1st Corps to help defend Washington -- mainly because McClellan had failed to leave behind the minimum number of troops he had been told to.

What good would it do for Little Mac to take Richmond if in the process he lost Washington?

The same situation prevailed for Lee. Richmond was heavily fortified but when threatened by a cavalry raid had to put militia in the trenches. Lee could have had a tenth division at Gettysburg but for Davis' insistence on securing Richmond.

"Lincoln could be a bit unfair at times." Maybe. I'm usually more inclined to blame Halleck.

Lincoln was feeling his way in a part of the job he had zero preparation for, and I think overall he did a much better job of listening to the professionals, providing them with resources and not putting the blame on them than his generals, at least for the first two years, did of giving Lincoln the respect and obedience which they were supposed to give a commander in chief. I think he did a lot better than Jeff Davis, who had the perfect resume for the job.

Technically Hooker resigned 3 days before Gettysburg, and Lincoln and Halleck quickly accepted his resignation.

There was plenty of disagreement between them prior to then anyway. When Lee was discovered moving north, Hooker wanted to march south and capture Richmond. Lincoln rejected that. Hookers primary mission was to shield Washington, then intercept and stop Lee. Meade would complete that mission.

Kim

Thanks again guys. I will probably stick with my original idea which is as Tgunner suggested, make it worth a lot and leave it up to the player to decided. Try never to have rules that say players can't do something, just make it clear why they should or they are taking a big risk if they don't, etc.
I don't have anything or really a need for Generals to lie to their commanders but the idea of it is pretty funny I must admit. Happy gaming all.