Thank you!Okay for starters I have to say this chapter is brilliant I couldn't stop reading but I guess that's generally true with everything you write.
Breckinridge, being from Kentucky, is desperate to show that the Confederacy will support similar uprisings. He nurses the hope that Kentucky and Tennessee Confederates will rise up, but if they see that Baltimore proclaimed their lot with the Confederacy and was let out in the cold, why would they take the risk? It was mostly a political maneuver, and a bit of strategy as well, since Lee's two main objectives were re-establish Confederate control over Maryland and defeat Reynolds. Taking Pennsylvania supplies and perhaps Harrisburg was secondary. Lee also lacked accurate intelligence of the how many troops Reynolds had and where they were exactly. He thought that a much larger percentage of his army had gone South to pursue Beauregard, and didn't know of the failure at Fort Saratoga and the return of Doubleday. Lee and his soldiers had also marched longer and faster than Reynolds' had, and the Yankees were able to rest and fortify along the Pipe Creek while Lee continued running around Pennsylvania, to Gettysburg and back. And when they finally arrived they found a very strong defensive position that under normal circumstances would be almost impossible to carry. As a last point, Lee had also sent Beauregard south because he needed ammunition, but due to Fort Saratoga Beauregard simply never returned - so he was low on ammo too.However their are a few plot holes I don't like. If Lee was so cocky why didn't he just keep going north? I think maybe this can be explained by the intelligence he had on hand. If I have one complaint it seems like the union victory came too easy. Maybe this can be explained away by the confederate troops essentially making a large loop around union forces to attack them from behind and thus being more fatigued.
Hill's behaviour is based on OTL and comes from a conversation with @Arnold d.c IOTL, Hill suffered from a grave if unspecified disease that did take him out of fighting several times, most notably at Spotsylvania, when he had to be replaced by Jubal Early. Perhaps "all but useless" is a harsh judgement, but it cannot be denied that Hill's health problems limited his effectiveness at several engagements, and they only worsened once he was promoted to corps commander.This feels like a Dues ex Machina.
Well if you want to radicalize the northern population that's how you do. If they would have kept this up with the industrial sabotage they might have had a serious effect on the Norths war economy.
Is this supposed to be a riff on a modern politician.
This level of hubris is unbelievable.
Okay this catatonic state I can buy.
"Red" is a translation problem. You see, my native language is Spanish, and spy network is red de espionaje in Spanish. I got the two of them mixed up.
The Confederates did perform widespread industrial sabotage, but it's for naught since the Union can repair bridges and railroads faster than the rebs can burn them down.
No, it's an OTL quote by Longstreet. Similarly, the quote about "profound contempt" is an OTL observation from a British officer. Here, I think Lee's hubris is somewhat justified by just how massive his victories have been thus far. Think about it, he did not merely repulse the Union, he destroyed two whole corps. Lee's observations regarding how his soldiers could do anything and also how retreating would destroy their morale are also from OTL.
Edit: I have slightly rewritten the update to better explain why Lee turned back to Baltimore, why he was willing to assault the Union, and how the Union cavalry managed to drew Stuart away and thus leave Lee "blind" to the strength, positions and terrain of the Union.
That's a good quote. Damn, I want to ask if I can borrow it.I can imagine Jackson or some other Confederate officer who was at Union Mills saying something along the lines of Richard Ewell's admission in @TheKnightIrish's TL after the Battle of Liberty:
Abolishing the electoral college is my pet project. One possible angle is how it's, in effect, a way of indirect democracy. Radicalism was in a continuous search for a new definition of what it means to be a citizen, and the Civil War too created a true American nation. Couldn't, then, be argued that a direct vote is more democratic and conductive to a new birth of freedom?Which is too bad, in the case of the Electoral College; it made a certain degree of sense in the 1780s, but by the 1860s it had become a vestigial organ, largely tolerated because of mistaken notions about it inflating the value of "small states" (it does not, but rather inflates the value of competitive states) and the fact that it served in the vast majority of cases as a rubber stamp for the popular vote. Really, it should have been abolished in the 1820s or 1830s, when universal white manhood suffrage was accepted, because the entire complicated system that had been envisaged clearly had no relationship whatsoever with how American politics had actually developed, and the whole exercise was just a waste of time and money to no purpose.