So Lee wins Gettysburg...

There would never have been a drive on Washington after Gettysburg because Lee never intended it in the first place. If he won at Gettysburg he’d have continued his operational plan.

The idea was to drive north to Harrisburg and cut the rail network thus splitting the north in two. Only then would it be feasible to box in the Army of the Potomac to be chopped up piecemeal.

So the Mississippi falls and the south is cut in two, then Harrisburg falls and the north is cut in two. Stalemate. The war goes on with no end in sight and the north has had enough.

Remember, northern victories in the west mean much less than a precarious position in the east as there is much more ground to cover in the west and it would take quite some time to destroy the southern interior. On the other hand, being cut off in the east leads to rather quick and decisive actions with immediate consequences.

No, this would not have been possible. Around Vicksburg was a horrid morass of a swamp. Grant would have been resupplied by the river, while any confederate army sent against him could not possibly have carried the supplies it needed. Moreover, it would have taken months to send sufficient troops to Vicksburg, they would still have been outnumbered, and going against a fresh, reinforced, and dug-in union position. Meanwhile, it is certain that Grant would have been sent to the Eastern theater, wher he would (as he did) begin to rejuvenate and reinforce his troops.

But the fact is, Lee could not have won Gettysburg. I don’t like the “historical inevitability” idea, but in this case the logistics speak for themselves: His army simply could not sustain itself. Lee couldn’t reinforce his army, he himself was sick and distracted and dog-tired, the Union was in a better position to attack him, and knew his exact plans (odd note, two future presidents found a copy of Lee’s battle plan and turned it over to their commanders in the Federal Army). Lee was really lucky that on his march to gettysburg, Harper’s ferry was guarded by a drunken idiot of a commander who destroyed his own chance of defense. Otherwise Lee would have ben caught between the town and the Union army.

Lee could not posisbly have made a dent in the Union defenses around Washington - they would not have even tried.

simplee is exactly right (and welcome aboard!). All the speculation here that Lee would have moved on Washington just ain’t right.

The goal was never to sack or occupy Washington City. The goal was to damage the Union Army, destroy the Pennsylvania rail network and (if possible) occupy Harrisburg, Lancaster, Reading or even Philadelphia.

With those goals accomplished the CSA could petition again to France and England for recognition and help in breaking the Union blockade of southern ports. That would have gotten the job done fairly easily.

Small nitpick for which I’m ashamed: xtisme mentions Turtledove’s Great War series as having branched at Gettysburg. In fact it branches a year earlier when McClellan doesn’t find a copy of Lee’s Special Order 191 (I think that’s the number) and thus never defeats Lee at Antietam. Instead Lee and Jackson break the Union army near Camp Hill, PA.

Sorry about that.

Then the troops defending Washington come out of their forts, drive back the weakened, out of supply Army of Northern Virginia, and repair the breached railroad.

From Jonathan Chance

No, you are right Jonathan. I was merely saying that the decisive battle at Gettysburg had the South routing the North and thus changing the course of history. The actual branch was earlier as you mentioned. I didn’t want to get into all the details of the book (I also left out the details of how the South won, what they did afterward, etc), as some might enjoy reading alternative history. I’m also no expert on the Civil War unfortunately, so I don’t have as much to contribute to this discussion as I’d like unfortunately. I think its a facinating thread though and hope it keeps going for a while…I love ‘what ifs’.

Reguards,
XT

A few random thoughts. First, the thought that Picket’s charge was anything other than bloody folly is nonsense. As others have pointed out, if Fredericksburg and Cold Harbor (which Grant later admitted was his biggest mistake) are roundly viewed as senseless slaughter, I wonder why so many want to give Lee a pass on it. The Union soldiers had occupied that ground behind stone wall for two days and had interior lines of communication. This seems like more than hindsight would tell one that was a bad call.
Nor do I believe that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg means an end to the war. Cleary the policics and military end are tied together. As Clauswicz states, “war is a continuation of politics by other means.” One can’t be separated from the other. The union had been winning battles in the South on and off (O.K. more “off” than “on”) for two years, and the Confederacy didn’t throw their hands up and give up after the first loss. Although the Union political situation was more precarious, it wasn’t in that precarious. The Union victory at Vicksburg could have negated much of the harm done by yet another loss by the Union army at the hands of Lee…yawn. Even after a day three victory by Lee, his army would not have been in any shape to continue prancing around the North, destroying anything.

Troops defending Washington? You mean the 8th corps that was garrisoned there? Or do you mean Meades army?

Meade was capable but he was no Grant (not even a Joe Hooker). Heck, he barely hung on at Gettysburg without the pressure of attack and sitting on terrific real estate.

A win at Gettysburg gives Lee the strategic initiative and when Lee is allowed to choose the field of battle there’s not much of a chance of Meade defeating him (especially when replacements can’t be railed in).

Some other misconceptions…

I don’t understand all the talk of a demoralized, exhausted, out-of-supply army. Lee’s army was already sky high with optimism and a victory at Gettysburg leaves them demoralized? Exhausted yes but, no more so than their opponents, in fact much less so with the energizing effect of victory. The supply question is the most puzzling; A big reason to invade was to get the fighting out of Virginia so the army could EAT! The supply lines aren’t running from Richmond to Chicago here, they aren’t that long and Lee wasn’t the only force in the front; Harper’s Ferry, Mannasses Junction and the Shennendoah would be defended so I don’t think the supply line would be in peril.

Without reprinting the texts of some very thick books I’ll just say that the battle should never have come to Pickett’s charge in the first place. It was Longstreet that kept pushing east toward Little Round Top instead of following the correct attack plan on day 2. Lee’s “En Echelon” attack would entail each action being automatically screened by the last so that with Longstreet’s support, the Peach Orchard and Devil’s Den battles would never have been the tough fights they ended up being.

Also, there would have been no need of a second day attack plan if it weren’t for Union general John Reynolds. He made a brilliant decision to meet Heth’s advance head on west of the town to set up the whole defensive position.

In my mind the whole battle comes down to these two men (Reynolds and Longstreet).

BTW I was born in Chicago so I’m not some ticked off southerner who never got over this stuff. I’m just interested in truth.

And thanks for the welcome Mr. Chance :slight_smile:

Well, hell, I’m from Chicago but live in Virginia!

And again we agree, simplee. I don’t see the garrison troops in the Washington fortifications being able to get to Pennsylvania and deliver a decisive blow. The cream of the Union forces in the east were with Meade at Gettysburg. Bringing in second or third line troops after the first string had been beaten would have a doubtful effect.

As for supplies Lee’s forces could easily have plundered central and southern PA. While there were orders in place preventing that in 1862 it didn’t prevent it and I’m certain would have been lifted after a major victory that placed the goal (independence) in sight.

Even if Lee won the battle at Gettysburg (say Picketts Charge succeeded or he took Longstreet’s plan or Stuart was around), it wouldn’t mean the end of the Army of the Potomac or cause Meade to surrender. It didn’t happen after Lee’s victories in Virginia, or, for that matter, Meade’s win in Pennsylvania.

The Union army would be allowed to retreat, Lincoln would just find another commander, and give him a go at Lee.

To be sure but, Grant never faced 2:1 inferiority in numbers

“I can’t spare this man. He fights”

Another great quote by Lincoln:

About Grant’s rumored alchoholism “Find out what he drinks and send a barrel to all my other generals.”

And about the plodding, inept George McClellan:

“As you are not using the army at present, I should like to borrow it for a while.”

Thanks to J.E.B. Stuart. He was deservedly criticised for his ineffective ride around the Union forces but he redeamed himself with a series of brilliant delaying actions that allowed Lee’s army to escape

Just the other day I was reading James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom. The following post relies heavily on McPherson’s chapter on the foreign views of the war. I don’t know if McPherson is exaggerating the case or not, but I had not realized the unusual attention given to the Civil War by Great Britain and, to a lesser extent, France. Just as the cause of the American Revolution was probably doomed without French and Spanish intervention, I think that the C.S.A. had little hope of winning without recognition by the European powers.

In 1862, before Antietam, Lord Palmerston and Napoleon III were apparently somewhat close to a meeting of the minds about intervention in the American conflict. In that year Southern cotton shipments were unable to be replaced by other sources, and the shortage affected both countries’ textile industries. Palmerston appears to have had an interest in diluting the power of the United States in order to preserve the British presence in Canada, while Napoleon III was busy attempting to turn Mexico into a colonial possession and thought the C.S.A would be willing to make that concession more easily than the U.S.A. The two governments discussed–not very seriously–imposing a ten-month armistice and a lifting of the U.S. blockade, which would have greatly assisted the South whatever the outcome of the negotiations.

However, the strategic victory at Antietam, Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, support for the U.S. by Russia, and increased cotton production from Egypt and India effectively neutralized the possibility of British intervention by July 1863. France in turn could not risk acting alone, but it seems to have had an interest in prolonging the war long enough for French-backed forces in Mexico to win there and consolidate their victory (which they failed to do).

I don’t think the South had a chance after 1862 because the threat of foreign intervention was so low. Gettysburg wasn’t Lee’s battle to lose–it had already been lost the year before, whatever the outcome.

However, there are plenty of others who think and thought otherwise, notably Winston Churchill. Churchill also assumes that Lee would have changed his stated objectives and somehow invested Washington.

Absolutely right BUT (always the “but”), Lee would be able to pursue the operational goal of cutting the Union rail net.

I don’t know if you realize how important that is. There’s a reason that Sherman’s “march to the sea” featured heating up rails in bonfires and wrapping them around trees.

Lee’s victories in Virginia were of a defensive nature though. He was just holding on. Take Antietam for example; Outnumbered by 2 to 1 Lee turned back McClellan and achieved a stalemate. In the Gettyburg campaign however, the numbers were much closer.

Just “find” another commander? Good Luck Abe. He had precious little to choose from all along.

Hooker was a good offensive mind but he’d resigned already. Meade was an excellent choice to replace him but he was never one to push an advantage and with a defeat at Gettysburg, he would be at a loss as to how and where to attack Lee.

There’s a reason Gettysburg is considered a turning point.
It can’t be understated.

… assuming that the whole Emancipation Proclamation thing wouldn’t make France and England balk at the prospect for political reasons. (“We can’t recognize the CSA, our people would equate this with endorsing slavery!”)

A few more points, for what ever they may be worth.

It is a mistake to see the Gettysburg Campaign as an attempt to occupy Southeastern Pennsylvania, Baltimore or Washington. The campaign was a huge raid designed (at least according to Lee’s explanation to Jeff Davis after Chancellorsville) to get the Army of Potomac out of Virginia so that a crop could be harvested to feed the Southern Army the following winter, to force the North to pull troops out of the Western Theater to deal with Lee and thereby relieve Vicksburg, and to catch the Army of the Potomac at a disadvantage and fight a decisive battle. Lee succeeded in his first objective—the Army of the Potomac did no significant campaigning in Virginia until the next spring when Grant initiated his overland campaign starting with the Battle of the Wilderness. In the other two objectives Lee failed. The campaign did not relieve the siege of Vicksburg or lead to a decisive Union defeat.

The Confederate attack on the second day, as conceived by Lee, assumed that the Union left flank lay on the south edge of Cemetery Hill and was intended to sweep up the Emmetsburg Road to hit the supposed exposed Union flank. When Longstreet tried to place McLaw’s Division pointed East toward the Round Tops Lee forcefully corrected the disposition so that McLaw’s Division advanced to the Northeast with its left flank on the Emmetsburg Road. In fact, the Union Second Corps had taken position along Cemetery Ridge from the cemetery to the South and the Union Third Corps had taken up position extending the Second Corps line to the South to the Round Tops. An attack up the Emmetsburg Road would have exposed its right flank to savaging by Union artillery along the ridge and to attack in flank and rear by the infantry. It was only the unauthorized advance by the Union Third Corps to the Peach Orchard position that saved Lee’s plan.

By the end of June, 1863, Lee had no incoming supply line from the South. There was an outgoing supply line sending horses, cattle and grain , and, most reprehensively, Black residents of Northern Maryland and Southern Pennsylvania, from the Chambersburg, PA., area south to the Valley of Virginia, but Lee was drawing no supplies from Virginia. Lee’s army was living off the land. That worked as long as the army could spread out and send out foraging parties. It did not work when the army was concentrated for an engagement. Once concentrated, without a regular source of supply, Lee’s army could not stay in one place more than a few days.

While Lee was able to forage beef, pork, corn and wheat form the country side, no amount of foraging would produce ammunition. By the third day of the battle the Army of Northern Virginia’s supply of artillery ammunition was just about exhausted. Lee had no place to secure a resupply of ammunition this side of Staunton, Virginia. Lee certainly did not have enough artillery ammunition with his army for a fourth day of fighting. Lee’s inability to feed his army for more that a few days and the shortage of ammunition, along with the high confidence inspired by the Battle of Chancellorsville, had much to do with Lee’s decision to adopt a measure as desperate as Picket’s Charge.

In order to get France, and more importantly England, to intervene in the Civil War the Confederacy had to prove to the European Powers that it would win the war and secure its independence and that Europe needed the South. To do that Lee had to destroy a major Union army as the Colonial Rebels had destroyed Burgoyne’s army at Saratoga in 1777, and as Grant was about to do to Pemberton’s army at Vicksburg. It was not enough that the Confederacy demonstrate an ability to resist Union conquest. The European Powers were willing to bet only on a sure thing. Without the destruction of the Army of the Potomac as a fighting force there was no sure thing. France (read Napoleon III) had adventurous tendencies and had invaded Mexico and was willing, even eager, to secure Southern independence and protect its Mexican empire by getting into the Civil War but was unwilling to do so without English support. The South did not help its case any when it chose to prove to England just how important it was by embargoing its own cotton shipments to the English mills. Egyptian cotton and Indian cotton made up the difference after a period of hardship in the fabric trade. In the face of this England concluded that it did not need King Cotton. This left England with the opportunity to slap a rival as its only real motivation to work for Southern independence. This motivation was largely countered by English abhorrence of slavery. Absent a decisive Confederate victory England and France were not jumping into the war.

Lee’s battles as the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia may well have been defensive in strategy but they can hardly be seen as defensive tactically. From Lee’s assumption of command in 1862 through Gettysburg the battles of the Army of Northern Virginia were:

The Seven Days—Lee attacking, driving McClelland back from the gates of Richmond.
Second Bull Run—Jackson’s Corps defends until the rest of the army comes up, then a general attack that routed Pope’s Army of Virginia. The Jackson defense set up the Longstreet-Jackson offense.
Antietam—a defensive battle culminating an offensive thrust into Maryland. About all that can be said is that Lee managed to avoid the destruction of his army.
Fredericksburg—a pure defensive fight by Lee, but nothing else was needed since Burnside was kind enough to sacrifice his army battering the Confederate positions.
Chancellorsville—an audacious offensive counterstroke to Hooker’s offensive. This was the model Confederate offensive with part of the army fixing the enemy in position and the other part breaking into the enemy’s flank. It was also the scheme at Second Bull Run. I think that the second day at Gettysburg was Lee’s attempt to do it again.

In view of the above, you can hardly characterize Lee’s pre-Gettysburg fights as defensive fights where the Confederates hunkered down behind a big rock and shot down attacking Yankees. That pattern applies only to Fredericksburg.

Complete balogna. Cite your sources sir.

Lee’s biggest criticism was his “fire and forget” style of leadership so, where did you find this evidence that Lee interjected with specific orders? The details were left to Longstreet and he failed to enact Lee’s plan.
This quote is complete balogna.

A HA!!! I was waiting for some civil war buff to bring that up! Unfortunately, I can’t reference the specific units that were there, protecting against that possibility. (I’ll get back to you tomorrow)

Of course not! It wasn’t necessary at that point. Any analysis of supply lines at the end of June is pretty spurious now don’t you think?

How hard is it to supply through Harpers Ferry under Confedrate control?

Speculation that I don’t find accurate. England and France would be frothing at the mouth to intervene. Just think of America as two countries. Our diplomatic prospects would be minimal at best. I’m actually glad (as are most other Americans I’m sure) that the north won the unification battle or else we’d be in real trouble.

Bullspit. They would’ve been more than excited to bet on a “maybe” for world diplomatic reasons.

Look, I’m glad the north won but this kind of stuff is just fantasy.

Major point. This is what gives me hope for the current United States.

The Abolitionists really turned world opinion (“The whole world’s watching!”)

Yes, absolutely right. Strategically defensive. The rest of this post is moot in view of the above admission.

8th Corps, 22nd Corps, and part of the 7th Corps, along with whatever parts of the Army of the Potomac withdrew in good order.

Try Pfanz, Harry W., Gettysburg, the Second Day,U. No. Carolina Press (1987), chapter 6, for the reconnaissance on the early morning of July 2 and the Lee-Longstreet-McLaws conversation. See Coddington, Edwin B., The Gettysburg Campaign, a Study in Command, Chas. Schribner’s Sons (paperback 1984), for the raid nature of the campaign and Lee’s supply situation, especially ammunition. See also George Stewart’s Pickett’s Charge and the various pieces in Battles and Leaders.

As to the diplomatic situation see McPhearson’s Battle Cry of Freedom, and Beringer,Hattaway, Jones and Still, How the South Lost the Civil War, and Hattaway and Jones, How the North Won.

There seems to be little danger, friend, of you letting facts cloud your opinions.

Spavined Gelding, you forgot the battle where Lee used the tactical offensive to what was probably it’s greatest effect, 2nd Winchester, where the Army of Northern Virginia executed a coordinated attack from three sides, against a heavily fortified position, that ended in about 4000 federals captured, and the Union army withdrawing from Winchester.

And Simplee, the Confederates had to take the strategic defensive. They didn’t have the resources to sustain an offensive campaign.