Civil War Interactive Discussion Board Home
Home Search search Menu menu Not logged in - Login | Register


Southern Victory at Gettysburg - Battle of Gettysburg - Civil War Talk - Civil War Interactive Discussion Board
 Moderated by: javal1
 New Topic   Reply   Printer Friendly 
 Rating:  Rating
AuthorPost
 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 07:36 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
1st Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

If the Confederates had won at Gettysburg what would have happened next in the war?

Would Enland have recongnized the south? Or would it have made no difference in the war?

I guess what i mean is if Lee had routed the AotP would Lee have tried to cut Washington's lines of supplies and communication or would he have attacked Washington? If he had somehow captured Washington  would that mean the end of the war or would it have bolstered the norths will to win?



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 11:12 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
2nd Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

If the previous experience of the AOP is any indicator, the Yanks would have rallied near Baltimore and tens of thousands of New York and New Jersey militiamen would have been called into service. Lee's worst possible move at that point would have been to try and take Washington. It was simply too well fortified. But, hypothetically, if he had taken Washington, as long as the President got out (and he would have courtesy of the navy) the war would have continued. But, back to my original hypothetical, Lee would have been stuck between two very angry forces of Yankees. And if I would have been Lincoln I would have called at least a portion of Grant's Army of Tennessee east (kind of the opposite of what happened at Chattanooga). Lee might have worried the hell out of the north for a while, but I'm not sure this would have really made any significant strategic difference. By November Lee would have been out of ammunition, medical supplies, etc (anything that you couldn't strip from the countryside) and would have to retreat into Northern Virginia. There were no elections that November so there would have been no change of war policy. Because of the Emancipation proclamation, there is very little chance that Great Britain would have supported the South. So, by January 1, 1864, I see very little strategic change in the Eastern theater. Anyway, my $.02

Mark



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 12:28 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
3rd Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think people under estimate lee. I dont think anyone on this board can honestly say that lee was an incompetent commander. Lee would not have invaded the north if he didnt think it held a plausible chance of victory. If New york and New jersey had raised tens of thousands of milita which may have been possible, i dont think they would have been able to stand up to the ANV for 5 minutes let alone enough time to trap lee between grants troops that would take nearly a week to arrive. Lee's overall plan for the 1863 campaign was to relieve pressure from vicksburg, to achieve this he would have had to pose a threat to washington, by cutting off their lines of communication. I do not think Lee's army could have taken washington, not with the navy just offshore but Lincoln would still have had to withdraw from the city along with his entire cabinet.

If Lincoln had to withdraw from washington along with congressmen and senators numbering what, 600? How many soldiers would have to accompany them to the next capital? Where would those troops come from? Yes, i think Lincoln would have sent a telegram to Grant to dispatch a corp from his army to come east... but what would have happened with vicksburg?



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 12:29 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
4th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I agree with Mark. The North would have gathered forces from all over the North and from Grant's army besieging Vicksburg. Lee would have been forced back into Virginia through lack of supplies and the gathering of Union forces. Whether Washington DC would have fallen wouldn't have mattered. Lincoln was never going to make peace with a independent South. England would have gone against everything it stood for if it had supported the South after the Emancipation.

A President McClellan would have not been the South's friend either. He had distanced himself from the 1864 party platform. He couldn't in good conscience to the soldiers he led in battle allow a Confederate government to remain in power. His view was to return things back to pre-1861 status. Slavery would exist but the country would be united. At least that is what I read once many, many moons ago.



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 12:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
5th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

If Lee had defeated the North on its own soil and forced Washington to be abandoned, how could England not recongize the south? Again i dont think milita would have given lee much trouble.



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 12:55 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
6th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

CSA...I'm not knocking Lee or the valor of the southern soldiers. But even if Pickett's charge carries the day on July 3rd...the ANV had suffered pretty heavy casualties. Lee was far from home with what would be a damaged army. The South's logistics wasn't capable of long term offensive operations on Northern soil. Meanwhile the North is on their home turf replacing its losses much easier than Lee.

If Lee would somehow score another victory there could be a slight chance of Vicksburg holding on. But Vicksburg was already on its last legs as Gettysburg was raging so even then it might not have helped out Vicksburg. I think Lee and Davis underestimated Lincoln's determination to keep the nation united. The guy wasn't going to give up.

England might have recognized the South after Gettysburg but the British had since the very early 1800's been very adamantly anti-slavery. Their navy patrolled the coasts of Africa hunting down slave trader ships. That is why after the Emancipation it made it very difficult for them to lend meaningful support to the Confederacy. They would have been ridiculed by the rest of the world for being hypocrits if they now supported a slave holding nation.

Anyway this is my view of things.



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 01:10 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
7th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

England Emancipated slavery in 1832 if i'm not mistaken. Also England recognized Brazil as a country even though Brazil was pro slavery. Another aspect to look at is the norths morale. If Lee had won on the 2nd day of gettysburg he would have had the man power to maybe take baltimore. If he had taken baltimore where the majority of it's citizens was pro south Lee could have made up for the losses he suffered at gettysburg.



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 01:38 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
8th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I was thinking England banned slavery in 1807...but that was the slave trading. You are right in that they didn't ban slavery completely until 1832. I know basically nothing about Brazil and England diplomacy so I will give you that one also. But I'm a stubborn one...I still don't think England enters the war. Russia was already pretty pissed at the Brits for stirring up trouble in Poland, which was Russian occupied. Things would have got interesting fast if Britain comes into the war. Not sure if England would be willing to go down that road to eventual World War.

I will also admit that the morale of the North would be effected negatively by a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. But Vicksburg would almost certainly fall anyway freeing up Grant's army to come east in parts or the whole thing to reinforce Meade's army. The fall of Vicksburg would still give the North a boost in morale there. For the record I had two ancestors in the 4th Texas (Hood's Brigade) at Gettysburg. They were in the Devil's Den and assault on Little Round Top. So I'm not hating on the South's valor. I just think the war was stacked in the North's favor from the get go.



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 01:39 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
9th Post
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Also from what I have read Lee's army eat better while in northern territory than they did on home soil. I believe it was Shellby Foote who wrote that the invasion during the Gettysburg Campaign was not a total loss, due to the supplies he obtained.

Pender



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 03:36 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
10th Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

csamillerp wrote: If Lee had won on the 2nd day of gettysburg he would have had the man power to maybe take baltimore. If he had taken baltimore where the majority of it's citizens was pro south Lee could have made up for the losses he suffered at gettysburg.
Lee marched into Maryland in '62 with all flags flying and bands playing "Maryland my Maryland" with the intention of filling his ranks with pro rebel Marylanders and the response was underwhelming, why would it be different this time? Admittedly it would be on the back of a victory but if those pro southerners had not joined up to fight pre '63 I think it unlikely that they would do so now, volunteers were getting hard to find and conscription was the way of filling the ranks at this point in the war.



 Posted: Sun Dec 4th, 2011 04:48 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
11th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

In regards to the northern militia, they didn't need to actually fight a battle with the ANV to be effective. Just by burning the bridges over the Susquehanna River they could have held up Lee for at least a week. Lee would have been alone in unfriendly territory. Not a good position to be in. By the way, Brazil was only recognized after a bitter debate in parliament, and the UK kept enormous pressure on the Kingdom until they finally did abolish slavery. But even if England had recognized the Confederacy, what then? The Royal navy might have broken the blockade, but the blockade was never very effective in the first place (see Archer Jones, "Why the Confederacy Lost"). If the South was to win, and I think they had excellent chances to do so, it would not have been at Gettysburg.

Mark



 Posted: Mon Dec 5th, 2011 12:11 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
12th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 890
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think there was more concern during Lee's second invasion than during his first. He penetrated deeper into the North and people were concerned he might move on the major cities. And the Northern papers certainly see to have been following the invasion prior to Gettysburg. Looking at The June 20th and 27th editions of Harper's Weekly they carried the following articles

June 20, 1863

CARRYING THE WAR INTO THE
NORTH.

THE prediction of the Richmond papers that the summer campaign would be fought on Northern soil was no idle threat. For some time past General Stuart has been massing the advance-guard of the rebel army near Culpepper, and on 9th a bloody fight took place between that body and a picked detachment of the Army of the Potomac. Of the result of that encounter we know nothing as yet. But unless Stuart has been utterly overwhelmed and scattered, we may take for granted that even if our side has been successful the invasion of Pennsylvania has only been deferred for a time. The rebels are determined to make us feel "the horrors of war" in our homes. They are daring and desperate; the recent cavalry raids into Virginia and Mississippi show how much may be effected by a band of resolute men; there is every reason to expect, and no good reason to doubt, but that the soil of Pennsylvania and Maryland will be invaded within the month.

It may be asked, as it was asked when Lee invaded Maryland last fall, cui bono? What can the rebels gain by invading the North? They can gain simply this—that they will make our people feel the horrors of war, and give a practical point to the Copperhead cry for peace. They will both satisfy their thirst for vengeance and supply the citizens of Maryland and Pennsylvania with pretty substantial grounds for desiring the war to be ended. These ends, in the opinion of the Richmond press, amply justify the enterprise.

What are the prospects of success? The answer to this depends upon the Government at Washington. Because a brigade of swift cavalry was able to ride through the thinly-peopled State of Mississippi without meeting any rebel force, while another brigade contrived, by hard riding and dextrous management, to dash across from Culpepper to Gloucester Court House, that is no reason why a rebel corps d'armee should succeed in making good a foothold in the thickly-peopled State of Pennsylvania—unless we are to suppose that the Government neglects the most obvious precautions for the protection of the North.

If, on the first indications of a rebel purpose to cross the Potomac, the entire militia of Pennsylvania and 50,000 men from the adjacent States are called out if proper measures are taken by competent officers to remove from points of danger, or to protect adequately all depots of supplies; if the splendid but somehow amazingly unlucky Army of the Potomac be manoeuvred so as to fall upon the rear of the invaders, and cut off effectually their retreat to their base, in this case the invasion of the North would probably prove the end of the South as a pretended nation. If, however, matters are suffered to drift along, and the Government deludes itself into a belief that the rebels are not energetic enough or desperate enough to try to carry the war into Pennsylvania; or that, being in that State, they will not prove most formidable intruders, then it will be well for loyal people to prepare themselves for another season of heart-breaking disaster and disappointment.

It is a very simple matter, and one which should admit of no debate. If we can not keep the rebels out of Pennsylvania, there must be no more talk of foreign wars, for neither could we prevent the English from landing on our coast.



http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/june/negro-troops.htm

 


HARPER'S WEEKLY.
SATURDAY, JUNE 27, 1863.
THE INVASION OF THE NORTH.
GENERAL LEE has verified the predictions we published in our last number with startling exactness. A part of his army has invaded Pennsylvania, now occupies one or two of the southern towns in that State, and menaces Harrisburg. A wild panic pervades the State, and the military organization which should have preceded the invasion by several weeks is now being hurriedly completed, in the midst of universal terror and confusion. Even as far west as Pittsburg the operatives in the machine-shops have knocked off work, called for speeches, and fallen to building earth-works. Meanwhile the alarm has spread to the adjacent States. New Jersey, Ohio, New York, West Virginia, and even Massachusetts are hurrying forward their militia to the scene of action, and there is some reason to hope that by the time these lines are read a new army of volunteer militia, as numerous if not as efficient as Lee's forces, will interpose between the rebel advance and the capital of the Keystone State.

It is stated that the Government was fully aware of Lee's designs, and suffered the rebels to cross the Potomac for ulterior purposes of its own. This may be so, though the prize which it was proposed to purchase by the sacrifice of one half of Milroy's army and the flourishing town of Chambersburg must—one would think—have been tolerably substantial.

The rebel journals, and some organs of opinion here, intimate that it is Lee's design to push forward into the heart of Pennsylvania and Ohio, and to stay at Pittsburg or Harrisburg, or some other convenient point—in other words, to invade the North on the plan which we have pursued at the South, taking all he can seize, and holding what he takes. The event will probably prove the fallacy of this expectation. No army of the size of Lee's can operate as a movable or flying column without a base; and no body of troops small enough to operate as a movable column would be safe in any part of the State of Pennsylvania. A brigade or a division of cavalry, moving swiftly from place to place, and avoiding the large towns, may make successful raids even into Pennsylvania, and may destroy bridges and stores, and carry off large quantities of plunder, without running more than the average risks of war. But if Lee, or any of his generals, attempts to move a corps d'armee of twelve to fifteen thousand men of the three arms, into any Northern State, it is demonstrable that the chances would be heavily against their return. And if he moves with any larger force than this, he must keep his communications open with his base or perish. This has been the cardinal principle which has impeded our operations so seriously in Virginia. Whenever the army of the Potomac has moved any considerable distance from its base, its communications have been cut, and the very existence of the army endangered. It will be so with Lee. If he operates from Winchester, which is the most probable base for a campaign against Southern Pennsylvania, he will not dare to move much beyond Hagerstown or Chambersburg; for if he does, his communications will infallibly be cut, and his army will have to retreat or perish.

Many motives have been assigned for Lee's sudden march from Fredericksburg to Winchester. It is hardly worth while to discuss any of them, as the most plausible is after all mere conjecture. But it is not difficult to understand that the preservation of the morale of the rebel army and the rebel people, in view of the proximate fall of Vicksburg and Port Hudson and the loss of the Mississippi Valley, imperatively required that some dashing enterprise—involving possibilities of brilliant successes—should be undertaken, and this theory alone might suffice to account for Lee's recent strategy; which, in any other point of view, would seem to be unworthy of his reputation.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/june/lee-invades-pennsylvania.htm

 


DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE.
THE INVASION OF THE NORTH.
As we intimated in our last number, the rebels are fulfilling their threat of invading the North. It appears that the army under Lee commenced to move in a northwesterly direction on 9th June, and that General Hooker, discerning his intention, moved on 11th or 12th on a parallel line. On the morning of 12th, a rebel corps, said to have been Jackson's old corps, now commanded by General Ewell, passed through Strasburg. The alarm was given, and General Milroy at Winchester prepared for defense. He was attacked on 13th, and his assailants being far too strong to be successfully resisted, he fell back, after a severe fight, to Harper's Ferry. On the same day, 13th, a Union force at Berryville, and another body at Middletown, were attacked, and fell back to the Potomac. On 14th, Sunday, Martinsburg was attacked, and a sharp affair occurred. We have no precise account of how it ended. It is stated, however, that our forces made good their retreat to the Potomac. On the evening of 14th and the morning of 15th, a large body of rebel troops, how many or of what description we know not, crossed the Potomac in the vicinity of Nolan's Ford, and moved on Hagerstown, which was evacuated by our troops on 15th. In failing back, our people are said to have taken with them their stores, supplies, and guns. At 9 P.M. on 15th, the rebel advance-guard is said to have entered Chambersburg, which place we are likewise reported to have evacuated. Other rebel columns are described as moving on Mercersburg, on the one hand, and Waynesboro on the other. On 16th the rebel advance, consisting mainly of cavalry, was at Chambersburg and Scotland. The forces assembled for the protection of the State were at Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. Harrisburg was threatened, but it was believed that we could save it.

Of General Hooker's movements no precise account has yet transpired, though it is known that his entire army has moved in the direction of Manassas Gap. The President has called for 120,000 men, viz., 100,000 six months'men, namely, 50,000 from Pennsylvania, 30,000 from Ohio, 10,000 from Maryland, and 10,000 from West Virginia; and 20,000 New York State militia, to serve for a short period. Proclamations calling out troops have been issued by the Governors of Olio and Pennsylvania, and troops are moving with alacrity toward the scene of conflict.

STRENGTH OF LEE'S ARMY.
It has been ascertained that the reinforcements reaching General Lee from the Carolinas and elsewhere have swelled his army to double the number he had in the battle of Chancellorsville. His force is divided into three corps, of 30,000 men each.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1863/june/lee-invasion-north.htm
People were going to be following articles like these. I doubt had the Army of the Potomac been defeated that there would have been many men clambering to get into local militias to face off against the Army of Northern Virginia and Lee. The panic that would have created would have been more likely to get what Lee was after, fuel for the peace movement in the North to push for an end to the fighting.



 Posted: Mon Dec 5th, 2011 02:45 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
13th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 555
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Local militia, or any militia, would have no effect against seasoned veterans. I'll grant that MAYBE there would be a furor to join a militia, but who would make up that militia that were not already in the army??.....Mainly older men and boys.....After weeks of training/drill, most would desert before EVER marching toward an enemy that would be long gone before the militia even got their weapons.....



 Posted: Mon Dec 5th, 2011 09:10 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
14th Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think it is highly likely Vicksburg falls even with a Confederate victory at Gettysburg. Grants army loads up on trains and heads east. Plenty of reinforcements to face Lee who's army even by the second day of Gettysburg had taken a lot of casualties with no hope of being reinforced.



 Posted: Mon Dec 5th, 2011 10:59 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
15th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 890
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The problem there is that Grant did not come east immediately after Vicksburg. Chickamauga still had to happen, with Rosecrans being defeated and falling back to Chattanooga leading to Grant bringing the Division of the Mississippi to Chattanooga's aid. Grant remained in the west for the rest of 1863, a victory for Lee at Gettysburg could have forced an end to the war before Grant could be brought east. Bringing him east with all his forces before the end of the Chattanooga Campaign could have allowed the forces under Bragg to retake Confederate territory in the west.

Last edited on Mon Dec 5th, 2011 11:09 pm by Hellcat



 Posted: Mon Dec 5th, 2011 11:33 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
16th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Forced an end to the war, how? Lincoln was not going to negotiate under any terms other than restoration of the Union. That was unacceptable to the Rebels. Plus, Grant is going to leave some troops out west, and the North is already recruiting thousands of freedmen in the Mississippi valley. Finally, if we are playing hypotheticals, who is to say that Thomas couldn't have broken the Chattanooga siege on his own? He proved to be a solid commander.

Albert, the militia doesn't have to fight a battle to be effective. They just have to cause enough logistical problems for the ANV through burning bridges, blocking defiles, etc. to hold up Lee for a couple weeks. That would not have been hard to do and would not have required any combat.

Mark



 Posted: Tue Dec 6th, 2011 01:38 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
17th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Mark, dont you think that lee would have used Jeb stuart to hold those bridges if they were that important? How fast did he cross the potomac with it flooded? didnt take weeks did it? Lincoln may not have wanted to negotiate a peace but if congress thought it would serve them then they ultimately had the true power of decision



 Posted: Tue Dec 6th, 2011 01:47 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
18th Post
Albert Sailhorst
Member


Joined: Mon Sep 12th, 2005
Location: Aledo, Illinois USA
Posts: 555
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The local populace watched Lee march into Pennsylvania....They knew he was there, yet they (in the form of "militias" or otherwise) destroyed no bridges in his rear, right, left or ahead of his advance.....At best, hypothetically, ANY militia would have been a very minor annoyance, and of little value in stopping an Army.....Interesting conversation y'all have going on!!
Thanks!!!



 Posted: Tue Dec 6th, 2011 01:54 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
19th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

thats a great point Albert, i think most of the milita was massed in harrisburg and pittsburg. What would have happened if Lee would have marched on New York? with the draft riots going on would they have been able to deal with Lee and the rioters?



 Posted: Tue Dec 6th, 2011 02:48 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
20th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 890
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

No Mark, with the Army of the Potomac destroyed it would not have mattered what Lincoln would have wanted. Lee would have been free to turn on Washington. Yes he would have had to deal with the forts ringing the capital. But unlike Early Lee would have had a larger force. And that would have cuased enormous fear in the Congress following the defeat of what was the principle Federal army in the east on northern soil.

Lee wasn't looking as much for pro-Confederate individuals to swell his numbers during his second invasion, he was hoping the pro-peace movement would be so terrified as to what he would do next that they would be able to sue for peace. And had he won at Gettysburg Lincoln would either have absolutely no say in the matter or he would have been impeached and removed from office if he didn't bow to the wishes of the peace movement. The battles in the east up to Gettysburg had been more and more making it look like the Army of Northern Virginia could not be defeated, especially after Lee took command. And when it was defeated the Federal General in charge tended to not follow through their victory or to retreat from it. Lincoln was breathing a sigh of relief when Lee was defeated at Gettysburg.



 Posted: Tue Dec 6th, 2011 02:57 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
21st Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Agreed hellcat. I think Lee realized that the only way for the south to win was to invade the north, destroy the AOP and march on washington... he knew that time was the biggest issue. He couldnt just defend against invasion, eventually even if he held out long enough, the war would have closed in around him when other theaters were taken by federal armies. Even if Gettysburg would not have happened, if lee had never invaded in 1863, i dont think Lee would have had another chance. He did the best thing he could by invading, one last shot.



 Posted: Tue Dec 6th, 2011 09:31 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
22nd Post
BHR62
Member


Joined: Sun Dec 12th, 2010
Location: Indiana USA
Posts: 242
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

IF the Army of the Potomac had been destroyed at Gettysburg then ya the war would probably be a done deal.

But Meade was too capable a general to let his army be destroyed. But if they were just defeated then the Confederate victory doesn't mean much at Gettysburg. Grant would have either been sent east after Vicksburg or a big chunk of his army would have gone east for reinforcements. Grant himself either accompanies his troops or he replaces Rosecrans as commander of the Cumberland Army. Even though Rosecrans had manuevered Bragg out of central Tennessee back to Chattanooga...Lincoln thought he was a much too slow mover. Chickamauga and Chattanooga possibly never happen, at least the way they did. Back east the militia in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey would have been sent to be a pain in the arse to Lee. Slowing him down without actually doing battle would have been their job. Inflict casualties here and there. Buying time for troops from the west to arrive.



 Posted: Tue Dec 6th, 2011 11:36 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
23rd Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Ok Hellcat, I think I see where we disagree. I'm assuming that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would likely have not have totally destroyed the AOP. I'm imagining something akin to the 2nd Bull Run retreat. With a rout off the battlefield and rallying at the next opportunity. In this case, I think probably Baltimore (which was already being fortified by Union militia) would be where the AOP would regroup. I'm thinking they would be ready to fight again in a week or two.

CSAmiller and Albert, I think you are underestimating the difficulty of crossing a river during the Civil War. Yes, Lee would have to try and get Stuart to seize the bridges, but that would be a difficult mission to accomplish. The example of the retreat from Gettysburg is a good example. The ANVs pontoon bridge over the Potomac was destroyed by a Yankee raiding party on July 4. The ANV arrived on July 6 and they were not able to cross until July 13. But, that was crossing into friendly territory at a place that had already been reconnoitered. Even if it was defended by militia, it would be dangerous business to force a crossing under fire. At Fredericksburg, for instance, the Federals had to blast the river front buildings into oblivion with heavy artillery to give the landing parties a chance. In regards to the militia in general, even if they were not the AOP, they still could have been a thorn in the side of the Rebels. They were present at a number of early skirmishes in the Pennsylvania invasion. In fact, the War Department created a whole new department for them (see the Department of the Susquehanna). As you pointed out, their job was to hold the Philadelphia, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh line (which is why Lee could not have gone straight for New York--all the roads go through one of those towns). They never won a big battle, but they did hold up the advance by doing what I described--burning bridges over creeks, felling trees, etc. See the occupation of York for an example.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the conversation!

Mark



 Posted: Tue Dec 6th, 2011 12:45 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
24th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 890
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Speaking as one of those who have been on the opposite side of the debate,  I'd have to agree that the conversation has been enjoyable.

Last edited on Tue Dec 6th, 2011 12:46 pm by Hellcat



 Posted: Tue Dec 6th, 2011 11:43 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
25th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I am wondering, are we thinking too much about tactics and not enough about logistics? Does anyone know what the ANVs supply situation was by the end of the Gettysburg? I would expect they were low on ordinance and medical supplies. While they could (and did) get food and horseflesh from the countryside, I think other logistics would have been a severe handicap on any further ANV operations.

Mark



 Posted: Thu Dec 8th, 2011 01:25 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
26th Post
csamillerp
Member


Joined: Wed Feb 10th, 2010
Location: South Carolina USA
Posts: 212
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I do agree with that Mark, if Lee had routed the federal army at gettysburg or any other battlefield during the campaign his biggest concern would have been resupplying ammunition to his army. He would have had to take a city that had an armory by suprise, not giving the federals a chance to destroy their stock. But i think if Lee had destroyed or routed the federal army, he wouldnt have been able to turn back... not abandoning his best chance for victory. Lee understood the affairs of the confederacy probably better then most, i think he knew he had to win and thats why he took the losses he did at gettysburg because he was giving it his all.

Here's an off topic question: IF England would not recongnize the Confederacy then why did they have Col. Freemantle at Gettysburg?



 Posted: Thu Dec 8th, 2011 02:08 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
27th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 890
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

They did capture equipment and supplies during the campaign leading up to the battle. The question there is how much? We know that the artillery was running low on supplies, if not entirely out, by the end of Pickett's Charge. But Lee sent his wagon trains away from Gettysburg with the captured equipment and supplies. This was in defeat. And the wagon train did come under attack during the retreat, resulting in the capture if supplies and prisonners.

We go back to the idea of Lee winning the battle and destroying the Army of the Potomac then the question becomes how many supplies does he manage to capture following the battle before he turns south. Lee would have to be an utter fool not to try to capture as many supplies from his defeated foe as he could before continueing as he couldn't be effectively resupplied.



 Posted: Fri Dec 9th, 2011 12:05 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
28th Post
omar
Member


Joined: Sun Sep 4th, 2011
Location: Emporium, Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 10
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I think England was hedging by having Freemantle with the south, you know a case of "We will throw them a bone and make it look like we are interested and if they hit on a big victory and it looks like the south is going to pull of the bid for Independence than they can jump in and play the opportunist and try and get something out of it, but if they lose than England haven't lost anything by sending some observers.



 Posted: Sat Dec 10th, 2011 02:13 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
29th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 890
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I'm beginning wonder why he was there. Finding a copy of Freemantle's Three Months in the Southern States: April, June, 1863 (http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/fremantle/fremantle.html) has him saying in the preface that he had a wish to witness the war first hand and the reason he choose the Southern side was "the foolish bullying conduct of the Northerners." I'd thought he'd been ordered to be the Queen's observer in the South, but that doesn't sound like he was ordered.



 Posted: Sat Dec 10th, 2011 01:12 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
30th Post
Mark
Member
 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Location:  
Posts: 434
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Without having done any research, he may have been ordered to observe the war in general, and just decided that the Confederate side was a more interesting place to do that. Just a guess.

Mark



 Posted: Sat Dec 10th, 2011 04:52 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
31st Post
fedreb
Member


Joined: Tue Jan 16th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 239
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I may be off track here but I always thought that Freemantle had taken a leave of absence from the British Army and was travelling as an independent observer.



 Posted: Sat Dec 10th, 2011 06:56 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
32nd Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 890
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

On the Fremantle question, this seems of interest:

While serving in Gibraltar Fremantle met Capt., Raphael Semmes, who so captivated him with tales of the American South, that on leaving Gibraltar he applied for leave of absence from his Regiment, which he used to travel to America where the civil war was about to enter its third year. Despite his subsequent achievements in later life, the American civil war is arguably the event for which Fremantle is probably most remembered, due to him being the only British Officer present at the battle of Gettysburg as an observer and guest of Confederate General Longstreet.


 
In 1863 he wangled six months leave of absence in order to visit America, but not in any official capacity. He was not "Her Majesty’s observer," as depicted in the movie, but simply on a private vacation. He did however have the good sense not to risk the blockade and a possible repeat of the Trent Affair—but in reverse. One can imagine Mr. Lincoln’s face upon hearing that one of Her Majesty’s Guards Officers had been apprehended trying to enter the Confederacy on a blockade runner.

 


The full thing is here: http://colfremantle.com/active_service.html, and here: http://colfremantle.com/journey.html. Also checking the full site may prove interesting as it also includes an article on the British view of things: http://colfremantle.com/

Last edited on Sat Dec 10th, 2011 07:01 pm by Hellcat



 Posted: Sat Sep 22nd, 2012 03:16 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
33rd Post
sallieparker
Member
 

Joined: Fri Sep 21st, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 6
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

fedreb wrote:
csamillerp wrote: If Lee had won on the 2nd day of gettysburg he would have had the man power to maybe take baltimore. If he had taken baltimore where the majority of it's citizens was pro south Lee could have made up for the losses he suffered at gettysburg.
Lee marched into Maryland in '62 with all flags flying and bands playing "Maryland my Maryland" with the intention of filling his ranks with pro rebel Marylanders and the response was underwhelming, why would it be different this time? Admittedly it would be on the back of a victory but if those pro southerners had not joined up to fight pre '63 I think it unlikely that they would do so now, volunteers were getting hard to find and conscription was the way of filling the ranks at this point in the war.


The problem with the invasions of the North (there were at least three, counting 1862, 1863, and Jubal Early in Chambersburg in 1864) is that the Southerners took the easiest and most natural route from Virginia, up through the valleys that extended north of the Shenandoah into western Maryland and south-central Pennsylvania. This was not a useful or sympathetic region, and it stretched the supply line so badly that Lee never made it to Harrisburg or Altoona, his intended targets. A better strategy would have been to invade pro-Southern tidewater Maryland and Baltimore, but the risks and costs must have struck Lee as overwhelming.



 Posted: Tue Sep 25th, 2012 09:02 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
34th Post
Hellcat
Root Beer Lover


Joined: Tue Nov 15th, 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 890
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

That get's me to wonder something here. What were the defense around Washington like in the summer of '62. We know what was there when Early tried his raid in '64 and we know the defenses of the capital were begun before '62. But had Lee tried marching on the capital then what would he have faced? And how quickly would McClellan moved?



 Posted: Fri Nov 16th, 2012 11:15 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
35th Post
sallieparker
Member
 

Joined: Fri Sep 21st, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 6
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

On reflection, I realize that Lee favored the western route in order to conceal his movements as well as to save his strength. JEB Stuart's cavalry corps did get ensnared in this perimeter network when they entered Maryland en route to Pennsylvania in late June '63; and this of course is why Stuart was late to Gettysburg.

DC had a double layer of troops and fortifications for most of the war. There was the army and its works in and around Washington City proper, and then the outer ring with encampments and pickets going out to Manassas and beyond. Counting the Adjutant General's file clerks, troop strength in this whole area seems to have been at least 50,000 for most of the war (my approximation). McClellan's complaint during the Peninsular campaign was that too many of his divisions were being appropriated for defense of the Capital. An extraordinary map from late in the war: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/1865_Washington.jpg



 Posted: Tue Sep 3rd, 2013 12:58 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
36th Post
glenhunter
Member


Joined: Fri Aug 30th, 2013
Location: New Jersey USA
Posts: 12
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

I am wondering, are we thinking too much about tactics and not enough about logistics? Does anyone know what the ANVs supply situation was by the end of the Gettysburg? I would expect they were low on ordinance and medical supplies. While they could (and did) get food and horseflesh from the countryside, I think other logistics would have been a severe handicap on any further ANV operations.

Mark


 

I'd have to agree wholeheartly.......



 Posted: Tue Oct 1st, 2013 12:01 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
37th Post
sallieparker
Member
 

Joined: Fri Sep 21st, 2012
Location:  
Posts: 6
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

The supply chain was very much on Lee's mind as well as on Jeb Stuart's. That's one reason why Stuart was late to the Gettysburg party; he captured a vast number of supply wagons and brought them with him. But the idea had never been to get pinned down at Gettysburg. That was accidental. The plan was to cut the Pennsylvania Railroad by capturing Altoona, and maybe Harrisburg; knock out the Federals decisively; and if necessary move on towards Philadelphia and points south. If Lee had not lost touch with Stuart's cavalry, this is how the campaign would have played out.

It was a bold roll of the dice on Lee's part, but it was the only sensible choice he had. Lee knew that eventually the brute force of Federal arms and armies would eventually defeat him if he gave 'those people' sufficient time. Therefore it was imperative to wipe them out as soon as possible.

Again, not a mad idea. The Federals had been crushed in nearly every major land battle for the past year: Second Manassas, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville. The one time they had a semi-win, Antietam, they were so hamstrung by nutso DC politics that they couldn't build upon the victory. Instead McClellan got fired, to be replaced by a string of unfortunates and blowhards. By June 1863 the Federals looked incompetent and crazy, and the Confederates had a clear edge. Lee needed just one more Chancellorsville, one decisive Cannae, to put the matter to bed. So that was Lee's game.



 Posted: Wed Jan 15th, 2014 11:05 pm
   PM  Quote  Reply 
38th Post
bolaman1975
Member
 

Joined: Sun May 16th, 2010
Location: Frostburg, Maryland USA
Posts: 26
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

kind of think that it would have been symbolic...he would never been able to hold that ground. every force available in the northeast would have come after him. but he lost so this all just what if...lol



 Posted: Sun Jan 19th, 2014 07:44 am
   PM  Quote  Reply 
39th Post
wondering
Member


Joined: Tue Dec 31st, 2013
Location: Alberta Canada
Posts: 106
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

sallieparker wrote:
Lee needed just one more Chancellorsville, one decisive Cannae, to put the matter to bed.

You're right. Not sure if he was too proud or scared to maneuver. The agony and the ecstasy of Gettysburg. Enjoyable thread.

(Edit: Saturday night drinks get to talking ... no offence, pass the flask before treading that long field.)

Last edited on Mon Jan 20th, 2014 06:21 pm by wondering



 Current time is 09:53 am
Top




UltraBB 1.17 Copyright © 2007-2008 Data 1 Systems
Page processed in 0.6337 seconds (6% database + 94% PHP). 29 queries executed.