Gettysburg revisited: Lee wins

[Kurt_Steiner]

The Battle of Gettysburg has always caught my imagination. As many others, I have always asked myself: what if Lee had won?

Let's suppose this:

July 1, 1863:
Ewell is not given vague instructions to occupy the high ground. Thus, before the Union reinforcements arrive (XII and III Corps, II Corps was closeby. The larger VI Corps was over 30 miles away and would not arrive until later next afternoon), Lee makes Early, Ewell and Hill move and they storm and conquer Cementery Hill and Culp's Hill.

July 2, 1863:
Longstreet avoids the mess of marching and contra-marching and arrives earlier to his objective. Thus, Mc Laws' brigade conquers Big and Little Round Top. The Union forces counterstrike, but to no avail.
In the Weath field and the Peach Orchad the assaulting confederates forces crushes (as they did historically) the US forces. The Union troos threatened in their flank by the artillery deployed at Little Round Top, manage to create something like a defensive line in the Taneytown's road.
The Union forces -XII Corps- try to retake Culp's Hill and the III Corps Cementery Hill, but fail with a high amount of losses.

July 3, 1863
The weak Union line in the Taneytown road is broken by the attack of Longstreet, sperheaded by Pickett's division. :D Most of the Union army is surrounded and forced to surrender when the Baltimore Pike, which was Mead's link to Washington, is cut off by J.E.B. Stuart's.
Let's suppose that 35 or 40 % of the Army of Potomac is out after the battle (most of them prisoners captured in the 3rd day). The NVA suffers the 20% percent killed and wounded.

Well, more or less, this is what I think it could had happened. Of course, it highly probable that anyone here would have better ideas to make this What if to sound a bit more plausible. If it is so, please, gentlemen, feel free to suggest anything you want. I know that the third day is hardly sketched. I'm open to any kind of suggestions.

And now, the real question: what would have happened after this defeat for the Union?

Would the Union have evacuated Washington and tried to avoid being surrounded again by Lee? Would Lincoln weaken the Armies in the West to reinforce the defeated Army of the Potomac? Would the UK and France recognize the Confederacy? To get this recognition, would Davies ban slavery?

Something that must be said, before going on. Would the prospect of Jefferson Davis crossing the threshold of the White House end the war? I don't think so. Washington had been captured and burned by the British during the War of 1812. Moscow was captured and burned by Napoleon the same year. Both these events failed to achieve a successful end of hostilities.

So, let's see....

[Macsporan]

NOOOOO! Not again! Its morbid, like picking a scab over and over again.

For God's sake, let it die in peace.

[Straha]

its dead it just happens to be moving about...

[Ace Venom]

There's always more ways to beat a dead horse.

[Thyme]

Several people before me have expressed horror at this idea. Yes, it’s been done before, but so hat 95% of all other AH.

If Lee win’s Gettysburg in 63’, he’s in the position of Hannibal.. He has beaten his immediate enemy, but to win the war he has to take out his enemies’ ability to make war. He can’t attack Washington (I might be wrong, but from what I’ve read, Washington was the most heavily shielded [In terms of works] city in the world [for about 4 years].

With the situation the way it is, the south cannot win without the north giving up. As they have demonstrated, they are not good at that (at least not the north in 1960 when not actually threatened)

In my opinion, a Confederate victory at Gettysburg might lead to the Confederacy existing for a few more months, but even if the Virginia/Pennsylvania front is a Confederate victory, the Union will be eating away at their western boundaries.

[Kurt_Steiner]

Several people before me have expressed horror at this idea. Yes, it’s been done before, but so hat 95% of all other AH.

Forgive me if this have been done. I'll take a look and I'll try to avoid this happening again.

Having let's said that, there we go.

If Lee win’s Gettysburg in 63’, he’s in the position of Hannibal.. He has beaten his immediate enemy, but to win the war he has to take out his enemies’ ability to make war. He can’t attack Washington (I might be wrong, but from what I’ve read, Washington was the most heavily shielded [In terms of works] city in the world [for about 4 years].

I fully agree, that's the problem. About the comparison with Hannibal, it's just perfect, I haven't thought about it. Silly me.

Perhaps Lee didn't need to conquer Washington -it was the most heavily defended city, indeed-. Perhaps he only needed a great decisive victory in the north to have the French and British recognition.

With the situation the way it is, the south cannot win without the north giving up. As they have demonstrated, they are not good at that (at least not the north in 1960 when not actually threatened)

In my opinion, a Confederate victory at Gettysburg might lead to the Confederacy existing for a few more months, but even if the Virginia/Pennsylvania front is a Confederate victory, the Union will be eating away at their western boundaries.

Perhaps Lee can withdraw after almost annihilating the Army of the Potomac and send some corps of his army to the west. Of coruse, they would be late for Vicksburg.

Oh dear, Bragg again in the middle. This sounds pretty familiar to me... :D

[Kurt_Steiner]

Several people before me have expressed horror at this idea. Yes, it’s been done before, but so hat 95% of all other AH.


Some examples:

"Stonewall Jackson's Way", "Spanish-Portuguese War 1910".

So, I'm not the only one who makes mistakes. It's quite comforting.

[Straha]

heres an AH challenge... NO American Civil war!

[BTD]

And now, the real question: what would have happened after this defeat for the Union?
Well the real answer: the union wouldn't have been defeated. The battle they may have lost but defeat takes more than losing and winning of battles. the south had no supplies, no resources and no real allies. It would have taken longer for the union to ultimately win the peace but it still would have still happened none the less. No matter how many, what if scenario you come up with on how the south could have gained more supplies, resources or allies each one comes up with a a hundred new ways, reasons and excuses for the confederacy to implode on itself.

[Kurt_Steiner]

Well the real answer: the union wouldn't have been defeated. The battle they may have lost but defeat takes more than losing and winning of battles. the south had no supplies, no resources and no real allies. It would have taken longer for the union to ultimately win the peace but it still would have still happened none the less. No matter how many, what if scenario you come up with on how the south could have gained more supplies, resources or allies each one comes up with a a hundred new ways, reasons and excuses for the confederacy to implode on itself.

In 1862 the Confederacy was on the verge of being recognized by the UK and France. Then came Antietam and the game was over. If Lee beats soundly the Union army on the Union soil, perhaps Europe would begin to think about this.

Remember the New York riots. Not all the North was ready to die to make free the slaves. Remember how close came Vallandingham and McClellan for replacing Lincoln. No, the Union had internal troubles, as the Confederacy. A disaster at Gettysburg would have released all the Northern fears.

Once the Army of the Potomac has been beated -let's suppose that 40-50% of its ranks become casualties-, the ANV can return to Virginia, as Washington is too heavy defended, dig in, send huge reinforcements to the West and wait and see until the Army of the Potomac is in size to fight again, sooner or later.

Would the Union be ready to fight and to die forever?

[Ace Venom]

As long as Braxton Bragg remains in command in the West, the Confederacy is doomed. I remember a scenario in What If? where Lee went West rather than Longstreet and took command of that theater. Longstreet was left in command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Perhaps a scenario like that takes root. Only Lee would have the luxury of remaining in the West rather than returning to the East and leaving Johnston at the mercy of Grant in the 1864 Campaigns.

If Lee retakes Tennessee as well as gaining his victory at Gettysburg, then it's pretty conceivable that Britain may go out of its way to recognize the Confederacy. The War could be over by 1864.

[BTD]

In 1862 the Confederacy was on the verge of being recognized by the UK and France. Then came Antietam and the game was over. If Lee beats soundly the Union army on the Union soil, perhaps Europe would begin to think about this.

Recognition and being allies are very different things. Other Europeans may have recognized them as well but recognition does not mean these states are ready to support them without the abolition of slavery. This issue would have imploded the confederacy.

Remember the New York riots. Not all the North was ready to die to make free the slaves. Remember how close came Vallandingham and McClellan for replacing Lincoln. No, the Union had internal troubles, as the Confederacy. A disaster at Gettysburg would have released all the Northern fears.

Remember this war was not about slavery. Unlike most morons now who only see a slavery issue with the civil war, most people then knew better.

Would the Union be ready to fight and to die forever?
It wouldn't have taken forever. The south was running out of resources they would have gained some in this victory but not enough to sustain a prolonged offense or most likely even a sustained defense of their own borders. In order for the south to succeed in truly gaining independence it would have had to break the naval blockade into matchsticks and some how build its own navy. It had the ability to do neither.

[Ace Venom]

Recognition and being allies are very different things. Other Europeans may have recognized them as well but recognition does not mean these states are ready to support them without the abolition of slavery. This issue would have imploded the confederacy.

Agreed. Hence why I said it would take until 1864 to win the war. I know it wasn't directed at me, but I have excluded foreign intervention.

Remember this war was not about slavery. Unlike most morons now who only see a slavery issue with the civil war, most people then knew better.

I wouldn't call them morons. People just use associative reasoning.

It wouldn't have taken forever. The south was running out of resources they would have gained some in this victory but not enough to sustain a prolonged offense or most likely even a sustained defense of their own borders. In order for the south to succeed in truly gaining independence it would have had to break the naval blockade into matchsticks and some how build its own navy. It had the ability to do neither.

They really didn't have to break the blockade. It certainly would have helped, but it's conceivable that if the Confederacy fought a better defensive war in 1864 that the Republicans would have lost the 1864 elections. Hence why I said Lee goes West to take control of the front rather than Longstreet going west and making almost no impact in the grand scheme of things.

The Confederacy would have been in dire straights in 1864, but not like in OTL. Cleburne might not have written his letter to the President and thus not get blacklisted from rising through the ranks. The South might not have been able to win the war in the West, but it certainly lost it there in OTL. Lee replacing Bragg and remaining in command there while Longstreet fights a defensive war against whoever commands the Army of the Potomac at the time. Longstreet will have a major challenge if Sherman takes command of that theater. It's conceivable that the South could have survived in 1864, but they'd have to overcome those odds.

[robertp6165]

Forgive me if this have been done. I'll take a look and I'll try to avoid this happening again.

If we are going to take that attitude, then we may as well shut down this board, because all that will be left to talk about is Melvin Loh's POD's about small Aussie units in battles no one has ever heard of. If the rest of these people don't want to discuss ACW PODs, then why don't they just go elsewhere? There is no reason they should be attacking you for bringing up a perfectly valid and interesting POD for discussion.

[BTD]

It's conceivable that the South could have survived in 1864, but they'd have to overcome those odds.
The problem I see a lot of you getting stuck on is thinking military victories are what would have won this war. The confederacy was doomed not because of military failure but because it lacked the socio-economic infrastracture to win. Lets say for example they invade the north after a successful gettysburg. Assuming they have the troops to secure it, which they didn't, they would have had to do one of the following. They would have had to transfer slave labor from agriculture into manufacturing, force white northerners into virtual or actual slavery or lastly pay white southerners money they didn't have. Any of these three options would have totally collapsed the southern economy not to mention decimated the social hierarchy of the south, and in order for them to hold ground very long they would have eventually had to do all three.

[DuQuense]

A Southerern victory at Gettsburg, with half the AoP being destroyed.



Following the victory at Gettysburg Lee swings north caputures the massive supply depot at Harrisburg, and returns to Virginia, with enuff supplies to equip his troops for 1864.

With the AoP out of the picture for the rest of the year, the CS can afford to move parts of the ANV west allowing it to claim a few more victories there than in OTL. It may not be enuff to reclaim the lost territory, but it stops the lose of more.

Properly equipped Lee pulls off a victory at the Wilderness. The CSA has now pulled off several Victories in a Row that they didn't have IOTL. The Politics in the North have changed. Sherman doesn't get the surport [men & Supplies] he got OTL, and is having tougher going.

By Fall There is a major dislike of the war brewwing in the North, A lot more -Lincoln's War- talk. Atlanta hasn't fallen, so no pre election boost there.

Lincoln pulls off a very narrow win, but lots of other Republicans lose. Lincoln's surport in Congress is badly hurt. He will have diffuculty getting the supplies and men needed.

late summer 1865, Sherman takes Atlanta and heads for Savannah.

spring 1866. as Sherman now able to be supplied by sea thru Savannah, heads north along the coast. Richmond is Captured and the War ends.

With out surport in Congress- Lincoln's plans and the Radical Republicans Plans -Both have to fight to try to determine the post war events. Reconstruction will be lots different than OTL.

[Kurt_Steiner]

As long as Braxton Bragg remains in command in the West, the Confederacy is doomed. I remember a scenario in What If? where Lee went West rather than Longstreet and took command of that theater. Longstreet was left in command of the Army of Northern Virginia. Perhaps a scenario like that takes root. Only Lee would have the luxury of remaining in the West rather than returning to the East and leaving Johnston at the mercy of Grant in the 1864 Campaigns.

If Lee retakes Tennessee as well as gaining his victory at Gettysburg, then it's pretty conceivable that Britain may go out of its way to recognize the Confederacy. The War could be over by 1864.

I fully agree about Bragg. He must be removed (the way doesn't matter). Then, I would leave Longstreet in Virginia, and Lee would be sent to Tennessee. Rosecrans is simply smashed. Grant has to take his place, but as Lee is in Tennessee, he cannot go to the east, bcs he's needed to defeat Marse Robert there. Thus, Old Pete has to face a half recovered AoP leaded by Meade (?) -who may replace him?

The problem to retake Tennessee would be Grant. Unless Lee manages to take Chatanooga and annihilate Old Rosy before USG arrives, I see some kind of stalemate for some time. So, perhaps the war doesn't end in 1864.

[Kurt_Steiner]

Recognition and being allies are very different things. Other Europeans may have recognized them as well but recognition does not mean these states are ready to support them without the abolition of slavery. This issue would have imploded the confederacy.

Yes, but the Confederacy would have less problems to buy anything that it may need in Europe. The question would be, would the RN break the blockade? I dont think so. And how long would take to change the South ideas about slavery? Independence or slavery?

Remember this war was not about slavery. Unlike most morons now who only see a slavery issue with the civil war, most people then knew better.

THANKS!!!! If just an acquitance of mine (from another forum) could read this.... He still thinks that the whole war was only concerned about slavery. Eat this, Schultz!!!!

It wouldn't have taken forever. The south was running out of resources they would have gained some in this victory but not enough to sustain a prolonged offense or most likely even a sustained defense of their own borders. In order for the south to succeed in truly gaining independence it would have had to break the naval blockade into matchsticks and some how build its own navy. It had the ability to do neither.

I know, it was just a bad expression. But for the US public opinion would cause this impression. Just imagine. Beginning of 1864, and the South (apparently) doesn't seems more prone to surrender that 3 years ago. Devastating victories, like Chancellorsville and Gettysburg... Would Lincoln survive for the elections? Remember how Grant was called during the 1864 campaign? The butcher.

[Kurt_Steiner]

If we are going to take that attitude, then we may as well shut down this board, because all that will be left to talk about is Melvin Loh's POD's about small Aussie units in battles no one has ever heard of. If the rest of these people don't want to discuss ACW PODs, then why don't they just go elsewhere? There is no reason they should be attacking you for bringing up a perfectly valid and interesting POD for discussion.

Thanks for your kind comments, robertp6165. I wasn't offended by the comments, really. I didn't want to bore or upset anyone by my possible mistake.

I must say that, since I joined this forum, I haven't had any kind of problem here. Everything goes as sweet as possible. I hope this goes on forever always like that.

[Kurt_Steiner]

The problem I see a lot of you getting stuck on is thinking military victories are what would have won this war. The confederacy was doomed not because of military failure but because it lacked the socio-economic infrastracture to win. Lets say for example they invade the north after a successful gettysburg. Assuming they have the troops to secure it, which they didn't, they would have had to do one of the following. They would have had to transfer slave labor from agriculture into manufacturing, force white northerners into virtual or actual slavery or lastly pay white southerners money they didn't have. Any of these three options would have totally collapsed the southern economy not to mention decimated the social hierarchy of the south, and in order for them to hold ground very long they would have eventually had to do all three.

I don't think that Lee would have remained in Pennsylvania after Gettysburg. He knew that Washington was too strong, that the supplies were running out, so I see something like Duquesne suggests in his post. But I fully agree with the internal problems that you point out. Something is clear, slavery wouldn't survive the war if independence was to be achieved.

Would the US public opinion allow a long war? After three years of failure?

[Kurt_Steiner]

Following the victory at Gettysburg Lee swings north caputures the massive supply depot at Harrisburg, and returns to Virginia, with enuff supplies to equip his troops for 1864.

Good point.

With the AoP out of the picture for the rest of the year, the CS can afford to move parts of the ANV west allowing it to claim a few more victories there than in OTL. It may not be enuff to reclaim the lost territory, but it stops the lose of more.

Fully agree. Even better if you send Lee to Tennessee instead of Bragg (it was proposed in OTL) and Old Pete remain in Old Virginny.

Properly equipped Lee pulls off a victory at the Wilderness. The CSA has now pulled off several Victories in a Row that they didn't have IOTL. The Politics in the North have changed. Sherman doesn't get the surport [men & Supplies] he got OTL, and is having tougher going.

[...]

By Fall There is a major dislike of the war brewwing in the North, A lot more -Lincoln's War- talk. Atlanta hasn't fallen, so no pre election boost there.

[...]

Lincoln pulls off a very narrow win, but lots of other Republicans lose. Lincoln's surport in Congress is badly hurt. He will have diffuculty getting the supplies and men needed.

Would Vallandingham or McClellan have more chance to win? Lincoln wins even if the war goes on and no end is apparently possible and defeats are the only thing that happen (Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga...)? Who is in command by then in Tennesse? Rosecrans, Grant or Sherman?

[BTD]

But I fully agree with the internal problems that you point out. Something is clear, slavery wouldn't survive the war if independence was to be achieved.

Slavery wouldn't have survived but the biggest problem is they couldn't have outlawed it without the confederacy shattering into several small countries who would have been even worse off. The real question is if this scenario had happened how would the european powerhouses dealt with small independant states, or for that matter would they have turned on each other?

Would the US public opinion allow a long war? After three years of failure?
Each time the union lost on its own turf public sentiment in the north became very pro war. It didn't always last long, but it spark each time. If the union had lost gettysburg there would have been in my opinion a huge outcry of support to become ruthless towards the south.

[Ace Venom]

Slavery wouldn't have survived but the biggest problem is they couldn't have outlawed it without the confederacy shattering into several small countries who would have been even worse off. The real question is if this scenario had happened how would the european powerhouses dealt with small independant states, or for that matter would they have turned on each other?

The Constitution prevented them from dealing with slavery.

Each time the union lost on its own turf public sentiment in the north became very pro war. It didn't always last long, but it spark each time. If the union had lost gettysburg there would have been in my opinion a huge outcry of support to become ruthless towards the south.

Hence why my scenario says that Gettysburg doesn't mean an immediate win to the war.

The problem I see a lot of you getting stuck on is thinking military victories are what would have won this war. The confederacy was doomed not because of military failure but because it lacked the socio-economic infrastracture to win. Lets say for example they invade the north after a successful gettysburg. Assuming they have the troops to secure it, which they didn't, they would have had to do one of the following. They would have had to transfer slave labor from agriculture into manufacturing, force white northerners into virtual or actual slavery or lastly pay white southerners money they didn't have. Any of these three options would have totally collapsed the southern economy not to mention decimated the social hierarchy of the south, and in order for them to hold ground very long they would have eventually had to do all three.

By that logic, the colonies shouldn't have achieved independence.

The South wasn't out to conquer Pennsylvania. That invasion was more of a raid. The only states the Confederates were out to conquer were Kentucky and Missouri and they came very close to doing that in both states. Lee had hoped he'd get some aid from Marylanders in his first invasion, but nothing formed there.

[BTD]

The Constitution prevented them from dealing with slavery.

Never the less they would have had to deal with it, and the reprecussions come not from how they dealt with it but because it was even discussed.

The South wasn't out to conquer Pennsylvania. That invasion was more of a raid. The only states the Confederates were out to conquer were Kentucky and Missouri and they came very close to doing that in both states. Lee had hoped he'd get some aid from Marylanders in his first invasion, but nothing formed there.

You are right they weren't out to conquer the north, however any attack on northern soil was seen as just that by northerners. It also was seen as an afront to the souths justification of the war. There were a great many cessesionists who didn't like looking like hypocrits by battling on northern land when they justified going to war because they were invaded. Furthermore while they didn't intend to hold the north in order for the confederacy to survive they needed northern resources they were only going to get by opccupying the north. The confederacy was doomed from the start, the best they could have hoped for had they someone managed to win the military war, was to become a third rate alliance of indepedependant countries.

The thing you are not accounting for in relationship to the colonies was 4 score and 7 years before gettysburg is they had not only the military might to win but the socio-economic stability to keep the country together. The south lacked both of those things.

[NapoleonXIV]

WI Lee doesn't push on to Washington? He takes Baltimore, yes, but then he turns North yet again. In Baltimore, he installs a new governor of Maryland and establishes active recruiting among MD sympathisers for troops to garrison his conquests and establish safe supply lines. The ANV heads up the Old Post Road and is in Philadelphia in 3 days.

Meanwhile, the New York draft rioters have taken heart from the Union defeat. Some elements of the recognized city government, panicked by Lee's approach, now decide the war is lost and throw in with the rioters. New York City declares itself a free nation and announces it will welcome the invaders. Philadelphia has already done this and riots now break out in Boston as well.

At this point, France and England together recognize the Confederacy and broach a plan for peace. In return for trading concessions and a 100 year lease on New Orleans these two nations will finance a compensation plan for the Southron slaveowners. This will solve the slavery question and give the South a much needed infusion of capital for rebuilding. The North essentially, gets to live, as the war will be over and France/Britain will not enter on the Southron side as they will if the North continues the fight.

Would this work?

[BTD]

At this point, France and England together recognize the Confederacy and broach a plan for peace. In return for trading concessions and a 100 year lease on New Orleans these two nations will finance a compensation plan for the Southron slaveowners. This will solve the slavery question and give the South a much needed infusion of capital for rebuilding. The North essentially, gets to live, as the war will be over and France/Britain will not enter on the Southron side as they will if the North continues the fight.
Would this work?
The big problem is the confederacy can not survive without slavery remaining intact. Take it away and you have nothing but a double handful of independant nations who would just a likely fight with each other as they would the union. Not to mention the only reason france or england would have anything to do with the south was for the inexpensive cotton trade and without slavery to work big plantations the price of cotton went up 10 fold. If the confederacy breaks England and france would only deal with the large cotton producing countries, georgia, alabama and mississippi. This would spell disaster for the rest of the former confederacy states who end up with floundering economies.

[Ace Venom]

You are right they weren't out to conquer the north, however any attack on northern soil was seen as just that by northerners. It also was seen as an afront to the souths justification of the war. There were a great many cessesionists who didn't like looking like hypocrits by battling on northern land when they justified going to war because they were invaded. Furthermore while they didn't intend to hold the north in order for the confederacy to survive they needed northern resources they were only going to get by opccupying the north.

Again, you really don't need to occupy for a long time. Raid and take supplies. It's an old concept and it works.

The confederacy was doomed from the start, the best they could have hoped for had they someone managed to win the military war, was to become a third rate alliance of indepedependant countries.

Was the South doomed militarily? I say it's a wonder the North won the war, despite all its advantages. There were a lot of incompetent boobs who wore the uniforms of officers. If every officer was a Grant or a Sherman, the war would have been over in 1862.

You're also forgetting that the CSA was getting pretty centralized by 1865 out of necessity. The USA could easily have broken up after independence, but that didn't happen. I don't think the CSA would have splintered because if any state tried to break away, the government in Richmond would likely resist it by military means. If the USA wouldn't let states go without a fight, why would the CSA not commit this same act? I wouldn't put it past them.

The thing you are not accounting for in relationship to the colonies was 4 score and 7 years before gettysburg is they had not only the military might to win but the socio-economic stability to keep the country together. The south lacked both of those things.

I think you forget that the Southern colonies could have easily been returned to the British fold without too many problems. The planter aristocracy had a lot more in common with the British aristocracy than their Yankee comrades.

[BTD]

Again, you really don't need to occupy for a long time. Raid and take supplies. It's an old concept and it works.


it works for small supplies like food, it doesn't work for the real resources the south was in need of like iron, steel, and factories to produce mass quantaties of cloth, gun powder, lamp oil, etc etc etc.


Was the South doomed militarily? I say it's a wonder the North won the war, despite all its advantages. There were a lot of incompetent boobs who wore the uniforms of officers. If every officer was a Grant or a Sherman, the war would have been over in 1862.

The south was doomed militarily because they lacked future vision and a continued supply of resources. The south fielded a better army at first, but couldn't sustatin it. While the south got the great military leaders from the army, they didn't get most of the professional soldiers who made the real difference.



You're also forgetting that the CSA was getting pretty centralized by 1865 out of necessity. The USA could easily have broken up after independence, but that didn't happen. I don't think the CSA would have splintered because if any state tried to break away, the government in Richmond would likely resist it by military means. If the USA wouldn't let states go without a fight, why would the CSA not commit this same act? I wouldn't put it past them.

I wouldn't put it past them to try and stop cessesion of their own states, I just doubt they would have had the military might to do it. Not to mention any state trying to cecede from the south would have found allies in the north, especially if the north had been ultimately lost.


I think you forget that the Southern colonies could have easily been returned to the British fold without too many problems. The planter aristocracy had a lot more in common with the British aristocracy than their Yankee comrades.
While they may have had more in common with the aristocracy, that if anything made them more resentful of them. The taxes southerners owed to the crown were huge in comparison to northerners and every time a new tax was levied against the colonies it hit them worst of all. I don't think they would have been to keen on going back into the fold. On the opposite end of the spectrum the english aristocracy was none to happy with the southerners because they felt very betrayed by them, there was a lot of bad blood here.

[robertp6165]

The Constitution prevented them from dealing with slavery.

No, it did not. It prevented the CONFEDERATE CONGRESS from touching slavery. It did not prevent individual States from abolishing it or altering it as they saw fit.

[Kurt_Steiner]

Each time the union lost on its own turf public sentiment in the north became very pro war. It didn't always last long, but it spark each time. If the union had lost gettysburg there would have been in my opinion a huge outcry of support to become ruthless towards the south.

Really? Are you forgetting the often violent protests that occurred after Abraham Lincoln issued the March 3, 1863, Enrollment Act of Conscription?

By the time the names of the first draftees were drawn in New York City on July 11, reports about the carnage of Gettysburg had been published in city papers. Lincoln's call for 300,000 more young men to fight a seemingly endless war frightened even those who supported the Union cause. Moreover, the Enrollment Act contained several exemptions, including the payment of a "commutation fee" that allowed wealthier and more influential citizens to buy their way out of service.

And it was a victory! Imagine if Lincoln's call for volunteeers was followed by another defeat. For instance, I don't think that the Irish community would felt quite prone to send their sons to die.

If Gettysburg had ended in a defeat, plus the dislike towards Conscription, the Union would have really hard times to face.

[Macsporan]

All these posts seem to be based on the idea that Lee's AH victory at Gettysburg is going to be tactically decisive: an ACW Cannae where the Army of the Potomac ceases to exist.

Such battles were rare as hen's teeth in the ACW. Mostly they were ugly slugfests with each side lost between ten and twenty-thousand men before keeling over from sheer exhaustion.

The enhanced accuracy and range of the rifle crippled both artillery and cavalry as offensive battlefield arms and gave a great advantage to the defence.

If Lee won it would be something like Chancellorsville or Bull Run with Union losses slightly bigger than the Confederate and the Yankees falling back behind a screen of skirmishers to avoid critical losses. They move a few miles back down the road, raid Rosecran's army for replacements, send them across by rail, call in all their garrisons, entrench and wait.

The Confederates would be just as ravaged and disorganised and their enemies and unable to pursue or exploit their success. Then they would start to starve as they had no supply lines and they had eaten everything they could lay their hands on.

Another empty victory. Lee retreats. End of campaign.

[BTD]

Really? Are you forgetting the often violent protests that occurred after Abraham Lincoln issued the March 3, 1863, Enrollment Act of Conscription?

By the time the names of the first draftees were drawn in New York City on July 11...
If Gettysburg had ended in a defeat, plus the dislike towards Conscription, the Union would have really hard times to face.
lets look at who those rioters were, mostly people who hadn't been here long enough to develop an afinity for the country. If I recall right half of the rioters had been here for less than 6 months and another 40% for less than 2 years, also most of who of the rioters if I remember were illiterates for whom the papers and casulty lists meant very little and that the rioters were merely stirred up by the local demagogues with their own purposes in mind, very few who write american history like to write about the irish vs english political rivalries that existed in this country. I call the NYC draft riots a fluke. While I won't deny the possibility that a heavy loss on union would have been taken badly and had a negative effect on enlistment and attitudes towards service, because nothing is ever certain where people are concerned. However I stand by my belief that a heavy defeat of the union at gettysburg would have inspired northerners who saw the south as becomng aggressive towards them

[Kurt_Steiner]

50,000 people on NYC a fluke?

In the end, the draft raised only about 150,000 troops throughout the North, about three-quarters of them substitutes, amounting to just one-fifth of the total Union force. And Gettysburg was a victory. Imagine the other way round.

And Lee would have withdrawn to Virginia. The rioters wouldn't see the ANV as a danger.

[carib]

Actually, thers a book written about it. "Grant comes East". In the book, Grant goes East after Vickburg, rallies the troops, and drives Lee back. Lee tries & fails to take Washington.

[Kurt_Steiner]

If Grant goes East, what happens with Rosecrans? He would be get blocked at Chattanooga, eventually. Would he remain in command?

[BTD]

50,000 people on NYC a fluke?

In the end, the draft raised only about 150,000 troops throughout the North, about three-quarters of them substitutes, amounting to just one-fifth of the total Union force. And Gettysburg was a victory. Imagine the other way round.

And Lee would have withdrawn to Virginia. The rioters wouldn't see the ANV as a danger.


ure 50,000 people most of who had no notion what the war was about, no real loyalty to their new country and a general dislike of English descended politicians who ran the union all being stirred up by the local demagogue with their own agenda. Sure you could call that a fluke as it didn't happen in other cities with a less powerful or numerous Irish base. You can call it a fluke in the same manner that ralph nader got so many florida votes in 2000. Shit happens you can't predict.

Also your not counting on the rather effective propaganda machine the union ran when you say no one would have seen a danger from the ANV. I would have been quite easy for the Union to put it out to the ANV plans to move north through your state and city to the general population. Sure it may have been a lie, but it wouldn't be the first time or the last a governmen lied to its people about war.

[Grimm Reaper]

To save the South:

Do something about John Bell Hood's sinister behavior and/or Jefferson Davis' psychotic hatred of Joe Johnston.

Johnston keeps command at Atlanta.

November 1864. Election Day. Instead of Atlanta, the march to the sea, the discovery of Andersonville and the imminent destruction of Hood's army, Sherman has delivered only a staggering blood bath of Union forces. Lincoln loses the election. Negotiations begin.

[Kurt_Steiner]

Sure 50,000 people most of who had no notion what the war was about, no real loyalty to their new country and a general dislike of English descended politicians who ran the union all being stirred up by the local demagogue with their own agenda. Sure you could call that a fluke as it didn't happen in other cities with a less powerful or numerous Irish base. You can call it a fluke in the same manner that ralph nader got so many florida votes in 2000. Shit happens you can't predict.

I've found this in the old archive -so I'm not the only fool who thinks that :D :http://www.alternatehistory.net/discus/messages/4/1192.html

In 1864 the North was weary of war and many were keen to just end it and allow the south its independence. Lincoln was unpopular (some Republicans tried to select another candidate at the Chicago convention). In 1863 draft riots had swept the North and in 1864 they occurred again the Democrat Party nominated George McClellan (the former commander of the Army of the Potomac) as there presidential candidate on a peace program only the Federal victories in capturing Atlanta (the rail hub of the South) and pushing the Confederates out of the Shenandoah valley (this was very close in October Jubal Early the Confederate Commander came within a whisper of routing Sheridan’s Army of the Shenandoah only Sheridan’s personal courage (and a quick trip back from Washington) saved the Federal Army and won the day.
So To get a Southern win after Gettysburg have Johnston retain command in Georgia (don’t let Hood take over) he mauls Sherman’s armies but by September the Siege has begun but the forces are very equal and Atlanta is still holding out (both sides lacking the strength the try and relive in the city (for the Confederates) or try and capture in the city (for the Union) so there is no moral boost for the Northern public and in the Shenandoah Early routed Sheridan further damaging the Northern hopes so in November 1864 the Democrat George McClellan is elected U.S President promising peace.
The last three months of the war see renewed attempts to take Atlanta fail (Sherman is not powerful enough now) and attempts on the Shenandoah fail, The election of McClellan also and his call for peace signals a dramatic increase in desertion from the U.S Army (In OTL it was the over way around when Lincoln was Re-elected many in the Southern Armies just gave up and went home -no one wants to be the last man to die in a lost war).
In March 1864 the U.S recognises the C.S.A (other nations follow) and accept the secession of all the states that did so prior to the war (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware remain in the Union), West Virginia is recognised as part of the U.S but Oklahoma (then Indian territory) is ceded to the C.S.A (to make a more easily policed border than Texas’s.

If, during the victorious campaign of 1864, Lincoln needed Atlanta beign captured by Sherman, if Gettysburg was lost and the war seemed to last on and on, the riots against the enlistment would have spread through the country, the number of desertions in the US army would have reached uncredible levels and Lincoln would have been defeated in the elections. Then, with Little Mac as president, the war is over. Its more plausible than you think.

Also your not counting on the rather effective propaganda machine the union ran when you say no one would have seen a danger from the ANV. I would have been quite easy for the Union to put it out to the ANV plans to move north through your state and city to the general population. Sure it may have been a lie, but it wouldn't be the first time or the last a governmen lied to its people about war.

But, how to justify this when Lee returns to Virginia without a single battle or without being defeated? The Copperheads would counterbalance Lincoln's lies with their own, so more confusion, more concern about the war. Lincoln possition would be quite fragile.