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. 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by Thyme

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.

Originally Posted by Thyme

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...

[Kurt_Steiner]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Kurt_Steiner

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]

Originally Posted by BTD

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]

Originally Posted by Kurt_Steiner

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.

Originally Posted by Kurt_Steiner

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.

Originally Posted by Kurt_Steiner

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]

Originally Posted by BTD

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]

Originally Posted by Kurt_Steiner

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]

Originally Posted by Ace Venom

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by BTD

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?

Originally Posted by BTD

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!!!!

Originally Posted by BTD

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]

Originally Posted by robertp6165

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]

Originally Posted by BTD

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?