- This topic has 10 voices and 20 replies.
-
Posts
-
As Civil War battles aren’t my forte, I can’t really answer your question. However, it’s about time someone asked – what are your thoughts had Lee won at Gettysburg?
The short answer………the South would still have lost. Lee would not have been able to sustain a protracted incursion into Northern territory. Lincoln would have moved his government to Philadelphia, reorganized the Army of the Potomac and re-armed it in short order. He then would have ordered another invasion of Virginia until he bled Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia to death. The South just simply could not sustain the carnage forever. Grant came to understand this in 1864 and built his strategies with the understanding that he could replace his men while Lee could not. The Wilderness Campaign, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor comprised the most bloody period of the war. In just a few months time, over 100,000 casualties were incurred on both sides with little to no significant territorial gains. In many ways, Gettysburg was anticlimactic. Vicksburg did more to kill the Confederacy than any other single campaign.
The South was badly overmatched in men and materials but a victory at Gettysburg might have brought England in on the side of the South. They needed the agricultural production of the Southern states, especially cotton. At the time of Gettysburg they were sitting on the fence. Who can say what the outcome would have been?
Herman Horsehair BuggfuzzThat’s what Jefferson Davis thought too, but it was not the case. England could get its cotton (much of better quality) from India. The North was a competitor to England, but also a greater market for her goods. The South didn’t have the buying power of the North, and England had no reason to favor one combatant over the other. Now had France joined in on the South’s side via Maximillian in Mexico, things might have been different, and a victory at Gettysburg may or may not have been enough to convince France from getting involved. However, if France had gotten involved on the side of the South, England would surely had gotten involved, too but on the side of the North as England would naturally have taken a side diametrically opposed to France.
I am quite sure that if France or England had come in on the side of the South that the other country would have supported the North. When the Union ship took the two Confederate ambassadors off the British ship they came close to bringing England into the conflict. I am just glad I didn’t live in those times.
H.H. BuggfuzzH.H.:
Anytime you want to talk Civil War issues with me or Phid you can also find us at this location:
http://www.oldmandonnie.proboards75.com/index.cgi?
Phid and I swap traffic between our two forums. I wanted to do a history board, but Phid's covers everything and for me to do one is redundant. But my board is good for other types of discussions such as guns and gun history, politics, general discussion etc.....we'd love to have you over there if you're interested. We're a free speech forum so pull up a chair and speak your views with confidence. 😀yes and we would all be share cropers working for food and little pay
What do you mean "we would all be share cropers working for food and little pay"?
You know, the Confederacy was still the fifth most industrialized nation on earth behind England, France, the Netherlands, Prussia, and the North. The South wasn't as backwards as many believe, but the disparity between the North and the South was staggering.
No. The end result would have been the same, although a more lengthy route to the result. A sustained campaign by Lee would have been impossible in the North. Without the intervention, in some manner, of Europe, the handwriting was on the wall after the first 2 years.
Another thing to consider – last night on Modern Marvels: Bullets I saw that it was a period of time, I believe about 50 years during the latter part of the 19th Century, that there were four technological enhancements with bullets. The rifled barrel, the pointed bullet, smokeless powder, and one other thing. I believe it was smokeless powder, which can fire a bullet twice as fast as the gunpowder used prior to that, which the North had in its arsenal which it used against the South. Little technological advances such as this would be a key advantage over a rival army with plenty of soldiers.
It would have been ineveitable for the south. They had not the man power nor the resources. Their only hope was that the citezens of the north would clamor so hard for peace that Lincoln would have been forced to make peace with Richmond
It would have been ineveitable for the south. They had not the man power nor the resources. Their only hope was that the citezens of the north would clamor so hard for peace that Lincoln would have been forced to make peace with Richmond
That nearly happened. Clement Vallandingham nearly defeated Lincoln's re-election bid in 1864. Had Vallandingham won, he would have sued for peace with the Confederacy.
well a few years back former speaker of the house newt gengrich wrote a book on this. most people belive that we (the south) would have won the war then and there. the only reason why is the union victory at vicksburg…had the yankees not won we (the south) could have survived a few more years OR EVEN TOTAL VICTORY
