tommy_gunn
Active member
i would like to know, if the battle favor the south who would have won the battle, would the south won the war or would the outcome still be the same?
Last edited by a moderator:
battle of Gettysburg
03USMC
Active member
Depends on which day of the battle. Had Picketts charge succeded the AONV would still have been at a distinct disadvantage, in terms of munitions and battle losses. How far could they have effectively pursued the AOTP? Best bet Heth sweeps aside Buford on day one and engages Reynolds before the main body of Meades force can be brought into play and Heth is reinforced by Longstreet's Corps. Then they can threathen Harrisburg, Baltimore or DC.
mmarsh
Active member
I think Picketts charge would have failed regardless of the situation. The Confederates were charging a vastly superior force over a mile in pure daylight over open country with little cover, several obstacles to navigate, under a heavy Union fire that was both accurate and plentiful. It was more of a Banzai charge than anything.
I agree that Lee's best chance was on the first day, but already there were signs of danger. The fact that Stuart had vanished off the face of the earth, Buell and Gordons unusual sluggishness to provide support, and as you mentioned Heath's inability to dispose of a very tenacious defense of Bufords dismounted cavalry. Heath threw his whole division at Buford and still couldnt budge him...thats a very ominous start to what should have been a cakewalk.
To me, Gettyburg was a demonstration of just how important Stonewall Jackson contribution was to the Confederates, and the fact he was now gone (killed at Chancelorsville) was a blow they could not afford. I think had Jackson survived he would have never engaged the Federal Army at Gettysburg.
Incidentally I would like to congratulate the OP, its rare we get a good CW or anything (pre-20th century) discussion here. Nice change of pace.
Last edited:
mocco
Active member
I have to say that I'm in agreement with mm, long way to go in the face of enemy fire and Longstreet's decision to hold back his forces until Porter Alexander's suppressive barrage had started to run out of puff, (not that this wouldn't need to stop anyway, once Pickett's boys got closer to the enemy), contributed to the casualties...
Personally, I've always felt that Lee was primarily responsible for the loss at Gettysburg by his failure to disengage on day 1 after having pushed the Federal forces back through the township and into the hills to the south.
Day 2's failure to take the hills, so capably, (and desperately) defended by units from Sykes V Corp meant that the Union line remained secure and it certainly didn't help that JEB Stuart was swanning off exhausting his men & horses in a useless 9 day ride just when he was needed the most to threaten Union forces on the right flank.... and then alerting Union forces to his presence by firing signal guns to announce he'd arrived in position.....
Day 3, the charge by Picketts guys shouldn't have been ordered, ever and I reckon that if Lee was thinking clearly, it wouldn't have been....
What I always wondered about is why the stupidity of Union cavalry charging the Confederate lines, (and being effectively wiped out), during the last part of day 3 is ignored, (but then they always say that history is written by the victor and there's your proof
)....
Lots of good boys on both sides died, solely to satisfy the ambitions of politicians.... Funny how that never changes.... :-(
Personally, I've always felt that Lee was primarily responsible for the loss at Gettysburg by his failure to disengage on day 1 after having pushed the Federal forces back through the township and into the hills to the south.
Day 2's failure to take the hills, so capably, (and desperately) defended by units from Sykes V Corp meant that the Union line remained secure and it certainly didn't help that JEB Stuart was swanning off exhausting his men & horses in a useless 9 day ride just when he was needed the most to threaten Union forces on the right flank.... and then alerting Union forces to his presence by firing signal guns to announce he'd arrived in position.....
Day 3, the charge by Picketts guys shouldn't have been ordered, ever and I reckon that if Lee was thinking clearly, it wouldn't have been....
What I always wondered about is why the stupidity of Union cavalry charging the Confederate lines, (and being effectively wiped out), during the last part of day 3 is ignored, (but then they always say that history is written by the victor and there's your proof
)....Lots of good boys on both sides died, solely to satisfy the ambitions of politicians.... Funny how that never changes.... :-(
03USMC
Active member
Yes Pickett's Charge most probably would have failed, given the terrian and files of troops marching into massed Union Artillery some of which were firing down the long axis of the CS lines, and others that were firing double and even triple charge canister at the stone wall. Pickett's Charge was probably Bobby Lee's worst moment.
Buford made very good use of his terrian and of the four artillery pieces that he had. Heath not so much. He had at least 3 batteries with him and they were not nearly as effective as Bufords lone 4 guns nor were they set to provide the advantagous fire that Bufords were. Heath IMO was not expecting to run into Union Volunteer Forces expecting instead Militia. His scouts had even identified Bufords Column as militia. Agree that Gordon an the others were slow in reinforcing, but it seems that Heath was slow to relay and recognize that he had in fact engaged the Army of the Potomacs Cavalry screen and not Militia. Stuarts presence may have helped but Stuart being Stuart was more concerned with a grandious ride around the State that proper screening, and should have been relieved, by Lee on day 2.
Thomas Jackson was a fine light infantry commander, but IMO whether he had been commanding a Corps or not at Gettysburg , too many factors weighed against the CS to make the fight even bad terrian, bad intelligence, poor artillery ammo all factored in. However Lee may have taken more counsel from Stonewall than he did from Pete Longstreet.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I agree although I have never been a fan of Lee, I recall a description of him being a man who never won an offensive battle but was tenacious in defence.
I think even had the Confederates won at Gettysburg they had pretty much over extended themselves and were in great danger on being cut off and isolated in hostile territory, I honestly can not see any other option but a withdrawal to their start lines even had they won the battle.
mmarsh
Active member
The South had better officiers in the beginning of the war, I think that was the sole reason why they had better luck until 1863.
But as in everything else the South couldnt afford to take losses. If you take the best 10 major Confederate Army Commanders, 4 of them (AP HILL, Jackson, Stuart, Cleburne) didnt survive the end of the war, and the were mostly replaced by officers inferior to them.
With the Union it was the opposite, the replacement Officers for those who were killed (or more often those sacked by Lincoln) were much better than they officers they replaced. And that, I think was the difference.
Last edited:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
I believe in a way it's an extention of the North's ability to replenish losses.
My own take on Gettysburg is that it was lost the first night that Ewell did not take the heights to his direct South on the first full day of the battle.
What could have dislodged the Union would have been a flanking of the position on the Union left flank, with Hood being allwoed to go around Big Round Top, which of course would have split the forces under command of Longstreet. Had Hood been allowed to go around to the right, the Union troops may have been able to come down from the Little Round Top high ground and roll up the Southerners by placing themselves between the departing Hood's corps and the remaining troops under Longstreet, then turning to their right and rolled up that portion of the Southern line. Had Hood gone too far to the right before the Union moved down from the heights, he may have been too far away to be able to react quickly enough to return to the area directly west of LRT to intervene and save the Southern right.
Pickett's Charge, and Lee's entire attack on the Union center on the third full day, was a terrible idea.
But, had Lee left a covering force and shifted south and east of the Union position, would his force have fared any better? They would have been travelling in column under pretty close observation by Northern cavalry, and susceptible to hit-and-run attacks by Custer's cavalry, as well as Buford's.
Fascinating points below.
What could have dislodged the Union would have been a flanking of the position on the Union left flank, with Hood being allwoed to go around Big Round Top, which of course would have split the forces under command of Longstreet. Had Hood been allowed to go around to the right, the Union troops may have been able to come down from the Little Round Top high ground and roll up the Southerners by placing themselves between the departing Hood's corps and the remaining troops under Longstreet, then turning to their right and rolled up that portion of the Southern line. Had Hood gone too far to the right before the Union moved down from the heights, he may have been too far away to be able to react quickly enough to return to the area directly west of LRT to intervene and save the Southern right.
Pickett's Charge, and Lee's entire attack on the Union center on the third full day, was a terrible idea.
But, had Lee left a covering force and shifted south and east of the Union position, would his force have fared any better? They would have been travelling in column under pretty close observation by Northern cavalry, and susceptible to hit-and-run attacks by Custer's cavalry, as well as Buford's.
Fascinating points below.
Sorry, the original question was whether the South could have gone on to win the Civil War had they won a victory at Gettysburg.
The South was certainly hoping that a victory near Washington, on Union soil, would have caused the English to throw in with them, break the blockade, and even possibly declare war against the United States. However, the Gettysburg and Maryland campaign cannot be viewed without looking at the entire war at that point. Let us not forget that Vicksburg fell to Union troops on the very days that Gettysburg was being fought.
By seizing the heights at Vicksburg, the Union practically cut the Confederacy in half. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri,with all of their materiel support, were severed from the rest of the South when control of the Mississippi fell to the Union, and their monitors and gunboats patrolling the Mighty Miss would have completely cut off not only logistic support from west of the Miss, but personnel reinforcements as well.
The South's limited industrial capacity, and rapidly degrading railroad capacities, were not going to heal quickly even with a huge infusion of British steel and rail stock. The Union still would have had the upper hand in a war of maneuver, and the industrial capacity to provide its growing armies with materiel. The price of cotton had also dropped, and a massive infusion of shipload after shipload of Southern cotton on the world market would have driven the price into the ground.
Frankly, the odds were against the South from the moment Lincoln declared war. [And, yes, even being a Southerner, I am glad the Union won.]
The South was certainly hoping that a victory near Washington, on Union soil, would have caused the English to throw in with them, break the blockade, and even possibly declare war against the United States. However, the Gettysburg and Maryland campaign cannot be viewed without looking at the entire war at that point. Let us not forget that Vicksburg fell to Union troops on the very days that Gettysburg was being fought.
By seizing the heights at Vicksburg, the Union practically cut the Confederacy in half. Texas, Arkansas and Missouri,with all of their materiel support, were severed from the rest of the South when control of the Mississippi fell to the Union, and their monitors and gunboats patrolling the Mighty Miss would have completely cut off not only logistic support from west of the Miss, but personnel reinforcements as well.
The South's limited industrial capacity, and rapidly degrading railroad capacities, were not going to heal quickly even with a huge infusion of British steel and rail stock. The Union still would have had the upper hand in a war of maneuver, and the industrial capacity to provide its growing armies with materiel. The price of cotton had also dropped, and a massive infusion of shipload after shipload of Southern cotton on the world market would have driven the price into the ground.
Frankly, the odds were against the South from the moment Lincoln declared war. [And, yes, even being a Southerner, I am glad the Union won.]
03USMC
Active member
Personally I think that the losses of Fort Henry and Fort Donelson began ringing the death knell. Those two losses effectively cut the south in two by taking Tennessee out of the equation and lost the south several industrial centers. And giving the union control unhindered of the Cumberland, Tennessee and Ohio rivers.
Vicksburg was a thorn in the side but it would eventually fall. It's main function was as a stop gap. The Union controlled the river north and south.
I'm with you on Hill, Jackson and Cleburne. I question Stuart be anything other than a good commander of Cavalry.
LeEnfield
Active member
The South had to few troops to hold and control any of the ground that they took. If the south had won at Gettysburg, what then. Would they have marched onto Washington and if they had taken that would the war be over or would Linclon moved the Government further north to New York. The North had so much more muscle than the south in the ways of cash, men and production that there could have been only one winner in this war. It took the North a couple of years to get the right Generals in place who knew how to fight a war, and from there on it was down hill for the south.
03USMC
Active member
One theory is that if the South had been able to even threaten Washington that the the Union would have sued for a negotiated peace due to anti-war sentiment in the north which was running high at the time.
Good possibilty! People don't realize that had Johnston/Hood prevented the capture of Atlanta Lincoln might not have been reelected, & the anti-war democrats might have recognised the Confederacy.
southernboy777
New Member
Gettysburg
Actually, Picketts charge was a brilliant idea. However, instead of relying on Longstreet, the cautious, slow guy, Lee should have let AP Hills Corps. AP Hill was thrilled by Lee's plan. If he were leading it, the union line would have broken, and split the AOTP in two. Lee could have then destroyed them by attacking both flanks when the center became broken. Longstreet, as usual, did not like the plan, and was very slow hoping Lee would change his mind.
Actually, Picketts charge was a brilliant idea. However, instead of relying on Longstreet, the cautious, slow guy, Lee should have let AP Hills Corps. AP Hill was thrilled by Lee's plan. If he were leading it, the union line would have broken, and split the AOTP in two. Lee could have then destroyed them by attacking both flanks when the center became broken. Longstreet, as usual, did not like the plan, and was very slow hoping Lee would change his mind.