Impact of a CS Victory of Gettysburg?

Impact of a CS Victory of Gettysburg?

  • Confederate victory in the war is all but assured

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Confederate victory in the war becomes much more likely

    Votes: 24 15.5%

  • Confederate victory in the war becomes marginally more likely

    Votes: 88 56.8%

  • There is no real change

    Votes: 39 25.2%

  • Confederate victory in the war becomes less likely

    Votes: 4 2.6%
  • Total voters
    155

Anaxagoras

Banned
The Battle of Gettysburg is one of the most often used PODs in alternate history literature. It seems to me that there is an assumption that a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have almost certainly lead to Confederate independence. While I think there are any number of PODs that could have resulted in a Confederate victory at Gettysburg, I'm more skeptical about whether a victory there would have resulted in the South winning the war.

Suppose that Lee achieves a decisive victory at Gettysburg on the scale of Second Manassas. In other words, the Army of the Potomac is routed and flees southward in some disorder before regrouping along the Pipe Creek defensive line (as Meade had planned to do in the event of defeat). What impact would this have had on the course of the war?
 

Elfwine

Marginal impact. Second Manassas didn't really cripple the Army of Virginia, it just drove it from the field.

It might lead places, but it's probably not enough if the Army of the Potomac can effectively regroup.
 

Turek

It would kick up anti-war feelings in the North (and drop morale). If maneuvered just right - just right - the South could get aid from Britain and France (who, by this time, were hurting from the lack of cotton in their textiles). The South has about a 50% more chance of winning now by my estimate.
 

Shogun

Turek said:
It would kick up anti-war feelings in the North (and drop morale). If maneuvered just right - just right - the South could get aid from Britain and France (who, by this time, were hurting from the lack of cotton in their textiles). The South has about a 50% more chance of winning now by my estimate.
Click to expand...

I thought that Britain had turned to Egypt as an alternate source of cotton.
 

Turek

Shogun said:
I thought that Britain had turned to Egypt as an alternate source of cotton.
Click to expand...

Had they? Sorry, I'm not very adequately situated with 19th-century Britain, or Europe at all for that matter.

France still could help the CS, and considering the US managed to defeat the British with French help, I'm willing to wager that Lee, a high-morale CS, and French help has at least a 25% chance of winning the war. They won't be a very stable or major country, though, if they win. And they're not going to annex Cuba.

EDIT:
This sums up a bit of the cotton issue that I wasn't aware of.
Anaxagoras said:
They had, but IIRC it was of a lower quality than cotton from the South.
Click to expand...
 
Jefferson Lee Roosevelt

Jefferson Lee Roosevelt

i guess the chances would slightly improve, but it would take more than the single win in Gettysburg. probably, the morale switch could create war wariness in the North, but that does not change the huge advantages the Union had against the Confederacy. a foreign recognition of the C.S.A. is one of the few things (together with a way bigger anti-war feeling in the Union) that could actually change the tide of the war. of course, a series of Confederate victories following Gettysburg would boost confederate morale and change things way more seriously, both internally and in relationships with European powers
 

davroslives

Too late

I think that any victory after Sharpsburg would have been too late for the Europeans to step in. Lee may have won Gettysburg, but what then? The weather broke and the roads became mud pits. He didn't have enough troops to invest or take Washington and I believe his plan was to use the campaign as a 'hit and run' rather than a conquest of the North.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
davroslives said:
I think that any victory after Sharpsburg would have been too late for the Europeans to step in.
Click to expand...

The Emancipation Proclamation certainly hurt Confederate efforts to obtain diplomatic recognition, but it did not entirely kill them. A resolution had been introduced in the House of Commons on June 30, 1863, to make an official offer of mediation in concert with France. In the event of a refusal by the Lincoln administration (which is obviously what would have happened), the British would probably have gone ahead and recognized the Confederacy. IOTL, the resolution didn't go anywhere, especially after it became clear that the French were getting cold feet. But had news arrived in mid-July of a Confederate victory on Northern soil, attitudes might have shifted.
 

Turek

Jefferson Lee Roosevelt said:
i guess the chances would slightly improve, but it would take more than the single win in Gettysburg. probably, the morale switch could create war wariness in the North, but that does not change the huge advantages the Union had against the Confederacy. a foreign recognition of the C.S.A. is one of the few things (together with a way bigger anti-war feeling in the Union) that could actually change the tide of the war. of course, a series of Confederate victories following Gettysburg would boost confederate morale and change things way more seriously, both internally and in relationships with European powers
Click to expand...

Lincoln only won 55% if the vote in 1864. You'll get a "peaceful" Democrat if battles in the North are won by the Confederacy.
 
Jefferson Lee Roosevelt

Jefferson Lee Roosevelt

Turek said:
Lincoln only won 55% if the vote in 1864. You'll get a "peaceful" Democrat if battles in the North are won by the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

my thought exactly, that's the "internal" change i was thinking about. but a victory in July 1863 wouldn't be enough to oust Lincoln and the Repubblicans out of power in late 1864, that's why i called for a hot streak of victories by Lee. otherwise, the material advantage of the Union would still weaken the confederacy way too much for a succesful resolution of the rebellion
 

Darth_Kiryan

Turek said:
It would kick up anti-war feelings in the North (and drop morale). If maneuvered just right - just right - the South could get aid from Britain and France (who, by this time, were hurting from the lack of cotton in their textiles). The South has about a 50% more chance of winning now by my estimate.
Click to expand...
um.....wasn't any foreign aid for the confederacy practically butterflied away by the emancipation proclamation?

Anaxagoras said:
The Emancipation Proclamation certainly hurt Confederate efforts to obtain diplomatic recognition, but it did not entirely kill them. A resolution had been introduced in the House of Commons on June 30, 1863, to make an official offer of mediation in concert with France. In the event of a refusal by the Lincoln administration (which is obviously what would have happened), the British would probably have gone ahead and recognized the Confederacy. IOTL, the resolution didn't go anywhere, especially after it became clear that the French were getting cold feet. But had news arrived in mid-July of a Confederate victory on Northern soil, attitudes might have shifted.
Click to expand...

ah. NVM them.

What about the victory at Vicksburg?
 

Elfwine

Turek said:
Lincoln only won 55% if the vote in 1864. You'll get a "peaceful" Democrat if battles in the North are won by the Confederacy.
Click to expand...

It might be worth noting that the percentage of the popular vote is different than the electoral vote, where Lincoln crushed McClellan.

So one battle is not enough to change that. Especially not if Lee is unable to follow it up - a successful campaign needs to disrupt Federal strategy beyond Virginia, or at least beyond northern Virginia. Otherwise it's just a gigantic raid.
 

Shogun

Turek said:
Had they? Sorry, I'm not very adequately situated with 19th-century Britain, or Europe at all for that matter.

France still could help the CS, and considering the US managed to defeat the British with French help, I'm willing to wager that Lee, a high-morale CS, and French help has at least a 25% chance of winning the war. They won't be a very stable or major country, though, if they win. And they're not going to annex Cuba.

EDIT:
This sums up a bit of the cotton issue that I wasn't aware of.
Click to expand...

And weren't the French embroiled in their own war in Mexico at the time of the American Civil War?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Elfwine said:
It might be worth noting that the percentage of the popular vote is different than the electoral vote, where Lincoln crushed McClellan.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the big electoral prizes of New York and Pennsylvania were won by Lincoln by a pretty narrow margin. With a big enough POD, enough states can be swung to give the election to the Democrats.
 

Elfwine

Anaxagoras said:
Yeah, but the big electoral prizes of New York and Pennsylvania were won by Lincoln by a pretty narrow margin. With a big enough POD, enough states can be swung to give the election to the Democrats.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure "The Army of the Potomac is defeated - again." is going to be such a POD, however.

Even both Pennsylvania and New York might not be enough - considerably closer, but not enough.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Elfwine said:
I'm not sure "The Army of the Potomac is defeated - again." is going to be such a POD, however.
Click to expand...

You need a swing of just over 5% from the Republicans to the Democrats in order for Lincoln to lose in 1864. Of course, with a POD as early as Gettysburg (a year-and-a-half before the 1864 election), there's plenty of time for events to unfold in a manner that costs Lincoln the election.
 

Elfwine

Anaxagoras said:
You need a swing of just over 5% from the Republicans to the Democrats in order for Lincoln to lose in 1864. Of course, with a POD as early as Gettysburg (a year-and-a-half before the 1864 election), there's plenty of time for events to unfold in a manner that costs Lincoln the election.
Click to expand...

Source? Not arguing, but I don't have the numbers at my fingertips to check myself.

And yes, but you asked in the original post what the impact of Gettysburg as a CS win would be. I don't think it's going to change the course of events that drastically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top