Impact of a CS Victory of Gettysburg?

[Elfwine]

Munfordville was not a major battle on the scale of Perryville, Murfreesboro, Antietam, or Gettysburg, with the outcome in doubt, and the future of the Union and the Confederacy on the line. If it was, we would have remembered it, regardless of who might have won it.

A Confederate win on July 1, 1863 including the subsequent takeover of Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill would have sufficed, considering two entire Corps of the Army of the Potomac had been virtually destroyed.

The Union could afford to lose any of those four - or even all of those four (well, if there was a win at one of the earlier two for the CSA, there may not be a battle at the latter two) - and still keep going. The CSA, as Lee and Bragg found out OTL, could not simply shrug off a defeat there.

This isn't a balanced situation where a slight nudge could send it in favor of one side or another.

And I think you overestimate northern morale. Remember that throughout the previous two years since the war began at First Manassas, the Union had not had a single major victory over the Army of Northern Virginia worthy of the name (Antietam was basically a draw, that turned technically into a 'victory' upon Lee's subsequent withdrawal).

So, we're going to ignore the Western armies - which have been winning pretty consistently for more than a year now - why again?

In the wake of yet another Confederate victory at Chancellorsville, Union morale would have been fragile by the time Lee invaded Pennsylvania.

No, it would not be fragile. Contrary to the delusions of McClellan, the Army of the Potomac did not represent the last hope of the Union.

Another victory by Lee on July 1, combined with the destruction of two entire Corps of the Army of the Potomac, and the retreat of the remnants of the northern army on northern soil before victorious invaders -the news headlines would have been unforgiving before a war-weary northern readership. And then there's the panic factor setting in, with widespread fears that Lee could strike Baltimore, Philadelphia, or even New York before besieging Washington.

Remnants?!

~80%+ of the Army of the Potomac is still intact, depending on the the figures one uses for it's starting strength (I'm using this:http://gburginfo.brinkster.net/unionorderofbattle.htm as my books are currently disorganized) even if you leave nothing of First and Eleventh Corps but ghosts, stragglers (including late arrivals like Stannard's brigade - around two thousand men, not counting the two regiments detached to watch the corps's trains, which brings it to three thousand), and prisoners of war.

Lee's ultimate intention was to break the will of the North to continue the war. If he had won a complete victory at Gettysburg on the First Day, that mission would have been accomplished, say what you will of its military significance.

"Lee owns the area south of town and Meade decides to pull back to Pipe Creek." is not a complete victory.

And it being militarily insignificant is precisely the problem. Sure, if Lee crushed the Army of the Potomac like Hannibal did to the Romans at Cannae, that would probably be rather demoralizing. But Lee is in no position to such enormous losses on the Army of the Potomac.

That is why President Davis had sent a peace envoy along with terms of surrender to Washington. The South could never militarily defeat the North, but psychologically? They came damn close in OTL.

I am simply without words to describe the idea that because Davis believed something, it was self-evidently with foundation.

 

[LOTLOF]

The most important thing to keep in mind is that sans British intervention or the total annihilation of the Army of the Potomac nothing Lee can do can end the war. Even if there is a drop in morale due to suffering a defeat on northern soil Lincoln is not going to call for an armistice. Even if we say there are riots in NYC, as happened following VICTORY, and protests and increased attacks in the papers, none of that can force peace. It is not an election year and the President does not have to worry about a vote of no confidence. Lincoln and the government would have undoubtedly continued the war.

Just as with the confederate invasions of Kentucky, unless Lee destroys the union army he does not have the logistical means to stay long on union soil. Even if he can feed a concentrated army he will not be able to get enough munitions to fight a second major battle. The ANV just simply doesn't have the supply train to remain in Pennsylvania with an intact AOTP nearby.

Plus the fact Vicksburg has just surrendered means the papers have a victory they can use to blunt the news of yet another defeat in the east. The image of the victorious Grant will give the northern public hope that maybe there is a general who can beat Lee. Northern morale will drop but it is not going to collapse, and so long as the situation has improved by the time of the 1864 election Gettysburg will just be another southern victory in a lost war.

 

[Elfwine]

Just as with the confederate invasions of Kentucky, unless Lee destroys the union army he does not have the logistical means to stay long on union soil. Even if he can feed a concentrated army he will not be able to get enough munitions to fight a second major battle. The ANV just simply doesn't have the supply train to remain in Pennsylvania with an intact AOTP nearby.

Posting this because I think it's important:

He had enough munitions to fight a second major battle OTL.

And he can be resupplied without having to retreat all the way back to Virginia.

 

[ProfJets]

I don't believe that the Union victory at Vicksburg will "cancel out" a Confederate victory at Gettysburg, at least in the eastern states. After all, Lee in Pennsylvania will be seen as a threat to Baltimore, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Washington (the average Union citizen isn't going to realize that the city's defenses actually render it pretty safe). That's going to be of more concern to the average Union citizen than a victory at Vicksburg.

 

[Tripwire]

The most important thing to keep in mind is that sans British intervention or the total annihilation of the Army of the Potomac nothing Lee can do can end the war. Even if there is a drop in morale due to suffering a defeat on northern soil Lincoln is not going to call for an armistice. Even if we say there are riots in NYC, as happened following VICTORY, and protests and increased attacks in the papers, none of that can force peace. It is not an election year and the President does not have to worry about a vote of no confidence. Lincoln and the government would have undoubtedly continued the war.

Just as with the confederate invasions of Kentucky, unless Lee destroys the union army he does not have the logistical means to stay long on union soil. Even if he can feed a concentrated army he will not be able to get enough munitions to fight a second major battle. The ANV just simply doesn't have the supply train to remain in Pennsylvania with an intact AOTP nearby.

Plus the fact Vicksburg has just surrendered means the papers have a victory they can use to blunt the news of yet another defeat in the east. The image of the victorious Grant will give the northern public hope that maybe there is a general who can beat Lee. Northern morale will drop but it is not going to collapse, and so long as the situation has improved by the time of the 1864 election Gettysburg will just be another southern victory in a lost war.

I agree with LOTLOF. Lincoln is not going to suddenly change his mind and decide that an independent Confederacy might be okay after all. He has a free rein until the next election, he's going to press on unless victory becomes completely unattainable, which it won't. The war will continue even if it becomes unpopular in the North.

 

[Elfwine]

I don't believe that the Union victory at Vicksburg will "cancel out" a Confederate victory at Gettysburg, at least in the eastern states. After all, Lee in Pennsylvania will be seen as a threat to Baltimore, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Washington (the average Union citizen isn't going to realize that the city's defenses actually render it pretty safe). That's going to be of more concern to the average Union citizen than a victory at Vicksburg.

But "concern" in the short term doesn't mean thinking the war is being lost. If Lee wins and is able to do as he please that's one thing, but just one battle won't mean that.

 

[ProfJets]

But "concern" in the short term doesn't mean thinking the war is being lost. If Lee wins and is able to do as he please that's one thing, but just one battle won't mean that.

Oh I agree; I didn't mean to imply it would inspire a war-losing mass panic. I'm merely stating that the average northern citizen isn't going to read "Victory in Mississippi, Defeat in Pennsylvania" and decide it was a wash. There will be a net negative hit to Northern morale. But since Lee can't linger in the north forever, the effect of the defeat at Gettysburg will diminish in the long-term (barring any further major Southern incursions into the North). It would help the South's chances, but just marginally; they would need some favorable butterflies.

 

[Elfwine]

Oh I agree; I didn't mean to imply it would inspire a war-losing mass panic. I'm merely stating that the average northern citizen isn't going to read "Victory in Mississippi, Defeat in Pennsylvania" and decide it was a wash. There will be a net negative hit to Northern morale. But since Lee can't linger in the north forever, the effect of the defeat at Gettysburg will diminish in the long-term (barring any further major Southern incursions into the North). It would help the South's chances, but just marginally; they would need some favorable butterflies.

Yeah. The only way I can think of it making a longer term impact is if Lee scrambles the Union plans enough to mean that the situation as of '64 is looking rosier. Not counting chance as you said - not losing men like Pender might well be something in 1864, but that's luck.

But "scrambling the Union plans" is more about a victorious campaign, with the Army of the Potomac given the kind of pounding no army in the war to date has taken (not even the poor Army of Tennessee), than a single battle, however great.

On the other hand, all the other Confederate options in mid-May are even worse. Lee might be able to do something devastating. Johnston and Bragg - even if the stars align and Great Cthulhu rises in butternut splendor - can only keep things from getting worse. The situation out there can't turn up anything that would do more than shuffle about where the Union's overly ample reserves go, whereas the Eastern theater is mighty low on manpower in the early summer of 1863 for the Union (the only reason the Gettysburg campaign makes sense at all).

 

[Fiver]

A Confederate win on July 1, 1863 including the subsequent takeover of Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill would have sufficed, considering two entire Corps of the Army of the Potomac had been virtually destroyed.

The condition of the available Confederate forces has already been described. A full-scale attempt to take Cemetery Ridge on July 1st would have been Picket''s Charge on a smaller scale.

 

[Elfwine]

The condition of the available Confederate forces has already been described. A full-scale attempt to take Cemetery Ridge on July 1st would have been Picket''s Charge on a smaller scale.

I hate to sound like a devil's advocate, because I'm not trying to:

But the Federal forces immediately on the scene are not in great shape either, save one unengaged brigade - but the only way to take advantage of that would require a POD before the decision to advance or not once it became clear there were Feds up there.

Anderson and Johnson (when he gets up) would have to be marked to attack ASAP from before four PM - and the so-called lost opportunity is after four.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Lincoln is not going to suddenly change his mind and decide that an independent Confederacy might be okay after all. He has a free rein until the next election, he's going to press on unless victory becomes completely unattainable, which it won't. The war will continue even if it becomes unpopular in the North.

But how would a Confederate victory at Gettysburg alter the 1864 situation? It will begin the year most likely somewhere in northern Virginia, having suffered fewer casualties than IOTL and still maintaining its aura of invincibility. Butterflies will obviously change the situation in the West in unpredictable ways, but when the AotP launches its offensive in the spring of 1864, the situation will likely be considerably better for the South than it was IOTL.

 

[Elfwine]

But how would a Confederate victory at Gettysburg alter the 1864 situation? It will begin the year most likely somewhere in northern Virginia, having suffered fewer casualties than IOTL and still maintaining its aura of invincibility. Butterflies will obviously change the situation in the West in unpredictable ways, but when the AotP launches its offensive in the spring of 1864, the situation will likely be considerably better for the South than it was IOTL.

Why would it necessarily maintain its aura of invincibility or having suffered lower casualties? There's still up to at least October.

Also, a battle that's just First and Eleventh Corps against Ewell and Hill means not much to the Army of the Potomac - including Hancock not being wounded, which is a great thing for the Union.

As for the situation at large - what difference has been made where it counts, the West?

Unless we have crazy butterflies having Rosecrans start shooting his own officers or something, Bragg is facing the same problems with the same resources as OTL.

 

[Anaxagoras]

As for the situation at large - what difference has been made where it counts, the West?

Unless we have crazy butterflies having Rosecrans start shooting his own officers or something, Bragg is facing the same problems with the same resources as OTL.

It's hard to say how butterflies would affect the situation in the West. IOTL, both the Union and the Confederacy dispatched reinforcements to their respective armies around Chattanooga and these played a significant role in events. If Lee's army returned from Pennsylvania in better shape than IOTL and with a victory rather than a major defeat under its belt, perhaps more troops could be sent than was the case IOTL. But as the AotP would also have suffered lighter losses than IOTL, they could dispatch greater numbers as well.

On the other hand, if Lee's army is perceived by the powers-that-be in the Union as representing a greater danger in the Virginia theater in late 1863 than was the case IOTL, it may be that fewer or no Union troops would be sent from Virginia to Tennessee.

Hard to say, really.

 

[Elfwine]

It's hard to say how butterflies would affect the situation in the West. IOTL, both the Union and the Confederacy dispatched reinforcements to their respective armies around Chattanooga and these played a significant role in events. If Lee's army returned from Pennsylvania in better shape than IOTL and with a victory rather than a major defeat under its belt, perhaps more troops could be sent than was the case IOTL. But as the AotP would also have suffered lighter losses than IOTL, they could dispatch greater numbers as well.

On the other hand, if Lee's army is perceived by the powers-that-be in the Union as representing a greater danger in the Virginia theater in late 1863 than was the case IOTL, it may be that fewer or no Union troops would be sent from Virginia to Tennessee.

Hard to say, really.

On the other hand, there are plenty of troops in the West to send for the Federals - and the ARmy of the Cumberland needs reinforcements less than the Army of Tennessee.