"Turning the Tide: What If the South Had Won the Battle" Topic

… of Gettysburg?

"In our timeline, the Battle of Gettysburg marked a turning point in the American Civil War, as Union forces managed to repel Confederate advances. But what if history had taken a different course, with General Robert E. Lee's Southern forces emerging triumphant?

A Confederate victory at Gettysburg could have emboldened the Southern forces and provided a significant morale boost. This achievement might have encouraged more states to rally behind the Confederacy's cause and bolstered support for the war effort…"

link

Armand

This achievement might have encouraged more states to rally behind the Confederacy's cause and bolstered support for the war effort…"

What has that author been smoking?
WHAT other states?
Pure clickbait nonsense. I blame the internet for allowing such nonsense. It's so cheap now that anyone can publish. Just as importantly, no Editor is needed.

That sentence alone convinced me that I would be wasting valuable time to click on the link.

Ditto OFM. I'm not going to read it, but I get the impression the author also forgot about the fall of Vicksburg. Which I think was the more critical loss for the Confederacy.

Agree with John. Logistics and overwhelming manpower ensures a Northern victory.
A
Victory in PA means more time to send in the north. Another battle with the CSA with fewer troops, no supply or ammo would mean an even worse future loss.

James has been studying Military History, since 3rd grade.

NEVER got past that

Okay. even if Lee would have won he would not have been able to destroy the Army of the Potomac. It would have retreated and prepared to attack Lee again. Lee took such heavy losses in the battle he would had to retreated anyway. Washington was now a fortified city that would have to have been taken, likely after a siege. Lee didn't have the time, men or ammunition to do so. I am so sick of hearing about "If only Lee would have won" BS. It would not have changed the outcome of the war.

Vermont might have seceded to join Canada…

OK, first, Gettysburg would not have affected the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation after the battle of Antietam in September 1862. It said that, if the southern states had not returned to the union by January 1, 1863, slaves in areas under rebel control would be free. By the time of Gettysburg (July 1863), the proclamation had been in effect for six months. Freeing the slaves was already in process.

Second, for the second and third day of the battle, Lee's Southern army was curiously placed to the north and west, while Meade's Northern army was to the south and east. If Lee wins, Meade falls back to the Pipe Creek line in northern Maryland, where he had wanted to fight in the first place. This covers Baltimore and Washington, the closest northern cities, and beyond that, as Grattan notes, Washington had its own fortifications and garrison. More attacking for Lee, and Porter Alexander was already complaining about almost being out of ammunition for his artillery on the third day, asking that the infantry attack (Pickett's Charge) while he still had some ammunition to support them.

The only way this could ever have worked out the way the author fantasized was if Meade had led McDowell's 1st Bull Run army up to Gettysburg. The army Lee fought at Gettysburg was not McDowell's green, inexperienced army; after two years of war, it was experienced and tough, and most of its officers were reasonably competent.

Grelber

John the OFM +1