Do you believe if the Confederacy had won at Gettysburg, the course of the Civil War would have been changed?

Question

Would it have mattered in the big scheme of things?

Answer 1

Yes I believe the course of the war would have changed if the Confederate forces would have won at Gettysburg. A military victory by Lee at Gettysburg could well have led to a political defeat for Lincoln in the upcoming elections of 1864. Lincolns opponent in that election was to be General George McClellan, twice appointed Commander of the Army of the Potomac by Lincoln and twice dismissed by Lincoln for his lack of aggressiveness. Militay theorist Karl von Clausewitz defined war as the continuation of politics by other means. The results of a political campaign do not determine the outcome of military campaigns nearly as much as the results of military campaigns affect the outcome of political campaigns, A loss by the Union at Gettysburg may have propelled McClellan to a victory over Lincoln in the election. McClellan would almost have certainly sought a peace with the south and the nation would have been forever split into two seperate nations.

Answer 2

My compliments on a great question! First of all, The Confederacy was already doomed. The Emancipation Proclamation was the last straw, it galvanized the Union's cause. However, if the South, somehow, could've won that battle, it really would have mattered by how much, and in what manner. Gen. Robert E. Lee said that once it was proven repeatedly that Blacks could be exceptional soldiers, they'd lost philosophically. For several racist nostalgic reasons, it is popular to romanticize The Confederacy. Dixieland was built on the ideas of the "cotton- kingdom". "The Cotton- Kingdom" was built on the backs of over a million ***** slaves. The Confederacy losing that war is one of the most important and positive things in the history of this shamefully racist country. Yet, the Confederate flag still flies over the capital of So. Carolina and there's still a 20 ft. engraving of the Confederate generals on the side of Stone Mountain (Ga.).

Answer 3

Jack's answer quite gadgets out the the clarification why the South ought to no longer have gained. no remember what effect at Gettysburg (and Lee's bullheaded methods quite resulted in a severe whipping for the Rebs) Lee ought to no longer have even all started to beseige Washington. Nor ought to he have invaded jap Pennsylvania or ny, never thoughts New England, the position better than 0.5 america of a conflict resources were synthetic. it really is not real that Europe sympathized with the South - merely the different. inspite of the actual undeniable truth that the Brits were annoyed with the Northerners, they strongly adverse slavery (they were the important stress in the back of antislavery efforts around the globe for seventy 5 years) and not would have allied with the South see you later because the South had slaves. And, because the overwhelmingly maximum significant reason behind the conflict replaced into to maintain slavery (as is clear from the Declarations of Secession of the numerous states, verify it out.) there replaced into quite no time in the course of the full conflict at the same time as there replaced into any authentic probability that the Brits would take any significant action to help the Confederacy.

Answer 4

Even though the Confederates lost at Gettysburg, they didn't lose as much as they might have had Meade not let them slip away south after the battle. It could have all ended right there.
Had they won, what would Lee's next move have been? Where would he have gone next? And, no matter what he did after Gettysburg, there were, as someone else pointed out, other battles raging all over the south--and Grant had just taken Vicksburg at about the same time. Winning Gettysburg, I agree, only would have delayed--but not prevented--the inevitable end of the Confederacy and would have deprived us of one of the greatest speeches ever given.

Answer 5

Gettysburg would have helped the Confederate cause for awhile, but General Sherman dismantled the South's supply lines and tore apart major depots and helped in the downfall of certain cities. I have read up on Sherman and he was blamed for Atlanta's burning when Hood started the fires. He also got the bulk of the blame for Columbia when it was Confederate policy to destroy any cotton in a location they were abandoning by means of fire. A victory at Gettysburg would not have given the soldiers the biggest morale boost due to Sherman's unwavering success back home.
The course of the Civil War would have changed, but the outcome would still be the same.

Answer 6

Yes, a victory at Gettysburg would have had a good chance of panicking the north into a peace treaty. At least 50/50.

It would not have mattered too much in the long-run scheme of things... except... the big question is whether the Confederacy would have joined the north in WW2... I think so, but if not, modern history would have been different and potentially grimmer.

Answer 7

Absolutley not. The outcome of the war had been decided by 1862, after the control of the Mississippi had been lost by the Confederates... it was only a matter of time before the Confederates ran out of money, food, weapons, supplies and men.

What is important to remember is that Gettysburg had no strategic importance at all! It was rumored that there was a supply of shoes there (badly needed by the confederates), but that was about it.

Therefore, even if the Confederates had won, it was only a matter of time!

Oh, and micol482, you have no evidence to back up your hypothesis that Lincoln would have lost the upcoming election.
One of the main reasons he won was because of Shermans successes in the south, not of Meade's successes in the north.
And he won in a landslide, after all, like anyone was going to vote for McClellan (a horrible general by the way)

Answer 8

Yes, it certainly would have changed things. Lee knew that he was bound to lose the war if he had to keep fighting on his home territory.
Every time there was a battle in the South, no matter who won, the South was still torn up. Farms that supplied food to Confederate soldiers, rail lines that transported men and supplies, etc. were damaged or destroyed. Kentucky and Missouri, both slave states, had stayed with the Union, but both held many pro-Confederates.
If Lee had been successful, they might have switched sides. Many Northerners had tired of the carnage and wanted to sue for peace. Victory at Gettysburg would have helped the South get a negotiated settlement. The South had fewer fighting men, and munitions factories than the North did. It could not have won the war, but it might have been able to save the institution of slavery at the peace table. Finally, the Civil War remains the bloodiest war in U.S. history. As a Yankee, I am glad that the mess was largely confined to one section of our land.

Answer 9

Historical hypotheticals are always difficult because there are so many factors to weigh.

In retrospect we view the outcome of the Civil War as all but inevitable because to the vast advantages of population and industry held by the Union.

But to the people of that time it certainly did not seem inevitable and the political situation was very difficult for the North.

Recall that Republican President Lincoln was routinely described by his Democrat opponents as a dim witted, crude, illiterate country bumpkin.

His speeches were often described by the main stream media in less than flattering terms. Indeed, the Gettysburg Address that followed the battle at issue was dismissed by Chicago Times which said "The cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances of the man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States." (Democrats seemed very concerned about what foreigners thought about the United States)

The Democrats routinely denounced the war, pointing to the casualties, claiming that it was initiated under false premises and/or was illegal.

The Democrat Candidate for president, McClennan, who was usually described as a "war hero" (although there was some question as to the truth of some of his claims) made the centerpiece of his campaign a call for peace and compromise with the enemy.

Democrats often depicted the Rebels as freedom fighters.

Democrats fastened on every defeat, set back or loss as proof that Lincoln was incompetent.

A defeat at Gettysburg and the consequent continued presence of Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia in Union territory would have given gleeful Democrats a fieldday.

(Hmm.....this all begins to sound rather familiar doesn't it?)

Answer 10

yes it probably would have changed the course of the war i personaly believe that the war would have been shorter if the confederacy would have won at gettysburg but lets face it in the government we live in now neither the south nor the north won the war or government is a mix of confederate laws and union laws.