Do you think the outcome of the Civil War would have been different if the Confederacy had won at Gettysburg?

Question

Give good reasoning explaining why it would or wouldn't have changed the outcome. Best answer gets 10 sweet points.

Answer 1

It would have significantly prolonged the war; but would not have altered the outcome for four reasons.

1. If Lee had won at Gettysburg, he still would have had to take Washington. At the time, Washington was the most heaviliy defended city on earth -- ringed by more than fifty forts. One of the reasons the war was so bloody was because attacking defensive positions with massed infantry (a tactic of both sides) was ruinously costly in human lives. By the time of Gettysburg, the troops of the union army had the Henry Repeating Rifle, which was the scourge of the Confederacy. It's unlikely Lee could have taken Washington with his depleted troops, cut off from the rest of the Confederacy.

2. The Union armies of the West were already running over Mississippi, Alabama and Tennessee. Grant and Sherman were ripping the heart out of the Confederacy where it counted, and the Confederates could do nothing to stop it.

3. The Union had hundreds of thousands of reserves it could still call up, while the Cenfederacy had none left. Many people forget that all the while the Civil War was raging, the Union was also fighting the Native Americans out west. The historian Shelby Foote put in best when he said the Union fought the Civil War with one hand tied behind it's back. If there had been more Confederate victories, Foote maintained, the North simply would have brought out that other hand.

4. The Union's war machine was operating at full capacity by Gettysburg, and spread out along the Great Lakes states. To secure victory, the Confederates would have to control this vast region and its hostile population. The Confederates simply had no troops to do this. But while the Confederates could not kill the North's war machine -- the North's war machine could grind the Confederacy to powder.

for these reasons, I feel confident the South could not have won, regardless of what happened at Gettysburg.

Great Question.

Answer 2

Jack's answer really sets out the reasons why the South could not have won. No matter what outcome at Gettysburg (and Lee's bullheaded tactics really resulted in a severe whipping for the Rebs) Lee could not have even begun to beseige Washington. Nor could he have invaded Eastern Pennsylvania or New York, never mind New England, where more than half the USA war supplies were manufactured.

It is not true that Europe sympathized with the South - just the opposite. Although the Brits were annoyed with the Northerners, they strongly opposed slavery (they had been the main force behind antislavery efforts around the world for 75 years) and never would have allied with the South as long as the South had slaves. And, since the overwhelmingly most important reason for the war was to preserve slavery (as is evident from the Declarations of Secession of the various states, check it out.) there was really no time during the entire war when there was any real chance that the Brits would take any meaningful action to support the Confederacy.

Answer 3

No - Although the Battle at Gettysburg was significant A win would have only been a short term victory over the Yankees. The primary factor was that while the South's supply of courage was unlimited, it's supply of men and materials was not. While victory at Gettysburg would have been significant strategically it still would have had a huge cost in terms of men and resources the South could ill afford to replace. My best guess would be that it would have merely postponed the end of the "War Between the States" In fairness to another answer I noticed I also believe that it would not have significantly affected European attitudes which already favored the South for trade and cultural reasons. The reality of that situation is that it would not make the blockade of the Southern coast disappear. To that extent I believe that European powers would be unwilling to risk outright war with the US even engaged in a Civil War because of US Naval power

Answer 4

No, the Northerners would still beat the South because, Northerners used War tactics of Attrition. This put the South in a bad position because the majority of their Income came from Crops. Northern salted all the crops stopping the South's money and food, thus stop the regrouping and regeneration of the Confeds, Gettysburg was just the place they lost at which basically signified the end. The North had way too many pluses against the South, the North also had to most industrialized weaponry, transportation, and money

Answer 5

yes, it would have been totally different! I risk chastizing here from people in the North, like me, but I think if the Confedracy had won, We as a Nation would be WAY more Sympathetic and Understanding to peoples problems/Great or Small. And the North would know the TRUE Meaning of Southern Hospitality! LONG LIVE DIXIE!

Answer 6

Yes, I do think so. The whole point of the South going into Gettysburg was to persuade England and France that they could win and thus persuade them that it was worth intervening on the Confederate side ... the Confederates knew that their revolution would only succeed with European help, same as the American revolution succeeded because of the help of the French.

The Europeans sympathized with the South -- they depended on Southern cotton and the French believed that the Southern aristocratic hierarchy was much like their own aristocracy.

Answer 7

Yes, But by that time Lee wasn't trying to win the war. He though if he could put his army across the river from Washington that the north would negotiate a settlement to the war.

Answer 8

You can analyze this question to death and the best educated guess could be dead wrong. I'm just happy it worked out the way it did. Can you imagine the consequences of the Confederacy winning? Even with the North winning we STILL have all this racial crap to contend with.

Answer 9

No, the Confederacy would still have lost.
The Union had the advantage in manufacturing capacity.

Answer 10

Of course!!! With every action, there is a reaction (or something like that). We would probably still have slaves (luckily we are smarter than that now)