What if...Gettysburg/Vicksburg

[unionblue]

Connie, thank you for the time and effort at digging out this information for me. I enjoy it so much.

Unionblue

If Vicksburg, fell a month before, I have my doubts, that Gettysburg, would have happened. The reasons, for Lee's invasion, of the north, would have been voided.

Gunsmoke

[mobile_96]

Charles
1 reason! Not all the reasons.
Moving to Pennsylvania had several objectives.
1. Drawing the AoP out of Virginia to allow the farmers a respite from
all the armies tramping back and forth, and hopefully allowing time
for a decent harvest.
2. To carry the war into the North and hopefully weaken Northern resolve for the war.
3. To use Maryland and Pennsylvania farms to supply his own needs.
4. To meet Hooker's army and destroy it piecemeal, on ground of his own choosing. Thereby winning that Great Battle that would Win the war for the South.
5. Lee was a Virginian, and nothing but. From that I sometimes think he cared not 1 iota for anything not Virginian, and the planning of the campaign was started to prevent Davis from sending Longstreet, or anyone else for that matter, to the West.
Chuck in Il.

I was aware of the above reasons, for Lee taking his army north. There was enough anti-war sentiment, in Washington, that even a small victory, on northern soil, might would have caused a vote, that would have stopped the war. But, when we throw in the "what if" of Vicksburg falling before, the battle of Gettysburg, we start a whole different chain of events. With the fall of Vicksburg first, the fighting spirit, of the north, would have rose, to a very high level. A small victory,or even large one, by Lee, in the north, wouldn't have caused enough votes to change, to stop the war. More than likely, with the fall of Vicksburg happening first, to stop the war, Lee would have had to destroy the AOP, and then, he may have had to go after Grant.

[jac]

Sherman's prophesy is really interesting. Rather prophetic.
I know this is leaving the CW, but, maybe the Japanese should have read Sherman's prophesy in 1941. It applies equally well.

[unionblue]

Jack, a very profound observation on your part and I agree completely. Americans are a tricky bunch and are very hard to "read" when it comes to their response when it comes to war.

When I was in Military Intelligence, I had occasion to read translated Russian Military manuals on American tactics. In the preface of the one manual I read it said, "Never trust Americans to go by their own military manuals on fighting a war. They are just too unpredictable!"

Unionblue

I think the Japanese did know. Admiral Yamamoto opposed the attack and the war. His response to the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor was "I fear all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant and have instilled in him a terrible resolve"

Admiral Yamamoto also predicted that his country would essentially have the run of the Pacific for about six months after they attacked Pearl Harbor, but then they would ultimately suffer defeat...
YMOS
tommy

[jac]

Yamamoto, who had spent time in the US, did feel that war with the US would be a mistake. He said he could run wild in the Pacific for 6 months (he did), but then we would build up our military machine and beat H*&^ out of them (we did).
Yamamoto was in the minority. The Japanese high command was sure we would get discouraged and negotiate a peace treaty. They did not understand how angry and determined we would become, after Pearl Harbor.

[mobile_96]

Charles,
I still don't think Vicks. falling 1 month earlier, would have made much difference in northern thought.
Lee needed, and strived for, a great victory, whether Vicks. was lost early June or July, or not at all. And I think, the Vicks surrender and the defeat of Lee at the same time actually had a greater effect on the burst of sprirt, that each would create separately.
So you have Lee winning his Penns. campaign, then heading his army west to defeat Grant. How does he hold his hard fought ground and move enought troops west to have any effect against Grant?
And what votes are you talking about. The presidental election was not until '64, so <u>who</u> was going to 'vote' to end the war. Certainly not Lincoln. Not at this stage of the War.
Chuck in Il.

[unionblue]

Charles, this I think was the great flaw in Confederate strategy (and the Union's too, early in the war).

There was no overall command, no unified goal. Lee looked out for the East and the other Reb generals had to look out for the West as best they could.

The fall of Vicksburg one month early would have had no effect, I think, on Lee sending any troops to the West or would have delayed his march to Gettysburg. I think the mindset of Lee and Davis was already set in stone and that was keep Lee in front of Richmond.

Now, if somehow, Grant had botched Vicksburg and been cut off behind rebel lines and defeated in front of Vicksburg, my, my, how things might have changed!

Unionblue