Civil War History - "What if..." DiscussionsWhat if they had attacked instead of digging in...? What if he was in charge of the army instead...? Did you ever have a "What if..." question, and you weren't sure where to post it? Here's the place to ask these speculative questions!
What if, after Gettysburg, the AOP did somehow pursue Lee's army, did prevent the ANV from crossing the Potomac, and did 'destroy' that army? (As Lincoln had so hoped. (See "Original Lincoln letter ..." in the Mason-Dixon Gazette below.))
Presumably this would have been followed shortly with a capture of Richmond, but what else might have happened? Would the other confederate armies have thrown in the towel, or would the War gone on in the West? etc.,etc.
-
__________________ -
"It was a very peculiar time." - Franklin D. Cossitt
Ancestors in USA Army: 6th IA Inf, 11th IL Cav, 1st AL Cav; 122nd NY Inf; 6th MI Cav; 35th MA Inf; 100th IL Inf; 1st CO Inf/Cav; 22nd IN Inf
I would expect the war in the west to go on -- but not for long. What would be the point? Supplies and logistics were managed from Richmond, as was what pay there was. Morale would have been impossible.
It might be assumed that the government escapes to Atlanta or Columbia, but it's disruption and re-establishment would have taken longer than the Western troops could have been expected to endure.
Unless I hear a better story, destroying or severely crippling the ANV after Gettysburg would have been a war-ending event -- probably within a year.
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Jeff Davis would have fled, like he did historically. But most Confederates would know the game was up and the demoralization would cause the collapse of the rest of the Confederacy. The Union Forever, hurrah, boys, hurrah!
What if, after Gettysburg, the AOP did somehow pursue Lee's army, did prevent the ANV from crossing the Potomac, and did 'destroy' that army? (As Lincoln had so hoped. (See "Original Lincoln letter ..." in the Mason-Dixon Gazette below.))
Presumably this would have been followed shortly with a capture of Richmond, but what else might have happened? Would the other confederate armies have thrown in the towel, or would the War gone on in the West? etc.,etc.
-
I don't think the ANV would have been destroyed completely. It might have been badly hurt, and I think the attempt to crush them was worth trying.
If they had been battered enough that Richmond fell -- say by the end of August --then the Confederacy is in terrible shape. There is no good defensive position for North Carolina from the North, and the Shenadoah must be abandoned.
If the AoP advances down the coast, it will always be in position to receive support, supply and reinforcements from the sea. Wilmington will surely fall next, then Charleston, then Savannah unless the Confederacy can somehow win a major victory somewhere.
Meanwhile, the Shenandoah lies open and can be swept by the Union -- right down through Knoxville in the Great Valley. This would mean additional support for Rosecrans/Burnside in the Summer of 1863, and there will be no reinforcements for Bragg to win with at Chickamauga.
Vicksburg has just fallen, along with Port Hudson. Grant and Banks have, oh, 150,000 or so troops available. At worst, they are wasted in inactivity and fruitless campaigns. At best, Grant leads an expedition to take Mobile as he has proposed.
All that means the entire Confederacy East of the Mississippi would be exposed and all its major ports taken by Union forces, probably by about Thanksgiving or Christmas.
What if, after Gettysburg, the AOP did somehow pursue Lee's army, did prevent the ANV from crossing the Potomac, and did 'destroy' that army? (As Lincoln had so hoped. (See "Original Lincoln letter ..." in the Mason-Dixon Gazette below.))
Presumably this would have been followed shortly with a capture of Richmond, but what else might have happened? Would the other confederate armies have thrown in the towel, or would the War gone on in the West? etc.,etc.
-
After the battle was either army in condition to pursue and destroy the other?
__________________ POWER & MONEY
"Your New-York bankers and merchants are shrewd people, but I never gave them credit for so much sagacity as when they took the Government Loan. It was not merely patriotism, it was a high stroke of policy. It has saved the Government, and what they will regard as equally important, saved them from a great financial disaster."
After the battle was either army in condition to pursue and destroy the other?
Yes. Meade's AoP did pursue the ANV, and was about to attack when Lee crossed the swollen river. The only controversy is about whether Meade should have pursued harder/more aggressively, and whether or not that would have been successful.
Lee did a masterful job of retreating, but was in no condition to fight another aggressive battle or pursue aggressively the AoP if they had been retreating.
There's not doubt that Meade ought to have lit out after Lee sooner and more agressively. The question is, could he? I suspect that there was a way to get a pursuit force on the road quicker. If there was, Meade didn't figure it out, seeing only the confusion and exhaustion of his army.
Can we assume that Meade simply made a mistake of omission -- like so many other generals on both sides? That he could have, or ought to have, immediately dispatched a division or two of any corps, and any intact wagon train from any division or corps?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
There's not doubt that Meade ought to have lit out after Lee sooner and more agressively. The question is, could he? I suspect that there was a way to get a pursuit force on the road quicker. If there was, Meade didn't figure it out, seeing only the confusion and exhaustion of his army.
Can we assume that Meade simply made a mistake of omission -- like so many other generals on both sides? That he could have, or ought to have, immediately dispatched a division or two of any corps, and any intact wagon train from any division or corps?
Ole,
Meade acted very competently in his pursuit. He understood the mechanics of how to go about it, he maintained pressure, he was willing to attack. He did a nice job, avoided mistakes that might have opened his army to a riposte by Lee.
That's the good side.
The problem is that he didn't take enough risks, IMHO. He didn't push as aggressively as he should have. He didn't see what Lincoln did, what Grant would have, what Lee or Jackson or Forrest would have. He didn't quite have the killer instinct he should have, and was a little too aware of how his army could be hurt. You might say his decisions were good ones from the perspective of the AoP's campaign, and bad ones from the perspective of the overall war.
Mind, I have little or no reason to say he would have actually destroyed Lee. The ANV performed very capably as it retreated. It would have been a hard fight, no matter what.
The point though, is that it was worth the risk of pursuing all-out, of doing everything possible to bring Lee to battle, and it wasn't done.
Lincoln understood. Lincoln saw that even a bloody standoff north of the Potomac was to the Union advantage. Lincoln was willing to take the responsibility for defeat and let Meade have all credit. He just wanted it done.
To see this, you have to look at what another battle north of the Potomac results in. Gettysburg has already decided that Lee can not remain and must retreat. All that remains is the question of how blooded he will be.
Suppose Meade brings Lee to bay, attacks, and is beaten off. Picture another 5-10,000 casualties on either side. What then?
Lee's ANV will be a broken offensive weapon. Almost half of it has become a casualty. Hard to picture Longstreet going West to Chickamauga in 6 weeks. Meade's AoP meanwhile may also be exhausted, but can still claim they have driven back the enemy. And the Union can always replace the losses better than the Confederacy.
Suppose Meade actually succeeds to some extent. Suppose heavy Confederate casualties, men and equipment abandoned on the north bank as Meade forces them over the swollen Potomac. Maybe one of the three Corps destroyed, cavalry sacrificing themselves to stave off disaster. Picture it even worse, a slaughter on the river, mass surrender.
I am sure Meade could see that as possible, but he didn't risk enough to go after it, didn't push hard enough, saw too many of the problems. He saw his mission as too much driving the enemy from their soil, and not enough the destruction of the enemy. He did a good job throughout the campaign -- and the complaint is that he didn't do better.
In his defence, his path is unclear and his opponent a tough foe. Risks are certainly there.
But the glittering reward here was worth the risk, and the President was willing to take the blame for reversals. He should have gone for it all-out, IMHO, but that is easier to say from my armchair than his saddle, with the blood of his men running in the fields from his decisions.
If he had been the sort of man to make that decision, he might have chopped a year or more off the war. But perhaps the real ruler to measure him with is who else would have done what is needed.
For both sides in the Civil War, here are the major generals I feel in my gut would have done it: Grant, Lee, Jackson, Sheridan, Forrest, Thomas. None of the rest, although I might allow for a quibble on Taylor.
To look at it another way: Napoleon had 26 Marshals. I think less than 10 of those would have had what it takes to do something like this. It is about being a certain type of man, not about being a good soldier or general.
To look at another group, from the American Revolution: I think Washington, Cornwallis, and Benedict Arnold were the type to do what was needed here.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
If Meade Did destroy the ANV after Gettysburg 
Linear Mode
