Does a Decisive Confederate Victory at Gettysburg Lead to Confederate Independence?

Does a Decisive Confederate Victory at Gettysburg Lead to Confederate Independence?

  • Yes

    Votes: 5 8.5%
  • Probably, but not necessarily

    Votes: 8 13.6%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 7 11.9%
  • Perhaps, but probably not

    Votes: 18 30.5%
  • No

    Votes: 21 35.6%

  • Total voters
    59
NYC was full of Confederate agents. And they could circulate back to Canada when they needed to. The July riots were just one plot. The other plots were foiled. There was a crazy naval chase of a Confederate vessel about the same time as the Gettysburg campaign.
 
I would agree with Leftyhunter here. That sounds rather dubious without any evidence to back it up. Not to mention the difficulties with the communications of the time of actually trying to coordinate such an action.

From what I've read the prompt for the riots was the draft being imposed, which since there was a buy out option meant it fell more heavily on the poorer elements of the country. Along with a measure of economic competition/racism as a lot of the rioters seem to have been Irish in origin and many of their victims being black as the latter's presence was undercutting the already low wages the Irish were often being forced into.

I think there was some opposition to the war from the cities mayor IIRC and this might have prompted the problem in terms of the rioters possibly thinking they had support from elements of the local establishment but suspect that was as far as it went.
 
Actually McCellen upon accepting the 1864 Democratic Party Presidential Nomination made it quite clear in his letter of acceptance that he would not allow an independent Confederate nation.

Yes, but his letter was released only after Atlanta had fallen. Before that, he had hedged his bets.
 
No. The entire purpose of the campaign was to induce the Union to shift forces away from Vicksburg, allowing Pemberton to break out or Johnston to relieve Pemberton. That didn't happen.

Second, even if Lee had won, where to now? He lacked the siege equipment to breach the ring of fortresses that defended Washington. If Lee went to Baltimore, he could be cut off by the Army of the Potomac. If Lee marched on Philadelphia, same thing. If he crossed the Potomac, what was the point of the campaign? A big foraging expedition? (Yes, he gave that excuse) - that would give merit to von Moltke's disparaging remark about the war: One armed mob chasing another and nothing to learn from it.

Finally, foreign recognition was not forthcoming. After the Emancipation Proclamation, the Confederacy would not receive aid, arms or other materials from France or England.
 
No. The entire purpose of the campaign was to induce the Union to shift forces away from Vicksburg, allowing Pemberton to break out or Johnston to relieve Pemberton. That didn't happen.

Second, even if Lee had won, where to now? He lacked the siege equipment to breach the ring of fortresses that defended Washington. If Lee went to Baltimore, he could be cut off by the Army of the Potomac. If Lee marched on Philadelphia, same thing. If he crossed the Potomac, what was the point of the campaign? A big foraging expedition? (Yes, he gave that excuse) - that would give merit to von Moltke's disparaging remark about the war: One armed mob chasing another and nothing to learn from it.

Finally, foreign recognition was not forthcoming. After the Emancipation Proclamation, the Confederacy would not receive aid, arms or other materials from France or England.
Good points but European nations still allowed cash and carry arms sales to the Confederacy. The British though did prevent the sale of the Laird Rams to the Confederacy.
On the other hand France arguably violates the spirit of neutrality by allowing the CSS Florida to be in dry dock in Brest,France for several months not just a 72 hour stay. Brazil allowed the CSS Florida extra time at the port of Bahia. Commander Collins of the USA Washuestets then captured the CSS Florida despite being fired at by the Brazilian costal artillery and somehow not a shot hit the Waachusett or the Florida.
Neither France,Spain or the UK ever prevented Confederate blockade runners from using the ports in the Caribbean.
Leftyhunter
Leftyhunter
 
If the Confederacy had been able to form armies large enough to decisively defeat the US armies, and had been able to support those armies at a distance, they would have forced an armistice and the Confederacy would have gained independence.
They made three major attempts to do that, and all three failed. They made several minor attempts to do that with mounted units, but the US always had enough reserve manpower to defeat those raids. So there is almost no evidence that the Confederacy could defeat a US army in a border area or in one of the loyal states.
 
The US, based on steamships, and railroad supply, frequently defeated both small and large Confederate units. It permanently occupied strategic points within the attempted Confederacy.
After October 1863 almost all the land battles took place on Confederate territory. So there is significant evidence that the US could win decisive battles and permanently reclaim territory from the seceded states.
 
If the Confederates had possessed more operational capability they would have achieved a stalemate. That is true.
 
Spies and double agents don't leave documentary evidence. And Lee had nothing to do with the NYC double agents.

They rarely do, unless its in autobiography's after the event. However their bosses often do simply to keep track of them and what they do, if only to persuade their bosses that the money being spent on them is worthwhile.

Plus your argument rather shoots itself in the foot. That would imply there would be no evidence whether such spies/agents existed or not and hence none in support of your argument?
 
From what
They rarely do, unless its in autobiography's after the event. However their bosses often do simply to keep track of them and what they do, if only to persuade their bosses that the money being spent on them is worthwhile.

Plus your argument rather shoots itself in the foot. That would imply there would be no evidence whether such spies/agents existed or not and hence none in support of your argument?
I have gathered over the years the best the Confederacy could achieve in terms of supporting armed opposition to the Union was giving sanctuary in Texas to Quantrill's Raider's and sanctuary possibly arms for other Missouri Confederate's in Arkansas.
We have a thread by @5fish about the Knights of the Golden Crescent who attempted to have various armed actions involving Northern members against the Union. These plots never came to much and Union authorities were able to infiltrate and prevent this insurgent group and others from conducting violent incidents.
Leftyhunter
 
I think the answer is "Maybe". As good of a general as Lee was, one of his best attributes was his ability "to see the big picture." He knew he was not simply fighting the AoP. He fully realized he was also fighting a war of public opinion in the north. In order to win the war, he knew if the northern populace turned overwhelmingly against the war then there was a chance for independence. Until Gettysburg, there had been no decisive union victories in the east and several crushing defeats. Many tried to spin Sharpsburg into a great union victory in 1862 but it was Gettysburg that was the first real win for the Army of the Potomac. Had Gettysburg turned into another Fredericksburg with another decisive loss but on northern soil, it is possible that the northern people would have thrown in the towel. Possible but not probable. There is no way of knowing either way.
HISTORY is not based on IFs so this is a question that can be answered based on ones own prejudice or own research.There was no military strategy in any 'What If" . It would be like Wellington having a back up to Waterloo ,he possibly left the field and fought else where .A war in not won on the bases of one loss,]As many years that Europe warred among its self ,esp the three major powers,they would always return to the battlefield to resolve political disagreements.This war between to social/political sections of this country was not to be settled on one battlefield,if was to be a war of nutrition .This was demonstrated in the first year of the war.The civilian may protest and desire to quit but once engaged as Lincoln and Davis realized .the only result would be total surrender of either army Military history from the beginning of first wars has proven this.The civilian would
 
HISTORY is not based on IFs so this is a question that can be answered based on ones own prejudice or own research.There was no military strategy in any 'What If" . It would be like Wellington having a back up to Waterloo ,he possibly left the field and fought else where .A war in not won on the bases of one loss,]As many years that Europe warred among its self ,esp the three major powers,they would always return to the battlefield to resolve political disagreements.This war between to social/political sections of this country was not to be settled on one battlefield,if was to be a war of nutrition .This was demonstrated in the first year of the war.The civilian may protest and desire to quit but once engaged as Lincoln and Davis realized .the only result would be total surrender of either army Military history from the beginning of first wars has proven this.The civilian would demand reasons as to the reason of going to war without a victory.
 
Last edited:
Good points but European nations still allowed cash and carry arms sales to the Confederacy. The British though did prevent the sale of the Laird Rams to the Confederacy.
On the other hand France arguably violates the spirit of neutrality by allowing the CSS Florida to be in dry dock in Brest,France for several months not just a 72 hour stay. Brazil allowed the CSS Florida extra time at the port of Bahia. Commander Collins of the USA Washuestets then captured the CSS Florida despite being fired at by the Brazilian costal artillery and somehow not a shot hit the Waachusett or the Florida.
Neither France,Spain or the UK ever prevented Confederate blockade runners from using the ports in the Caribbean.
Leftyhunter
Leftyhunter
We're all aware of that. That is still short of what happened in the Revolution where France supplied money, arms and then sent soldiers and their fleet. That's what the Confederates wanted but never got.
 
If the type of defeat @JeffBrooks described happens in Pennsylvania, then that could lead to an armistice and independence. But the question supposes something that is very improbable. The Army of Potomac fighting in Pennsylvania, was not the army under Pope that was defeated in Virginia. The battle occurred in Pennsylvania not in Virginia. The US Army had a railroad connections close by.
Moreover, the Army of the Potomac, under Meade, probably could not be defeated in that manner. The army was much denser. The corps commanders were much more mutually supporting and the army's artillery power was a significant factor.
At Chanc. and in the Wilderness, the Army of the Potomac took a severe beating: but it was never disorganized and forced from the field.
By May of 1863 it was too late.
The victory would not dislodged Grant from Vicksburg and Rosecrans was already backing Bragg out of Tennessee.
Thus the victory in Pennsylvania, if it were to happen, holds Longstreet's command in Pennsylvania much longer. And Bragg has to give up considerable territory.
In addition Burnside was also available to reinforce the Army of the Potomac.
In the Civil War, armies of either side that were able to retreat to a railhead, never dissolved. Unless an army was completely cutoff from logistical support it recovered.
One Confederate army dissolved in Tennessee and Alabama, but it was late in 1864 and it took a long series of terrible defeats.
Lee's army dissolved in retreating from Petersburg and Richmond, but the situation was totally different than what existed in Pennsylvania in the summer of 1863.
 
We're all aware of that. That is still short of what happened in the Revolution where France supplied money, arms and then sent soldiers and their fleet. That's what the Confederates wanted but never got.
Very true. My point was simply the Confederacy was not going to get direct foreign government support but foreign governments for the most part were not going to restrict cash and carry arm sales. Also as in the case of the CSS Florida in France and the CSS Alabama in the British Colony of Australia both Confederate naval vessels were allowed to overstay their right to dock in a foreign port.
Leftyhunter
 
This was just one battle in a war that had witnessed many and would continue to witness more,To say that this would determine the final outcome would be to say that one scene in a play will revel the final act in a play that has many more scenes to be played to reach the final curtain.The true act would have been ; Confederacy defeats the Union army ,marches to Washington .however; Lincoln,the cabinet,and most to the government have departed the city,Grant has left the West with his army and is marching to Washington .Military history has shown that just one major loss will not result in surrender if that had been the case then the Confederacy should have ended the war at Manasse,Chancellorsville,Fredericksburg,along with any other Confederate victory up to this battle.You may finish the fable .The only one who would have known the outcome is FATE and on that day it favored the Union forces.
 
This was just one battle in a war that had witnessed many and would continue to witness more,To say that this would determine the final outcome would be to say that one scene in a play will revel the final act in a play that has many more scenes to be played to reach the final curtain.The true act would have been ; Confederacy defeats the Union army ,marches to Washington .however; Lincoln,the cabinet,and most to the government have departed the city,Grant has left the West with his army and is marching to Washington .Military history has shown that just one major loss will not result in surrender if that had been the case then the Confederacy should have ended the war at Manasse,Chancellorsville,Fredericksburg,along with any other Confederate victory up to this battle.You may finish the fable .The only one who would have known the outcome is FATE and on that day it favored the Union forces.

All Battles are not the same; the circumstances contained therein are different with regards to the strategic picture. In the event of a decisive Confederate victory, then yes, given the "Decisive" nature of the battle, we can expect a positive result.
 
Back
Top