Lee Doesn't Order Pickett's Charge

[Stryker65]

Would he have followed Longstreet's advice and allow him to attack the union far left?

I don't see much Lee could do without a shorter supply route

Don't know about that, but maybe take Longstreet's advice about getting between the AotP and Washington...

 

[rbasin]

Don't know about that, but maybe take Longstreet's advice about getting between the AotP and Washington...

Lee's supply line went west of Harper's ferry. Unless Lee could shorten it, it would have been a short campaign regardless of the battles outcome

 

[JerryD]

Were he to attack any point in the Union line, it would be disastrous. The Union left now had the 6th Corps supporting it, the Union center was...as we know it to be, and the Union left had been heavily reinforced.
Were he to retreat, it would not make any sense militarily, as Lee's army was not "broken" as it was after the charge. A retreat would cause loss of confidence in Lee, and (considering the rains to come) would be equally as disastrous as the actual retreat.

I dont see Lee losing the confidence of his troops that easily after so many successes in the prior 12 months.

 

[JerryD]

If Lee does not order Pickett to charge at Gettysburg, would it have been possible for the Confederates to win the battle. If they do win, and Lee asserts his dominance in the North after winning at Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, would the momentum have swung to the Confederates? Would if be possible for them to win the war?

The short and only correct answer is, we don't know and never will. There are just way too many variables to consider, especially when don't know what he would have done instead. We can talk about what his next best move was, which IMO was to consolidate his lines on Seminary Ridge and sit back for a day and wait for a Union attack. But no can predict even how that would have turned out.

The bigger problem is, Lee had an unsustainable supply line, so his invasion was always going to be merely a raid. He was destined to have to retreat at some point, and needed a cataclysmic victory in order to justify the invasion.

As to your larger question, would it be possible to win the war? The answer there is most likely no. The war was lost in the West, and nothing Lee could do was going to change the trajectory of the war in the west, IMO.

 

[Stryker65]

I dont see Lee losing the confidence of his troops that easily after so many successes in the prior 12 months.

I would think even more so, then -- they had established themselves as an "unbeatable" army, and a retreat would indicate a defeat.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I dont see Lee losing the confidence of his troops that easily after so many successes in the prior 12 months.

Few of them lost confidence in him for Pickett's Charge or the defeat at Gettysburg in general.

It raises the question at what point the ANV's faith in Lee became practically unshakeable. Probably Chancellorsville.

 

[rpkennedy]

Would he have followed Longstreet's advice and allow him to attack the union far left?

I don't see much Lee could do without a shorter supply route

I think the supply line is the key. After crossing into Pennsylvania, the AoNV was essentially living off of the land but was also at the end of a very long supply line which only got longer the further that they travelled into Pennsylvania. Living off the land means that the army can't stay in one place for too long otherwise it will denude the area in short order. Retreating into the mountain passes and taking a defensive position doesn't mitigate that fact.

The clock was ticking once Lee's invasion stopped moving and began to concentrate and, IMO, even if Lee doesn't order the attack on July 3, retreat had to be a serious consideration. That said, Lee loathed to give up the initiative and I have trouble believing that he wasn't going to take another shot to win a decisive victory.

Ryan

 

[wausaubob]

The short and only correct answer is, we don't know and never will. There are just way too many variables to consider, especially when don't know what he would have done instead. We can talk about what his next best move was, which IMO was to consolidate his lines on Seminary Ridge and sit back for a day and wait for a Union attack. But no can predict even how that would have turned out.

The bigger problem is, Lee had an unsustainable supply line, so his invasion was always going to be merely a raid. He was destined to have to retreat at some point, and needed a cataclysmic victory in order to justify the invasion.

As to your larger question, would it be possible to win the war? The answer there is most likely no. The war was lost in the West, and nothing Lee could do was going to change the trajectory of the war in the west, IMO.

By July 7 news of the fall of Vicksburg would have reached the eastern states. The Confederate surrender at Port Hudson, followed and it would take some time for the news to reach Memphis and the telegraph network. That is the problem that forced General Lee's hand on July 3. If Lee retreats he could very well have unconditionally resigned. He could have asserted the thing had been tried and our side has lost. More killing and dying would accomplish little.
Or maybe as Lee and Meade maneuver and spar, Grant, McPherson and Ord come east, with their divisions and a decisive battle takes place near Fort Darling in Virginia.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Would if be possible for them to win the war?

I'm going to focus only on this question - supposing a Confederate victory at Gettysburg, does the South win the Civil War?

Let's assume that Lee is victorious and forces the Army of the Potomac to retreat in some disarray to the south. Meade will certainly regroup along the Pipe Creek Line and protect the approaches to Washington City. In no realistic scenario is the Union army going to be destroyed or Washington City captured. That was simply not in the cards.

Lee would have had a short window of time to send out raiding parties through Pennsylvania, perhaps occupy Harrisburg briefly (if he can get across the Susquehanna River), and gather whatever supplies he can. Eventually, of course, he is going to have to get back to Virginia. The Union army will recover within a short amount of time and advance against Lee's supply line. It's also possible that a Union movement against Richmond might force Davis to recall Lee to defend the capital. I don't see Lee's men remaining in Pennsylvania beyond mid-September in any scenario.

But Lee's "invasion" of Pennsylvania was so obviously a raid, and not intending to conquer territory, that his withdrawal back to Virginia would not really be seen as a retreat. To the Northern public, the whole thing would look like a total disaster - yet another defeat at the hands of the invincible Lee, and on Northern soil, no less. The blow to popular support for the war would have been disastrous for the Lincoln administration and would spell serious trouble in terms of the upcoming 1864 election, on which everything depended.

Militarily, Lee and his army would settle back into Northern Virginia having the satisfaction of beating the Yankees yet again and probably much better supplied than they were historically. The Union army would have been in worse shape than it was historically, meaning there is little likelihood of any kind of summer offensive. We know from letters and diaries that the men of the Army of Northern Virginia were still confident when Grant launched his campaign in the spring of 1864; imagine how much better morale would have been after a successful Pennsylvania campaign. And they would have lost far fewer men, in any event.

Even with the historical Union victory at Gettysburg, we see the massive draft riots erupt in New York City that same month. If the Army of the Potomac was actually defeated, such civil disturbances might have been ever worse and taken place in more cities, as it would have added to the popular perception that the war was unwinnable and that draftees were simply going to be sent south to needless deaths.

We also have to consider the possibility that Union troops from other theaters would have to be sent to the East to reinforce the AotP (rather in the same manner that troops from the East were sent to the West after Chickamauga). This would raise questions about whether Chattanooga would still fall and possibly sets back the whole Atlanta Campaign.

All things considered, while a major Confederate victory at Gettysburg does not win the war by itself, it certainly places the Confederacy in a much better position to win the war in 1864.

 

[JeffBrooks]

Another possible consequence of a Confederate victory at Gettysburg just occurred to me.

In 1863, the Erlanger Bank in France made a deal with the Confederacy to issue bonds for the Confederate government, backed by cotton (specifically, the bonds would be redeemable for cotton when the war was over, if the Confederacy was victorious). Although high-risk, these bonds promised a high return on investment and ended up raising a fair amount of money for the Confederacy. The value of these bonds fluctuated with the public perception of the Confederacy's chances of success. Needless to say, the bonds became worthless when the Confederacy disintegrated at the end of the war.

If the Confederates won a clear victory at Gettysburg and ended the Pennsylvania Campaign successfully, the public perception in Europe would have seen an ultimate Confederate victory as more likely, and hence the value of the bonds would have been higher and the Confederate government would have been able to raise more money. This would have been of enormous value to the Confederate war effort.

As I always say, wars are won and lost on the floor of the bond market no less than the battlefield.

 

[rbasin]

Another possible consequence of a Confederate victory at Gettysburg just occurred to me.

In 1863, the Erlanger Bank in France made a deal with the Confederacy to issue bonds for the Confederate government, backed by cotton (specifically, the bonds would be redeemable for cotton when the war was over, if the Confederacy was victorious). Although high-risk, these bonds promised a high return on investment and ended up raising a fair amount of money for the Confederacy. The value of these bonds fluctuated with the public perception of the Confederacy's chances of success. Needless to say, the bonds became worthless when the Confederacy disintegrated at the end of the war.

If the Confederates won a clear victory at Gettysburg and ended the Pennsylvania Campaign successfully, the public perception in Europe would have seen an ultimate Confederate victory as more likely, and hence the value of the bonds would have been higher and the Confederate government would have been able to raise more money. This would have been of enormous value to the Confederate war effort.

As I always say, wars are won and lost on the floor of the bond market no less than the battlefield.

But what was a successful Pennsylvania campaign? One victory then running back to Virginia? Their supplies simply wasn't sustainable

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

But what was a successful Pennsylvania campaign? One victory then running back to Virginia? Their supplies simply wasn't sustainable

If Lee were to defeat the Army of the Potomac and drive them from the field, he would both claim a victory on northern soil, AND buy more time for foraging and raiding. You are correct that he only has so much supplies. But a victory where he controls the field probably means more captured supplies. If he drives the Union army south most likely towards Pipe Creek he can shift to the west, move his supply line to say Hagerstown instead of Chambersburg. This would shorten his supply line somewhat. I know on the retreat when they got to Williamsport that a supply column arrived and resupplied them around July 10th or so. Lee probably iniitially has enough food and ammunition for 3-4 days of combat max. If he gets to July 11th or 12th he probably can then do another 3-4 days of combat. As for food, if he shifts west and screens his supply line, he can send more raiders and foragers out, but I presonally don't think he can stay North of the Potomac much past the end of July MAX, and that's pushing things IMO.

 

[Scott1967]

As I always say, wars are won and lost on the floor of the bond market no less than the battlefield.

No wars are won by the side who had unlimited manpower in most cases.

A victory for Lee changes nothing except to dwindle the Souths already limited manpower something that cannot regenerate no matter the amount of money.

Just to add Vicksburg still falls , Inflation is rampant and the US Navy is still squeezing the life out of the Confederacy its a miracle they lasted another 21 months.

My opinion of course.

 

[JeffBrooks]

No wars are won by the side who had unlimited manpower in most cases.

Then why did Britain defeat France again and again throughout the 1600s and 1700s? France had a much vaster population than England did.

And if your first thought was about naval power, that just proves my point. Britain was only able to maintain its naval power vis-a-vis France because its financial institutions - a national bank, an effective bond market, limited liability corporations, and so forth - were so much more advanced than those of France.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

No wars are won by the side who had unlimited manpower in most cases.

A victory for Lee changes nothing except to dwindle the Souths already limited manpower something that cannot regenerate no matter the amount of money.

Just to add Vicksburg still falls , Inflation is rampant and the US Navy is still squeezing the life out of the Confederacy its a miracle they lasted another 21 months.

My opinion of course.

The south can't win a war of attrition, regardless if they set on the defensive OR launch offensive operations. They need to win politically, by causing Lincoln to lose the election of 64'. Winning a victory on Northern soil, would go a long ways to achieving that ends, regardless of them losing Vicksburg. Vicksburg was inevitable from May 63' on. The south wasted resources setting up an army of relief that was never used. Those troops could have been better used with Bragg or Lee's army.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Don't know about that, but maybe take Longstreet's advice about getting between the AotP and Washington...

Lee should have vacated the far left of his position and strengthened the right, just for starters, regardless of his otherwise changes.

 

[wausaubob]

Another possible consequence of a Confederate victory at Gettysburg just occurred to me.

In 1863, the Erlanger Bank in France made a deal with the Confederacy to issue bonds for the Confederate government, backed by cotton (specifically, the bonds would be redeemable for cotton when the war was over, if the Confederacy was victorious). Although high-risk, these bonds promised a high return on investment and ended up raising a fair amount of money for the Confederacy. The value of these bonds fluctuated with the public perception of the Confederacy's chances of success. Needless to say, the bonds became worthless when the Confederacy disintegrated at the end of the war.

If the Confederates won a clear victory at Gettysburg and ended the Pennsylvania Campaign successfully, the public perception in Europe would have seen an ultimate Confederate victory as more likely, and hence the value of the bonds would have been higher and the Confederate government would have been able to raise more money. This would have been of enormous value to the Confederate war effort.

As I always say, wars are won and lost on the floor of the bond market no less than the battlefield.

If the result at Gettysburg were as you suggest, Grant comes east immediately. Grant insists on a coordinated land and sea attack on Mobile. The army keeps a much tighter hold on Rosecrans once he reaches Chattanooga. The army would order him to fortify Chattanooga and resupply. Regardless of what happens in Pennsylvania, the combined effort at Charleston forces the Confederates to vacate battery Wagner. The result their would have resembled the fall of Fort Pulaski, accept the garrison might have been spared. There were reinforcements available from Mississippi once Vicksburg fell. In the scenario you have created, Grant almost certainly takes over immediately and the US advantage in combined arms would be fully exploited. Fun question though.

 

[jackt62]

Lee should have vacated the far left of his position and strengthened the right, just for starters, regardless of his otherwise changes.

There was some thought given by Lee to shift Ewell's Corps from the far left and bring it into closer alignment with Hill and Longstreet's Corps at Seminary Ridge. This would have the advantage of reducing the ANV's fragile outer lines and providing more combat power along a shorter front. This move didn't happen of course, as Lee remained committed to threatening the federal right flank in the hope of pinning down Slocum's Corp while the ANV's planned main assault occurred along the Emmitsburg Road. But in the end, Ewell's uncoordinated assaults at Culps and East Cemetary Hills did not produce the desired result.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

Lee should have vacated the far left of his position and strengthened the right, just for starters, regardless of his otherwise changes.

100% agree with you here. After Johnson is unable to take Culp's Hill the night of Day 1, Lee should have moved the entire Corps to the west side of the town. This would have allowed him to lengthen his right flank, possibly giving him more depth to envelope the Union left, and would have given him more depth in his echelon attack as it moved north. Lee had this on his mind, and initially it's what he ordered Ewell to do, then Ewell kept coming back with taking Culp's hill and close they were to taking it. After it failed the first night, Lee should have listened to his first inclination and moved the entire force.

 

[Wizard of Cozz]

If the result at Gettysburg were as you suggest, Grant comes east immediately. Grant insists on a coordinated land and sea attack on Mobile. The army keeps a much tighter hold on Rosecrans once he reaches Chattanooga. The army would order him to fortify Chattanooga and resupply. Regardless of what happens in Pennsylvania, the combined effort at Charleston forces the Confederates to vacate battery Wagner. The result their would have resembled the fall of Fort Pulaski, accept the garrison might have been spared. There were reinforcements available from Mississippi once Vicksburg fell. In the scenario you have created, Grant almost certainly takes over immediately and the US advantage in combined arms would be fully exploited. Fun question though.

Grant might have been brought East, and given command of the Army of the Potomac, I'm not convinced he gets overall command of all forces, without his victory at Chattanooga.