- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Aftermath at Gettysburg
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:09 pm to kingbob
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:09 pm to kingbob
quote:
Congress was very split on supporting/opposing the war.
They really weren't. They were certainly divided over the question of slavery but there were few within Congress who were in favor of letting the South go independent.
quote:
Lincoln’s opponent in the upcoming election was running on a platform of peace.
If you actually read George McClellan's campaign platform you will find that he was not in favor of letting the South leave the Union. While he was all in favor of peace, it was peace on the Union's terms.
quote:
Lee’s army crushing the Union at Gettysburg and arriving at the gates of Washington to face a well-dug in but green Union army with those Western reinforcements months away, would likely force a treaty long before the Anaconda Plan could win.
They might have been green but they were still 40,000 in number and they were entrenched behind the most powerful defensive fortifications in the world at that particular point in time. Factor in the remnants of the Army of the Potomac and it is very likely Lee is outnumbered assaulting the defenses around Washington.
Also...about those Western reinforcements being "months away," you have to understand just how good the Northern railroad system was. They could have moved Grant's entire Army of the Tennessee from Mississippi to Maryland within a matter of weeks, not months.
0
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:30 pm to doubleb
quote:
Unless Lee destroyed Meade’s army he wasn’t going to lay siege to DC.
Sadly no matter how you slice it this is the truth.
The reason Grant's sieges worked so well was he had his opponents (Pemberton at Vicksburg/Lee at Petersburg) in a defense position and between him and the city.
If Lee is successful at Gettysburg (or bypasses it) and heads for DC, he is stuck between laying siege to the city in front of him and guarding his flank/rear from the remnants of the Army of the Potomac.
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:34 pm to Porter Osborne Jr
Ill buy that, but its not like they were keeping their good leaders back because they didn't think they'd need them.
To be clear, I dont think the south ever had a chance to "win" the war. That quote made it sound like the North was holding back half of their horsepower and had they lost at Gettysburg would have unleashed it all. Once the North got the momentum most of the south burned.
To be clear, I dont think the south ever had a chance to "win" the war. That quote made it sound like the North was holding back half of their horsepower and had they lost at Gettysburg would have unleashed it all. Once the North got the momentum most of the south burned.
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:38 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
In what manner did the North have a hand tied back?
In the spring of 1864 Harvard and Yale had their annual Crew race on the Charles River. 20,000 spectators -- mostly young military aged males -- showed up to watch.
A man drafted into the Union army could buy his way out for $100 or so. And the Union had enlistment offices popping up in Ireland. They could get an unlimited supply of men coming right off the boats.
The only thing holding the Union back was political will. The election of 1864. Once Lincoln won that election, the war was over. He could feed 1000 fresh men a day into the Army and still have men left over.
The South's only hope was that a string of victories in 1863 and 1864 (Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Richmond, Atlanta) would motivate voters to elect McClellan as the Peace Candidate in 1864.
When those victories didn't occur, Lincoln's win at the ballot box was assured, and that sealed the Confederacy's fate.
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:40 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
The only hope the South ever had was recognition and intervention for whatever reason by England and France or both. The breaking of the blockade and even direct intervention with ground troops.
The Trent Affair, if handled wrongly could have caused just such a scenario.
The Trent Affair, if handled wrongly could have caused just such a scenario.
This post was edited on 7/5/25 at 3:44 pm
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:41 pm to HeadSlash
quote:
South took a chance and it didn't pan out. With Vicksburg falling as well, it was over.
It was over before it started, South wasn't winning no matter what. The South put almost all their resources toward the effort, the North didn't put near as much and still steamrolled.
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:46 pm to kingbob
quote:
with those Western reinforcements months away,
They had railroads.
It’s awfully bold to think Washington would be captured. It was a heavily fortified major city.
Posted on 7/5/25 at 3:49 pm to greenbean
As I just mentioned,intervention by England and France over the Trent Affair would have been a scenario in which the South could have won the war.
The Union would have been hard pressed to fight those two powers and The Confederacy.
The Union would have been hard pressed to fight those two powers and The Confederacy.
This post was edited on 7/5/25 at 3:50 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News