Could they had taken the capitol if Gettysburg had been won and was it part of their plan? Or if Gettysburg had been won, would they've changed their initial plan of invading the north, by attacking DC?
I know Gettysburg wasn't planned, it kinda just happened but were they on their way to Washington or where the heck were they going?
Could they have taken the Capitol? Probably, although I always say that there are too many variables for us to ever know. But if you listen to the opening narration, the basic concept of the entire Confederate campaign was to destroy the Army of the Potomac somewhere north of Washington so that there would be no other substantial Union force in the way to stop them from taking it.
shareAnd that they wanted to remove the main skirmishes out of Virginia. So, in your words, MadTom, I'm reading the AofP had a goal to take D.C., thusly ending the war.
shareIMO no, they couldn't have taken the capitol. DC was surrounded by forts, IIRC there were still 50,000 troops stationed there, and most likely the remnants of the AoP would have retreated SE to the DC area.
However, politically it's likely the North would have lost the war following a G'burg loss. Although Vicksburg would surrender the next day (7-4) the "real war" (ie, newspaper war) was always in the east. Possibly the news (which would have reached London prior to the Vicksburg news by a day or so) would have been enough to have caused British and French intervention. Even had the war continued, the possibility of war weariness and Lincoln's loss to McClelland (or another "end the war" candidate) can't be overlooked.
As for the real campaign, Lee wanted to draw the AoP out into the open, circle around between it and Washington and force it to attack... something which Longstreet kept urging but Lee "with his dander up" wouldn't do.
***
Don't aim for the towers. Aim for the trolls! KILL THE TROLLS!!!
So, if they couldn't taken the capitol, the aim must've been to destroy or minimize the AofP so the north would've caved in, lost the will to fight, have the newspapers against the war and get the French and English to negotiate a peace which would've insured the South of its existence as the Confederate states.
So, a victory at Gettysburg or any other place by the south, would've won the war. In other words, IMO, Lee underestimated the political importance of a win in the north and chose to fight there, even though the battlefield was not to his advantage after the first day of its arrival at Gettysburg ("I didn't choose this site of battle but since I'm here, I'm gonna fight) Seems to me he made not just a strategic mistake, but a political mistake by fighting there.
Could they have? Possibly, although it would have likely been a bloody affair for them. DC was well defended. If I remember correctly, there were 30-40 thousand federal troops around Washington, and they were behind fortifications with plenty of artillery. And DC could be resupplied and reinforced by Water. So imo, its highly unlikely that Lee could have taken Richmond, but it was possible.
shareUnlikely. Especially since they probably couldn't have won Gettysburg without significant damage. Even with a fresh ANV Washington was well defended and would have been tough to take, with a tired and battered army probably would have been nearly impossible.
Bottom line is, conducting a defensive campaign against superior numbers is one thing the South did this successfully for quite awhile before they started to ware down, but invading the territory of a numerically superior enemy is a tall order regardless of who you are. Odds just aren't good of it being successful.
Yeah...I am going to go with 'not likely' also.
I mean...unless Meade's Potomac Army was completely and utterly destroyed at Gettysburg and the south experienced statistically unprecedented success against the military district of Washington defenders (with European help?)...then it all comes down to a siege on the outskirts until Grant can swing around and threaten/take Richmond.
On November 6, 2012...God blessed America
"...until Grant can swing around and threaten/take Richmond."
I didn't even think about that. One day after the (real) battle and now there're ~70,000 fresh Union troops who've sat on their duff for a month-and-a-half who could be transported by boat and rail to the vicinity of D.C. and/or Philadelphia and cut off Lee's escape and attack him from behind.
***
Don't aim for the towers. Aim for the trolls! KILL THE TROLLS!!!
70,000 fresh Union troops who've sat on their duff for a month-and-a-half who could be transported by boat and rail to the vicinity of D.C. and/or Philadelphia and cut off Lee's escape and attack him from behind.Yeah, that's a good point. With Washington on the Potomac River, Ports and Annapolis and Baltimore, D.C. would be quite reinforceable by sea-deploying Grant's troops.
The defensive circle around Washington was a circumference of more than 37 miles. The South had no real ability to stop Washington from being supplied from the water. From the Confederate perspective, they would have been well aware that the Union troops around Vicksburg had only a circumference of about 12 miles to put that city under siege and the Union had the benefit of land and river attacks.
Consider that Lee's army was slightly smaller than Grant's forces at Vicksburg and it would have been very difficult to see how Lee and Longstreet would view an attack on Washington as creating favorable odds with limited ability to stop the city from being resupplied.
Had Lee triumphed in the Gettysburg campaign, it is impossible to know what he would have done because of the unknown variable of the size of his army and the remaining fighting strength of the Army of the Potomac. However, I don't think it would have made military sense for him to attack Washington as he could have achieved his objectives without Washington.
In terms of the British and French, most Americans are likely not aware that Britain was "linked" to an assassination attempt on Napoleon III in the late 1850's. As a result, there was a great distrust between the two and a concern that yet another war between Britain and France would occur. It is highly unlikely the two sides would have aligned militarily to assist the South. If the European powers had a role it would have been to broker a Peace Treaty, not actively take up arms.
I would have to also assume that, following a defeat at Gettysburg the AoP would have fallen back on their (initially) intended Pipe Creek line and fought there ("if practicable") then fallen back again... that assuming that Lee could have sustained the offensive. In other words, it would have been the Wilderness to Petersburg only with the roles reversed. The AoNV never could have sustained the losses IMO... Grant lost 50,000 men in May-June '64 but could replace them; Lee lost around 30,000 (killed, wounded, captured) and couldn't. So many assumptions and speculations one has to make to even begin to answer the OP's question.
***
Don't aim for the towers. Aim for the trolls! KILL THE TROLLS!!!
One year later Jubal Early threatened DC. It had weak defenses, but reinforcements arrived in time. He was repulsed at the Battle of Fort Stevens, where Lincoln observed and came under Confederate fire.
shareI wonder if NYC was a possibility destination if the south won at Gettysburg.
shareIf New York City was as big as it is today I can't see the south being able to kill everybody there.
"You want me to roll 6,000 of these!? What? Should I quit my job!?" George Costanza, Seinfeld
NYC had no military or political value. D.C. did. Capture/kill he head, the body dies
shareI wouldn't say NY has no political or military value. Capturing the largest Union City would certainly be of some political value. It would impress European governments as well as dishearten the Yankees. And the port and ship building facilities would be of some military value.
That being said, taking New York would have been risky as the Southern Army moved further away from its base, perhaps allowing the Union to place enough forces between Lee and Virginia to make it difficult to get back. And since New York is essentially an Island, trapping the Confederate army there is not out of the question.
So while I wouldn't say there is no value in taking NYC, I would say the value gained was not worth the military risk.
As a New Yorker, even though its 151 years ago, the confederate army would've gotten its ass kicked.
The only way to take Manhattan would be from the north. The confederate army couldn't of taken it by ship. NY was too far away and the south wouldn't of risked going so deep into the north, IMO.
They wanted to give Lincoln the letter with the peace treaty after they'd beating the army of the Potomac afaik. Could they have taken Washington DC? Maybe, but even if they had won at Gettysburg they would've suffered massive casualties because they attacked a dug in army that had the high ground. No idea how much troops were there to defend Washington though.
shareThe one thing to remember is that following the 7/3 fighting, the ANV was nearly out of artillery ammo. Assuming they had split the Union lines and forced the northern fragment into retreat east along the Baltimore Pike and the southern portion away south, it's still a major question of having the means to pursue either one or the other, or even more difficult, both. Resupply would have been extremely difficult; meanwhile the Federals would have moving toward supplies and fortifications.
As mentioned, Lee had a paper to lay on Lincoln's desk suing for peace; so far Lincoln had refused to even recognize the Confederate government and it's unlikely he would have accepted this peace proposal.
I agree with the earlier poster who said that the CSA's only hope of winning was foreign intervention or the '64 election (most likely the latter.) After the Emancipation Proclamation, I just don't see the European powers getting involved, and wisely so since France was to get its arse handed to it by the Prussian army in less than a decade.
Do you hate me because I have no avatar? Do you even give a damn?
It is theoretically possible but very, VERY improbable. First, it would have required Lee to not just defeat the Union army in his front at Gettysburg, but to destroy it and eliminate it as a factor for an extended period. Then, possibly, he could have force-marched his own (exhausted) army to Washington and attacked. The problem is that Washington was, by this time, ringed with forts manned by a fairly large army detachment backed by heavy artillery. Even with the destruction of the Army of the Potomac, reinforcements (at least several thousand from points along the Atlantic Coast) also could have been brought into the city rapidly by naval transport and the guns of naval ships could have been brought in to supplement the ample heavy artillery already there. Pickett's charge showed the difficulty of attacking an entrenched enemy over open ground so this would have been a heck of a hard nut to crack for Lee, especially given the fact that his army would necessarily have to be exhausted and short on ammunition and manpower (due what would have to be expended at Gettysburg and on the march to DC) at the start of such an attack.
FYI, if you are curious about how such an attack could have occurred (and one man's theory on how it might have turned out), read Newt Gingrich's alternate history trilogy that starts with the book "Gettysburg". It not only gives a plausible scenario by which Lee could have won the Battle of Gettysburg, but it also outlines how that victory could have led to an assault on Washington DC.
It took the much larger AoP two months to fight its way from The Wilderness to Petersburg, then a 10 months siege with the Union factories providing Grant's army everything it needed and then some. Lee may have reached DC (which may have been enough for a political victory) but IMO he never would have taken it.
Possibly, if Lee had been able (or willing) to detach himself from fighting and swung the ANV north in 1864 (say, right after the Wilderness), since Grant had pulled most of the "heavies" (heavy artillery units) out and made them foot soldiers, maybe Lee could have invested the city... just before the AoP arrived to force them back.
This might have been enough to seal Lincoln's defeat in November. I think it would have taken the "Guns of the South" to have accomplished this.
The UNITED States of America. July 4, 1776-June 26, 2015.
RIP.
Agree on all points. I think Lee could have approached Washington and put on enough of a show to scare some politicians, but taking the city... even briefly... would have required far more than the Army of Northern Virginia would have been capable of. I suspect that, at most, it could have been something like Early's raid of the following year: Some skirmishing on the city's outskirts resulting in fear that was far greater than the actual danger. The real impact... if there was to be any impact... of a Confederate victory at Gettysburg would have been in the political and diplomatic spectacle of a rebel army occupying Philadelphia or Baltimore for a few days. Lee would never have been able to stay long, lest he risk Union forces closing in behind him and cutting off his retreat, but he could have changed some opinions on the war, both domestically and internationally that might... MIGHT... have had a wider impact on events that followed.
shareI think the whole march onto Northern soil by the AoNV was a bluff on the part of Lee and the South, intended to frighten the Washington politicians into surrender. Lee cut his army off from its supplies, and knew it could operate in Pennsylvania only a short while. It was a psychological move, with no real hope of military victory. When Meade called Lee's bluff at Gettysburg, the jig was up. Longstreet was right. Lee couldn't win the battle, and the only hope was to disengage and continue with the bluff, by moving toward Washington, hoping for a settlement. But it would not have worked, not with the Army of the Potomac at Lee's rear.
In the final analysis, the entire Civil War was a defensive war for the South. Moving into Northern territory was just so much "sabre-rattling."
I agree Greenleafie. The main reason Lee's army had been successful for the most part before then was most of the battles were in Southern States where all the commanders knew the ground and knew where the good ground was. Of course there's also the fact Jackson had died. Had Jackson been there and told Lee what Longstreet said he would've listened to him. There's also the fact that Lee's commanders didn't believe Longstreet's spy. Spies were despised back then. And of course Stuart not getting back to tell Lee about where the federals were.
Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw
The only hope the South ever had of winning the war was, for Great Britain or some other military power to join with them, just as France had aided the American colonists in the Revolutionary War. England had a big interest in Southern textiles- cotton and such- and would have liked to see them win, but as Longstreet pointed out, Britons would never openly ally themselves with a country that kept human beings as slaves.
Another reason the South did as well as it did, during the first half of the war, was, it had superior military leadership. Many Southern gentlemen attended West Point, because of the stature it gave them in aristocratic Southern society. An officer in uniform was always welcome at Southern social gatherings. The men in the North cared little for that, and were involved in industrial matters, so far fewer of them went to the military Academy. For a long time, the Northern armies suffered with officers who had no real military training. Businessmen and politicians used their influence to secure commissions for themselves in the Federal army, but when it came to fighting battles, they didn't know what they were doing. It took Lincoln a couple of years to find out who his best officers were, and put them to good use.
Agree that spies were despised. However, good Virginians who fed information to Confederate high command regarding Union movements and intentions were very much beloved. I think a much underrated cause of Lee's poor performance in Pennsylvania... the campaign and the battle simply weren't handled with the usual Lee alacrity... was the fact that the "locals" were NOT doing everything in their power to keep Lee informed as would typically be happening in Virginia. Much is made of Stuart getting separated from Lee (and it WAS a big deal), but I submit that, even had Stuart stayed closer to Lee's army, I doubt he would have been able to accumulate the usual quality and quantity of intelligence that he obtained in Virginia. As such, the end result might not have been all that different.
shareI believe their plan was to turn East and go for Philadelphia --- NOT a whole lot of Union Troops going NE of Gettysburg and toward Philly
share