I don’t think it would have changed the outcome. Everyone seems to forget that the union took Vicksburg on the same day. Vicksburg is a much more strategic city.
What if the south had won at Gettysburg? We probably would not be as concerned with that battle as we are. If the south was going to win at Gettysburg it would have had to do it on the first day. On the first day the south had the advantage of numbers, position, and of momentum. The failure of the attacks on the second day were contributed to by federal troops still coming up from Maryland and being snatched by Governor Kimble Warren to defend Little Round Top. By the third day too much of the federal army is on site for the Confederates to succeed. If the Confederates had gained the high ground of Cemetery Ridge on the first day Meade already had a position prepared in Maryland along Pipe Creek where the defeated portion of the Union forces could retreat to and be reinforced. Further reinforcements were available from Washington, D.C. if needed. Lee would then have had three choices. He could have continued north but that would have left the Army of the Potomac in his rear. He could have turned south and attacked the consolidated Union army in the Pipe Creek defenses where he would be at a disadvantage in both numbers and position. Thirdly, he could have attempted to retreat behind South Mountain and return to Virginia without further engaging the union army which would have probably have been his best choice. Meade could have attempted to cut him off before he reached the Potomac but probably would not have succeeded. In any of these scenarios Gettysburg would not have near the relevance it does the way it occurred.
No change. Lee won lots of battles but never destroyed the Federal army. Washington was well fortified and defeat at Gettysburg would just have led to it falling back within them and building up again there.
Lee’s invasion of Pennsylvania was a desperation move. Lee’s army had defeated inept Union generals on it’s home turf. But none of the Union invasions had been destroyed. Rather the Union forces retreated back to Washington DC. President Jefferson Davis understood if Lincoln was reelected the Confederacy would lose their bid for independence
The CSA army really lacked the resources to pull off a viable invasion of the northern states to perhaps taking cities such as Baltimore, Washington DC, and Philidelphia.
A bit nit-picky, but an error that bugs me quite a bit: the video confuses casualties and deaths. Gettysburg did not "claim the lives" of over 51,000 people. The actual number of fatalities is about 7000. The rest of the 51,000 are wounded or captured.
That's True, and I understand the frustration. Just one thing: Some of those counted as wounded were mortally wounded, and didn't survive their wounds. Others were put out of action permanently by amputations, and other kinds of serious wounds.
A wargaming channel (Mark's Game Room) wargamed the Hood swings south scenario. Hood is quite effective but it takes too long to get in position to be decisive. The vid was very good. They do it in Gettysburgh and dirve the routes involved with umpires that decide on the movment timings.
You forget that Lee tried a desperate frontal attack at Malvern Hill during the Peninsular campaign of June 1862 against a prepared Union position not unlike Gettysburg... and lost over 3000 men in less than a hour! It was something he repeated on the third day at Gettysburg.
Points about Little Round Top - if the Confederates had taken it, the Union likely would have taken it back with the 5th, and then the 6th Corps. They had reinforcements nearby, and the Confederates did not. Little Round Top was not a great artillery platform, the Union did get one battery up there, which was effective on the 3rd against Pickett's charge, but Confederate guns could not have fired on the rest of the Union lines. LRT was key for some of the reasons you said, anchoring the flank, protecting the Taneytown Rd, but it's capture would not have won the battle on it's own for the Confederates.
If the North lost, and the country did eventually divide, would the reduced USA have been in a political position to buy Alaska from Russia? In today's political climate, having Russia on it's doorstep would be an "interesting" situation.
USA Today would have its act together meaning a robust manufacturing sector, thriving shipyards, a far reaching military draft, barely any non-military spending, minimal debt, and protectionist trade practices, etc.
A key factor in the second day's battle on Little Round Top and Culp's Hill was the absence of the Confederate cavalry under Jeb Stuart until the third day. Hannibal had cavalry. Lee did not.
newt's fantasy-history even accepts the fact that Lee would have been destroyed by the other union armies that were within a 2-day march of G'burg if anything, one more "victory" in Pa, and the South would have been down to eating their horses
Lee was losing by attrition. Win the battle but lose to many troops to continue as he was. Using up his means to fight over the long run. Two more weeks of Vietnam and North Vietnam was about to negotiate according to one of their top generals.
If I'm not mistaken the confederacy did not believe in a strong central government and that they're federal government was subservient to that of the states. It is known at the time that some individual states hoarded supplies and were reluctant to share with other southern states. So if they had become a nation would they have been able to maintain a union
The reason why Mead did not go after Lee on the 4 July was the Army of the Potomac was in just as bad shape as Lee's Army of Northern Virginia. As for Hood's attack, he wanted to make Longstreet did not have his whole corp up. Picketts division was guarding the wagon train. Pickett did not make it up until that evening
Which is also part of why the pursuit wasn't as quick/decisive as Lincoln wished. Add in the weather. Lee's defenses at Williamsport were very formidable, attacking them could very well have been disastrous for the Union. I enjoyed this video, but they parrot a lot of talking points that have been challenged and discounted.
The real problem that command had was that the strategy and tactics they were taught were out dated by the technology they were employing on the battlefield. This happens a lot in military history.
A better question would be what if the South had an overwhelming victory Antietam or if Lee’s special order 191 was not lost. This battle was the end of South’s chance for victory not that had really had a chance
Thanks for another great video. Two comments 1 Surely Lee's problem was caused by his letting Stuart go on his ride roung the Union Army plus his failure to use the cavalry with the main army to recconnoitre so the meeting engagement on the 1st was not planned? 2 Longstreet seems to have suggested moving round the Union left on 2nd July and then taking a position and awaiting an attack. I can't see this as a practicable operation. It wound have meant breaking conact and then moving into enemy ground with no way to find out what was ahead and Lee's army could not hold a position for long because they would not have been abale to forage. I would welcome nay thoughts on this argument.
General Lee was best when he was on the defense. On July 3rd, General Lee should have backtracked towards Washington D.C., fighting a defensive battle all the way since the Confederate Army would have been situated between Meade and the Capital. The Army of Potomac would probably have been destroyed with the South occupying Washington D.C. Maryland might have also then succeeded. (PS - What would have happened if the South had not attacked Fort Sumter?)
Some viewers when a guest expresses a view that runs against the Commonly Accepted Historical Narrative™ on a show which is dedicated to alternative history: ☝️😡
Just off hand, I think it is the 9th (or is it the 10th) amendment that clarifies the rights of the states vs the Federal governemnt; namely those power not specifically given to the Federal government are reserved to the states.
Having someone perpetuate more than one Lost Cause myth really tarnishes the credibility of this show. I mean to start the show with “states rights” the same week you uploaded a video dispelling that racist myth shows incredible carelessness and disrespect
….to completely discredit states rights as a reason to is simply turn a blind eye on actual historical fact. The truth is states rights, and with it… the right to keep slaves where major reasons as where the burgeoning industrial power of the north….
I heard no mention of the calvary battle 5 miles east of Gettysburg. It has been hypothesized that Lee wanted Stewart to attack the Union center's rear when he heard the canon bombardment. Custer and his Wolverines and others stopped Stewart cold. I believe "Old Snapping Turtle's" Army may have been sliced in two if Stewart's 5000 cavalry broke through. Any thoughts?
Sorry to nitpick- it is Stuart not Stewart. Yes Custer was there but he was competent-not spectacular. I think Lee saw Jeb Stuart's role as a mopping up exercise after a victorious "Pickett's charge and breakthrough the Federal centre. That didn't happen of course. If the Confederate cavalry had been victorious they would have had a hard time against unbroken infantry and steady deployed artillery batteries. A breakthrough by Pickett would have demoralised the Federals and led to routing units- easy pickings for cavalry.
It could have actually been worse for the Confederates had Lee won Gettysburg. With an additional corps (22nd) in Washington and the Pipe Creek line established, I doubt he would have gone too much farther. But Vicksburg would be gone, and what would have happened with the Chickamauga Campaign with Longstreet tied up with Lee? Atlanta may have fallen even earlier without Longstreet's troops. I suppose it depends on the status of the AotP and AoNV, and whether the Confederate victory was too Pyrrhic or not, but it may have actually been worse for the Confederacy had Lee "won".
@@scottpankonin1068 I grew up in Maryland. At least when I was there some Marylanders would consider themselves "southern," but most would have consider themselves Union all the way all the time.
@andywomack3414 incorrect The line was clearly demarcated and ran almost perfectly straight between Washington and Baltimore. All areas north and west (eg Montgomery, Frederick, Carrol) were Union. Anything south of Washington or near the Chesapeake was pro southern. Exceptions always exist but this was the rule. It was nearly 50-50.
One of the best visual descriptions of the actions leading up to the battles and the lost opportunities for the Confederate Forces I've ever seen. Great explanations by both of your experts as to the positions of both Army's leading up to the actual battle. Well done!!
I don't see this one but how about if general Lee commanded the North. He couldn't have believed that the South had any chance. it would have been more merciful to have made quick work of the South
General Winfield Scott was well aware off Lees talent from his Mexican campaign and did all he could to enlist Lee to command The Northern forces But he failed due to Lees strong love and commitment to his Native State of Virginia For an in depth narrative of this issue check out Robert E Lee A Life by Allan C Guelzo
Possible future topic: what if the U.S. had demanded Canada and all British Colonies in the Atlantic/Carribean as payment or Lend Lease? Maybe Australia and the rest of the Pacific holdings as well?
I would question as to whether the Western theater trans Appalachia, was just as significant a theater....here the North pretty much had its way...and by early 1862 was already in Northern Mississippi, had New Orleans, took Missouri out of the fight, and controlled western Tennessee, soon to control all of Tennessee (and KY)....
If Jackson were still alive, Lee would not have restructured the ANV into 3 Corps meaning the position of troops would have been very different. There's no telling where Jackson's Corps would have arrived from and when. This comes up a lot but too many variables to give it credibility.
Much has been said about why didn't RELee agree to shift to the south and get between the blues and Washington. But no computer game of this battle makes that an option. They don't leave enough room or time in the southern edge of the map to try it out. Or is there?
Such a shift would have exposed Lee's supply trains, captured livestock, etc. His supply lines ran back though South Mountain range to Chambersburg. Union cavalry would have exposed such a move (without Stuart to screen), and Meade could have struck Lee and split the army in two.
@@mattmang07 Southerners. The two sides adopted different names for many of these battles. The Southerners typically named a battle after the nearest town, and the enemy usually named it after the nearest body of water-i.e. Manassas/Bull Run, Olustee/Ocean Pond, &c.
it wasnt about states right unless you say its about states rights to have slaves. as near every southern state that succeed said so in their succession papers
“The whole system was decaying very rapidly.” The largest and most substantial capital investment in the US at that time was the investment in slaves, and that investment was almost entirely localized in the Southern states. It outpaced the cost of all railroads, factories, and shipping interests combined. The value of individual slaves had never been higher. The institution wasn’t dying, it had never been stronger. By the late 1850s, slaves were being introduced into mines, factories, in addition to agriculture. There’s no reason to believe that if slaves had been removed from commercial agriculture, they wouldn’t have been moved into industry, or any other workforce where menial labor dominates.
