- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
Win percentage for the South 7/1863
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:16 am
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:16 am
What would it have been if the South had gone 2-0 or 1-1 over July 1-4, 1863?
This post was edited on 9/8/19 at 12:39 pm
15
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:17 am to pensacola
350
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:18 am to pensacola
They still would have lost. Grant was obliterating the Confederacy in the western states by July 1863. Vicksburg fell on 4 July 1863.
Whatever victories Lee would have scored would have been empty as his country was being hollowed out behind him.
Whatever victories Lee would have scored would have been empty as his country was being hollowed out behind him.
This post was edited on 9/8/19 at 11:20 am
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:21 am to pensacola
Time was not in the South's favor for another reason.
Repeating rifles. South had no factories to make them and Lincoln ordered their widespread adoption.
See Prussian war against Austria-Hungary
Repeating rifles. South had no factories to make them and Lincoln ordered their widespread adoption.
See Prussian war against Austria-Hungary
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:26 am to pensacola
quote:
1963
quote:
1863?
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:27 am to pensacola
Perhaps Kennedy would still be alive.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:28 am to GetCocky11
A victory there and then a march on the Capitol you could have seen a peace settlement
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:33 am to pensacola
quote:
2-0 or 1-1 over July 1-4, 1863?
Well, 2-0 in early July would have ended hostilities and resulted in a negotiated settlement.
And by 2-0 I mean: Grant's army surrounded, beaten, and surrendered during the Vicksburg campaign.
Lee crushing the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg, and laying seige to Washington.
That would have been an unlikely turn of events, but a blow that would have changed the political landscape dramatically.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:40 am to GetCocky11
It was over when the North enacted a draft. Without that it would have ended in a draw.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:56 am to mauser
The fact that the war last 4 years is a testament to the tenacity of the Confederacy and the skill of its military leaders.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 11:58 am to pensacola
Your title reads 1963. Very confusing.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 12:05 pm to pensacola
The only chance the South has was to follow stonewall’s advice and invade the North in a black flag war early on. Make the North see what was at stake. Davis and Lee wouldn’t do it.
Alternatively, Grant said in his memoirs that he felt if the South could have prolonged the war by one more year, that the North would have given up.
Alternatively, Grant said in his memoirs that he felt if the South could have prolonged the war by one more year, that the North would have given up.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 12:05 pm to pensacola
PIIHB
Posted on 9/8/19 at 12:06 pm to pensacola
Or, if Stonewall was alive for Gettysburg, I think the entire complexion of the war would have changed.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 12:40 pm to liz18lsu
1863, of course. Doh!
Posted on 9/8/19 at 1:43 pm to pensacola
Only chance the south would have had is if the Brits would have gotten involved. I believe they thought the would get involved eventually but they obviously didn’t.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 2:01 pm to Loungefly85
The brits had finally managed to get economical cotton from India and Egypt, so they didn’t need southern cotton anymore.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 3:47 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
They still would have lost. Grant was obliterating the Confederacy in the western states by July 1863. Vicksburg fell on 4 July 1863.
But Lee's whole strategy at Gettysburg was taking that into account. The war was not terribly popular in the North. A major Confederate victory deep in Union territory would have made a strong morale impact.
It may have also spurred more support from France ( which was overtly pro confederate) and even indirect support from Britain (which was economically supportive of the South).
In 1968-69, the US was defeating the VietCong/North Vietnam overwhelmingly by any military sense. The Tet offensive was an act of desperation (a la the Gettysburg campaign). The US pushed back and ended the enemy campaign successfully.
But the strategy was to defeat the US civilian morale and make them demand an end to the war. Nixon began a long term exit strategy immediately after. They won by losing (militarily).
There can only be speculation, but it is not remotely improbable that the Northern population would have demanded accommodation after a major defeat at Gettysburg.
Posted on 9/8/19 at 5:18 pm to Gr8t8s
quote:
Or, if Stonewall was alive for Gettysburg, I think the entire complexion of the war would have changed.
At least Gettysburg would have likely changed. Ewell didn't have the same understanding of "if practicable" that Jackson did. Jackson would have almost surely attacked Culp's hill if he had been there to get Lee's directive.
That said I don't think it would have changed the end result. To this day I think Lee chose to basically end the campaign one way or another with Pickett's charge. Especially if you have ever stood on the battlefield and looked up at the US position just the fact they breached the stone wall is amazing. Marching like they did up a indirect fire covered advance where the infantry defending it had cover and concealment took titanium balls. I honestly feel like Lee had grown weary and went for the all or nothing play.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News