Shelby Foote of all people said during the Burns documentary that the North fought with one hand tied behind its back and it would have brought out that other hand if things went badly.
Screw Lost Cause narratives, when you have a hostile neighbor back you against the wall, you're fighting to win.
The way it is done here is just downright silly. The question of what would have happened had the Pickett/Pettigrew assault not taken place or proved successful is a outgrowth of the Lost Cause.
All these people seem to overlook that decisive battles just weren't a thing Lee could ever get. Tactical victories didn't mean much, but they get obsessed with them
In this regard. Even if Lee had inflicted a significant defeat on the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg, would he then have redeployed his forces to drive US forces out of the Mississippi valley, or Memphis, etc.?
Or would he dashed his remaining strength against Washington DC's defenses?
I understand Lee's thinking here. If there was no chance of winning a decisive battle, it makes sense that Lee would push his resources to maintaining the pressure for as long as possible in the vicinity of Washington, Baltimore, and Philly.
That's exactly right. There was no battle of annihilation. Looking back on the war should make that perfectly clear. It also makes zero sense to speculate about this battle apart from the political situation in both the United States and Confederacy.
The political impact of Sherman taking Atlanta in 1864 was significantly more important than any battle in 1862-63, save for Antietam because of the proclamation.
It was less than 50 years after Waterloo, no wonder some commanders had this in their minds. Probably similar to us wishing that the Ukrainians performed maneuver warfare last year (with people recalling Desert Storm), when they didn’t have ingredients to do so.
Beyond that it's not clear that had Lee won that's he'd be in position to exploit it. Between the Harper's Ferry garrison and the Washington garrison the Union had troops at hand to make good their loses. Lee didn't. And his supply lines were dubious and he was short ammo after the battle.
You don’t think that if Lee took Longstreet’s advice and happened to get between Meade and Washington and sought battle on ground of lee’s choosing, there could have been One Battle to End Them All? Also, what if defeat at g’burg causes northern morale to slip and McClellan is elected?
Also note that Lee can't fight indefinitely in PA. His supply lines are tenuous and while he can forage for food that will slow him down and ammunition is a different story entirely.
It presents an interesting political situation if the principal army in the east is resoundingly defeated yet the other armies are still on the march (Vicksburg, tullahoma) & the blockade is still in place
Comments
Screw Lost Cause narratives, when you have a hostile neighbor back you against the wall, you're fighting to win.
Or would he dashed his remaining strength against Washington DC's defenses?
Assuming Grant doesn't have Lee pinned down at Petersburg, what would have changed with Sherman's campaign?
What I do know is that Vicksburg still surrenders.