Lee surrenders at Gettysburg

Brilliantlight · Apr 8, 2004

What if Lee surendered along with 80% of his remaining troops? Longstreet and Hill also surrender. How long could the Confederacy last after that?

Melvin Loh · Apr 8, 2004

When would Lee have surrendered post-Gettysburg ? Immediately after the 3rd day, or would there have needed to have been an active pursuit by the Army of the Potomac, as Lincoln desired, in order to wipe out the remnants of the ANV ? Had the ANV totally surrendered, wouldn't it be a case of Appomattox 2 yrs earlier ?

Brilliantlight · Apr 8, 2004

Melvin Loh said:
When would Lee have surrendered post-Gettysburg ? Immediately after the 3rd day, or would there have needed to have been an active pursuit by the Army of the Potomac, as Lincoln desired, in order to wipe out the remnants of the ANV ? Had the ANV totally surrendered, wouldn't it be a case of Appomattox 2 yrs earlier ?

Basically Meade is able to cut Lee's supply lines on the 3rd day and surrounds Lee just outside Gettysburg. Maybe the 3rd day is even more of a disaster for the South. In any case there is one major difference from Appomattox, namely that Sherman didn't march through the heart of the Confederacy so there could be some hope in the South that they may be able to hang on.

bill_bruno · Apr 8, 2004

Brilliantlight said:
Basically Meade is able to cut Lee's supply lines on the 3rd day and surrounds Lee just outside Gettysburg. Maybe the 3rd day is even more of a disaster for the South. In any case there is one major difference from Appomattox, namely that Sherman didn't march through the heart of the Confederacy so there could be some hope in the South that they may be able to hang on.

Remember that such a surrender would take place at the same time as Vicksburg. That might break the South. Southern morale wouldn't survive Meade's marching virtually unopposed into Richmond. Perhaps the emergency diversion of troops from the West means there's no concentration at Chickamauga and nothing stopping Rosecrans from marching to Atlanta by the end of 1863.

What would this do to Grant's shot at the Presidency. Meade was born in Spain so he can't run.

Brilliantlight · Apr 8, 2004

bill_bruno said:
Remember that such a surrender would take place at the same time as Vicksburg. That might break the South. Southern morale wouldn't survive Meade's marching virtually unopposed into Richmond. Perhaps the emergency diversion of troops from the West means there's no concentration at Chickamauga and nothing stopping Rosecrans from marching to Atlanta by the end of 1863.

What would this do to Grant's shot at the Presidency. Meade was born in Spain so he can't run.

I know. I doubt the South would last more then 6 months, if that. Meade would be booming down on Richmond, Sherman (or very likely Grant) would have an even easier time marching through the Confederacy while he is racing Rosecrans to get to Atlanta first. Another important factor is Lee's surrender would be devestating to Southern morale. He was already considered a hero by most Southerners and even if the Confederacy was able to scrape up some troops to field against Meade, Meade's reputation would have been such as to make the soldiers nervous to taking him on.

robertp6165 · Apr 9, 2004

Brilliantlight said:
Basically Meade is able to cut Lee's supply lines on the 3rd day and surrounds Lee just outside Gettysburg. Maybe the 3rd day is even more of a disaster for the South. In any case there is one major difference from Appomattox, namely that Sherman didn't march through the heart of the Confederacy so there could be some hope in the South that they may be able to hang on.

I think a better POD might be if Meade attacks when Lee's Army is halted for several days on the north bank of the Potomac River during his retreat from Gettysburg. Assuming the Union forces are victorious in that engagement, Lee would almost certainly be left with no option but surrender.

I agree that the destruction or surrender of Lee's army in the aftermath of Gettysburg might not be the end of the Confederacy, at least not immediately. If Meade followed up the victory aggressively, he will almost certainly capture Richmond. But the Confederate government will have some warning of this (from the northern newspapers if nothing else) and will be able to relocate further South, to Atlanta, perhaps. So capturing Richmond, while certainly damaging, might not be the decisive blow in this scenario that it turned out to be in 1865.

Some interesting possibilities do open up...will the Confederates decide to arm the slaves in mid-1863 instead of early 1865? Will Jefferson Davis...now without the influence of Lee to prevent it...disband the formal Confederate armed forces and declare a guerilla war instead, as he attempted to do in 1865? I think both of these scenarios quite likely, given this POD.

Brilliantlight · Apr 9, 2004

robertp6165 said:
Some interesting possibilities do open up...will the Confederates decide to arm the slaves in mid-1863 instead of early 1865? Will Jefferson Davis...now without the influence of Lee to prevent it...disband the formal Confederate armed forces and declare a guerilla war instead, as he attempted to do in 1865? I think both of these scenarios quite likely, given this POD.

Armed slaves never actually fought for the South in the Civil War , they were just taking the first steps to do so. It would have been very difficult to do in 1863, particularly after Lee is a POW because it passed largely because Lee pushed for it. I'm not sure if a guerilla war would work. If I were Lincoln I would make it policy that in any reagion that there is a guerilla war the Union army rounds up all the people in the region and ship them to Alaska. That would probably end it pretty quickly.

David Howery · Apr 9, 2004

Did we own Alaska during the ACW? Maybe he could threaten to send them to the middle of Arizona instead....

Brilliantlight · Apr 9, 2004

David Howery said:
Did we own Alaska during the ACW? Maybe he could threaten to send them to the middle of Arizona instead....

Sorry my mistake, it was in 1867. Arizona would work too.

robertp6165 · Apr 10, 2004

Brilliantlight said:
Armed slaves never actually fought for the South in the Civil War , they were just taking the first steps to do so.

Well, that may or may not be true. There is an eyewitness account of a unit of black Confederates who were overwhelmed by Union cavalry while defending a Confederate wagon train at Amelia Courthouse on April 6, 1865. According to the account, the black troops were charged by Union cavalry, and let off a volley, "fired like veterans," and drove the cavalry off. The cavalry reformed, charged again, and this time over-ran the position. There were apparently no survivors. And there were a small number of black soldiers who surrendered with Lee's army at Appomattox. So they were there. In small numbers, but there.

Brilliantlight said:
It would have been very difficult to do in 1863, particularly after Lee is a POW because it passed largely because Lee pushed for it.

Well, there was already an organized movement going on in the South, centered in the Gulf States, to do that by July 1863. And if Lee's army is suddenly blotted off the map, the shock of that is going to make the Confederates consider DRASTIC alternatives. Even arming the slaves.

Brilliantlight said:
I'm not sure if a guerilla war would work. If I were Lincoln I would make it policy that in any reagion that there is a guerilla war the Union army rounds up all the people in the region and ship them to Alaska. That would probably end it pretty quickly.

Well, I didn't say the guerilla war would work. But it would certainly be an option Jefferson Davis would consider, when you remember that he actually did declare a guerilla war in the aftermath of Lee's surrender in 1865, and it was largely Lee's influence that prevented that from happening. If that happened in 1863, it is more likely that Davis's wishes would be heeded by the Confederate army, and the war would get much, much nastier in a hurry. Picture what was going on in Kansas and Missouri...spread over the whole South and even parts of the North. Bad news.

Brilliantlight · Apr 10, 2004

Well, that may or may not be true. There is an eyewitness account of a unit of black Confederates who were overwhelmed by Union cavalry while defending a Confederate wagon train at Amelia Courthouse on April 6, 1865. According to the account, the black troops were charged by Union cavalry, and let off a volley, "fired like veterans," and drove the cavalry off. The cavalry reformed, charged again, and this time over-ran the position. There were apparently no survivors. And there were a small number of black soldiers who surrendered with Lee's army at Appomattox. So they were there. In small numbers, but there.

>One account let's say I have severe doubts.

Well, there was already an organized movement going on in the South, centered in the Gulf States, to do that by July 1863. And if Lee's army is suddenly blotted off the map, the shock of that is going to make the Confederates consider DRASTIC alternatives. Even arming the slaves.
> Not much of one, you can get a certain number of people to organize on ANYTHING. It was tiny. Hell, there were people in the South that wanted to free slaves as much as any Northern abolitionist. They were a tiny group but there were some.

Well, I didn't say the guerilla war would work. But it would certainly be an option Jefferson Davis would consider, when you remember that he actually did declare a guerilla war in the aftermath of Lee's surrender in 1865, and it was largely Lee's influence that prevented that from happening. If that happened in 1863, it is more likely that Davis's wishes would be heeded by the Confederate army, and the war would get much, much nastier in a hurry. Picture what was going on in Kansas and Missouri...spread over the whole South and even parts of the North. Bad news.

> In the long run even worse for Southerners. I am serious when I say I would ship to some God forsaken piece of land if necessary.