What Lee was looking for by going North was not so much to lift the siege of Vicksburg, which was well under way, but to cause forces from the west to have to come east after a disaister to the AOP. This would have reduced pressure on the west and a possible reacpture of Vicksburg, etc. Vicksburg was dead to the Confederacy the day Jefferson Davis overroad the orders of Johnston....Johnston wanted Pemberton out of Vicksburg and fighting a war of maneuver....Davis insisted on Pemberton holding the city. As for the what if of Gettysburg.... 1. Lee would have had to win an overwhelming (i.e., the AOP surrenders) victory. Wasn't about to happen with G.G. Meade in command. He may have been a lot of things but he wasn't a a weakling. He would have held the Army together and headed southeast. 2. The Confederate Cavalry arm was no longer the force it had been. Look at what happened on 3 July (never mind what Buford did on 1 July) at what is now East Cavalry field. Stuart would not have been able to operate against the AOP like he did a year earlier. 3. While the 6th Corps was the last to arrive, there were still uncommitted Union troops holding DC. And while Lee could interpose between Meade and DC his shortage of supplies (particulalry ammunition) would have forced him back to Virginia in short order. 4. As for ANV forces going west....wasn't that Longstreet who rolled off of the trains at Chickamauga to attack into the opening in Rosecrans' line on 20 SEP? While an oversimplification.....Gettysburg was a failed raid; Vicksburg was a decisive strategic battle.

AR, the facts speak for themselves. What-ifs end the moment Union troops begin chanting "Fredericksburg!" at Pickett's retreating troops on the third day. Meade won the day, and with it assured the Union's victory over the Confederacy. I'm certain that I didn't suggest the ANV's inability to send forces west. I am certain that I did suggest that any forces sent west wouldn't arrive in time to assist Pemberton at Vicksburg. "While an oversimplification.....Gettysburg was a failed raid; Vicksburg was a decisive strategic battle." That IS an oversimplification-of some magnitude. Meanwhile, we must agree to disagree. I know that the south could not win at Vicksburg, particularly after Jackson, Miss. Meade and the AOP, on the otherhand, could have been defeated at Gettysburg-a loss the north could ill afford. What happens thereafter, who knows? That you're comfortable with both Meade's intestinal fortitude and the Washington D.C. garrison doesn't necessarily make it so. Much could have happened. Maybe you might disagree, but following both Vicksburg and Gettysburg, in retrospect, there appears to be very little doubt about the ultimate outcome. If twenty-one months of additional combat mean anything, Vicksburg can certainly be classified as strategic, but hardly decisive. Lee's failure to alter the paradigm on his "failed raid" was decisive. The ANV was on the defensive thereafter, and desperately trying to maintain itself as a "force in being" while covering Richmond.

I apologize for this but I can't resist the urge to comment on your reference to slavery's influence on CSA recognition. This is like the question on this site about as to why no one declared war on the Soviet Union for occupying eastern Poland in 1939. I am mystified by the fact that chattel slavery is practiced now in Africa (according to reports) yet no one is getting excited about it at all in the way they do over the slavery terminated 141 years ago in the US. What if the world refused any recognition of countries where (chattel or otherwise) slavery is practiced right now? If that is a complicated issue now, then might it also have been a complicated one in 1863?

I hope AR has some thoughts on the moral/political climate in England/France then, because I sure don't. I took his comments about the Emancipation Proclamation at face value. Then again, you should probably never completely trust a quartermaster! (;-)

Hey Deuce, I was an infantryman first!!! There were large antislavery societies in both England and France during the 1850s...and it had been outlawed by the British in the previous century (you can read of the RNs disgust at intercepting American slave ships with their West Indies squadron in a lot of places) and by France as well. There was a deep disgust with America over slavery. The UK & France supported the Confederacy as a way to 1. Decrease American influence in America (remember 54 40 or Fight!) Britain still was concerned about its possessions in the Caribbean and France was trying to put Maximilian on the throne Mexico. 2. A split of the US into 2 countries would weaken the US (obviously). Those were achievable goals as long as the US government did not make it a publicly declared war about slavery. But once Lincoln made that the focus of the war, the marginalized the Bits and French. It is ironic that the British and French people were more abolitionist than the average Northerner but that is how it was at the time. S2 I may have appeared to underwhelm the importance of Gettysburg....didn't mean to give that impression. However, I believe the Union could have survived a loss at Gettysburg while it was proven the Confederacy did not survive a loss of Vicksburg. And I believe the ANV lost its ability to conduct a successful assault after 2 July..it could be argued it lost that ability after Chancellorsville. The casualties suffered between Malvern Hill, Antietam and Chancellorsville were bordering on the ruinous. And the ability for the Confederacy to survive for those 21 months owes more to a switch to a strategic defensive and the running out of 3 year enlistments in 1864.

it could be argued it lost that ability after Chancellorsville. Absolutely no argument from me there. IMHO, that battle cost Lee more than he could afford, and he never replenished his forces to the same as it was prior. Outstanding manuver on his part, AWESOME, would be more like it...but it's impact was never overcome. Vapid

I know that you were 11A. What did Brando say in "Apolcalypse Now"?, "THE HORROR, THE HORROR...(of becoming a quartermaster geek)(;-). "And I believe the ANV lost its ability to conduct a successful assault after 2 July..it could be argued it lost that ability after Chancellorsville. The casualties suffered between Malvern Hill, Antietam and Chancellorsville were bordering on the ruinous. And the ability for the Confederacy to survive for those 21 months owes more to a switch to a strategic defensive and the running out of 3 year enlistments in 1864." You're 100% on the aftermath of Gettysburg for the ANV. "However, I believe the Union could have survived a loss at Gettysburg while it was proven the Confederacy did not survive a loss of Vicksburg." The first half of this sentence is speculative. I believe that the Union could have survived the loss of Gettysburg, as well. Actually, I think the odds favored it. However, I also believe that there was a fair chance that the north could not survive the loss of Gettysburg, depending upon circumstances as they unfolded. A total unknown. As for the second half of the sentence, just how is it "proven" that Vicksburg accounted for the defeat of the Confederacy. To me, there were far more factors to consider that led to the ultimate defeat of the south than solely the loss of Vicksburg. Vicksburg's loss certainly was a significant contributor to final defeat. Victory for the south, however, was always a dubious proposition that hinged upon a rather long series favorable outcomes, including the retention of Vicksburg. However, as you've pointed out about the the "ruinous" condition of the ANV (rather like 4th Panzer Army following Kursk-can't say that Saratoga left the British Army "ruinous", otherwise, in deference to your preferred allusion I'd have chosen the latter, hah!), the south had severe manpower, and related social-industrial issues weighing upon them. I'd summarize, at the real risk of gross over-simplification, that the real reason for the south losing the war is because they didn't win the war quickly. Time, and all their myriad aforementioned issues, worked against the south's ambitions. Again, that's what makes early July in Pennsylvania so important. It really was their "Kursk". And, just as with the Germans, not a particularly good idea. Just the only idea Lee possessed that might alter an otherwise predictable outcome, made all the more predictable by the certainty of losing Vicksburg.

Okay I declare this subject thoroughly flogged to death!!

Great! Now how about running over to the "Armed Forces of the World" board and doing the same for the "Military Review Article" thread? I'm close to ballistic reading Heorot and AGR's commonwealth nonsense.

AR, you must have been reading my mind. "I feel your pain", to quote a recent U.S. President. No sooner to I finish my request to you, and pop over to check the action than, VOILA! There you are. Not quite a request to cease flogging. But not a bad start. Bye, bye Vicksburg. It's on to the wilderness!