Quote Originally Posted by spmetla View Post
Just read your article on Gettysburg and would say I disagree on the conclusion. Bear in mind I am by no means a Civil War specialist.



I think you're putting the defeat of the South primarily in the reelection chances of Lincoln which is essentially arguing that they didn't have the ability to win anyhow. Even if 'Peace Democrats' had won, negotiating a ceasefire and peace after so much bloodshed would have been extremely difficult as too many Northern states would be unwilling to let the South still go or keep slavery after so long a struggle.

Gettysburg was the end of any strategic offensives by the South and was therefore the end of its ability to try and make peace on favorable terms. From the loss of Gettysburg on it was just a matter of how much more blood would need to be spilled before the South would capitulate and with the North generally on the Offensive from 1864 on the war was done for the South.

I look at it similar to Kursk in 1943, the German Eastern front didn't collapse following the loss there, however they no longer were in control of their destiny. Offensive victory was now nearly impossible and trying to achieve a good defense and perhaps stale that leads to peace was their only option.
Great post, thanks for reading