[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Even then, I see no scenario under which the South would have won the war."

Again, thanks for making my point. Defeating Meade at Gettysburg would not have furthered the South's goals of winning the war. However, depriving the North's ability to fight (i.e. sacking their means of making artillery pieces by destroying 90% of their artillery making ability in Pittsburgh) would have been fruitful towards that goal.

[wideawake]

However, depriving the North's ability to fight (i.e. sacking their means of making artillery pieces by destroying 90% of their artillery making ability in Pittsburgh) would have been fruitful towards that goal.

That would have caused a temporary supply interruption.

Destroying Meade's army and threatening Washington might - might - have given the UK government political cover to intervene in the Union blockade.

Ultimately I think this would have failed as well, because the US government would probably have just relocated to New York or Boston and have won over UK public opinion to the point where the UK would not have risked further escalation.