Why would losing Gettysburg been any more destructive than losing Chancellorsville? Had Lee won at Gettysburg what really would have changed? He still goes back South, Vicksburg still falls, Grant still comes east and the 1864 campaigns of Grant and Sherman still take place. And the Confederacy still loses.
You didn’t watch the video. The man explains why in the video.
There were several turning points at Gettysburg.
IMO, Had Stewart’s end around not run smack into a wildly determined Custer at Cavalry field, he would have arrived in the Union Center rear at the same time as Pickett’s troops hit the Federal line on the ridge.
Also remember that there were conscription riots going on in several major Northern cities around this time, as well.
There were several turning points at Gettysburg.
IMO, Had Stewart’s end around not run smack into a wildly determined Custer at Cavalry field, he would have arrived in the Union Center rear at the same time as Pickett’s troops hit the Federal line on the ridge.
Also remember that there were conscription riots going on in several major Northern cities around this time, as well.
Doodledawg: "Why would losing Gettysburg been any more destructive than losing Chancellorsville?
Had Lee won at Gettysburg what really would have changed?
He still goes back South."
Important point to remember here is that Union General George Mead didn't want to fight at Gettysburg,didn't think he could win there and at the moment of victory, Pickett's charge, Mead was in the UNion rear organizing its expected retreat.
Mead had in mind where he really wanted to fight Lee, and was readying that position in case of need.
Point is, Mead was ready to fight a second big battle if needed, but Lee absolutely was not.