[IronJack]

I think it's oversimplying to say that the loss of the left flank would have cost the Union Gettysburg, or even conceding that, that the loss of Gettysburg would have turned the tide for the Confederacy. There are just too many other factors to consider.

However, it is likely that a loss at Gettysburg would have made the Union even MORE cautious; the reticence of its commanders had already allowed Lee to run circles around the Army of the Potomac.

Logistically, and Gettysburg notwithstanding, the South could never have won that war.

[Tallguy]

I think it's oversimplying to say that the loss of the left flank would have cost the Union Gettysburg, or even conceding that, that the loss of Gettysburg would have turned the tide for the Confederacy. There are just too many other factors to consider.

I visited the battlefield about a week before this year's anniversary and listened to a park ranger giving his opinion that the loss of Little Roundtop might not, probably would not, have made a difference. He pointed down the line (Cemetery Ridge) and basically said, "you MIGHT be able to bring 2 guns to fire down the line, but that is about it. The cleared area is just too small when firing to the north." It also assumes that the Confederates could have gotten guns up there during the melee, or captured Union guns intact.

A bit revionist. But I had to admit that he had a point about the gun line being too narrow.

[thiscouldbemoreconfusing]

Logistically, and Gettysburg notwithstanding, the South could never have won that war.

Actually, I think you'll find many who will disagree with you. Had the 20th Maine run, the outcome of the war could have been considerably different.

Would the South have won? Maybe not, but the peace would have been much more equitable.

[dinoparty]

Wrong. If Atlanta hadn't fallen prior to the 1864 election, McClellan would have become President and sued for peace, meaning the South would have won.

I also believe that the North would have lost without Grant.