If the Confederacy had won at Gettysburgh...?

Had the South won at Gettysburgh, what was Lees next move? I have read he was going to march on Washington,lay siege, and give Lincoln a letter from Davis demanding a ceasefire and an armistace. Thus ending the war, leaving the South a new nation.
Is that correct? If so, it would have literally changed the course of Hisory,not just US history, but world history. Do Civil war buffs like you guys agree on my prognosis,me being an "outsider",an Australian.?

i think the letter idea came from the book the killer angels.i really dont know if it was true.if lee wins at gettysburg how could he take dc its well protected with thousands of men plus aop remnants undoubtedly still in way.to attack baltimore and philadelphia not as well protected as dc but lee moves further away from his supply line-he could live off the land?maybe but for how long,all the while thousands recruited and active close in on lees army cant escape to east with ocean.lees trapped-better off trying to take pittsburg but again usa closes in and mountains to south dont offer easy way out.lee wanted to relieve burden on virginia.longer he stays in pennsyvania better maybe for foriegn recognition or us public get sick of war but wait, vicksburg surrender doesnt bode well for the cause.did the confederacy have a chance to gain independence after 1862?gettysburg is not true turning point in war-grant in command and spotysvania battles offers better argument.lee wins at gettysburg-fine but wins in 1864 might be bigger victories.

Thanks mate, you explain it well. yes, i have read the "Killer angels"and saw the movie too. I always thought a defeat at Gettysburg would have been a knockout blow for the Union,and a shoe in for Southern independence. Maybe Linclon would have been forced to resign in disgrace,it would not have been a good look for his presidency would it.? Also, wasnt Britain within an ace of recognizing the Confederacy,had they won at Gettys, and sending british troops to help,or the british navy to end the Union blockade of the South.? I think one of the southern generals was very keen on that prospect,of getting the Brits involved. How ironic that would have been, finally Britain gets revenge on the USA for the war of 1812 and Independence war !!

csa hoped britain would heip when the southern cotten market dried up but cotten from other parts of the world picked up the slack.this hope of intervention was gone by end of 1862-plus britain had given up on slave trade along time before-would they reconize a country with slavery,trent affair was best chance but cooler heads prevailed.south had to go it alone

A victory by Lee at Gettysburg would have been a disaster for the Union. Lee wanted to bring the war to the North so Northerners would feel the costs of war as Southerners did. No doubt he would have used the victory to resupply his men with food, clothing, ammunition and anything else they wanted. The telegraphed stories of the Southern victory would devastate Northern Moral.

Washington was well defended but the path would be open to march to Baltimore, a city strongly sympathetic to the South. Who knows how Marylanders would have responded to Lee's victory. Might they have considered secession at that point? Even if they would not have Lee in Baltimore would cut off Washington from the Union and Lincoln would have found himself a prisoner in the Whitehouse. It is hard for me to see how a victory at Gettysburg would not compel Lincoln to come to terms with the Confederacy.

But of course Lee did not win. He lost almost a third of his Army, 27,000 men he could not afford to loose. The Union lost the same number but had replacements while Lee did not. After Gettysburg all Lee could do was to retreat to Richmond and wait for the siege that was sure to come.

by 1863 baltimore was a different city-the majority now sided with the union-they prepared to defend the city. yes if they captured the city washington is cut off by land but sea routes keep it open plus why would lincoln sue for terms when lee is still in a bad position he could bring back vetern troops in va,nc,sc,etc.the armies south of dc woundnt be cut off from the govt because baltimore was captured. plus taking baltimore would put his back to the chesapeake bay where the usa could surround his army.maybe if the csa had a navy to help.how many marylanders flocked to lee in 1862 antietam campaign?how many joined him in 1863?not many, the ones that wanted to fight for the south went in 1861.later not that many.lee never had a chance maybe 1n 1864 with a new us president but even then i doubt it,the north was too strong.plus lincoln could move the working govt to chicago not easy but the way to win was to defeat the armies not take a capitol,even taking richmond in 65 didnt stop the war making lee and johnston surrender won the war.

I hear what your saying, but surely if the Union lost Washington DC, and moved govt to Chicago,that would have a devstating effect on the US, and overseas too.Many Nations may have diplomatically recognised the Confederacy on that basis alone,because the US had lost the Capital of the United States.Not a good look at all,it may have turned history on its head.

victory at vicksburg overshadows some of this loss the north was too powerfull-industry,manpower,supply,naval,i just used chicago as an example the north was too powerfull-weapons,horses,food,money ,manpower,sure it looks bad to lose washington but losing the city does not change having a strong army or navy.the us lost capitol in war of 1812 yet still won[i know its not exactly the same]maybe if it was year 1450 it matters but not in 1863.what nations would reconize?they want to back a winner with money or land wealth.robert edward lee alone kept all thier hopes afloat but i bet in his heart he knew odds stacked against them"only a matter of time"but if people chose to believe gettysburg could have saved them-go for it,i will say no more on this subject

Yeah, good points. You are right, the North had all the industry, the industrial heart of it all. Gable summed it up in "Gone with the Wind" when he said something like "The North can bottle up our harbours with their Navy, they have all the industry,-what have we got-courage, passion and arrogance "

I feel that if Lee won at Gettysburg, the Union would be in no position to attack, or defend. Lee would've been able to knock on any major city in the east with little opposition, and if necessary, find ground to which to fight either the offensive battle he needed, or fight a defensive battle if it came to it.
Such a victory at Gettysburg may have changed the course of the war in the west as well. Grant still would've captured Vicksburg (the city was too far gone from the siege), but would've been compelled by Washington to ship the bulk of his troops in defense. This opportunity would allow General Bragg to reevaluate his situation and possibly deliver the final knockout blow to the North anywhere he saw fit... even possibly vanquishing Vicksburg and recapturing the Mississippi River Valley.
This battle (if won by Lee) would've been the turning point of the war by far. The South had been victorious the first 2 years, and that trend, with this battle, could've ended the war.
As far a Lee delivering a letter to Washington, It was not in his power to issue such a message... his message was that he had power and that he was willing to use it. The letter would've been delivered by someone in the Confederate Government officially requesting an end to hostilities in recognition of Southern Independence.

does anyone realize how many men the north had under arms?bragg delivering a knockout blow?invasion of kentucky,stoneriver,chickamauga,chattanooga all possible knockout blows how did he do?grants army to the east,why not send men from us army in arkansas,texas coast,new orleans,south carolina,north carolina, west virginia,army of the cumberland,plus militas training in new york and pennsyvania.

Yeah... quite a few, but most new units in training in the north were green troops against seasoned veterans. The numbers would've been nullified. You, kakman, are taking battles fought after Gettysburg as part of your basis. These battles may not have happened. Chickamauga and Chattanooga were 1864 battles.
I am merely stating that Washington would've needed to call another seasoned army to stay Lee's invasion. This would've freed Bragg and changed the war in the west. In this instance (if Lee won at Gettysburg), the more imminent threat would be Lee with free rein in the North. Washington needs to protect itself (which it did with fortifications), and Grant, with his reputation of being a fighter, would've been called on to help.
Other commands that you are suggesting (Arkansas, Texas Coast, New Orleans) were either too far away to be immediately effective, or had other more pressing operations to work on.

what are we talking about?chickamauga and chattanooga were fought in 1863.

Lee would have accomplished nothing but gaining a badger by the tail...and a guerrilla war in a state where private gun ownership, has always been very high.