Gettsyburg or Vicksburg: Which was more important?

[Jamieva]

Both

Short term it was Gettysburg as it bloodies Lee badly and forces him back into Virginia straight away. Lee basically sat on the Rapidan/Rappahannock for the rest of 63 with no hope of pushing anything against the AoP.

Long term going through 64 and 65 it's Vicksburg for the reasons others have cited. Split the Confederacy, etc etc

[samgrant]

Strategically, Vicksburg was the more important victory for the Union. Politically, it was Gettysburg. It was in the East, after all, that the politicians, the press, etc. managed to manipulate public opinion. The repulse of a Confederate invasion of a Northern state, had to be seen as a great achievement after so many losses by the AoP.

A few months later it was back to normal as politicians, generals, and the press went back to complain about the lack of success of the AoP, while the AoT was slowly, but persistantly winning the War in the West.

-

[ole]

Very well put, Sam. Very well put.

ole

[cw1865]

To say that Vicksburg or Gettysburg is more or less important than the other is fruitless inasmuch as you really have to look at the two as the results of the summer of 1863.

I think most of would agree that the loss at Gettysburg and the fall of Vicksburg marks the beginning of the end for the Confederacy.

Notwithstanding if I have to make a choice, I still say Gettysburg is still strategically more important. Again, this is just a personal opinion. The reason why I am of this opinion is that the victory at Vicksburg cuts the Confederacy in two and permits the Union to proceed on with the next step of Anaconda. New Orleans was already in Union hands, so the Mississippi was useless to the Confederacy for foreign trade, and while the cut in two certainely doesn't help, its not a 'death blow' because at the time the resources west of the Mississippi just aren't decisive in nature to begin with. The victory at Gettysburg permits the Union to continue the war, period.

[whitworth]

As was stated, Vicksburg and Gettysburg were mile markers on the Confederate road to defeat.

Even earlier, the U.S. Navy controlled much of the Mississippi River. Vicksburg was the final nail for control of the Mississippi River and the adjacent states. Particularly, the control of Missouri, Kentucky, western Tennessee, Arkansas, western and northern Mississippi, much of Louisiana.

Lee survived because he was magnificent in defense and retreat. His retreat from Gettysburg was a masterpiece, considering the rains and high water on the Potomac River.
Gettysburg only showed the weakness of the Confederate army-logistical shortages. It hardly mattered what Pickett did. The ANV didn't have the ammunition surplus to break out and move towards Baltimore or Washington.
Without artillery ammunition, Pickett's Charge, in reality, was an attack with very limited objectives. It gave Lee two roads for his retreat south to Virginia.

[Dred]

Originally Posted by Jamieva

Both

Short term it was Gettysburg as it bloodies Lee badly and forces him back into Virginia straight away. Lee basically sat on the Rapidan/Rappahannock for the rest of 63 with no hope of pushing anything against the AoP.

Long term going through 64 and 65 it's Vicksburg for the reasons others have cited. Split the Confederacy, etc etc

Gettysburg short term?? he didn't just sit at the Rapidan for 1863.. he never recovered the initiative. period. The Wilderness was Lee reacting to what Grant was already doing, and Spotylvania was an offshoot of that. And then he neailed his coffin shut when he anchored himself in Petersburg/Richmond.

on the other hand, imagine if you will tha Vicksburg had not fallen and Grant still locked Lee inside Richmond. The CS government now has a place to run... Atlanta. Without Vicksburg taken Sherman's march never happens, Atlanta is stil around, and Grant has to chase the armies from north to south, instead of west to east and then turning north.. With Vicksburg still on the Ole miss he does not get help from the AOT coming east to secure the checkmate. Gettysburg leads to Lee's surrender directly, while the CS holding on to Vicksburg prolongs the war indefinatley.

[whitworth]

I think the final capture of Vicksburg is a little over-rated, in that the Confederacy wasn't winning the war in the west. Grant failed so many times to capture Vicksburg, at the same time the Confederates were too weak to drive Grant back to Memphis. The Confederates were able to cut Grant's supplies in northern Mississippi and Tennessee, but they couldn't defeat Grant.
Grant stayed around, until he found a way to win. The Confederate western armies were unable, in the end, to wage a successful winning war. The Confederates at best were only winning at time; but time wasn't on their side. Vicksburg had to fall; the Confederate did not have a winning strategy to win the war in the Mississippi River area.

No one should say the Grant way was a good way. It was a good way, because the Union army could keep the pressure on Vicksburg. And the Confederates could not keep the pressure off Vicksburg. Grant was able to keep the camel's nose under the tent; the Confederacy had no way to win and control the Mississippi River.

The Confederacy had failed at War on the Mississippi, long before the capture of Vicksburg. New Orleans had fallen; stayed fallen. St. Louis never fell to a Confederate attack. Except for raids, at best, the Confederates could not control Tennessee or Kentucky, for any significant period, after 1862. Memphis fell in 1862.

Even Helena, Arkansas, just south of Memphis on the Mississippi River couldn't be captured by the Confederates on July 4, 1863. Little Rock, Arkansas would soon fall to Union forces.

The Confederacy had failed to keep Union troops out of the Mississippi River valley, long before Vicksburg failed to survive as a Confederate fortress.

The fall of Vicksburg, only meant that the Confederate army had lost its final bid to control any significant part of the land surrounding the Mississippi River.

If the Confederates could win anything after mid-1863, it would be a much reduced Confederate States. It was a reduced status the Confederacy could not accept.

[ole]

Except for the capture of Rebs, Vicksburg was a morale boost for the Union. There wasn't that much materiel crossing the Mississippi. And it would appear that RRs to the east had supplanted much of the barge traffic from the NW to New Orleans. Losing Vicksburg didn't much handicap the supply going to western Confederate soldiers, but it did make Lincoln, his Congress and many, many Northerners very, very happy.

Weigh that against Gettysburg where the vaunted Lee and the AoNV got their collective butts kicked and limped, much injured, back to Virginia. But Gettysburg also had its morale-boosting benefits.

I still believe that the war was won in the West, but I'd have to figure that Gettysburg was the more important victory.

On the other hand, Vicksburg and the subsequent battle at Chattanooga apparently convinced Lincoln that Grant should assume command of all the Union armies.

But, I dither. And can't decide.

ole

[samgrant]

While I expect this debate has been argued previously on this forum (?), I must suggest that the postings on this particular thread are much superior to those normally found. Seems every contributer has a well reasoned opinion. I'm gonna give it a star, 5 of them.

[ole]

We have a most erudite new crop now sam. And I'm everso pleased to note that very nearly every one of them is more knowledgeable than I. So much to learn.

ole