Gettsyburg or Vicksburg: Which was more important?

[tackitt27]

There is a good article in THE WASHINGTON TIMES Jan 7th edition. It discusses which of the two Union victories was more important to the Union victory. It basically says neither was the "turning point" and the Confederacy still had big victories at Chickamauga and the Wilderness. I dont really agree with that, but what it says. It also goes no to say a Union defeat would have been more costly at Gettysburg on Northern soil than at Vicksburg. Anyways, I was wondering what everyone else thought. Which Union victory was more important to the Union cause? Which one could there not be victory without, or would the Union eventually win regardless?

[OpnDownfall]

IMO, they both are the beginning and culmination of Lincoln's insight (long ignored by most of his generals) that, with the larger armies and superior resources, if the Union kept continuous pressure all along the confederate borders, somewhere the line would break. The south, with the smaller resources, could not meet all threats everywhere, at the same time.
More by happenstance, but with some planning, after 2 yrs of war, The Mississippi River, commercial artery of America's midwest, Tn, the gateway to the remaining confederacy's 'heart land' and Va. the nerve center of the confederate war effort were ALL under direct threat by overwhelming Union pressure.
All three areas were vital to the south's survival, All had to be held to the last extremety. But as Lincoln foresaw, the gov't at Richmond did not have the wherewithall to be everywhere at the same time.
After Chancellorsville, Lee, Davis and Longstreet conferred about what was to be done with the recent victory.
All seemed to recognize the threats to Tn and Ms, but, except for Longstreet, it was decided that since none could be relieved except at the expense of the others, the decision was to reinforce victory in Va. (at the expense of Tn and Ms). The decision was not necessarily wrong, but it pointed out that the confederacy had run out of viable strategic options on winning its independence.
Vicksburg And Gettysburg, Both, were inextricably intertwined in putting the North on the road to ultimate victory.

[Borderruffian]

Just me but I think that G'burg and V'Burg got the ball rolling. Chattanoga was the actual turning point.

[ole]

My take: Neither. And both.

Vicksburg and Gettysburg were but mile markers along the road. The real fatal shots were fired at Charleston.

ole

[PINCKNEYUSMCRET]

Have to agree OLE, those first shots were not well thought out. Passion took over and the rest didn't matter. Vicksburg, Gettysburg, and all the rest were just nails in the coffin.

Pinckney

[gary]

For those who don't have what Ed Bearss called V.D. (Virginia Disease), Vicksburg. Vicksburg fall gave the Union control of the Mississippi. Equally important, it raised Grant from the level of mediocrity to victor. Remember that after Fort Donelson and Shiloh, Grant made numerous attempts to capture Vicksburg. He was falling into the pool of generals (Pope, McDowell, McClellan, Burnsides, Fremont, Siegel)whose ability was doubtful. Had Grant failed, it is entirely possible that he would have been sacked. Winning Vicksburg proved to Lincoln that Grant was not just a fighter but a determined fighter with grit (remember Lincoln used to read all the telegrams that came through the War Office whether it was directed to him or not).

Even if Lee had won at Gettysburg, the Army of the Potomac could have fallen back into the fortifications of Washington (something Lee wasn't going to crack). Furthermore, European recognition would not be forthcoming in 1863.

BTW, I would think that the turning point was at Perryville or Antietam. The former stopped the Confederate conquest of Kentucky (keeping that state in the Union) and Antietam gave Lincoln the victory needed to issue the Emancipation Proclamation (to keep the European powers neutral).

[ole]

Can't exactly agree nor disagree with you Gary. All of your points are well made. But if you'll allow me to pick and choose among them .... (Nevermind, you know I will anyway.)

Very much appreciated that you noted that Vicksburg proved that Grant was a real general. Hadn't given much thought to that, but it rings true. OUtside of the masterful campaign Grant waged to take Vicksburg, it had only a symbolic value. With Memphis, St. Louis and New Orleans under union control, the Confederacy couldn't use the Mississippi. The Union didn't need it either. There was some river traffic down the Red, crossing to the Mississippi side. There was even some traffic crossing into Vicksburg and transhipped to Jackson and points east. But it wasn't that much to give any material importance to Vicksburg.

Vicksburg was as symbolic and as devasting as Sherman's March. It was psychological: "Y'all ready to give up yet?"

ole

[Freddy]

At Gettysburg Lee lost 23,000 casualties and at Vicksburg about 30,000 surrendered. The South could not replace these soldiers. Lincoln had found the general who would bring superior numbers and resources to bear on the South in a relentless offensive. Losing battles (Wilderness and Spotsylvania) did not matter to Grant as the AoV retreated across Virginia. As of July 4, 1863 the South was doomed to fight a war it could not win.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Freddy

Losing battles (Wilderness and Spotsylvania)

I would not call these losing battles on behalf of the AOP. They were stalemates, probably. But Grant maintained the strtegic initiative throughout. It's just that Lee dug in everywhere and would not come out to meet Grant's (Meade's?) army.

-

[gary]

I would also call the Wilderness a stalemate. However, if we consider the individual assaults at Spotsylvania Court House, such as Emory Upton's attack and Hancock's attack at the Mule Shoe, I'd say that Grant was defeated (but not licked).