Been giving this some thought...wasn't the Vicksburg campaign more decisive than Gettysburg?

Vicksburg was the watershed campaign

  • Agree

    Votes: 66 79.5%
  • Disagree

    Votes: 17 20.5%

  • Total voters
    83
Wow! I don't know what is better...other people to talk to about the war between the States or someone actually agreeing with me about an opinion formed based on my own personal readings and studies on this subject. Thanks for sharing insights
Oh yes... I can see my families eyes glazing over now as I begin to wade into conversation on the civil war. Know exactly what you mean. Glad you are here!
 
Speaking of the Civil War and my house has brought on two suicide attempts from family members and I am now banned from the kitchen table so yes people like us who enjoy history and something more than 15 min. ago are in the minority and thank God for computers or we have no one to speak to.
 
Another consideration that has not been mentioned is that the surrender of Pemberton's army freed Grant's Army of the Tennessee from being tethered to the Mississippi River valley. The immediate consequence of the surrender was that Grant was in a position to send two corps to Chattanooga following the debacle at Chickamauga. Imagine the difficulties the Union would have faced had Pemberton still been holding Vicksburg with Rosecrans bottled up in Chattanooga.
 
I agree completely. Mead's failure to pursue the Army of Northern Virginia, allowing it to escape back into Virginia, was a lost opportunity that did not happen at Vicksburg. There, as you all know, the Army of Mississippi and all it's equipment was surrendered, the control of the Mississippi River was placed firmly in Union hands, and a significant portion of the Confederate Army in the West was placed out of action, at least for a while.

That is true that the Army of Mississippi surrendered but most of them were paroled. Many units were released just in time to make it to Chattanooga for the Battle of Lookout Mountain. Of course, they did loose all their arms and equipment, which was a problem.

One judge of the effect of the victory was the casualty count and also those taken as prisoners. My question was which of the battles rated a higher victory based upon these stats. However, can we count the Prisoners if they were paroled so soon?
 
One judge of the effect of the victory was the casualty count and also those taken as prisoners. My question was which of the battles rated a higher victory based upon these stats. However, can we count the Prisoners if they were paroled so soon?

You could look at it in terms of total number of fighting man-months lost as a result of each battle. It's easy to determine approximately how many were paroled at Vicksburg and how many months they took off on average (most fought again at some point), how many went to prison and the average months lost because of that, months lost due to wounds, and how many died or their war ended due to wounds.

This would be an interesting exercise.
 
It is my understanding that the defenders were paroled but not exchanged. The Confederacy cited some sort of loophole, snag, or downright ignored the need to exchange before the V'burg captives were sent back to duty.

Meanwhile, back at the OP, Vicksburg. Vicksburg relegated the Trans-Mississippi to a backwater. Lee survived G'burg but the Confederacy couldn't survive the loss of the Trans-Mississippi.
 
[ right here!QUOTE="brass napoleon, post: 1159850, member: 2769"]Welcome to the forum, Boopsie. I agree with you completely. In fact, we're trying to put together a formal debate on this topic on this forum - if we can only find somebody to take the Gettysburg side![/QUOTE]...and you got somebody right here!..well, me and the late Shelby Foote...Both of us cannot be included among the group known as "The Virginians": Those who believe still that the war revolved around the 120 miles, give or take, between Washington and Richmond. Foote believed that the war- for the confederacy- could only be won in the East, but it could well be lost in the West, where, all things considered, it was. With the fall of Vicksburg, the Trans-Mississippi was out of action, and no longer a threat. Mobility was greatly hampered after that point, from a purely logistics angle, for the remnants of the AOT. Siezure of the Mississippi, allowed penetration of the deep South, which the Eastern theater never saw.
Napoleon said, "An army travels on its stomach", and this was no better illustrated than the elimination of the Western theater. The foodstuffs were there, but unavailable to Confederate forces, once the logistic routes were severed- this happened with the fall of Vicksburg...Not to mention the capture of 12-18,000 Confederates!
So, to sum up, Lee lost a chance to win the war at Gettysburg, but the Confederacy lost the war at Vicksburg. Virtually nobody can assert that there was a serious chance after July 4th, 1863, but I welcome any challenge to my theories...
 
I
It is my understanding that the defenders were paroled but not exchanged. The Confederacy cited some sort of loophole, snag, or downright ignored the need to exchange before the V'burg captives were sent back to duty.

Meanwhile, back at the OP, Vicksburg. Vicksburg relegated the Trans-Mississippi to a backwater. Lee survived G'burg but the Confederacy couldn't survive the loss of the Trans-Mississippi.
its called honor, and i can tell you that, from the voluminous letters, diaries and such, that their paroles were honored. My ancestor sat out his time, while his brother fought on- heck, he had done the Northern circuit in 62...after Donelson, and did it again, after Stones River- All in all, he saw more of Ohio and Indiana than I saw until relatively recently- via the POW system. What is really ironic is that, as a child, spent some years in Hopewell, VA- formerly known as City Point- where one of my ancestors was exchanged- how funny is history, huh?
 
I
its called honor, and i can tell you that, from the voluminous letters, diaries and such, that their paroles were honored. My ancestor sat out his time, while his brother fought on- heck, he had done the Northern circuit in 62...after Donelson, and did it again, after Stones River- All in all, he saw more of Ohio and Indiana than I saw until relatively recently- via the POW system. What is really ironic is that, as a child, spent some years in Hopewell, VA- formerly known as City Point- where one of my ancestors was exchanged- how funny is history, huh?
Perzackle, Gen. Grant was looking for honor when he paroled all those captured at Vicksburg.

When he encountered some of them again at Chattanooga without benefit of exchange, one can understand why he was (bad word) off. He relied on honor, as did most around that time. In many cases, it wasn't there.
 
Yes, it ended up being.

If Lee followed Ewell's advise and went full force against a defenseless Harrisburg and then Philadelphia, instead of deciding to fight in Gettysburg, that campaign could had ended the war with a truce, thus the importance of Gettysburg.

But he did not deliver.
I don't think so. The farther Lee penetrates North and East,the greater the chance Meade completely cuts Lee off from an escape route back home and destroys/captures most of the ANV.
 
I do think Vicksburg would have been more "famous" historically if more Eastern regiments had been present. In the East is where the biggest, most influential newspapers and magazines were; where the most influential later historians were centered; where a large majority of the published memoirs originated, and were sold. Gettysburg was simply more "written about" in the postwar decades because to Eastern readers that's where "our boys" were.

And, as @28thNewYork says above, Gettysburg was a "compact stage," more easily understood and described -- it makes a "better story."
 
its called honor, and i can tell you that, from the voluminous letters, diaries and such, that their paroles were honored.

Here is an interesting letter attesting to what you stated above:

U. S. Prison, Baton Rouge, La., /
November 22, lb64. \
Brig. Gen. George B. Hodge :

General— We have the honor to state that
on the night of the 19th inst. the Federal
Cavalry, under Brigadier General Lee, halted
about six miles and a half from Liberty, on the
Clinton road, and the weather being inclement
and the ground thoroughly saturated, General
Lee proposed that such of the officers of the C.
S. army (prisoners in his hands), as would give
a verbal parole of honor, should be permitted,
without guard, to make use of the dwelling
used as his headquarters. The parole was ac-
cepted without dissent, and the prisoners as-
signed to the same quarters and the same fare
as himself and staff.

About one hour after, Capt. W. M. Chamber-
lain, Third and Fifth Missouri Infantry, com-
mandant post Brookhaven, and First Lieut. F.
C. Skehan, same regiment, adjutant post Brook-
haven, and First Lieutenant T. W. Younkin,
First Confederate Infantry, inspector bureau
of conscription, Seventh Congressional District
of Mississippi, at Brookhaven, made their ap-
pearance and stated that they had been paroled
in the same manner. The next night, the 20th,
the column halted at Mrs. G. A. Scott's near
Jackson, La., where each officer was informed
that those who were willing to do so, would be
paroled for the night upon the same terms.
The ground being entirely wet and the rain
pouring in torrents, and nearly all the prisoners
destitute of covering, the parole was again
unanimously accepted and the officers allowed
the same privileges and accomodations as the
general and staff. The next morning the fol-
lowing officers were found missing, viz., Capt.
W. M. Chamberlain, Lieut. F. C. Skehan, Lieut.
T. W. Younkin, Lieut. T. B. Melton, Fifth
Louisiana Cavalry.

Those who remained were subjected to the
mortifying and humiliating confession that four
officers wearing the Confederate uniform had
violated their paiole and in the absence of a
guard, under cover of darkness, had made
their escape. A stigma has been cast upon the
untarnished escutcheon of our arms. These
men have forfeited every claim as gentlemen
and officers, and their comrades, who were
careful of their pledges, have been left to suf-
fer from the consequences of their had faith.

They may plead in extenuation that they
did not originally form the compact, but the
nature of the compact was thoroughly dis-
cussed with them by many of the subscribers
and they confided to none their intention to
escape. We therefore beg, general, that you
will find it in your power to arrest and for-
ward these men by the earliest opportunity to
the same destination as their comrades, who
have been more sensitive of their personal
honor and the good name of the Confederate
army. Their conduct has been the more das-
tardly that they have left the odium of their
disgrace to rest upon their comrades, who are
now helpless prisoners in the hands of their
enemies. Hoping that our requests may be ac-
ceded to, we are, general, very respectfully
Your obedient servants,

N. T. N. Robinson, Acting Assistant Aduj-
tant General S. W. Miss., and E. La.; W. H.
Hurd, Major and Commissary of Subsistence;
E. A. Scott, Major C. S. Army; L. E. Woods,
Captain C. S. Army; Alfred Hazard, Cap-
tain C. S. Army; S. D. Richardson, Captain
C. S. Army; C. L. Comfort, First Lieutenant
and Aide de Camp, Eleventh Louisiana Artil-
lery; H. L David, Lieutenant and Aide de
Camp; J. W. Birch, Lieutenant Company E,
Fifth Louisiana Cavalry; Thos. Cartv, First
Lieutenant Company F, Seventh Louisiana;
E. Brown, Second Lieutenant Lay's Cavalry;
A. M. Langston, Second Lieutenant Com-
pany F, Twentieth Confederate Cavalry; Jas.
P. Skolfield, Lieutenant Company I, Fifth
Louisiana Cavalry; W. J. Hammond, Lieuten-
anr Company L, Twentieth Mississippi Cav-
alry; H. C. Wood, C. S. Army, General
Hodge's Staff.

In justice to General Hodge it may
be added that the request was complied
with and the officers who violated their
parole were delivered to the United
States authorities.
 
Perzackle, Gen. Grant was looking for honor when he paroled all those captured at Vicksburg.

When he encountered some of them again at Chattanooga without benefit of exchange, one can understand why he was (bad word) off. He relied on honor, as did most around that time. In many cases, it wasn't there.

Grant did not want the prisoners exchanged - he didn't want to see them again in battle, regardless of whether they got there honorably or otherwise. Part of Grant's thinking with making the parole deal at Vicksburg was that many of the soldiers would have had their fill of the war and would go home and not fight again.

I have read that Pemberton eventually declared large numbers (all?) of the prisoners exchanged, saying that he had lost the parole list. Of course, Grant strongly objected. (If anyone has evidence to support this, I would love to see it - unfortunately I cannot find my source, so I can't get at their references).

HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES,

City Point, Va., September 22, 1864.

Respectfully returned to the Commissary - General of Prisoners, Washington, D. C.

Many of the prisoners captured at Vicksburg declined being paroled for the reason that they wished to avoid further service in the rebel army, but I gave them no promises or pledges of may kind. I would recommend, however, that all the prisoners sent north from Vicksburg after the captured of that place, who desire to take the oath of allegiance, be permitted to do so and beset at liberty.

U. S. GRANT,

Lieutenant - General.
 
Perzackle, Gen. Grant was looking for honor when he paroled all those captured at Vicksburg.

When he encountered some of them again at Chattanooga without benefit of exchange, one can understand why he was (bad word) off. He relied on honor, as did most around that time. In many cases, it wasn't there.
what is your source for that claim. I have ancestors that fought at Vicksburg, one was exchanged fairly soon after Vicksburg and went back into the army. The other spent over a year in camps for parolees before being exchanged in 1864.

Not all were exchanged at the same time...but they were exchanged.
 
what is your source for that claim. I have ancestors that fought at Vicksburg, one was exchanged fairly soon after Vicksburg and went back into the army. The other spent over a year in camps for parolees before being exchanged in 1864.

Not all were exchanged at the same time...but they were exchanged.
Sorry, I don't have a source I can name. I read about 10 books on Vicksburg some more than 10 years ago. I have since given them all away.

For sources, may I suggest one of the threads on the reasons for ending the exchange of prisoners. Ask for sources there.
 
Sorry, I don't have a source I can name. I read about 10 books on Vicksburg some more than 10 years ago. I have since given them all away.

For sources, may I suggest one of the threads on the reasons for ending the exchange of prisoners. Ask for sources there.
yeah thats what i figured.
 
When he encountered some of them again at Chattanooga without benefit of exchange, one can understand why he was (bad word) off.

It's definite that not all were paroled - we have records to prove it. Regarding your statement above, I believe I heard something similar in Ken Burns' documentary, but not sure I've seen it written anywhere. I was surprised that, when a soldier was taken prisoner, his captors had such history on him available (whether or not paroled and if so, whether or not exchanged). I'm assuming that Grant was upset because they checked Chattanooga prisoner names against a Vicksburg parole list.

The other spent over a year in camps for parolees before being exchanged in 1864.

I've never understood this but I've read about similar examples. I thought Pemberton issued 30-day furloughs to everyone who was paroled at Vicksburg?
 
Back
Top