Did one specific battle....

[Jules362]

I'm betting this is in the archives somewhere, but if so, I haven't found it. So....

I'm asking if one specific battle changed the eventual outcome of the war, and if so, which one and why?

Seems like at least every other book I've read was written by someone who thinks that but for one particular battle, things might have gone the other way, or the war might have ended sooner or lasted longer. And I've seen so many different battles credited or blamed....Antietam, Donelson, Shiloh, Gettysburg (of course), Vicksburg.

And for a battle within a battle, I guess the two I've seen mentioned most often as being critical to the battle at large, would be both Little Round Top, and Pickett's Charge?

What say you?

J.

 

[cw1865]

Antietam/Gettysburg

Antietam/Gettysburg are both 'must not lose' for the Union. If Antietam is lost you're looking at foreign mediation to end the war, potentially English intervention to lift the blockade (debatable)....At Gettyburg, after Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, yet another debacle at Gettysburg would've been the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

[Beowulf]

I'm betting this is in the archives somewhere, but if so, I haven't found it. So....

I'm asking if one specific battle changed the eventual outcome of the war, and if so, which one and why?

Seems like at least every other book I've read was written by someone who thinks that but for one particular battle, things might have gone the other way, or the war might have ended sooner or lasted longer. And I've seen so many different battles credited or blamed....Antietam, Donelson, Shiloh, Gettysburg (of course), Vicksburg.

And for a battle within a battle, I guess the two I've seen mentioned most often as being critical to the battle at large, would be both Little Round Top, and Pickett's Charge?

What say you?

J.

First Manassas, and Stonewall's request to take 10,000 men and take Washington City.

Hands down, without a doubt.

Davis in RISE AND FALL denies the rumour he nixed the
plan, and tells what really happened...

if any of you might be interested. Project Gutenberg. For free. On line.

Beowulf

 

[Beowulf]

Antietam/Gettysburg are both 'must not lose' for the Union. If Antietam is lost you're looking at foreign mediation to end the war, potentially English intervention to lift the blockade (debatable)....At Gettyburg, after Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, yet another debacle at Gettysburg would've been the straw that broke the camel's back.

And wouldn't MEDIATION have been the absolute worst thing to ever befall the Black Republicans in office!

Beowulf

 

[johan_steele]

I look at Vicksburg as the death knell of the CS; it split the CS in half. It was a strategic victory of the kind the CS was never able to recover from.

 

[Jules362]

Antietam

Antietam/Gettysburg are both 'must not lose' for the Union. If Antietam is lost you're looking at foreign mediation to end the war, potentially English intervention to lift the blockade (debatable)....At Gettyburg, after Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, yet another debacle at Gettysburg would've been the straw that broke the camel's back.

cw1865, I had sort of discounted Antietam because it was so early in the war, but I hadn't thought about the foreign issue. At least part of what held England back was the slavery factor, although I don't know how strong that was. Mostly, it seemed to be not wanting to align themselves with the wrong side.

I've always thought the tide turned with Gettysburg and Vicksburg. Gettysburg was critical for the reasons you mention, and Vicksburg because it effectively split the Confederacy, cutting their western armies off from the eastern, and limiting their ability to move supplies and troops.

 

[Scribe]

I'm betting this is in the archives somewhere, but if so, I haven't found it. So....

I'm asking if one specific battle changed the eventual outcome of the war, and if so, which one and why?

Seems like at least every other book I've read was written by someone who thinks that but for one particular battle, things might have gone the other way, or the war might have ended sooner or lasted longer. And I've seen so many different battles credited or blamed....Antietam, Donelson, Shiloh, Gettysburg (of course), Vicksburg..

My criteria for a battle that directly influenced the outcome of the WotR is based on what actually happened in that battle not on what didn't happen or "what ifs." On that basis I would suggest that there were any number of battles crucial to outcome of the war.

In chronological order:

1) Pea Ridge -- ended the possibility of a Confederate Missouri and a Trans-Mississippi "third front."
2) Glorieta Pass -- ended hopes for a Confederate southwest that would be washed by the waters of the Pacific Ocean... not to mention access to the California, Colorado gold and silver fields.
3) New Orleans -- sealed the Mississippi River and deprived the Confederacy of its largest city, its most important port, and a major manufacturing center.
4) Antietam -- paved the way for the Emancipation Proclamation and effectively ended Confederate hopes for British -- and therefore French -- intervention.
5) Vicksburg -- cut the Confederacy in half and deprived the east of the "hog and hominy" of the Trans-Mississippi.
6) Atlanta/Mobile Bay/Cedar Creek -- a trifecta that ensured the re-election of Lincoln and the continuance of the war to a northern victory.
7) Appomattox (Campaign) -- destroyed the AoNVa and effectively ended the war.

Gettysburg is not on my list since the outcome of Gettysburg simply restored the on the ground status quo.

And for a battle within a battle, I guess the two I've seen mentioned most often as being critical to the battle at large, would be both Little Round Top, and Pickett's Charge?

What say you?

Chamberlain gets the press, but IMO the 1st Minnesota as much with less.

 

[timewalker]

IMHO, the length of the war itself points to the fact that there was not one single battle which could have decided the course of the war in and of itself. The outcome of a single battle may have radically altered the course of the war - for instance, if Buell had not come up and Grant lost at Shiloh, or if Johnston had not been wounded at Seven Pines and Lee not assumed command the complexion of the war could have been radically altered, but I think it is impossible to point to a single battle or event which would, of necessity, have changed the outcome.

In studying "what-ifs", many historians point to the "tide of history", pointing out that the mass of events generally conspire in a particular direction. In other words, if you change one event it is impossible to say that other events at some other place and time would not have become, in a sense, self-correcting, to "put the timeline back in order." This is a constant debate in both historiography and conjecture regarding time travel.

It is akin to the historiographical debate over the "great man theory of history." There is a debate amoung historians over whether one man can really change the outcome of history in a significant way, or whether the convergence of events overwhelm the decisions/actions of a single man such that most of history is, in a sense, inevitable. While I personally do believe that one man can make a difference, there are many who believe quite firmly otherwise.

 

[5fish]

Wildreness....

The Wilderness this was truly only chance Lee's army had the strength to defeat Grant's army. Even if you think North Anna was a chance, Lee's army had already lost it offencive punch by then.

The Wilderness took the fight out of Lee's army from then on Lee fought off their back foot..

The war was over when Grant sat on his and pointed and his men cheered .....

 

[Baggage Handler #2]

I'll submit two for consideration. One each, east and west.

For the east: First Bull Run. It awakened the north to the size of the task at hand, helping to recruit tens or ultimately hundreds of thousands. The south, I think, had for a few hours a long shot - a very long shot admittedly - at outright victory on which they were unable to capitalize. Simultaneously it appears to have boosted their confidence to unrealistic levels, probably leading to some bad decisions regarding commerce & industry that had catastrophic long term consequences.

For the west, I submit Jonesborough (Jonesboro?).
By that time, I think the best long shot the south had was to hold Atlanta until the November election and hope that someone would replace Lincoln. The loss at Jonesboro appears to have been key to the abandonment of Atlanta.

 

[OpnDownfall]

Did one specific battle ....

Technically, it depends on whether one can claim two battles, separate in location, but united in time, can for, argments sake,be identifiied as one battle.
I have argued (from time to time) that Vicksburg AND Gettysburgh are the watershed battles of the Civil War.From Ft. Sumter to Chancellorsville, we have almost exactly 2 yrs of war, with almost continuous cofederate success in the East and a slow erosion of confederate power in the West, but still able to field two separate armies.
After July 4, 1863, The south has lost an army (in the West) and not quite two years later (approx. 21 mo's) the war is over.
During that time Lee, offensive general par excellance' never wins another offensive battle and ends the war besieged.

 

[M E Wolf]

Dear Jules362, Scribe, CW1865, Johan_Steele and List Members,

All of your posts are very pivotal; and applaud them as key in their own right.

That said, I have been researching First Bull Run/Manassas; as the anniversary is coming up July 21st, to which 147 years ago the battle was waged.

I look at it as a 'fortune teller' per se; looking in the globe and the sequence of things leading up to the battle, during the battle and post battle; I just see so many things that shout failure in the future.

General Beauregard failed to pursue the retreating Federal Army back into Washington, when defenses were at their lowest and worst.

General Beauregard failing to let Brig. General James Longstreet who was ready to pursue with Brig. General JEB Stuart; the Federal Forces retreating en masse and in great confusion and disorder; even when Longstreet was so near to DC with Stuart; as to see the windows of the US Capitol dome. [Reference Munson Hill, in vicinity of Annandale, VA]; to which Beauregard ordered them back.

Failure of General Beauregard, the CSA government to quickly occupy Alexandria, Virginia and entrench and fortify. To threaten arrest of the local militia (Old Dominion Rifles) to which had no equipment to defend Alexandria and the lousy treatment Col. Corse received as well as being threatened along with Capt. Delaware Kemper (no direct relationship to Col. to General Jim Kemper, found yet-still researching); these two got no help despite their pleas. This allowing Unions to occupy Alexandria, three months from declaring secession in Virginia; allowed Union supplies to freely move about; to include to Manassas; by wagon train via Little River Turn Pike; troops on the Long Bridge, Columbia Pike, Leesburg Pike, Warrenton Turnpike, Falls Church Turnpike and Braddock Roads; on the railroad -- Alexandria, Loudon & Hampshire RR's, Manssas Gap RR and Alexandria & Orange RR; by waterway--the C&O Canal through Georgetown from the terminal by the foot of the Capitol building (near Grant's memorial statue and reflecting pool); through grounds of White House (Executive Mansion); Georgetown, Potomac Maryland and into the Cumberland via locks in the canal.

The lack of supplies of the CSA; from the beginning from First Manassas; the bane of the whole Army; securing the abandoned equipment and resources of the enemy in retreat.

Lack of good maps and planning; each side did not plan things well as they both thought it would be a 'minor' scrap or no longer than 90 days.
Lee saw it to be longer, as did General Winfield Scott, as did many other soldiers soon to be officers.

The generals in command of First Bull Run/Manassas, e.g. Beauregard, McDowell were Staff Officers prior to this engagement. Conflicting and confusing orders hurt both sides in the rank and file. The political appointed generals of the field did not help either. Both sides had virgin troops; exampled best as how raw one brigade was; the US Marines under Colonel Porter were in the service only 4 days. They hadn't learned how to line up, learned commands and not trained in anything at all. It was amazing that 44 out of 350 were casualties and credit goes to Major Reynolds of the Marine Corps. There were many missed opportunities in this battle. Lot of the generals were not working as one unit but, out for quick notice/glory/heroics. Lack of discipline of the troops was telling.

Just the lack of supplies of the CSA; this was going to be a situation to which was terrible to begin with; that turned disasterous in the future; not even mentioning the defective products shipped or supplied, e.g. cannons, fuses, munitions, etc..

To me--everybody started off on the wrong foot and though the CSA won the battle; they got to 'upity' and bit them in the caboose at Vicksburg and Gettysburg. The terrible supply system starved them inside out from the beginning. Federals had a lot of humble pie to eat (six of 'em); had better supply system and plenty of resolve.


Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

 

[cw1865]

Mediation

And wouldn't MEDIATION have been the absolute worst thing to ever befall the Black Republicans in office!

Beowulf

With mediation, you really never do know the outcome!

As if we're going to let QUEEN Victoria and EMPEROR Napoleon III decide our differences......:laugh2:

 

[Blockaderunner]

Possibly Perryville and Antietam. The two battles ended any realistic hopes of an outright Confederate military victory. Or Gettysburg, after which European intervention was unlikely.

 

[whitworth]

No

in the end the Confederate armies lost enough of the ones that counted.

 

[whitworth]

If war were so easy,

the armchair generals would always win.

 

[cw1865]

Interesting Tidbit

Shamefully copied from wiki but an interesting tidbit.

Some economic historians have pointed to the fact that after the loss at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the market for Confederate war bonds dropped precipitously. "European investors gave Johnny Reb about a 42 percent chance of winning the war in early 1863 prior to the battle of Gettysburg. ... However, news of the severity of costly Confederate defeats at Gettysburg/Vicksburg led to a sell-off in rebel bonds and the probability of a Southern victory fell to about 15 percent by the end of 1863."

 

[ole]

A VERY interesting tidbit. Thanks, CW.

ole

 

[cw1865]

Far Away

Of course the bond markets in Europe are so far away and are probably in the least advantageous position to interpret events that are filtered from news reports....part of the slide in prices also has to be related to the insane inflation occuring in the Confederacy.