ECW: Vicksburg or Gettysburg? LeRoy Gresham's Words

NH Civil War Gal

Captain
* OFFICIAL *
CWT PRESENTER
Forum Host
Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
https://emergingcivilwar.com/2019/06/30/vicksburg-or-gettysburg-leroy-greshams-words/#more-183446

Vicksburg or Gettysburg? LeRoy Gresham’s Words
by Sarah Kay Bierle

220px-Leroy_Wiley_Gresham.jpg

LeRoy Grisham
It's a long and continuing debate. Vicksburg or Gettysburg? Which is more important? Or are they inseparable? Certainly, Gettysburg tends to overshadow Vicksburg in public history interest. But how did people of the 1860's view the two events?

Pondering this one evening, I decided to pull out LeRoy Gresham's diary and see if he left written perspective on the importance of Vicksburg vs. Gettysburg. Certainly, I do not base a study or theory on the writings of one teenage civilian boy in Georgia, but Gresham studiously kept up with news and rumors of the days by reading papers and listening to adults' conversations while lying ill with a deadly disease. His perspective on Southern knowledge of events and tracking opinions is often remarkable. Read more of this post
 
I read this book and it's quite remarkable. Our own @Eric Wittenberg was a huge contributor to this book on the cavalry side which the author graciously acknowledges. But as we come up to the 4th of July, Emerging Civil War brought up LeRoy's thoughts and words of Vicksburg and Gettysburg and it's worth reading what the locals in his area of Georgia were getting for news - it may surprise you.
 
I read this book and it's quite remarkable. Our own @Eric Wittenberg was a huge contributor to this book on the cavalry side which the author graciously acknowledges. But as we come up to the 4th of July, Emerging Civil War brought up LeRoy's thoughts and words of Vicksburg and Gettysburg and it's worth reading what the locals in his area of Georgia were getting for news - it may surprise you.

As you say, it's a remarkable book. That made it easy to want to contribute to its success.
 
Just about wrapping up McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom and was about to post something about this question for general discussion. Historians have differing takes, of course, so I'm curious what the forums think here!
 
Vicksburg was far more worrisome to the CSA civilian population than Gettysburg.
The fall of Vicksburg represented a substantial lose, while the Battle of Gettysburg was just another battle in the east.
The defeat of Lee was much more significant to the people of the North than to those in the South as it ended a series of great disappointments.
For 8 months after Gettysburg there was no major battle in the east. The AoP and the ANV were just about where they were a year before. Across the mountains, the war had turned sharply against the Confederacy.
 
Vicksburg involved the river fleet based in Memphis. Porter had boats above Vicksburg and below Vicksburg, including river transports.
Vicksburg also involved the blue water fleet based in New Orleans, although only the Hartford was able get beyond Port Hudson.
There were two large cavalry raids in the Vicksburg operation. One very successful, the other successful only as a distraction.
There was makeshift road on the west bank of the Mississippi and camps of instruction for freedmen who had volunteered, which was one of the first experiences of black men in combat, combined with the assaults at Port Hudson.
Once Grant reconnected to the Yazoo, dignitaries and citizens came to visit. @Rhea Cole writes that the Sanitary Commission ran a big operation at Vicksburg. If they brought soap, and blackberries, the probably saved lives.
In news of Grant's initial success was most likely in Washington by May 22, in London by June 4 and confirmed over the next two weeks.
Gettysburg was largely a response to what was happening in Mississippi.
Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania was co-ordinated with planned disturbances in New York, a raid by a stolen steamer up the Atlantic coast and coordinated with an effort by Roebuck to cause a controversy in Parliament to grant recognition before the fall of Vicksburg was confirmed.
 
As unhappy as Lincoln may have been with Meade's pursuit of Lee's army after Gettysburg, he knew that Pennsylvania, a critical EC state, considered the battle there as a victory. He did not replace Meade with someone like Hooker, and neither did he reinforce Meade and go after Lee.
Instead divisions were returned to Burnside and Curtis, and operations followed to take Knoxville and Little Rock. Sherman immediately returned to Jackson after the surrender of Vicksburg and did let go until he had destroyed the city a second time.
It seems as if Louisiana, Arkansas, and Tennessee were part of a plan to start reconstruction.
Gettysburg, in contrast, was produced a return to the status quo.
 
The fall of Vicksburg and the surrender of Port Hudson were facts. The prospect that the downriver traffic to New Orleans would be restored, and that New Orleans would become an international port and domestic distribution center was a matter of opinion.
Its very unlikely that slavery in Mississippi, Louisiana and Arkansas, could have been fully restored after the US controlled the entire length of the Mississippi.
 
Back
Top