Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

[War Horse]

No one ever talks about why these two union victorys where the double barrel real end to the Civil War why? We only talk about Gettysburg. After that the confederacy was fighting an up hill battle all the way. Let's talk about the Devastation of the two defeats for a change.

 

[hanna260]

Well, the traditional viewpoint is that Vicksburg pretty much broke the Confederacy in half by finally ceding the Mississippi to Union control. There could be no transportation of resources from West to East and no use of the Mississippi River anymore. A revisionist argument is that the Union already had control of much of the Mississippi anyway because they had Port New Orleans and that Vicksburg's value was more in raising Northern morale and making it look the Union was doing something than anything tangible. It was also the success of Vicksburg that put that guy whose name I can't quite remember but who comes up here every now and then in command of the overall Union army. It was a two-punch with Gettysburg- both showed the North that they could win victories after the devastating defeats they had suffered and Gettysburg would insure that Lee would no longer try to invade Northern soil.

I don't know if they were turning points per-say, but they definitely both seemed to have galvanized the North to thinking that they could do this.

 

[War Horse]

Absolutely. They were vere important considering the timing. Davis had to be shaking in his shoes.

 

[War Horse]

Well, the traditional viewpoint is that Vicksburg pretty much broke the Confederacy in half by finally ceding the Mississippi to Union control. There could be no transportation of resources from West to East and no use of the Mississippi River anymore. A revisionist argument is that the Union already had control of much of the Mississippi anyway because they had Port New Orleans and that Vicksburg's value was more in raising Northern morale and making it look the Union was doing something than anything tangible. It was also the success of Vicksburg that put that guy whose name I can't quite remember but who comes up here every now and then in command of the overall Union army. It was a two-punch with Gettysburg- both showed the North that they could win victories after the devastating defeats they had suffered and Gettysburg would insure that Lee would no longer try to invade Northern soil.

I don't know if they were turning points per-say, but they definitely both seemed to have galvanized the North to thinking that they could do this.

Excellent reply by the way. Thank you.

 

[War Horse]

Well, the traditional viewpoint is that Vicksburg pretty much broke the Confederacy in half by finally ceding the Mississippi to Union control. There could be no transportation of resources from West to East and no use of the Mississippi River anymore. A revisionist argument is that the Union already had control of much of the Mississippi anyway because they had Port New Orleans and that Vicksburg's value was more in raising Northern morale and making it look the Union was doing something than anything tangible. It was also the success of Vicksburg that put that guy whose name I can't quite remember but who comes up here every now and then in command of the overall Union army. It was a two-punch with Gettysburg- both showed the North that they could win victories after the devastating defeats they had suffered and Gettysburg would insure that Lee would no longer try to invade Northern soil.

I don't know if they were turning points per-say, but they definitely both seemed to have galvanized the North to thinking that they could do this.

His name was Grant lol

 

[hanna260]

His name was Grant lol

Hey- that's a very difficult name to remember! And it wasn't like he was important or anything- unlike his buddy, She- Sher- Shermy? Something.

 

[War Horse]

Hey- that's a very difficult name to remember! And it wasn't like he was important or anything- unlike his buddy, She- Sher- Shermy? Something.

I take it you mean Sherman.

 

[FarawayFriend]

I have been to Vicksburg a few years ago and toured the battlefield. The enemy lines were so incredibly close! But even when there I had the impression that Gettysburg is regarded as the decisive battle. I always thought that is because Lee was present at Gettysburg.

 

[War Horse]

I have been to Vicksburg a few years ago and toured the battlefield. The enemy lines were so incredibly close! But even when there I had the impression that Gettysburg is regarded as the decisive battle. I always thought that is because Lee was present at Gettysburg.

Yes but it was an eastern defeat combined with a s western defeat at basicly the same time.

 

[huskerblitz]

I have been to Vicksburg a few years ago and toured the battlefield. The enemy lines were so incredibly close! But even when there I had the impression that Gettysburg is regarded as the decisive battle. I always thought that is because Lee was present at Gettysburg.

I would say how they were fought also plays a part. Gettysburg was the largest land battle in the Americas with a tremendous amount of soldiers involved and a depressing amount of casualties.

Vicksburg became a siege which isn't nearly as sexy in terms of battles go. Even though you had Grant and Sherman associated with Vicksburg, I think you had more 'big' names at Gettysburg.

 

[War Horse]

Yes but Vickburg was very important at the time.

 

[hanna260]

Vicksburg became a siege which isn't nearly as sexy in terms of battles go. Even though you had Grant and Sherman associated with Vicksburg, I think you had more 'big' names at Gettysburg.

I believe a park ranger at Gettysburg once told a story or at least I heard it of a rather insistent young man or lady who really wanted to know where Grant and Sherman's monuments were- because after all were they not the overall Union commanders at Gettysburg?

 

[FarawayFriend]

I believe a park ranger at Gettysburg once told a story or at least I heard it of a rather insistent young man or lady who really wanted to know where Grant and Sherman's monuments were- because after all were they not the overall Union commanders at Gettysburg?

Ouch!
But I remember a time when I could not remember if Grant was Union or Confederate
Hard to believe now when this place has become so important to me, but there really was a time before CWT ...

 

[Deleted User CS]

Well, the traditional viewpoint is that Vicksburg pretty much broke the Confederacy in half by finally ceding the Mississippi to Union control. There could be no transportation of resources from West to East and no use of the Mississippi River anymore. A revisionist argument is that the Union already had control of much of the Mississippi anyway because they had Port New Orleans and that Vicksburg's value was more in raising Northern morale and making it look the Union was doing something than anything tangible. It was also the success of Vicksburg that put that guy whose name I can't quite remember but who comes up here every now and then in command of the overall Union army. It was a two-punch with Gettysburg- both showed the North that they could win victories after the devastating defeats they had suffered and Gettysburg would insure that Lee would no longer try to invade Northern soil.

I don't know if they were turning points per-say, but they definitely both seemed to have galvanized the North to thinking that they could do this.

Some western theatre civil war historians such as Kendall D. Gott argue that the real turning point of the war was neither Vicksburg or Gettysburg but the Forts Henry and Donelson Campaign of February 1862. This campaign allowed the Union Army to control the vitally important Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers which opened up the whole Tennessee Valley to Union operational control throughout the remainder of the civil war. This campaign was instrumental in allowing the Union Army under the direction of Grant to collapse the entire Confederate western defensive line. Gott's book was published by Stackpole Books under the title of "Where the South Lost the War." I highly recommend this book for its content, writing and research.

 

[Pat Answer]

Some western theatre civil war historians such as Kendall D. Gott argue that the real turning point of the war was neither Vicksburg or Gettysburg but the Forts Henry and Donelson Campaign of February 1862. This campaign allowed the Union Army to control the vitally important Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers which opened up the whole Tennessee Valley to Union operational control throughout the remainder of the civil war. This campaign was instrumental in allowing the Union Army under the direction of Grant to collapse the entire Confederate western defensive line. Gott's book was published by Stackpole Books under the title of "Where the South Lost the War." I highly recommend this book for its content, writing and research.

Along these lines, I've heard arguments that the real 'high-water mark' was the late summer/autumn of 1862 before the battles of Antietam and Perryville when, at least on the map, it looked as if the Confederacy could gain enough military traction for a chance at foreign diplomatic recognition.

 

[War Horse]

Along these lines, I've heard arguments that the real 'high-water mark' was the late summer/autumn of 1862 before the battles of Antietam and Perryville when, at least on the map, it looked as if the Confederacy could gain enough military traction for a chance at foreign diplomatic recognition.

That's why "The Amancipation proclamation" was so important to Lincoln. It stopped foreign intervention in its tracks. Very good point Pat!!

 

[1SGDan]

Let's not forget that at the very same time Rosecrans' Tullahoma campaign was pushing the Confederates nearly out of eastern Tennessee.

 

[Pat Answer]

Let's not forget that at the very same time Rosecrans' Tullahoma campaign was pushing the Confederates nearly out of eastern Tennessee.

Always overshadowed because it was "not written in letters of blood."

 

[Blessmag]

Always over shadowed due to being west. Eastern theater is the only one that counts. Look at photos, most in the east. Look at quantity of books--always the east. Then cross the Mississippi and it gets even worse. Trans-Miss sounds like a Pontiac muscle car in "Ol' Miss land that daddy gave his daughter!

 

[mt155]

Also, Vicksburg took Pemberton's army out of the field while Lee's army slipped away. Just think if Grant had the means to keep those fellows as pow's instead of paroling them. That would have bee a tremendous turn of events.