Gettysburg not a decisive turning point?

[leftyhunter]

Really? Anyone can pick a winner after the race is over. What odds would you have given North Vietnam in 1955? Or would you say the USA lost the war in 1955?

That's comparing apples to a fish on a bicycle way to many differences.
Leftyhunter

 

[atlantis]

The manpower resources available to the confederacy were still considerable after Gettysburg. With good management sufficient foodstuffs could be produced in the territory still controlled by confederates. Weapons and ammunition were available.
There was still time to place finances on a sound footing.
So how is Gettysburg a turning point when the ANV is intact.

 

[speedylee]

Saying the Battle of Gettysburg was the "Turning Point" of the civil war is a bit ambiguous. The South lost the War the day they fired on Fort Sumter, they never had the manpower, industrial resources or the financial capacity to wage a war.

Those that consider fighting the battles as a key to establishing Southern Independence I would consider the appointment of U.S. Grant as Lieutenant General a true turning point of the Civil War. Grant instituted an all fronts offensive fighting policy that denied the South the typical after battle retreats, regroupings, reorganizations and new commander appointments the North would normally go through. Grants fighting strategy and aggressiveness doomed the South.

While I believe I understand your initial point (about firing upon Sumpter), I differ with the idea that the South was without the ability to wage war. They DID wage a war. A very bloody one. I would argue instead that the Confeds had a limited time to wage a war that could force the Federal government to recognize the Confederacy as a nation. The only real chance the Confeds had to force recognition was to make the war too costly in terms on money and lives for the electorate to stomach. When Lincoln was re-elected in 1864, any remaining chance for the Federal government to give up and sue for peace ended.

On this point, I believe we agree: Once Grant completed his march down the Mississippi and then became the leader of the entire US Army, Lincoln could point to the progress the Federal Army was making toward ending the rebellion. That progress was important to Lincoln's re-election hopes.

In turn, Lincoln's re-lection was important to Grant's freedom of action as a commander. If Grant lost a fight or won one with a high casualty count, Grant knew Lincoln would continue to back him.