Gettysburg not a decisive turning point?

[Rhea Cole]

I looked through my copy of The Klingon Way: A Warrior's Guide by Marc Okrand, and I'm convinced the Klingons would have considered the Confederates a long-lost twin brother separated at birth.

Too cool by far! As a Peace Corps Volunteer I spent time with headhunters in the Amazon… the Klingons would have really liked those guys. They chased out both the Inca & the Spanish.

 

[Zack]

This is the argument Gordon Rhea makes in Carrying the Flag (page 8):

"General George G. Meade, the federal army's most recent commander, had won his nation's applause by repelling Lee's foray into Northern territory with his victory at Gettysburg in July 1863. But summer, fall, and winter had come and gone, and Meade had accomplished nothing to reap the fruits of his Gettysburg victory. By the spring of 1864, Lee had brought his army back up to strength, and the defensive mind-set of the Union high command had dissipated whatever promise of success Gettysburg had offered the North. A frustrated President Abraham Lincoln could only wonder whether the years of bloodshed had been in vain."

He writes in The Wilderness (page 21):

"According to Lee's returns for April 20, the Army of Northern Virginia had 63,984 soldiers. Additional troops straggled in daily. By May 2, Lee had managed to assemble a fighting force of about 65,000 soldiers. This was considerably more than he had wielded at Antietam, about the number with which he had won his victory at Chancellorsville, and ten to fifteen thousand fewer than he had with him at Gettysburg."

Allen Guelzo gives a mixed assessment in The Last Invasion pages 463-465:

"Many people assumed that the battle of Gettysburg was, as Blake said, 'a decisive triumph,' and given the forces involved, the length of time elapsed, and the casualties afterward, perhaps it should have been. But not in 1863. 'An army of 60,000 or 80,000 men is not to be knocked in pieces by any such battle as we have fought yet,' Andrew Atkinson Humphreys reminded the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War when he testified before them in March 1864."

"The Army of Northern Virginia's morale, which sank so low in the weeks after Gettysburg, proved how elastic a factor like morale could be, rebounding through the fall and winter of 1863 to the point where Confederates could open a new campaigning season in 1864 'in fine spirits and anxious for a fight.'"

"Writing more than a year later, Richard Henry Dana believed that Gettysburg 'was the turning-point in our history,' not so much for winning a victory as for avoiding a defeat that would have proved the Army of the Potomac's - and the Union's - last defeat. 'Had Lee gained that battle, the Democrats would have risen and stopped the war. With the city of New York and Governor [Horatio] Seymour, and Governor [Joel] Parker in New Jersey, and a majority in Pennsylvania, as they then would have had, they would so have crippled us as to end the contest. That they would have attempted it we at home know.' So even if Gettysburg was less than decisive in strictly military terms, it was decisive enough to restore the sinking morale of the Union, decisive enough to keep at bay the forces which hoped Lincoln could be persuaded to revoke emancipation, decisive enough to make people look back and understand that the Confederacy would never be able to mount a serious invasion again, decisive enough that the momentum of the war would from now on belong solely to the Union, decisive enough that after Gettysburg, the sun never shone for the South again."

 

[JeffBrooks]

Trying to determine what the "turning point" of the war was is a futile exercise. We human beings wish history was simple and pre-determined, like the plot of a novel or film. There were actually multiple turning points, with varying periods of Union ascendency and Confederate ascendency.

I would argue that there was a "point of no return", beyond which Union victory was inevitable, and that was the combination of events from August-October of 1864.

 

[wausaubob]

Trying to determine what the "turning point" of the war was is a futile exercise. We human beings wish history was simple and pre-determined, like the plot of a novel or film. There were actually multiple turning points, with varying periods of Union ascendency and Confederate ascendency.

I would argue that there was a "point of no return", beyond which Union victory was inevitable, and that was the combination of events from August-October of 1864.

November 8, 1864. After that, was it really war? Or just murder, to paraphrase General Ewell?

 

[jackt62]

I would argue that there was a "point of no return", beyond which Union victory was inevitable, and that was the combination of events from August-October of 1864.

With the caveat being that Lincoln gets re-elected, as those combination of events would surely lead to. The senior commanders of the Confederacy had to know the war was irretreviably lost by that time frame. It seems to me the fact that Lee chose, or was compelled by virtue of his allegiance to the Davis government, to continue the war, and not seek an immediate end at that time is a harsh stain on Lee's legacy.

 

[speedylee]

I read an article today in the Civil War Monitor about Presidential speeches at Gettysburg which contains the statement that "most historians argue that Gettysburg was not a decisive turning point in the war", noting that Lee was able to "retreat without harassment" and the war continued for 2 years. I am curious what others think of this opinion. Does it accurately express a current historical perspective?

I've heard experts disagree on this question. I'm not an exert but I'll throw in my opinion.

Gettysburg was the most costly Confederate loss. The largest, most important Confed army was defeated. It's officer corps suffered severe losses from which it never recovered, in terms of experience and capability. Lee's desire to impact the 1864 election by striking fear into northern voters failed because he needed a battlefield victory to do that. The Army of Northern Virginia suffered losses to its livestock totals that it struggled to recover from.

Vicksburg was also costly for the Confeds and I do not minimize what Grant's accomplishment meant to the Federal war effort. However, the victory at Vicksburg did not inflict the damage on the Confeds that Gettysburg did.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I've heard experts disagree on this question. I'm not an exert but I'll throw in my opinion.

Gettysburg was the most costly Confederate loss. The largest, most important Confed army was defeated. It's officer corps suffered severe losses from which it never recovered, in terms of experience and capability. Lee's desire to impact the 1864 election by striking fear into northern voters failed because he needed a battlefield victory to do that. The Army of Northern Virginia suffered losses to its livestock totals that it struggled to recover from.

Vicksburg was also costly for the Confeds and I do not minimize what Grant's accomplishment meant to the Federal war effort. However, the victory at Vicksburg did not inflict the damage on the Confeds that Gettysburg did.

Gettysburg was in nowhere PA, a location without a scintilla of strategic value. Vicksburg's fall resulted in the capture of two CSA armies. With Vicksburg & Port Hudson's capture, the Mississippi River was open for trade & military movements. The CSA was cut in half. At the same time, the Tullahoma Campaign in Middle Tennessee removed that vital source of horses, mules, hogs & corn from CSA control. It also opened the gate for the capture of Chattanooga & breaking Lee's direct RR connection with his base in Dalton GA. I suggest that a wider reading of the history is in order.

 

[JeffBrooks]

November 8, 1864. After that, was it really war? Or just murder, to paraphrase General Ewell?

After Lincoln's reelection, the best thing Jefferson Davis could have done was negotiate an honorable surrender.

And Lee, Johnston, and Breckinridge (the three voices that really mattered at that point) should have thrown down the gauntlet and said to Davis, "Accept defeat and surrender or we will all resign and encourage every other officer and official to do the same."

 

[JeffBrooks]

With the caveat being that Lincoln gets re-elected, as those combination of events would surely lead to. The senior commanders of the Confederacy had to know the war was irretreviably lost by that time frame. It seems to me the fact that Lee chose, or was compelled by virtue of his allegiance to the Davis government, to continue the war, and not seek an immediate end at that time is a harsh stain on Lee's legacy.

Agreed. Lee was the only man with the moral authority in the South to force Davis's hand.

But there's a caveat. Lee was a soldier through and through. Just like his idol George Washington, he fervently believed in civilian control of the military.

 

[JeffBrooks]

The Army of Northern Virginia suffered losses to its livestock totals that it struggled to recover from.

Is this true? I recall reading that the AoNV subsisted throughout the winter of 63-64 on cattle, fowl, and swine they acquired from Pennsylvania farms.

Anyone have solid numbers on this?

 

[jackt62]

Lee was a soldier through and through. Just like his idol George Washington, he fervently believed in civilian control of the military.

Very much so. Which is probably why he fought to the bitter end, in accordance with his government's and in particular Davis' strong desire.

 

[R. Porter]

Is this true? I recall reading that the AoNV subsisted throughout the winter of 63-64 on cattle, fowl, and swine they acquired from Pennsylvania farms.

Anyone have solid numbers on this?

For one source of protein for the Confederate army during the siege of Petersburg, google The Beefsteak Raid. While this was in September of 1864 and not during the winter of 1863 - 64, it's too good of a story not to mention.

https://www.beyondthecrater.com/bat-sum/the-beefsteak-raid-summaries/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Raid

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Great_Cattle_Raid_at_Harrison's_Landing.jpg

 

[Rhea Cole]

Is this true? I recall reading that the AoNV subsisted throughout the winter of 63-64 on cattle, fowl, and swine they acquired from Pennsylvania farms.

Anyone have solid numbers on this?

How, exactly did the A of NV transport the vast herds of hogs back to Virginia? Up until the 1950's flocks of turkeys & geese numbering in the thousands were herded to market overland in New England. Specialist dogs & shepherds were employed in this work. Thousands of cattle would have had to be gathered & herded toward the A of NV Potomac crossing point. Given the press of time, the hogs, poultry & cattle herds would have been using the available ferries & rail assets that Lee's army was utilizing.

Has anyone ever seen a single reference to this extraordinary movement of animals being funneled across the Potomac during June 1863? Is there any reference for the feeding & sheltering of thousands of captured turkeys & geese in Virginia? Where were the herds of captured cattle pastured?

There were no vast herds of hogs, pigs were left to run free in the woods until they were gathered for slaughter & processing during cold weather; so will not expect an answer about how & where transported. Poultry flocks were herded to market in the fall for the same reasons as pigs were slaughtered in the fall. The spring born animals were of marketable size & in those non-refrigerated days, meat did not go bad like it would during hot months. In any case, herds of piglets, goslings & poults ( turkey chicks ) did not exist for obvious reasons in June 1863.

General Stanley said that cavalry uses up horses the way infantry uses up shoes. 1863 PA was not horse country. The horses bred in that area were draft horses that were unfit for purpose in the military. I suggest referring to the highly informative essays in 'The Cavalry' from the 'Ten Volume Photographic History of the Civil War.' It is available online. The section on the A of the P's vast remount system will tell you more about why Lee's equines were irretrievably diminished by the Gettysburg Campaign than I could here.

The simple answer to your question is, citing the information above, that no number exists for the vast herds & flocks of foraged animals because it didn't happen. Anybody claiming otherwise will have to explain how the tens of thousands of animals crossed the Potomac in June 1863.

Note: if you are not aware of the manner in which great flocks of turkeys & geese were herded to market, Google it. You are in for an eye popper. In Romania, where the herding of flocks still happens, there is a breed of poultry herding dog.

Herds of cattle were brought to distribution points & slaughtered to feed the troops during the war. General Sherman famously signaled directly to Altoona GA during that engagement. The Kennesaw Mountain Signal Station log documents Sherman's signals to another force at the same time. A battalion of troops returning from leave was pushing a herd of 500 cattle from Chattanooga to Atlanta. Sherman saw to it that Hood's marauding soldiers did not find it.

 

[krkey1]

For one source of protein for the Confederate army during the siege of Petersburg, google The Beefsteak Raid. While this was in September of 1864 and not during the winter of 1863 - 64, it's too good of a story not to mention.

https://www.beyondthecrater.com/bat-sum/the-beefsteak-raid-summaries/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Raid

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Great_Cattle_Raid_at_Harrison's_Landing.jpg

That is truly a case of you cannot be mad at the enemy if you were dumb enough to let it happen.

 

[th'anchoriticsybarite]

I may venture a guess... I think the sentiment that Gettysburg really wasn't a "turning point" comes from the realization that by summer 1863 there was no possible way for the rebels to win the war without a Hail Mary Victory, which they didn't get. From the outset the US continually occupied territory under rebel control - on the east coast, along the Mississippi & in the west, and along the gulf. Only in the postage stamp between Richmond and Washington DC did the rebels see any success worth mentioning. Gettysburg can be more accurately seen as a last gasp and confirmation than a turning point.

Vicksburg was likely more important than Gettysburg, as was the capture of New Orleans. Antietam was likely more important. Calling Gettysburg a "turning point" betrays a thought that prior to the engagement the rebels were "winning"... that isn't the case.

Welcome to CWT!

First of all every single point you bring up is absolutely valid...but hindsight is always 20x20.

However suppose that you could instantaneously read the minds of the entire population of the South once a month from 1861 till early '65, the results would have consistently been 80%, 90% or better that the South was winning or at least not losing. Close to those numbers if you posed the same question to the men of the Southern armies. Even among the upper echelon generals would have reflected numbers, if not so high at least in the plus territory.

Posing the same question to the Northern population, their armies and leaders (political and military) would have brought forth much the same results.

Lastly given that one gigantic factor weighing on the minds of people of both sides was the possibility of European intervention to impose a peace between North and South. Certainly had the farce of the missing cigars (with Lee's battle plan attached) not occurred, Lee could have conducted a successful raid of Union territory demonstrating to the British leadership that the North was not going to win and to save time and especially money England could legitimatly impose a cease fire and end the war.

Likewise with just a little better battlefield management, a few better battlefield decisions and G'burg could/would have justified European intervention.

And finally even in 1864 Lee made one last assault on DC. which almost succeeded. In fact should have succeeded. Had Early had just a few more brain cells and not wasted time extorting a ransom from a Maryland city not to burn it down he might well not only have captured DC, he could easily have killed or taken captive Lincoln himself along with much of the Cabinet and the Legislature.

But regardles of the history, if you were able to transport back to the 1860's and got on a soapbox on a main street in Atlanta, Columbia, Richmond, DC, Philly, New York, Chicago or New Orleans orating that the North was winning, the South was losing you would have been extremely lucky to be publically derided if not installed into a mental institution.

 

[GwilymT]

First of all every single point you bring up is absolutely valid...but hindsight is always 20x20.

However suppose that you could instantaneously read the minds of the entire population of the South once a month from 1861 till early '65, the results would have consistently been 80%, 90% or better that the South was winning or at least not losing. Close to those numbers if you posed the same question to the men of the Southern armies. Even among the upper echelon generals would have reflected numbers, if not so high at least in the plus territory.

Posing the same question to the Northern population, their armies and leaders (political and military) would have brought forth much the same results.

Lastly given that one gigantic factor weighing on the minds of people of both sides was the possibility of European intervention to impose a peace between North and South. Certainly had the farce of the missing cigars (with Lee's battle plan attached) not occurred, Lee could have conducted a successful raid of Union territory demonstrating to the British leadership that the North was not going to win and to save time and especially money England could legitimatly impose a cease fire and end the war.

Likewise with just a little better battlefield management, a few better battlefield decisions and G'burg could/would have justified European intervention.

And finally even in 1864 Lee made one last assault on DC. which almost succeeded. In fact should have succeeded. Had Early had just a few more brain cells and not wasted time extorting a ransom from a Maryland city not to burn it down he might well not only have captured DC, he could easily have killed or taken captive Lincoln himself along with much of the Cabinet and the Legislature.

But regardles of the history, if you were able to transport back to the 1860's and got on a soapbox on a main street in Atlanta, Columbia, Richmond, DC, Philly, New York, Chicago or New Orleans orating that the North was winning, the South was losing you would have been extremely lucky to be publically derided if not installed into a mental institution.

Quite a claim.

 

[wausaubob]

For one source of protein for the Confederate army during the siege of Petersburg, google The Beefsteak Raid. While this was in September of 1864 and not during the winter of 1863 - 64, it's too good of a story not to mention.

https://www.beyondthecrater.com/bat-sum/the-beefsteak-raid-summaries/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beefsteak_Raid

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Great_Cattle_Raid_at_Harrison's_Landing.jpg

Brilliant raid by Wade Hampton, but without salt and the ability to smoke and dry the meat, and without hay and oats, it did not seem to have the expected benefit.

 

[Belfoured]

Quite a claim.

Um, yeah. In fact, quite a few pretty strong claims. Just for example, I know where I'd put my money on that 80-90%+ if they did some polling in the Richmond/Petersburg environs or the Atlanta environs along about July 1864.

 

[wausaubob]

First of all every single point you bring up is absolutely valid...but hindsight is always 20x20.

However suppose that you could instantaneously read the minds of the entire population of the South once a month from 1861 till early '65, the results would have consistently been 80%, 90% or better that the South was winning or at least not losing. Close to those numbers if you posed the same question to the men of the Southern armies. Even among the upper echelon generals would have reflected numbers, if not so high at least in the plus territory.

Posing the same question to the Northern population, their armies and leaders (political and military) would have brought forth much the same results.

Lastly given that one gigantic factor weighing on the minds of people of both sides was the possibility of European intervention to impose a peace between North and South. Certainly had the farce of the missing cigars (with Lee's battle plan attached) not occurred, Lee could have conducted a successful raid of Union territory demonstrating to the British leadership that the North was not going to win and to save time and especially money England could legitimatly impose a cease fire and end the war.

Likewise with just a little better battlefield management, a few better battlefield decisions and G'burg could/would have justified European intervention.

And finally even in 1864 Lee made one last assault on DC. which almost succeeded. In fact should have succeeded. Had Early had just a few more brain cells and not wasted time extorting a ransom from a Maryland city not to burn it down he might well not only have captured DC, he could easily have killed or taken captive Lincoln himself along with much of the Cabinet and the Legislature.

But regardles of the history, if you were able to transport back to the 1860's and got on a soapbox on a main street in Atlanta, Columbia, Richmond, DC, Philly, New York, Chicago or New Orleans orating that the North was winning, the South was losing you would have been extremely lucky to be publically derided if not installed into a mental institution.

Interesting "What if" scenarios. But in the real world in the aftermath of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, the US occupied Little Rock, Chattanooga, Knoxville and also Battery Wagner which effectively closed Charleston to blockade runners. So in the real world Gettysburg coincided with further US strategic gains.
Since the US had a winning strategy of controlling the border areas, controlling the far west, conquering the MIssissippi River and deploying naval forces on the coasts, on the internal rivers, and on the world wide commercial lanes, its difficult to see how the Confederates would contend with the US which was the dominant industrial and agricultural power, even if there was a temporary pause in hostilities.
If the 20th century experience is valid, the war would be renewed until one of the belligerents was destroyed.

 

[wausaubob]

The most likely result of a better Confederate outcome at Gettysburg is that Grant would be brought east faster. The two necessary operations two complete the blockade would have been completed on Grant's schedule. There would have been no US advance past Chattanooga, no Chickamauga, no Banks expedition for Dick Taylor to frustrate and embarrass.
The Republicans may have even dumped Lincoln in favor of Grant.