Gettysburg not a decisive turning point?

[speedylee]

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.

The Confederacy was already split in half before Vicksburg fell. Even New Orleans had fallen to the federals. The river itself was in federal control.

 

[Rhea Cole]

The Confederacy was already split in half before Vicksburg fell. Even New Orleans had fallen to the federals. The river itself was in federal control.

Vicksburg & Port Hudson blockaded free passage of farm products from Iowas, Illinois. Ohio, Indiana & Kentucky. It was not just denying CSA access to the Trans-Mississippi, it was the free flow of goods & access to the major financial center in New Orleans that was at stake. Hold your nose, the essential flow of "extras," as the surplus slaves from border states market designation was, reinvigorated plantations in Louisiana & Arkansas. The fall of Vicksburg was a strategic sledgehammer blow that sent shockwaves through the middle of the country.

 

[wausaubob]

Vicksburg & Port Hudson blockaded free passage of farm products from Iowas, Illinois. Ohio, Indiana & Kentucky. It was not just denying CSA access to the Trans-Mississippi, it was the free flow of goods & access to the major financial center in New Orleans that was at stake. Hold your nose, the essential flow of "extras," as the surplus slaves from border states market designation was, reinvigorated plantations in Louisiana & Arkansas. The fall of Vicksburg was a strategic sledgehammer blow that sent shockwaves through the middle of the country.

Escorted military traffic, especially of coal, made operations in Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico much more affordable., There were still marauders shooting at river boats, so non military traffic needed to be cautious.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Escorted military traffic, especially of coal, made operations in Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico much more affordable., There were still marauders shooting at river boats, so non military traffic needed to be cautious.

You got that right. The nasty river war continued 24/7 until the last day of the war. Irregular cavalry habitually gunned down any blacks aboard boats that were disabled. Union mobile units burned any structures that the "banditti" sheltered in. The tinclad's war was as inglorious as it was constant.

 

[wausaubob]

The battle for Chattanooga was probably more of a turning point. It wasn't a turning point in terms of changing the US odds of winning.
It was more a demonstration of absolute dominance of the US' logistical effort and industrial capacity.
After the battle Thomas' staff reported that from October 20 to December 1, 1863 the US took in 573 deserters and 5,569 prisoners. See Powell, page 180.
Considering that Confederates only reported 361 KIA, and 2,160 WIA, the number of men who quit fighting is astounding. How many men from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi, that had fought for the Confederate cause thought the cause was hopeless and began to rate their duty to their family as more important than their duty to the alleged nation?

 

[CavRTO]

The battle for Chattanooga was probably more of a turning point. It wasn't a turning point in terms of changing the US odds of winning.
It was more a demonstration of absolute dominance of the US' logistical effort and industrial capacity.
After the battle Thomas' staff reported that from October 20 to December 1, 1863 the US took in 573 deserters and 5,569 prisoners. See Powell, page 180.
Considering that Confederates only reported 361 KIA, and 4,722 WIA, the number of men who quit fighting is astounding. How many men from Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi, that had fought for the Confederate cause thought the cause was hopeless and began to rate their duty to their family as more important than their duty to the alleged nation?

That so many secesh stacked arms it seems to me that the soldiers in that theater felt they really didn't have that much skin in the game to make it worth dying for. Unless there's some documentation of interrogations as to why, it's open to conjecture.

 

[Belfoured]

The Confederacy was already split in half before Vicksburg fell. Even New Orleans had fallen to the federals. The river itself was in federal control.

Not quite entirely - the portion between Vicksburg and Baton Rouge and its tributaries could still be used to connect the Trans-Mississippi with the the CSA east of the river. July 1863 ended that.

 

[wausaubob]

Vicksburg was a decisive turning point. The outcome was undisputed. The Confederates surrendered and Vicksburg and Port Hudson were occupied by the US. It didn't have to be done over again. The resources dedicated to that important strategic and political goal were then available to be applied to other purposes, and they were used.
Gettysburg was just another tactical shooting match. Like Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, it achieved nothing permanent. The Army of the Potomac still had to confront the Virginia army. It was able to detach some of its weakest divisions to Chattanooga, but it did not detach towards an enclave in North Carolina nor was it able in 1863 create a dominant force in the Shenandoah Valley. To that extent Lee achieved a delay in the end of the war, which could have helped his political strategy.

 

[wausaubob]

The battle of Gettysburg may have important in the battle for public opinion. A tactical victory may have helped people realize the US was winning in the west and in the Far West and was in control of the future of the country.

 

[Belfoured]

Vicksburg was a decisive turning point. The outcome was undisputed. The Confederates surrendered and Vicksburg and Port Hudson ic were occupied by the US. It didn't have to be done over again. The resources dedicated to that important strategic and political goal were then available to be applied to other purposes, and they were used.
Gettysburg was just another tactical shooting match. Like Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, it achieved nothing permanent. The Army of the Potomac still have to confront the Virginia army. It was able to detach some its weakest divisions to Chattanooga, but it did not detach towards an enclave in North Carolina nor was it able in 1863 create a dominant force in the Shenandoah Valley. To that extent Lee achieved a delay in the end of the war, which could have helped his political strategy.

"It was able to detach some its weakest divisions to Chattanooga, but it did not detach towards an enclave in North Carolina nor was it able in 1863 create a dominant force in the Shenandoah Valley."

I would add only that the detachment of XI and XII Corps was a result of Lee's ability to detach Longstreet and a significant part of his corps.

 

[wausaubob]

"It was able to detach some its weakest divisions to Chattanooga, but it did not detach towards an enclave in North Carolina nor was it able in 1863 create a dominant force in the Shenandoah Valley."

I would add only that the detachment of XI and XII Corps was a result of Lee's ability to detach Longstreet and a significant part of his corps.

Yes, but then attrition began to matter. Because Longstreet arrived in Georgia with only two divisions. I assume those two divisions had incurred significant casualties at Gettysburg. That probably affected how fast they could collapse the US defense at Chattanooga.

 

[Belfoured]

Yes, but then attrition began to matter. Because Longstreet arrived in Georgia with only two divisions. I assume those two divisions had incurred significant casualties at Gettysburg. That probably affected how fast they could collapse the US defense at Chattanooga.

I agree. My point is a little different - all the damage inflicted at Gettysburg didn't prevent Lee from sending Longstreet west, and he still was able to fend off Meade throughout Fall 1863.

 

[JerryD]

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.

I dont think this is remotely close to true. I have read way too many books and articles on how the South lost due to lack of support for the war, once the tide turned against it. It might have been true in 1861, but by the middle of 1862 I don't think Southerners could look upon the lost of territory as anything other than they were losing the war.

 

[wausaubob]

I dont think this is remotely close to true. I have read way too many books and articles on how the South lost due to lack of support for the war, once the tide turned against it. It might have been true in 1861, but by the middle of 1862 I don't think Southerners could look upon the lost of territory as anything other than they were losing the war.

It is worth observing that 4 1/5 states considered part of the south never completed secession. By the first week of June 1862 the US occupied the largest city that had been part of the Confederacy as well as Nashville, Memphis, Norfolk and Pensacola. People in those places probably thought the US was making substantial progress.
If we think of people in just the 7 early secessionist states, who were not getting unfiltered news, they might have believed the Confederacy was winning. But even in Virginia and North Carolina people knew the US occupied part of their state.
That leaves unanswered as to how much did the enslaved people know about the weakening of slavery in the middle 8 states and New Orleans.

 

[29thWisCoG]

Champion Hill was the turning point, it was the decisive battle of the Vicksburg Campaign... from this victory Grant was allowed to move East and confront Lee.

 

[wausaubob]

In Myers' book on American/British relations at page 145 he wrote about British reaction to Gettysburg and Vicksburg. The geographical impact of Vicksburg was obvious in England.

 

[Zack]

I'm not the first to have stolen this, but I think when it comes to Gettysburg and Vicksburg that old Churchill quote about the Second Battle of El Alamein is applicable:

"Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end.

But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

 

[damYankee]

If Gettysburg wasn't a turning, no battle was a turning point.
One thing I'm pretty sure of, July 1863 was a turning point. I do not believe any one event was the turning point. But the South was shoveling sand against the tide after the summer of 63'.

 

[wausaubob]

If Gettysburg wasn't a turning, no battle was a turning point.
One thing I'm pretty sure of, July 1863 was a turning point. I do not believe any one event was the turning point. But the South was shoveling sand against the tide after the summer of 63'.

Battery Wagner, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Vicksburg, Port Hudson, Little Rock. Lee got the war out of Virginia for a few months, and the Confederacy shrank in all other places. By the time of Missionary Ridge the US was clearly dominant.

 

[WJC]

The "turning point" is a term determined only in hindsight. It also tends to be considered as a single, unique point in time, as if it were the only event that changed the eventual outcome.
News from the combatant forces was always welcome at home. And hearing that a great battle had been fought, or- in this case- two great battles had been fought with great loss no doubt was traumatic to Southerners. But I doubt if any of them said "That's it! The war is over! We lost!" in July 1863.
The argument that Vicksburg, not Gettysburg was the single "turning point", is pointless. If we must identify a "turning point" the fact that the United States forces won two major victories at almost the same time argues- again in hindsight- for the two of them to be considered together as that "turning point".