kibitzers:Formal Debate: Vicksburg vs. Gettysburg which affected outcome of war more.


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,452
Location
Near Kankakee
#42
I just stumbled onto this amazing debate! Both participants gave considered and persuasive arguments as to the validity of their particular positions. I always came down on the side of Vicksburg's greater importance, but after following the thread, there is a real case to be made for Gettysburg. Maybe the best conclusion is that each Northern victory, was in its own way, significant to the ultimate defeat of the CSA.

Given that I'm new to CWT, can anyone tell me how often debates are held, and how does one sign on as a participant?
This is a new thing, Jack. Hasn't been tried before. Can't say what the next one will be about , who participates or when.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
Messages
850
#44
Sorry for the delay. I'm visiting relatives in the Shenandoah Valley this weekend, and getting to visit a few Civil War sites. I will try to submit my next post by Monday evening.
 

chellers

Lt. Colonel
Retired Moderator
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
9,998
Location
East Texas
#45
Sorry for the delay. I'm visiting relatives in the Shenandoah Valley this weekend, and getting to visit a few Civil War sites. I will try to submit my next post by Monday evening.
Scotsman, Sir,

Your apology for delay is found to be non-applicable and, therefore, is rejected by The Committee. Great minds will not be rushed to ponder, and must be given their leisure to formulate great thoughts.

Respectfully,
Chellers
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
5,504
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
#46
Well thank you very much, William, but you're jumping the gun! The debate isn't over yet. @Scotsman is still entitled to a rebuttal of my last post, and up to 3 more supplemental posts of his own if he wants them, to which I'll be entitled a rebuttal. And then there are questions and closing statements. So please stay tuned, and be thinking of questions you might want to ask us!

Oh it does seem I did jump the gun....Sorry..........And I will stay tuned and looking forward to it..........


NC State Flag in Civil War  1.jpg

Respectfully,
William
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Messages
138
Location
Livonia, Michigan
#48
Always an interesting thread. Of course, both battles were crucial and left indelible echoes and lingering reflections. But I think had Vicksburg failed, or was not ultimately concluded in Union favor, I think Lee's army would have recovered, and the civil war may well have ended, albeit with different results. I think citizen and Union morale, without Vicksburg s victory, would have been driven to despair, and the "soft"ending to the war, without resolution.
 

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,128
Location
New York City
#49
Always an interesting thread. Of course, both battles were crucial and left indelible echoes and lingering reflections. But I think had Vicksburg failed, or was not ultimately concluded in Union favor, I think Lee's army would have recovered, and the civil war may well have ended, albeit with different results. I think citizen and Union morale, without Vicksburg s victory, would have been driven to despair, and the "soft"ending to the war, without resolution.
Do you then agree, as I do, with the proposition that the CSA ultimately lost the war because of what happened in the Western campaigns?
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Messages
138
Location
Livonia, Michigan
#50
What happened, in my very humbled opinion, in the western campaigns contributed a much needed "boost" of hope for Union objectives, and confidence to that aim. No one, at least I don't think Grant, had a clue as to what lay ahead. The Vicksburg campaign, I think above all, provided hope for the North, and new faith in their Western general. There are SO many layers here I can't possibly do justice for in a post like this, but I have to mention a lot of "luck" and strange behind the scenes problems were going on with Pemberton and his staff, and I think pride worked against CSA during Vicksburg campaign. But, I'm not too sure of anything. Learning more, though.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
34,452
Location
Near Kankakee
#51
Do you then agree, as I do, with the proposition that the CSA ultimately lost the war because of what happened in the Western campaigns?
The war in the East may be compared to two boxers squaring off in the ring. The war in the West might be compared to a wolf-pack chewing off the legs of one of those boxers.
 

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,128
Location
New York City
#52
What happened, in my very humbled opinion, in the western campaigns contributed a much needed "boost" of hope for Union objectives, and confidence to that aim. No one, at least I don't think Grant, had a clue as to what lay ahead. The Vicksburg campaign, I think above all, provided hope for the North, and new faith in their Western general. There are SO many layers here I can't possibly do justice for in a post like this, but I have to mention a lot of "luck" and strange behind the scenes problems were going on with Pemberton and his staff, and I think pride worked against CSA during Vicksburg campaign. But, I'm not too sure of anything. Learning more, though.
The other consideration is that the Union's best generals (Grant, Sherman, Thomas) and the CSA's least effective generals (Bragg, Pemberton) commanded in the West. The reverse was true back East, where the Union's least effective generals at the start of the war (McDowell, McClellan, Burnside) squared off against the CSA's best generals (Lee, Stonewall, Stuart).

This is obviously not a consideration set in stone and yes, there were less effective Union generals in the West (Rosecrans, Buell), and great CSA ones (Forrest). Same for the Eastern theater.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top