Vicksburg or Gettysburg?

[bamaman]

On a recent C span show there was a panel that debated whether Vicksburg or Gettysburg was a more critical battle. If the North had to win only one of these, which one was more crucial? If the South needed to win one, which one would it be? If each side won a battle how would the outcome of the ensuing battles been different?

 

[LCYingling3rd]

I have toured both, but I am biased toward Gettysburg. I live in Pennsylvania and have toured it often, I had ancestors that fought at Gettysburg, I am most interested in the Eastern Theatre in general and the ANV and AoP in particular, and I think the Gettysburg Address is one of the best speeches in American History...LOL

They were both important and I am one of those that considers those first four days in July 1863, combining the two actions, as the turning point of the war.

I think Vicksburg was tactically and strategically more important and Gettysburg was psychologically more important. Because I believe the only way the Confederacy could have won is if the Northern Peace Democrats had gained control and sued for peace, I have to say the psychological impact of Gettysburg was more important. And the subsequent Address by Lincoln didn't hurt!

 

[LematLemat]

The results of Vicksburg strike me as far more significant than the results of Gettysburg.

While Pemberton's Army is paroled and for the most part re-organized and back in service within a few months (Stevenson's re-organized division joining Bragg at Chattanooga in October, several brigades in Polk's corps-sized command in Mississippi, etc), the majority of the Trans-Mississippi-originating units exchanged from Vicksburg desert so significantly that the units are transferred back across the river.

Most significantly, in my opinion, Pemberton's army being broken up, and the majority of Johnston's army being sent to Bragg, turns Mississippi from one of the two principal regions in the Western Theater to a relative side show. The Western Theater evolves from being two distinct front, to a consolidated front in which the federals are able to concentrate the majority of their force against a single army. The distinct federal advantage in the Chattanooga and Atlanta Campaigns doesn't materialize if the Western Theater isn't narrowed into one region of operations.

Gettysburg overall seems for the most part strategically moot. Lee's army doesn't suffer any permanent damage despite the high casualties of the battle, and the losses certainly don't taper Lee's offensive spirit.

Not only does he dispatch a third of his infantry to other regions (Hood's and McLaws' divisions to Bragg and Pickett's division to North Carolina), he still pursues a fall offensive after the 11th and 12th Corps have been sent to Tennessee in the wake of Chickamauga. While there is no major engagement fought during the Bristoe Campaign, Lee's aggression and confidence, and that of the Army of Northern Virginia, is not significantly altered by the defeat at Gettysburg.

The Army of Northern Virginia too is able to fully recover by the next year's major campaigning season. In the Wilderness, Ewell's corps numbered over 19,000 men and Hill's corps over 24,000, with Longstreet's two divisions numbering 12,000 men (not including Pickett's division of roughly 6,000 men still in North Carolina); Lee's army still fights with characteristic ferocity throughout the Overland Campaign and pretty much until the fall of Petersburg, and I fail to see how an army could have such high morale despite apparent psychological damage due to Gettysburg.

 

[Elliot Crumblemuffin]

My heart says Gettysburg, but my brain says Vicksburg. The results of Vicksburg had more serious strategic implications for both belligerents than Gettysburg. From the Union perspective Vicksburg is closely aligned with Scotts original "anaconda" plan, and both enhanced the goals of the Union while negatively impacting the ability of the Confederacy to survive.

Without discounting the horrible and very real results of armed conflict, hindsight of Gettysburg provides us with a dramatic (somewhat romantic) story of a battle between two brave armies where valor, bravery, and selfless sacrifice played large roles. In other words, the characters at Gettysburg are simply more "romanticized" than the players at Vicksburg. But Vicksburg was where "the sausage of victory was made"

 

[jackt62]

This has been a subject of much discussion and debate. But the straightforward answer as to which was more "critical" has to be Vicksburg. The capture of that citadel (and subsequently Port Hudson) was the successful conclusion to year-long federal attempts to seize the Mississippi Valley and dislodge and derange Confederate forces in that region. That was a decisive step in the Union's strategy to slice the Confederacy into smaller and smaller segments; in the aftermath of Vicksburg, the Union was able to fully concentrate its forces along the next major axis Nashville to Atlanta. The virtual destruction and capture of 30,000 soldiers of Pemberton's army and the stranglehold over Texas beef and other foodstuffs west of the Mississippi were far more important in changing the course of the war than the defeat of Lee's army at Gettysburg, an important federal victory but one which did not radically alter the see-saw war in the east.

 

[DixieRifles]

I'm surprised at the answers so far. I was really expecting everyone---I mean everyone---would say the defeat at Gettysburg sunk the Confederacy. I was about ready to vote Gettysburg, I guess, simply because I thought there were more casualties there than Vicksburg. As previously stated, some of those captured at Vicksburg were exchanged in weeks or months later.
So I'm neutral.

 

[East Tennessee Roots]

The Confederacy never recovered from Vicksburg. Mr. Lincoln was correct when he described Vicksburg as the "nail in the coffin". If Vicksburg fell, the rebellion would be over. Lee managed to get his Army back to Virginia and fight for almost two more years.

 

[Pat Answer]

Good recurring question and all the well-argued responses so far deserve a 'like.'

I'm sticking with my old answer from years ago: for the Confederacy strategically Gettysburg was a black eye and Vicksburg a broken arm.

 

[jackt62]

I'm surprised at the answers so far. I was really expecting everyone---I mean everyone---would say the defeat at Gettysburg sunk the Confederacy. I was about ready to vote Gettysburg, I guess, simply because I thought there were more casualties there than Vicksburg. As previously stated, some of those captured at Vicksburg were exchanged in weeks or months later.
So I'm neutral.

The Confederate defeat at Gettysburg has been enshrined in historical lore as being the "high water mark" and the "turning point" of the rebellion. Some of that has to do with an undue emphasis that has been placed on Lee and the ANV's campaigns, at the expense of the long suffering struggles of the Confederacy's armies out west, particularly the AoT. Indeed, Gettysburg did represent the abrupt end to Lee's long string of year long achievements dating from the Seven Days in June 1862 and with some exceptions, was the beginning of the ANV's mostly defensive posture for almost 2 more years. But despite its high casualty count, which bled the ANV even further, Gettysburg was not decisive in the sense that it significantly altered the course of the war. Regardless of the fact that many paroled Vicksburg captives may have ended up returning to the fighting ranks, the Army of Mississippi was destroyed as a viable organization, and for the most part, the Confederacy was forced to abandon any hope of reclaiming New Orleans and the Mississippi River Valley.

 

[Ole Miss]

Vicksburg, as its loss severed the Confederacy in twain. Both Lincoln and Davis knew the strategic importance of Vicksburg and made statements expressing their views.
Regards

"See what a lot of land these fellows hold, of which Vicksburg is the key! The war can never be brought to a close until that key is in our pocket. We can take all the northern ports of the Confederacy, and they can defy us from Vicksburg."

Davis stated that Vicksburg was "the nailhead that holds the South's two halves together."

Vicksburg

 

[East Tennessee Roots]

many paroled Vicksburg captives may have ended up returning to the fighting ranks,

A number of East Tennessee Confederates that were paroled at Vicksburg never reported to parole camp and never returned to the army. Many joined Union Tennessee regiments being formed within the State by that time or shortly after.

 

[bamaman]

Good recurring question and all the well-argued responses so far deserve a 'like.'

I'm sticking with my old answer from years ago: for the Confederacy strategically Gettysburg was a black eye and Vicksburg a broken arm.

My opinion is that if Grant had lost at Vicksburg then he would have been sacked by Lincoln. His loss would have resulted in à myriad of scenarios and possible outcomes of the war

 

[Seduzal]

FYI.

For 81 years after the July 4, 1863, surrender of Vicksburg the city did not celebrate Independence Day. The surrender of Vicksburg by Confederate General John C. Pemberton to Union General Ulysses S. Grant was not a cause for celebration for the fallen city. The 47-day siege of the city had left the citizens exhausted and humiliated. During the siege, the city was bombarded every day. By the end, the starving population of the city had been reduced to eating mules, dogs, cats and even rats. The horrors of the siege are documented in the diaries kept by citizens of the city such as Mary Loughborough whose diary was later published as My Cave Life in Vicksburg. In her diary, she wrote:

"A young girl, becoming weary in the confinement of the cave, hastily ran to the house in the interval that elapsed between the slowly falling shells. On returning, an explosion sounded near her – one wild scream, and she ran into her mother's presence, sinking like a wounded dove, the life blood flowing over the light summer dress in crimson ripples from a death-wound in her side, caused by the shell fragment."

It was not until after World War II in 1945 that Vicksburg joined the rest of the nation in the celebration of Independence Day. The patriotic fervor after the war and a visit by General Dwight D. Eisenhower set the stage for a return to celebrating the birth of our nation.

My answer to this question would be Vicksburg because..the siege of Vicksburg lasted 47 days verses Gettysburg 3 day battle.
Vicksburg was a main supply depot on the Mississippi River supply food men and equipment from New Orleans and some of the western states to the Confederacy

 

[Irishtom29]

...The Western Theater evolves from being two distinct front, to a consolidated front in which the federals are able to concentrate the majority of their force against a single army. The distinct federal advantage in the Chattanooga and Atlanta Campaigns doesn't materialize if the Western Theater isn't narrowed into one region of operations...

An excellent post.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Short answer: Vicksburg was a greater strategic loss for the Confederacy, a greater strategic victory for the Union both in terms of military activity but also reopening the river to merchant shipping, and Vicksburg placed Grant in ascendancy.

In terms of the OP's question, much depends on when and how the loss occurs.

If Vicksburg isn't under siege then Johnston's army has no reason to exist. Most of its component units are back in Tennessee when Rosecrans launches his Tullahoma Offensive.

Grant was losing/failing at Vicksburg for six months. If his decisive move across the river south of Vicksburg is blocked or otherwise fails, does Grant just move on to another scheme?

Gettysburg has a greater chance of going the other way in terms of immediate outcome, but the aftermath seems to have fewer meaningful consequences. Meade falls back to Pipe Creek or maybe Washington. Lee scares the hell out the Yankees, but has no chance of taking Washington, Baltimore, or Philadelphia. He probably can't even get across the Susquehanna. It's a PR nightmare for Lincoln. Meade is sacked and scapegoated. Lee gathers all the supplies he can and maybe fights another battle with the AOTP before withdrawing across the Potomac. Grant probably comes east sooner - probably as Meade's successor. 1864 plays out much the same.

 

[McClellandidnothingwrong]

Both are legitimate answers. I think probably Vicksburg but Gettysburg is definitely downplayed today as part of a natural pendulum swinging, likely in 2045 it will be the other way again.

 

[7th Mississippi Infantry]

hindsight of Gettysburg provides us with a dramatic (somewhat romantic) story of a battle In other words, the characters at Gettysburg are simply more "romanticized" than the players at Vicksburg. But Vicksburg was where "the sausage of victory was made"

I agree 100 %

Gettysburg (along with all major campaigns in the East) will always be the "glorious romantic battles".
The Western Theater will always take a back seat to the Eastern.

And Gawd help the Trans-Mississippi Theater ... most Americans are not even aware of the ACW battles that were fought in Arizona.

 

[Elliot Crumblemuffin]

I agree 100 %

Gettysburg (along with all major campaigns in the East) will always be the "glorious romantic battles".
The Western Theater will always take a back seat to the East.

And Gawd help the Trans-Mississippi Theater ... most Americans are not even aware of the ACW battles fought in Arizona.

Very true. I am kicking myself now for not visiting the Arizona Civil War sites when I was going there regularly!

 

[bamaman]

Both are legitimate answers. I think probably Vicksburg but Gettysburg is definitely downplayed today as part of a natural pendulum swinging, likely in 2045 it will be the other way again.

2045 is a long time in the future!

 

[bamaman]

Very true. I am kicking myself now for not visiting the Arizona Civil War sites when I was going there regularly!

Did you ever go to the Pichaco Peak reenactment? It was of the battle of Glorieta Pass