Vicksburg vs Gettysburg

[Ara Oko]

Hi folks, I'm ex Mil (UK) and a half decent analyst, tho studying the Syrian battles pace was so depressing, I've quit for now.
A lifelong student of war back from Sun Tzu onwards.

Anyway, I have come to believe that at Vicksberg the Federals created enough destruction in men, material and wrecked the whole command structure that would be become evident at Ghettysberg.

I think Vicksberg heralded the collapse of the South, and Ghettysberg, to my mind was an important low-hanging fruit. Everyone remembers Ghettsburg as THE pivotal fight though. Is this justified?

 

[Carronade]

There has been a lot of discussion on this, such as:

Been giving this some thought...wasn't the Vicksburg campaign more decisive than Gettysburg? | Siege of Vicksburg

Even though the United States sort of won the Battle of Gettysburg, that victory did not shorten the war. The United States victory at Vicksburg settled a good deal of uncertainty, shortened the war, and made a lot of southern people consider what the heck they were fighting for if the United...

civilwartalk.com

and the consensus seems to be what you suggest, that Vicksburg had more impact on the course of the war. The "war between the capitals" naturally got a lot of attention both at the time and since, but Gettysburg didn't change the overall situation any more than Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville had.

Welcome to the forum!

 

[Patrick H]

Gettysburg: More men engaged, more men killed or wounded, closer to the nation's capitol city, more potential to destroy the North's will to fight.

Vicksburg: Whoever controls Vicksburg controls the mighty Mississippi River. The Confederacy is still alive, but it is split in half. Grant conquers Vicksburg and the fate of the Confederacy is sealed forevermore.

It wasn't pretty. Some might not have even seen the nobility in it. But when Grant took Vicksburg and split the Confederacy, he won the war for the Union.

My conclusion: Vicksburg is where the war was won. Lots of people (some of them southern generals) were just slow to grasp that fact.

There you have it, my friends.

 

[Ole Miss]

Welcome from the Shiloh/Pittsburg Landing Forum and North Mississippi! Be sure and visit the Forum soon.
At Vicksburg, the South lost the last port on the Mississippi which interupted the flow of crops from the delta which were shipped down the Yazoo River. Products and ammunitions and arms from Louisiana and Texas were shipped across the Mississippi to Vicksburg which also had foundries which produced ammunition and railroad equipment which was transported to Jackson by rail and onward to other sites from there.
Pemberton surredered his Army of Vicksburg with 29,000 men aloong with the city which certainly impaired the Confederacy's cause far more than the loss at Gettysburg.
Regards
David

 

[Andy Cardinal]

Welcome from northeast Ohio and the First Bull Run/Manassas Forum!

 

[Tom Hughes]

Lincoln said it best when he said that Vicksburg was the key and until that key is in our pocket we cannot when this war.

 

[leftyhunter]

Hi folks, I'm ex Mil (UK) and a half decent analyst, tho studying the Syrian battles pace was so depressing, I've quit for now.
A lifelong student of war back from Sun Tzu onwards.

Anyway, I have come to believe that at Vicksberg the Federals created enough destruction in men, material and wrecked the whole command structure that would be become evident at Ghettysberg.

I think Vicksberg heralded the collapse of the South, and Ghettysberg, to my mind was an important low-hanging fruit. Everyone remembers Ghettsburg as THE pivotal fight though. Is this justified?

Not quite sure what your thesis or argument is. Gettysburg and Vicksburg are very separate and distinct battles .
Both battles did conclude at the same time but we're not really related.
As mentioned we have several threads that debate which battle was more important including a few years back a very good limited debate thread.
Not sure why one battle is supposedly more important then then the other .
Both battles had very different objectives but the Confederacy lost both battles and could not replace the lost manpower.
Leftyhunter

 

[WJC]

Welcome! Great question, as you can see from the responses! Enjoy!

 

[privateflemming]

In my opinion Gettysburg was much more relevant than Vicksburg, because as others have said: more men were killed and engaged and it was much closer to the nations' capitals. It took the Union almost another two years after Vicksburg to defeat the Confederacy. It was hardly a knockout blow and the Confederacy could have survived much longer despite Vicksburg if things had gone better in the east. On the other hand, if the Confederacy had won at Gettysburg the war may very well have quickly been brought to an end with a Confederate army ransacking north of Washington and the US capital itself under direct threat.

It seems to me there is some contrarian bias involved in people who say Vicksburg was unequivocally the turning point of the war rather than Gettysburg, since for a long time Gettysburg was considered the turning point (including by those involved). Now when looking back on it historians acknowledge that Vicksburg and the Western theater was actually quite important in the long run and reasonably make the case that its significance has been massively neglected in historiography. However, I think a lot of modern historians want to take this too far in the opposite direction by saying it was actually the most important of all. I think a similar thing goes on with what seems like the modern trendy apologetics for Braxton Bragg, claiming he wasn't actually that bad of a general and most of the blame for his failures should actually be put on his subordinates for arguing with him too much (just as Bragg himself said). It's all just weird to me because it seems to me that the traditional view that Bragg was indeed incompetent and a poor leader and the Western theater was smaller scale and less decisive is closer to reality.

 

[Coonewah Creek]

Pemberton surredered his Army of Vicksburg with 29,000 men aloong with the city which certainly impaired the Confederacy's cause far more than the loss at Gettysburg.

I'd have to add that the fall of Vicksburg directly led to the surrender of Port Hudson with the loss of another 7,000 Confederate troops in addition to the 29,000 directly surrendered at Vicksburg. Not a huge additional loss in troops, but by that point in the war, every Confederate loss in men and materiel was important.

 

[Ole Miss]

You are correct and I should have added that point. Good catch!
Regards
David

 

[Dead Parrott]

You beat an opponent two ways: remove his ability to fight, and remove his will to fight.

Vicksburg was an example of the first. The logistical and resource impact of its loss was critical blow, even if it didn't rattle the fighting morale of the confederacy.

Gettysburg was an example of the second. The emotional morale boost of defeating Lee was a huge positive for the Union and its resolve to continue the war.

Both were important, toward different keys to victory.

 

[UCVRelics]

Taking the Mississippi river to include New Orleans,Vicksburg and Memphis was always part of the Unions original plan. The battle of Gettysburg was a happenstance due to Lee invading the north.

 

[John S. Carter]

Gettysburg: More men engaged, more men killed or wounded, closer to the nation's capitol city, more potential to destroy the North's will to fight.

Vicksburg: Whoever controls Vicksburg controls the mighty Mississippi River. The Confederacy is still alive, but it is split in half. Grant conquers Vicksburg and the fate of the Confederacy is sealed forevermore.

It wasn't pretty. Some might not have even seen the nobility in it. But when Grant took Vicksburg and split the Confederacy, he won the war for the Union.

My conclusion: Vicksburg is where the war was won. Lots of people (some of them southern generals) were just slow to grasp that fact.

There you have it, my friends.

Politically and from a media view it is Gettysburg,Since it happens in the East and as with all battles the media and political concentration is with the Union strategy around Washington,as with the Confederacy it is Richmond and has been from the start.Thought this was a battle with great sacrifice on both sides ,both sides would continue to war,With Vicksburg,the South was open to movement of Union forces down to the Gulf along with the importance of the docks , With the loss of the 'Galbraith of the Mississippi 'the South was now without a major supply depot from the West and the West was as the same.The horrors that the citizens of Vicksburg endured for two years as really not be given the honor they deserve.No Northern city had to precipitate in any horrors as did this population till WW I.One more; Lee's army did loss a battle but Palmerston lost a army[how many prisoners} and a strategic city port,the next would be Atlanta.What Sherman learned in Mississippi he taught in Georgia.

 

[jackt62]

Gettysburg gets the most attention because of its enormous casualty list; northern location; and, controversies on both sides that developed about how the battle was fought. Despite this, Vicksburg was the more critical victory, not only because it represented the destruction of an entire southern army, but opened the Mississippi (with Port Hudson), to northern navigation thereby slicing the trans-Mississippi from the rest of the Confederacy. The success of the Vicksburg campaign allowed Grant and the federal armies to turn their attention to pivoting towards the next critical axis of Chattanooga to Atlanta. The federal victory at Gettysburg did not jump start any similar offensive by the north in Virginia until the following year.

 

[John S. Carter]

Gettysburg gets the most attention because of its enormous casualty list; northern location; and, controversies on both sides that developed about how the battle was fought. Despite this, Vicksburg was the more critical victory, not only because it represented the destruction of an entire southern army, but opened the Mississippi (with Port Hudson), to northern navigation thereby slicing the trans-Mississippi from the rest of the Confederacy. The success of the Vicksburg campaign allowed Grant and the federal armies to turn their attention to pivoting towards the next critical axis of Chattanooga to Atlanta. The federal victory at Gettysburg did not jump start any similar offensive by the north in Virginia until the following year.

The most essential gain from Gettysburg is that it proved to the North that Lee and his ANV was not as invisible as they had become to believe /Now want was essential was the right hunter to go after the Raccoon with his hounds and kill it!

 

[Nathanb1]

Vicksburg. The damage to the morale of the South was incredible. The damage to the morale of the fighting men was immense. Just an example, I read a letter somewhere last week and one of my favorite profs always pointed out--the loss of Vicksburg cut off the Texans fighting east of the Mississippi from their homes and the letters during that time (I know the guy was in Hood's Brigade and had been at Gettysburg) all bemoan the impact of Vicksburg but they think of Gettysburg as just another battle.

 

[H. J. Durgin]

For me it is Vicksburg. The overall importance of the city and river are hard to equal. Once the Federals owned the city of Vicksburg it would just be a matter of a little time before full control of the river was theirs. Understanding the true significance of what the waterways meant to the armies of the West and Trans-Mississippi, makes Vicksburg a more pertinent battle. Lets also not forget how long the battle for the city lasted as well as all the other engagements that were tied to the control of Vicksburg.

 

[BronxYankee]

I think both were equally damaging. The Confederates lost both battles on pretty much the same day. They were split in half in the West and Lee's army had to limp back home. Although still a tough fighting force with able Officers, the Confederates were never the same after both battles.

 

[Good Soldier Shweik]

Gettysburg gets the most attention because of its enormous casualty list; northern location; and, controversies on both sides that developed about how the battle was fought. Despite this, Vicksburg was the more critical victory, not only because it represented the destruction of an entire southern army, but opened the Mississippi (with Port Hudson), to northern navigation thereby slicing the trans-Mississippi from the rest of the Confederacy. The success of the Vicksburg campaign allowed Grant and the federal armies to turn their attention to pivoting towards the next critical axis of Chattanooga to Atlanta. The federal victory at Gettysburg did not jump start any similar offensive by the north in Virginia until the following year.

Gettysburg was an exercise in futility for both sides. It was the battle of Verdun on a small scale. If Lee had won, he was on the wrong side of the Alleghenies for any useful move to any strategic place. Harrisburg was close by, but the south lost several state capitals to no effect. He would have been obliged to retreat in a few days anyway. It would have great as great a victory as Napoleon's at Moscow, and as great a disaster. The real victory of Gettysburg was extracting his army from a disastrous position afterward.
Vicksburg was a huge loss. It closed off the trans Mississippi. Strategically it had dozens implications. The implication for Gettysburg was the bleeding of the confederacy white, and nothing else