Gettysburg-"Turning point"of the Civil War?

[Rob Wick]

Gene,

Those are all legitimate points, but I would question a couple.

First, I think Antietam was really Lee's first major defeat, especially in a strategic sense for the Confederacy. After that point Great Britain really had little interest in recognizing the Confederacy, Lincoln was able to issue the Emancipation Proclamation without it looking like a desperation move and it forced Lee to retreat back into the south without a battlefield win. After the issuance of the EP, any foreign nation that recognized the Confederacy ran the risk of appearing to condone slavery.

As for the morale effect, if you look at how Lincoln approached the election of 1864, that spoke highly about what the country felt even after Gettysburg. Lincoln was convinced he was going to be defeated by George McClellan because he knew the country was tired of the blood-letting. Only Sherman's capture of Atlanta and the massive coverage it received in the northern press turned the tide (it's more complex then that, but that's the short answer).

In a strategic sense, even after Gettysburg, it took nearly another two years for the north to subdue the Confederacy, and that only came about because of Grant's tenacity and willingness to fight to the bitter end. Many question whether or not Meade should have pursued Lee and fought it out, but for whatever reason he chose not to. I think that speaks volumes about the approach that Meade would have taken had Grant stayed in the west.

I think a reasonable case can be made that if one had to pick 1863 as a turning point, it would be 65-35 in favor of Vicksburg.

Best
Rob