Gettysburg-"Turning point"of the Civil War?

[Wild Bill]

I leave this debate with the poignant words Michael Shaara, author of Killer Angels, put in the mouth of Col Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th Me Inf as he tried to talk the men left over from the 2d Me Inf into serving out their enlistments after the rest of their regiment had gone home. "I think if we lose this fight [Gettysburg] the war will be over." Psychologically, Lee WAS King of the Battlefield. Vicksburg could be taken anytime. Gettysburg was Now.

[RJNorton]

(07-16-2013 10:57 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  I leave this debate with the poignant words Michael Shaara, author of Killer Angels, put in the mouth of Col Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th Me Inf as he tried to talk the men left over from the 2d Me Inf into serving out their enlistments after the rest of their regiment had gone home. "I think if we lose this fight [Gettysburg] the war will be over." Psychologically, Lee WAS King of the Battlefield. Vicksburg could be taken anytime. Gettysburg was Now.

A moving scene in the movie Gettysburg.

[brtmchl]

I agree, somewhat, Roger. A Confederate victory would have greatly demoralized the North ( more so than it already was), while further emboldening the South; possibly marching on Washington D.C. bringing a reality to Chamberlain's fears. But the Northern victory helped ignite a new spark from a war weary North. I disagree that a loss for Lee at Gettysburg was a death blow. The fall of Vicksburg definately had a greater impact, occuring at the same time as Lee was retreating must have been devistating for Southerners, causing massive fear and depression throughout the South. Losing Vicksburg basically lost the war. It cut off a desperately depleted Confederate Eastern Army from supply, opened the back door for Union armies to attack from all directions, the union fully controlled the Mississippi River, there was no more Eastern Theater and Western Theater, It even gave Lincoln the election with the fall of Atlanta, and forced Lee into defensive tactics. I think Lincoln said it best, "The Father of Waters once again flows unvexed to the sea."

[Hess1865]

The biggest "what if?" concerning Gettysburg IMO, is what if Stonewall Jackson didn't get killed in June '63.

[HerbS]

Thanks for the food for thought! I think Jackson's style would have made some kind of difference.

[brtmchl]

(07-16-2013 03:11 PM)Hess1865 Wrote:  The biggest "what if?" concerning Gettysburg IMO, is what if Stonewall Jackson didn't get killed in June '63.

At the very least I believe the order to take Cemetery Hill "If practicable," would have been carried out on the eve of the first day.

[Thomas Thorne]

I agree with Rob Wick's definition of a turning point and believe that no 1863 battle can be proclaimed "the turning point."

Confederate military success in 1864 would likely have produced such Union war weariness that McClellan would have been been elected. I don't believe his party would have permitted him to wage war after the Confederacy, seeking independence,rejected the restoration of the old Union with Slavery. This was Lincoln's view.

The seeming failure of Grant's Overland campaign and the deadlock before Atlanta apparently doomed Lincoln at the polls. Sherman's capture of Atlanta,was the turning point.

The idea of Gettysburg as the turning point is due to a variety of factors. It was fought by the principal field armies guarding the capitals of the combatants. It was the last time Lee's army as a whole invaded the North. It was a see saw battle encompassing more dramatic incidents over a short three day period than any comparable battle of the war.
Tom

[J. Beckert]

I thought about McClellan too, Tom. If the South had won at Gettysburg, Lincoln's chances of re-election may have been in jeopardy. I wonder how things would have shaken out if we had President McClellan in 1865.

[JMadonna]

The famous poem 'For want of a nail' is a good illustration of how trivial things can change the course of history. IMO the guiding hand of God was involved to turn things in the Union favor.

Antietam is a good example. McClellan could never have fought Lee to a draw without Lee's battle-plans. How they just appeared under a tree is a historical mystery that has yet to be solved.

We've already gone over the various scenarios that would have turned the tide for Lee at Gettysburg but all of them fizzled. Why? bad luck, poor judgement, faulty intelligence or a higher power?

There is a reason they say that there are no atheists in a foxhole.

[HerbS]

Jerry,Thanks for your opinion! I believe that there aren't athiests in foxholes also! Fate and higher power had a lot to do with the outcome of Gettysburg. I have a friend who was a MOH in Viet-Nam,he has given me his best quotes,"In order to live,you almost have to die,"and "Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades"!

[Hess1865]

McClellan was a yutz!
He gets Lee's plans virtually handed to him on a silver platter, and sits on them for 2 days!
The war probably could have been shortened or maybe even ended if he acted on them at once!
What an idiot......

[JMadonna]

Maybe if they were on a silver platter he'd have understood quicker.

[JMadonna]

In these discussions no one ever mentions the Battle of Atlanta. If Atlanta doesn't fall, Lincoln loses the election and the CSA wins independence.

[Hess1865]

(07-19-2013 08:36 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  In these discussions no one ever mentions the Battle of Atlanta. If Atlanta doesn't fall, Lincoln loses the election and the CSA wins independence.

OK, how do you think Atlanta would have turned out if Jeff Davis hadn't replaced Gen. Johnston with Gen. JB Hood??
Bad move in Davis' part IMO.
We all know how Jeff and Johnston got along!
But I think Johnston would have been patient and do nothing, just hold Sherman at bay, right up to the November elections.
Davis wanted a fighter, and Hood was-a reckless fighter!
I've read where Sherman and his men couldn't wait to fight Hood, knowing they had superior forces and could beat him.
So that command change really started the end of the Confederacy IMO

[JMadonna]

(07-21-2013 04:03 PM)Hess1865 Wrote:  OK, how do you think Atlanta would have turned out if Jeff Davis hadn't replaced Gen. Johnston with Gen. JB Hood??
Bad move in Davis' part IMO.
We all know how Jeff and Johnston got along!

We'll never know.

Johnston predicted that once Sherman crossed the Chattahoochee River his position became more difficult and precarious. Sherman split his army into three columns for the assault on Atlanta. General George Thomas' Army of the Cumberland was left without support as he approached Peachtree Creek. Johnston decided to attack Thomas as he crossed the creek, when he received the order relieving him of his command in favor of Hood.

The timing couldn't have been worse. By the time Hood tried to execute the plan 24 hrs later, Thomas had crossed the creek and was barely able to repulse Hood's attack.

Politically, Davis needed a victory and with Lee and Grant checkmating themselves that left Johnston as the only one who could deliver.

There is no question that the war was lost in the west and it was Davis that lost it.