"July 4, 1863: Turning point in the Civil War" Topic

"Many consider July 4, 1863 to be the turning point of the American Civil War. Two important, famous, well-documented battles resulted in Confederate defeats: the Battle of Gettysburg (Pennsylvania), July 1-3, and the Fall of Vicksburg (Mississippi), July 4. However, two other major, lesser-known events resulted in two additional Confederate defeats. Both losses, one in Tennessee and one in Arkansas, were influenced by the Vicksburg Campaign.

In central Tennessee, Maj. Gen. William S. Rosecrans, leading the United States Army of the Cumberland, faced Gen. Braxton Bragg's Confederate Army of Tennessee. In early May 1863, the federal government feared that Bragg might send reinforcements to Vicksburg. To preclude this from happening, Rosecrans was ordered to begin an offensive in an attempt to tie down Confederate troops…"

Main page

link

Armand

I agree with McPherson the turning point foe the CSA came in 1862 after their failed spring offensives. Britain and France failed to join the war and that was it for the South.

Me as well, and 1863 sealed their fate, which is why Lee should have looked for way to end the war then.

Thanks

Armand

I concur on the 1863 turning point. But Lee was not political. He may have urged Davis to look for a way, but ultimately, he was a soldier. And fought the fight he was told to fight.

Me as well, and 1863 sealed their fate, which is why Lee should have looked for way to end the war then.

I agree with pziv43 and wonder Tortorella how you imagine Lee should have looked for a way to end the war since he was not the president of the CSA. In fact, Jefferson was pretty ornery about anyone of his generals becoming too involved in the political dimensions of the war and his trust Lee would have been deeply compromised if Lee had become enmeshed in away with the political sphere.

I agree that July 4, 1863 was the turning point. I don't agree with those who would put this turning point back in 1862. I think the war was still to be won by the CSA on January 1, 1863. Unfortunately, Jefferson was too attached to Bragg and it probably cost them any chance of winning the war.

Meh. I don't think there was EVER any hope of a Confederate military victory. But there was certainly hope for a political one, had Lincoln failed of reelection in 1864.

Yes, wishful thinking, and hindsight. I fully admit it.

But Jefferson's trust in Lee is not what kept Lee in command. It seems likely that replacing him would have dealt a fatal blow to the morale of the South. Lee did have considerable influence and stature on his side. He was not replaceable at that point.

The bloodshed and suffering that came after Gettysburg was as obvious to Lee as anyone. Lincoln won re-election handily, even beat McClellan soundly for the army vote. But if he had lost, McClellan would have taken office in March 1865 when Lee had almost nothing left to fight with.

Just rambling thought here. I have found the last year of the war to be especially grim and depressing in my old age.

It was Sherman's capture of Atlanta and Sheridan's victories in the Shenandoah (and Farragut's victory at Mobile Bay) that ensured Lincoln's reelection -- so THAT was the true turning point, or the decisive one (prospects "turned" several times).

Oops, I meant Jefferson Davis not Thomas Jefferson…..

I agree Don, by October the outcome of the war was evident making Lincoln's re-election was a solid bet.

I am curious by the way…does anyone game any of the battles of 1864? If not, why?

@Tort we used to do some of Sheridan's Valley Campaign.
Also we do some of the 1862 to 64 Sioux wars, so maybe there too.

No, a McClellan victory would have made the Confederacy hang on no matter what. In that event there would CERTAINLY have been continued resistance after Appomattox. It would have been like the VietCong and NVA; you KNOW you can win by simply surviving. So the victories mentioned were decisive in making Lincoln's re-election possible.

I am curious by the way…does anyone game any of the battles of 1864? If not, why?

Yes, have done Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, Drewry's Bluff, Petersburg, Atlanta, Franklin, Nashville, the Shenandoah campaign battles, and Monocacy. All interesting battles, though tough for the CSA.

A CSA win in any of these would not change the final outcome, only extend the war. I personally don't believe even a win at Gettysburg wins the war for the CSA.

The Union is much like Rome during the second Punic War. Losing battles made no difference as long as you were willing to fight on.

Kim

Ah, good point, Kim. I was thinking about how much harder it got for the Confederates as time went on, and also about the defensive posture of the outnumbered Lee, less a war of movement. The Valley campaign came to mind as well, 35th, always an interesting setting. But this also had a bitter backdrop with Sheridan burning everything in site. The war had grown quite brutal by 1864, grim and bloody. Grant and Sherman were relentless warriors, Lee a stubborn opponent.

For some time I have been on again off again about gaming the Civil War. There is an emotional undercurrent of tragedy that was not there when I was young, basking in the glow of the Centennial. Obviously, we check stuff like this at the door in our hobby, like when playing Nazis against Soviets, and maybe I make too much of it.

If McClellan had won: Grant and Lincoln would still command up to March 65, when Lee was just weeks away from the end. As an army, he was just about finished. His influence in stopping post surrender fighting would still be considerable. McClellan was somewhat at odds with his own party and he said he intended to continue the war, I believe. I don't think continued guerrilla fighting was certain, nor that it would have changed much of anything if it did.

I don't believe Antietam was that horrendous for the South. Lee's troops were outnumbered and I believe many of his men and officers, viewed it as a draw and still believed in their invincibility. Many of his men didn't want to go north in the first place.

But Gettysburg was a disaster for Lee and his Army. They were no longer invincible. Lee sacrificed some of his best and finest troops. His Army lost either killed or wounded, some of his best officers at all levels. Going North forced a change in command of the Army of the Potomac, one that probably would have taken longer if he had stayed South. The invasion and subsequent timid pursuit, led to Grant being brought from the West.

No invasion and the army of the Potomac dallies again before launching another campaign. Lincoln dallies again with a command change. I doubt the next Union advance leads to a victory (no reason to believe it would, nothing would have changed). So a probable delay in a command switch. The Army of the Potomac loses more men than Lee, since they are on the offensive or outmaneuvered by Lee again, as at Chancellorsville. A delay in Grant coming East. The war stretches into 1864 and toward the election, with no major victory in the East over Lee. Even with loses in the West, the East is where the main media and politicians are centered and discontent builds with Lincoln. With this situation, I can see Lincoln losing and the war being settled without a Union victory.

I know Lee's reasoning, but the slim hopes that invasion entailed, were far outweighed by the possible consequences of a defeat. As was proven.

Lee's invasion was the best possible scenario for Lincoln and the Union.

Obviously only my opinion.

Thanks

Armand

Let's not overlook the importance of the capitulation of Vicksburg to the outcome of the war.

A valid argument 35th. After Antietam, maybe there was still a chance. I would also say that the loss of Jackson was a turning point. Even without the invasion in 1863, Lee's army was less dangerous without him.

Vicksburg does not get the attention it deserves.

A CSA win in any of these would not change the final outcome, only extend the war. I personally don't believe even a win at Gettysburg wins the war for the CSA.

I think some commentators here are underestimating the morale state of the AoP in June of 1863. After 6 months of ineffective and even incompetent leadership I think a hard hammering of the AoP in early July, 1863 could have shattered its cohesion and lead to its disintegration. I think many underestimate what was at stake and frankly the courage that Meade showed in concentrating the AoP at Gettysburg at this time. It was close run affair and Lee came very near to his goal. Had the AoP disintegrated the war is over no matter what happens at Vicksburg.

Tort, thanks

35, Antietam by itself was not a disaster for the South. Antietam coupled with the failures in Kentucky and central Tennessee probably cost the Confederacy its best chance of pulling off a combined military-political victory. Plus it gave Lincoln an opportunity to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

For the Army of Northern Virginia Antietam coming after the manpower and command losses of Seven Days and Second Manassas was a disaster. Sure at the end of the day Lee's army was still on the field. That does not hide the fact that Lee's army was not just forced out of Maryland, it surrendered the initiative it had held since the summer.

Marcus, IMO Hancock should get most of the credit. At the end of July 1 Gettysburg was just another setback the U.S. forces had suffered since Lee launched his offensive. By convincing Meade to fight it out at Gettysburg rather than pulling the mauled 1st and 11th corps back Hancock turned a one day defeat into a multi-day battle the U.S. could and did win.

Bill,

🤔 I don't think Antietam was a disaster because Lee's Army was still capable of offensive actions, Gettysburg proved that. His Army still did not feel beaten and they still had faith in their leadership (in the East). Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville reinforced that. He still had most of his best troops and officers. He was still capable of the initiative outside of the South. Gettysburg destroyed that forever.

As a side:
The loss of Jackson at Chancellorsville was a severe blow. But would Lee have had the Jackson of Chancellorsville and the Valley, or the Jackson of the Seven Days, at Gettysburg, who will ever know.

In the middle western theater, it was a lost cause the minute Braxton Bragg was given command. 🙂

But this is all speculation and opinion. So just mine. 😉

Lee's army had the capacity to operate offensively after Gettysburg. Just three months after that battle the ANV, down 25% due to the detachment of Longstreet and outnumbered by the AOP by 3:2, launched an offensive that drove Meade's troops back to the fortifications around Centreville, just outside of Washington. In 1864 I would argue it was Grant and Meade's seizure of the strategic initiative and refusal to surrender it rather than the physical or morale condition of the ANV that limited Lee's ability to assume the strategic offensive. By comparison Gettysburg represents Lee's first attempt to seize the strategic initiative other than cavalry raids since the Antietam campaign. And it wasn't like McClellan and Burnside prevented Lee from doing so.

As you say 35 just speculation and opinion.

"He was still capable of the initiative outside of the South."

Yes my point with the above statement originally. He was able to force Meade back, but it was not back into the North and he did not have the manpower to follow it up.

Also sort of confirms my earlier point, that Lee, had he not gone north in 1863, commanders like Hooker or Meade (if and when Lincoln pulled the trigger and replaced Hooker), would not have been able to match Lee, if they were forced on the offensive. The arrival of Grant would have been much later, if at all.

I will also say that Meade on his own did not have the fortitude to go on the offensive and stay on it, without a Grant to push it.

The election of 1864 may well have had different results.

But things did not go that way. So we will never know.

We could probably be dragging this out with "what ifs" and "but fors" and could quibble about things like whether Early's attack on Washington should count, but for now I am going to take a break.

Thanks also…

Armand

Gettysburg had no affect on the Confederate States. It had no effect on CSA citizens. Most Southern newspapers talked of a successful campaign. Harper's Ferry was captured, and Virginia farmers had time to harvest. Robert E. Lee's standing with the good citizens of the Confederacy did not change.

Lincoln was unhappy with Meade for not following up on his victory. Which was thought by some to nullify the victory. Gettysburg may have been one of the turning points of the war but very few in the North and the South thought so at the time.

Vicksburg had more effect on the Confederacy. Not so much for controlling the Mississippi but for an entire Confederate Army being lost. The river was closed off to the Confederacy when New Orleans was captured, early in the war. Losing New Orleans was more of a disaster than either Vicksburg or Gettysburg.

After Gettysburg Lee said that we would not hear or see much of the AOP for six months. He was wrong, it was ten months before the AOP began offensive operations with the Overland Campaign.

You are only looking at one side of the leger OC. For the North, Gettysburg was electric and game changing. Gettysburg demonstrated to the North that the South could never win the war. The South's champion had been rebuffed and sent packing. In some ways Vicksburg is the beginning of the belief in the North that it could win the war. That is why I think July 4, 1863 is the turning point of the war. The only question to victory after July 4, 1863 was whether the North would stay the course.