As much of an admirer I am of Lee.........

[Tamaroa]

I believe he bears the lion share of the blame for that battle. It has been pretty well documented that he was ill with heart trouble at the time. I put the fact that his illness probably clouded his thoughts with the fact that he should have listened to Longstreet regarding a defensive posture PLUS he was supremely over confident about what his troops accomplished the last 6 months.

Continuing other thoughts on this thread, I think Gettysburg was not the turning point that most people see. I agree that Grant's philosphy was the thing that did in the South. However, I believe the turning point in the war was not Gettysburg but earlier in 1862 when Grant captured forts Henry and Donelson.

In my opinion, the capture of those two forts was the turning point of the war because it opened the way for another attack through the heart of the Confederacy thus giving Scott's Anaconda plan the recognition and legitimacy that it deserved.

Bill

OOPS!! I just realized, I hit the wrong button. this was supposed to be a reply under the IF thread. sorry!! :i:

[Mech28]

I agree with you hole heartedly about ft Henry and ft Donnelson as the real turning point in the war. It gave the north access to the south you stated it much better than i could have. About the Lee comment i personally don't think his health clouded his thoughts on the charge. Of what i have learned he had enormous amounts of faith in his men and believed they could break the lines for him. just another thought on the lee comment.

[Mech28]

just an extra thought i remembered about the turning point in the war. Fts. Henry and donnelson where the begining of the campaign and not the ultimate goal the victories there were the initiation. Vicksburg is a major turning point it cuts the confederacy in half it is henry and donnelsons bonus. without those victories there would be no vicksburg but without vicksburg the south is still in one piece..........darn good post tamaroa

[Andy]

Lee wanted to make Gettysburg the turning point. He wanted to make it an 1860s version of the Battle of Saratoga, thus English or French would ignore the blockade and support the South. It was manufacturing or lack there of that lost that war. Lee's Lack of victory is probably what makes it the turning point. Plus it marked the last time a major offensive was launched into the north east by southern troops.

There are numerous Greek tragedies that are five act plays. The climax usually comes in the 3rd or 4th act, the rest of the play hammers home the sadness, the "what might have been". If the Civil War was a Greek play (and maybe it was), the climax was at Gettysburg, at the end of act III.
Or, I'm completely wrong.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Tamaroa]

Andy, you are 100% correct and I believe that people perceive the battle as the turning point because the ANV did not go north again. On the other hand, it can strongly posited that the taking of Forts Henry and Donelson coupled with the defeat at Vicksburg were defacto infintely more important than Gettysburg because those two acts cut the south in two in one section and began tearing into thirds in the other. After that occurred, the rivers could not be used by the south to transport goods and troops back and forth as they were needed. Splitting the south into thirds and then strangling it with the blockade brought the south to its knees.

Don't forget that after Gettysburg, there was another 18 months of war in which Grant was bloodied severely at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania and Cold Harbor. He underestimated the ANV's resolve in my opinion and paid for it dearly, especially at Cold Harbor. However, once Lee was cornered, he was finished and Lee knew it. Petersburg spelled the end because after cornering Lee, Grant had to do nothing but sit and wait.

Read this letter which I previously submitted in the Patriot Files topic section. It is quite telling:

=======================
Headquarters, 1st Brig., 3d Div. 6th Ar.

Near Gaines Mills


June 4, 1864




Dear Ha: I have just received a letter from you and as a mail will leave in an hour or two, I hasten to answer. We are behind entrenchments, holding a position which we have just taken from the enemy. Bullets, as I write, are flying in all directions, and wounded and dead men pass me continually.

This Brigade commenced to fight on the afternoon of June 1st at 5 o?clock p.m. and in three hours, we drove the enemy from two lines of their works with fearful slaughter and capturing about 800 prisoners. I enclose General Meade?s Letter of thanks, &c. to us. Our loss was heavy. Col. Truex, commanding Brigade, was wounded by my side, and went to the rear. Our loss in killed and wounded was about 300.


Yesterday, we fought again, advanced our lines, losing 150 men. Col. Shale, Commanding Brigade, was wounded in the arm by my side. My Brigade Commanders have had bad luck it appears. As yet, I am unwounded, though I have had many narrow escapes. Lieut. Col. C.K. Hall is now commanding, but says he expects soon to be hit, and that I must have his successor ready.


In regard to our getting to Richmond, it is a difficult matter to say. No doubt we will eventually get there, on account of our superiority in numbers; but I have no doubt that the 10 miles which we have now to go will cost at least 60,000 more lives. We are now making regular approaches to Richmond by digging, and you know what that means. I am completely exhausted and used up with hard work, with marches &c., and also sickened and disgusted with the butchery, which I daily see. We have lost in killed and wounded 660 men, almost one third of our brigade, the proportion of killed to wounded being one in five.



Our last mail was captured by the enemy; so I suppose I lost many letters.



Yours truly,


Chas. Leonard, A.A.G.

[chilidog]

Darn; Andy beat me to what I wanted to say. Nobody ever won a war without a strong economic base. The South never had it. They had to win a short war or lose it all. I believe that the war was on its course from the start. The South had to create a turning point if we were going to win. A Union victory at Gettysburg only kept the war on its original course.

Vicksburg is only half of that story. Vicksburg wasn't anything without Port Hudson. The supply corridor crossed the river between the two forts. The fall of either fort would render the other useless.


Chilidog

[Tamaroa]

True, Port Hudson was a piece of the puzzle just as the assault of New Orleans which started it all. you can even throw Farragut's attack on Mobile Bay into the mix. They all combined to strangle the Confederacy. Armies cannot fight without food in their stomach, reinforcements or supplies all of which were cut when the south was split in thirds.

Bill

[usmcsgt65]

Now, how can the defeat of Ft. Donnelson and Henry be the turning point of the war. The Mississippi was not opened. New Orleans was not captured or controlled. The South still had an open avenue from Texas to bring in supplies and deal with foreign nations. It had no effect on the campaign in VA. The Confederate's "will to fight" was not crushed, changed, or challenged.

[Mech28]

usmcsgt65,
Fts Henry and donnelson were not THE turning point in the war but were a major turning point in the war. While they did not effect the Va. Campaign or split the confederacy in two, It lead the the unions ability to proceed south into new orleans to take vicksburg (which essentially in my opinion doomed the confederacy) IT was the begininning of an end in a sence. Thats just my two cents on it

[Andy]

We all have our own opinions, that's just fine. However, if you decide to have a war and don't have the bombs, bullets and beans, your cause is bullsh!t. You don't hear all that much about the Union Navy and diplomacy with western Europe but those two animals settled the Civil War.
Maybe it would be best to say, there was no real turning point in the Civil War. Lee never got the victory in the north necessary to have a turning point. The French or English navy could have sweep our navy to the side and ended that blockade with no problems but with the south having slaves (previously abolished by both those countries), the Union having desirable manufacturing goods, and no Southern victory in the North, it was a done deal.
One last point, at the end of 1864 if Lincoln had asked for a 1/2 million man draft he could have got it. By then what was Lee's army? Was is about 50,000 or less?

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Tamaroa]

usmcsgt65, your statement "The Confederate's "will to fight" was not crushed, changed, or challenged." applies equally well to the Confederate army after Gettysburg. In fact their morale was still fairly high. I maintain that the capture of Henry and Donelson was a turning point because it provided the jump off point for the Union army to split the south asunder yet again.

Andy, figuring troop strength for the Confederacy at that point is always risky, but I believe at the beginning of the overland campaign Lee hadf about 60,000 men. At petersburg, just before five forks, he was whittled down to about 35,000 troops. Finally at Appomattox 12,000 surrendered. 3 days earlier at Saylors creek about 6,000 rebs were taken prisoner in the last pitched battle made by the ANV.

Regards,

Bill

[usmcsgt65]

Mech you're getting the golden ring today. The capture of Vicksburg split the South. New Orleans was from the sea, a nice combined operation, that gave the North a base of operations in the South. Remember the overall plan, squeeze the South until they couldn't take it anymore, and "On to Richmond".

[Tamaroa]

usmc, mech, andy and all. Don't you find it interesting that the way the north defeated the south was exactly what "old fuss and feathers," said should be done. Yet, he was roundly criticized at the beginning of the war. To bad his ancient body could not keep up with his brain and horse sense!! :)



Bill

[MORTARDUDE]

I believe the defeat at Gettysburg was as a result of Lee's illness, bad intel of the Union side, lack of cavalry support for said intel,
and just plain bad tactics....not to mention no clear goal for the invasion of the North....

An aside : there is a book about Pickett's charge..will have to look it up... that disputes the numbers involved and shows that it wasn't a headlong charge into slaughter as some have thought...
the Reb soldiers weren't completely stupid after all... )

If the Union side had been soundly defeated at Gettysburg, there would have been an offer for some sort of settlement on Lincoln's desk soon after...who knows what would have happened then....

In reality, the South never had a chance. If the European allies had done something sooner and Russia hadn't intervened, things might have been different.

The international banking interests were behind both sides and were the real winners, and were directly responsible for Lincoln's murder...and as in all wars, the soldiers on both sides were the losers......and slavery ( in all its forms ), the presumed "cause" of the war, wasn't de facto ended untill 100 years later.....

DEO VINDICE

Larry

[Mech28]

larry,
How did russia intervene? (if you have time to tell me other wise its back to the bookstore)I never came across it in any of my studies in school or other books i read. I'm curious really the extent of my foreign influences in that war pretty much ends at the south wanting help from England or France.

[Tamaroa]

mech,
I can't give you more details without looking it up, but as I recall, the Russian fleet visited the North, I believe they docked in New York. I remember seeing photos of the sailors standing by their rigging. I believe it was 1863.

That act was seen as supporting the Union. don't forget that Russia had freed her Serfs in 1861. Tsar Alexander of Russia was known as the Abraham Lincoln of Russia. Ironically, he was to be assassinated several years later because the masses were impatient and wanted a greater taste of freedom that Alexander gave them.

Sorry if its not very detailed. It has been a long time since I studied Russian history.

Bill

[MORTARDUDE]

There was actually a great deal of foreign involvement...much more than the conventional history books will admit to..go into www.google.com and do some searches.. you will be VERY surprised...

HINTS : Mexico, France, Great Britain, Russia, Tsar Alexander II, Rothschilds, bankers, blockade, and etc...the USA and the CSA were in a hell- of-a-mess, financially speaking, and needed to borrow foreign money to finance the war effort ( not to mention money to buy munitions ). Lincoln...as were Andy Jackson and JFK ( also murdered for opposing a central bank ) was vehemently opposed to a central bank concept ( Federal Reserve )
and was murdered for his opposition...the bankers like to own both sides and have them duke it out...sort of like a high-stakes-cock-fight.....and then pick up the pieces, and of course, the profits afterwards...

Let me know what you find...the search is what it is all about after all..

Larry

[Tamaroa]

ALEXANDER II (ALEXANDER NIKOLAEVICH)
1818-1881
EMPEROR OF ALL RUSSIA 1855-1881
Eldest son of Emperor Nicholas I, Alexander was born in Moscow on April 17, 1818, and came to the throne on February 19, 1855, after the death of his father. He was crowned in the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin on August 26, 1856.

After his accession to the throne, Alexander II implemented important reforms, notably the abolition of serfdom, as well as changes in national, military and municipal organization. He also rethought foreign policy: Russia now refrained from overseas expansion and concentrated on strengthening its borders. In 1867, he sold Alaska and the Aleutian Islands to the United States. His greatest foreign policy achievement was the successful war of 1877-8 against the Ottoman Empire, resulting in the liberation of Bulgaria and annulment of the conditions of the Treaty of Paris of 1856, imposed after Russia's defeat in the Crimean War.

[MORTARDUDE]

I changed my post above to put the correct Tsar in it ( Tsar Alexander II ). Their naval fleet showed up on both coasts and kept France and England from sending soldiers directly in to the Civil War fighting on the USA proper....The sale of Alaska was a direct result of the Civil War also...look it up ..interesting stuff..

Larry

[Andy]

Old Fuss and Feathers was defamed for his plan the surround and squeeze the south to death, which is how it ended up happening but Sherman estimated how many men would die and they put him in a nut house. His estimate was low!

As far as British troops send to Canada, what was due to the US Navy boarding a British ship and taking Slidell the minister to (France or England) off the ship and arresting him. The English rightfully thought this was exactly what the US got mad about in 1812 with the Brit Navy boarded American ships on the high seas. So they send 10,000 troops to Canada. Lincoln says, "One war at a time", says he's sorry and hands the diplomats over to the Brits with a Sorry Bout That.

The French taking Mexico in the 1860s seems in large part to be something to do with extra noblemen. The numbers of troops sent to Mexico were small enough for even the Mexicans to take care of.

On the old History channel a guy who seemed to know quite a bit about the 19th century (he's from England), said that by 1866 75% of all business' and banks in the US were actually owned by the English. Sort of like we were still a colony but without all the messy administration duties.

Stay healthy,
Andy

[Mech28]

Guys,
That was plenty detail i just never learned that before. now i know...i just picked up a book on european enfluences in the civil war but thanks for the info on it.