Kudos for getting Prof. Gallagher. He is a treasure: an independent thinker who always strives to keep events in the perspective of the times rather than our present.
Many, many thanks for what was (not surprisingly) an exceptional presentation from a scholar whose reputation and passion for the Civil War is both well known and well earned. As a Virginian expat in France, I miss my weekends exploring the many battlefields of “the Old Dominion” and of course, Maryland and Pennsylvania’s famous town. I shall endeavor to take your course remotely. My fascination has always been the personalities and experiences of this war and landscape, and as such, I have intentionally sought to understand it from the time it was waged rather than from the “perspectivism” of current cultural and political influence, which, in my opinion, diminishes the needed sympathies owed to both sides of this conflict. On a similar note, and toward this end, I fully agree that Gettysburg, for so many reasons, was not the great “turning point” as commonly and presently understood. Like Porter Alexander, I actually feel Lee’s greatest “losses” (turning points) were at Malvern Hill (62) and allowing Grant to “sneak” to Petersburg after the Union disaster at Cold Harbor. Had Cold Harbor been followed by a similar and horrific blood loss to entrenched Confederates, Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia might have broken the still very thin resolve of the North to continue the war. Again, this is based on the mood of the times, not the perspective of current hindsight and debate. This, at least (and only), is my view. Of course, hours of enjoyable debate could be spent on this topic, but overall, I appreciate the needed perspective offered here and am delighted to know that the passion for the civil war, so critical to understanding the past, current and future profile of a still very fragile and increasingly fractured US, remains shared by a good but dedicated few.
Hi Matt, We are delighted you enjoyed Professor Gallagher's presentation. We'd love to have your perspective, comments, and questions in Professor Gallagher's course! The Memory of the Civil War begins on April 4, 2022. While it may be difficult with the time difference, every session is recorded, and participants can engage in discussions on our dedicated course page. If taking the course doesn't work, feel free to join our mailing list, as we are always offering free and premium programs across various topics. You can learn more at foreverscholars.com. Also, if you do decide to register for Professor Gallagher's course, here is 20% off. Use promo code: GETTYSBURG2021. Happy Holidays & Happy Learning!
How do you tell the difference between an American Northerner from that of an American Southerner .... without a Uniform? You can't! They are ALL Americans. Even Abraham Lincoln could NOT tell the difference, when he entertained the Grey Ghost , on the front porch of the White House Just because Abraham Lincoln raised an Army against his own people, in a REPUBLIC ... to draw a Mason Dixion line for DIVISION of separation, of America People... There is nothing to say ...As being American...you couldn't cross that line. FOR they did. What you think, that you have been told... as the truth: American have the possibilities of being, any and every thing and every where. For what you see isn't what you get.
I am always learning something new about Gettysburg. It involved so many people it stands to reason there are so many stories. Whether it’s Chamberlain holding on to Little Round Top or the last minutes on earth of Amos Humiston as he held a photo of his children. It is interesting and many of the actions thought provoking.(like Pickett’s Charge) Then there is our greatest president’s 272 word address. His words mean so much and will for many decades to come.
Gary Gallagher is a wonderful commentator and his extensive knowledge is evident. I haven't been able to discover, though, what may be his own experience in uniform. It seems that it might color his interpretation of military actions.
great presentation pards *LIKED* and *SUBSCRIBED* I'll be saving this video to audiobook to listen to on way to both 160th Gettysburg reenactments this summer.
My first Civil War excursion was Chattanooga and Lookout mountain in 1954 with my parents and my father’s parents(grandparents). I didn’t get to Gettysburg until 1992 with some Model A enthusiasts and never with my children. While I followed the Civil war centennial , I was off to college and Vietnam in the 1960’s. I didn’t come any interest in the Civil War until recently. I’ve only read about Union victories and I’ve always despised the traitors that fought the war for the Confederates. Finally things have come around to what I thought in 1954 and Grant’s reputation has been rehabilitated.
Dear John, It's great to hear about your experiences and also thank you for your service to this country. If you'd like to continue your intrigue in the Civil War you can join Gary Gallagher's live online course starting April 4th. Here's 20% off if you'd like to register just use promo code: GETTYSBURG2021. Please reach out to our team if you have any questions, info@foreverscholars.com. Best Wishes & Happy New Year!
There has been nothing, that has been told, in the last fifty years about Mr. Lincolns' war of "Northern Aggession," that is the truth. It has all been told with the perspective, for indoctrination. Study the real people who lived it. If you seek the truth. And not the glamorized staring characters.
Thank you for your usually excellent presentation. I think had Lee seen the topography Ewell was confronted with he might have been less critical of him. I also don’t think the unimaginable pressure Meade was under to protect Washington while plunged in the midst of battle, loss of generals he most depended on and could trust, Sickles almost devastating insubordination and subordinates like his chief of staff that almost worked against him in this tiny temporal crucible are given their due. There is an excellent series on what happened after he got to Virginia. And Meade not knowing how destructive Pickett’s charge had been described Lee as the greatest counterpuncher he knew of as he worked hard at the end of the third day to reorganize his necessarily tangled units as they had been terribly mixed in the battle. With this in mind I think his efforts at pursuit are uderestimated
In my opinion, you disproved your premise with 2 comments. First, after the War, Southerners said they lost it there, and when Europe bowed out because of Gettysburg.
Rather than concentrating on the left flank of the Union army and moving Johnson's Division to seek to concentrate the initiative on Culp's Hill, Picket's charge would have likely been successful. Can you imagine having Confederate artillery on Culp's hill? It could have concentrated on the Union Center and been far more effective than the barrage on the morning of July 3. If the Confederates would have defeated the Union Troops at Gettysburg, and head towards Washington DC, how would have that effected Lincoln's chances of winning the oncoming election? The Democrats would have likely defeated Lincoln and sued for peace- which was really Lee's goal- to weaken the North's resolve to continue on with a very bloody and costly war. I also disagree with Gallagher's critique of Meade. In the annals of recorded history, there has never been a “high-end combat” battle that lasted more than 96 hours - that is simply the limit of human endurance. Absent fresh reserves to commit - and reserves who know what they are doing rather than anyone quickly thrown into the fray - it is almost impossible to transition from the defense to the offense and pursuit at the end of a battle like this one. A perfect example is Napoleon’s failure at Austerlitz to pursue beyond Stara Posta at the end of the day. Even his hardened forces of the Grand Armée of 1805 simply could not muster the energy to pursue after the climactic battle itself..Meade had lost important command structure like the loss of Renolds and had to regroup his corps command. Now Lincoln did admonish Meade as was presented in the lecture, but he never actually sent the letter to Meade. What would be the point to criticize the command leader after the victory? It was a war of attrition and Lee lost a large number of his force which could not be replaced. Meade had no way of knowing the remaining strength of Lee's army and to go on the offensive with an exhausted army would have been a very risky proposition. We can say in retrospect Lee had a severely depleted force, but Meade had no way of knowing the extent of his victory. The Union was looking at a significant number of soldiers finishing up the term of their service, so of course they had to look to enlist and seek to re-enlist soldiers to continue the fight- and that will take time to re-strengthen their force. In summary, I think the critique of Meade not to pursue Lee's army lacks context.
True - I agree with your well thought out comment so maybe you could offer a thought - seeing as how what you put down did not happen how could Gen Lee still send those men into imminent slaughter where even if they had broke through they were in no way able to continue to DC - the only thing that saved them was the withdrawal - retreat and regroup - we often hear about how these Generals consider every contingent - what happened?? IMO - the Civil War was the Worst thing that ever happened to America other than the buying and selling of our fellow Humans tho the practice is as old as sin itself -
@@sergepetrov7973 Thank you for your feedback. I agree Gabe. Other than slavery, the Civil War was as bad as it gets in American history: Friends killing friends, brothers killing brothers.
I dare say the double blow upon the South from its defeat at Gettysburgh and at Vicksburg in July of 1863 was the point where the Union became the dominant force in this epic struggle. It is always good to hear Gary Gallager expound on this monumental time in American history...and I imagine his assesment is more valid than mine. Live Free or Die ! May this nation continue to endure and provide Liberty and Justice for All the PEOPLE
Hi Paul, We'd love to have you join Professor Gallagher's course in April. Here's 20% off if you decide to register. Just use promo code: GETTYSBURG2021. Glad you enjoyed the lecture! Best Wishes & Happy New Year!
YOU can justify any America President, in a "Constitutional REPUBLIC," to raise an Army against his own people by Passing the Law with A Quorum, from the Partisan Majority with 51%? Republic Republic! REPUBLIC?"
The common wisdom of Gettysburg is that Stuart was glory seeking whilst galivanting around northern Maryland, and Pennsylvania instead of doing his job and reporting to Lee and Longstreet the exact positions of United States troops. Not really! First Stuart did get his ass kicked by Union Cavalrymen at Brandy Station which started the Gettysburg campaign off. So Stuart did go scouting far away from Lees meandering troops as they headed into Pennsylvania. But- Stuart left over a brigade and a half of Cavalry under the command of Grumble Jones with Lee to do the scouting duties which because of their incompetent bungling they completely failed to do. Stuart was not able to get back to Lee in time to help with battlefield intelligence because Custer gave him a second pasting at Hannover blocking Stuart from getting back to the ANV. Custer would go on to repeat yet another disastrous defeat of Stuart at east Cavalry battlefield in which Custer brilliantly commanded combined forces of Mounted Cavalry charges( yes!) devastating field artillery under Pennington, and deadly dismounted cavalry- performing as massed volley firing infantry, prevented an attack by the Confederates on the rear of the army of the Potomac. But that is probably because most historians don't ride horses and don't understand the importance of speed of attack, and maneuver. best Bruce Peek
Brandy Station was a Confederate Tactical victory, my friend. Hanover was an indecisive engagement. Grumble Jones' cavalry was never tasked with scouting. They were supposed to guard mountain passes. Stuart failed to get back to Lee in a timely manner because Stuart attempted to carry out Lee's contradictory orders to gather both information and provisions. The supply train which Stuart captured slowed his movement. Custer had next to nothing to do with that. Just sayin.
Gettysburg denied victory to the confederates and denied defeat to the Union. That's important. But what really happened is that the Union decided to pay the price for victory and really went to war only in 1864 under Ullysses Grant. With that decision to press the war, the confederate fate was sealed.
Thanks for your comment! Although we disagree with your statement as a turning point can be so significant that it is evident to the people at the time, and at other times, the event's impact is clear in retrospect. We appreciate your perspective and would be happy to welcome you to Professor Gallagher's live class in April to discuss further. You can learn more by visiting: bit.ly/3BHrUY7. If you have any questions or need assistance, please feel free to reach out to us at info@foreverscholars.com.
@@foreverscholars I think it's pretty clear that Churchill perceived rightly that El Alemein was the turning point of WW2 in the western European Theatre with his "now this is not the end... end of the beginning" quote. I'm not sure if the Soviets saw Stalingrad, Kursk or the combined victories as the turning point in the East, but certainly it was clear that the war would be won as of 7/43.
@@foreverscholars Gettysburg did not open up Virginia, it just turned Lee back and didn't allow him to gather even more supplies. Vicksburg closed Texas and Arkansas off from the Confederacy. That was a turning point. The Mississippi River was open again and goods/armies could use it again. None of that happened at Gettysburg. Lee was never going to be able to take Washington and he knew that. He just wanted the bloody fields to be in the North.
Vicksburg was more important. It divided the South in half and denied the Confederates the free flow of needed supplies and reinforcements. It gave the Union complete control of the Mississippi River.
If the Union won at Vicksburg and lost Gettysburg, that would have been much better for the Confederacy in terms of recognition by Britain, and Lee could have continued north and gained more supplies, territory and the morale of the Union would have been far more affected.
@@ITILII I tend to agree. It really was both victories which gave the North further resolve to defeat Lee's Army of the Virginia. If there was a victory for Lee at Gettysburg, Lee would have continued up the Baltimore Pike towards Washington DC which in turn would have increased pressure on Lincoln to sue for peace. I would add it was the number of casualties (51,000 by some estimates) that provided the historical precedence over the Vicksburg campaign.
@@ITILII Great Britain had pledged, along with the United States, to stop the slave trade. They were never going to ally with the Confederate States of America.
@@davidbowman4259 Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville involved more troops. Maybe a few others. I think Lee’s army was at its biggest at Gettysburg (70-75,000) but the Army of the Potomac was only 90-100,000 there, vs. as high as 130,000+ in other engagements.
@@davidclark3588 Thanks for that! We think of so many battles only in terms of casualties. Interestingly, I think Stones River had the highest percentage of casualties on both sides. Franklin had the highest number of Confederate generals killed. Antietam was the single bloodiest day of the war: Sept. 17, 1862. So many very sanguinary affairs. So appalling.
The reasons Gettysburg is indeed the turning point of the war- 1. It was the first and last major battle fought on Northern soil. 2. It was the first major defeat for the Army of Northern Virginia which had been on an almost unbelievable run of victory after victory, up to that point. 3. The failure of Pettigrew and Trimble's divisions to advance on Cemetery Ridge and instead turning tail and running back to Seminary Ridge-leaving Pickett's men to do most of the fighting and dying the third day of the fighting-caused a rift across the entire Army of Northern Virginia that would never quite be healed.
after gettysburg, it was obvious to all that the south had no chance of winning, and with the opening of the mississippi at vicksburg, the union had it in a vice. all that was left was to drag it out for another 22 months the increase the senseless bloodshed, destruction, and despair that can only come from total war. And Lee was up to the task He held on for nearly 2 years as Georgia was ravaged, Tennesse was marched over thousands of times, and the carolinas lost their breadwinners to disease in the trenches around Richmond That Lee - responsible for more southern deaths than all others combined
Kudos for getting Prof. Gallagher. He is a treasure: an independent thinker who always strives to keep events in the perspective of the times rather than our present.
Many, many thanks for what was (not surprisingly) an exceptional presentation from a scholar whose reputation and passion for the Civil War is both well known and well earned. As a Virginian expat in France, I miss my weekends exploring the many battlefields of “the Old Dominion” and of course, Maryland and Pennsylvania’s famous town. I shall endeavor to take your course remotely.
My fascination has always been the personalities and experiences of this war and landscape, and as such, I have intentionally sought to understand it from the time it was waged rather than from the “perspectivism” of current cultural and political influence, which, in my opinion, diminishes the needed sympathies owed to both sides of this conflict. On a similar note, and toward this end, I fully agree that Gettysburg, for so many reasons, was not the great “turning point” as commonly and presently understood. Like Porter Alexander, I actually feel Lee’s greatest “losses” (turning points) were at Malvern Hill (62) and allowing Grant to “sneak” to Petersburg after the Union disaster at Cold Harbor. Had Cold Harbor been followed by a similar and horrific blood loss to entrenched Confederates, Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia might have broken the still very thin resolve of the North to continue the war. Again, this is based on the mood of the times, not the perspective of current hindsight and debate. This, at least (and only), is my view. Of course, hours of enjoyable debate could be spent on this topic, but overall, I appreciate the needed perspective offered here and am delighted to know that the passion for the civil war, so critical to understanding the past, current and future profile of a still very fragile and increasingly fractured US, remains shared by a good but dedicated few.
Hi Matt,
We are delighted you enjoyed Professor Gallagher's presentation. We'd love to have your perspective, comments, and questions in Professor Gallagher's course! The Memory of the Civil War begins on April 4, 2022. While it may be difficult with the time difference, every session is recorded, and participants can engage in discussions on our dedicated course page. If taking the course doesn't work, feel free to join our mailing list, as we are always offering free and premium programs across various topics. You can learn more at foreverscholars.com.
Also, if you do decide to register for Professor Gallagher's course, here is 20% off. Use promo code: GETTYSBURG2021.
Happy Holidays & Happy Learning!
How do you tell the difference between an American Northerner from that of an American Southerner .... without a Uniform?
You can't! They are ALL Americans.
Even Abraham Lincoln could NOT tell the difference, when he entertained the Grey Ghost , on the front porch of the White House
Just because Abraham Lincoln raised an Army against his own people, in a REPUBLIC ... to draw a Mason Dixion line for DIVISION of separation, of America People... There is nothing to say ...As being American...you couldn't cross that line.
FOR they did.
What you think, that you have been told... as the truth: American have the possibilities of being, any and every thing and every where. For what you see isn't what you get.
Very good as always Prof. Galleger is brilliant.
I am always learning something new about Gettysburg. It involved so many people it stands to reason there are so many stories. Whether it’s Chamberlain holding on to Little Round Top or the last minutes on earth of Amos Humiston as he held a photo of his children. It is interesting and many of the actions thought provoking.(like Pickett’s Charge) Then there is our greatest president’s 272 word address. His words mean so much and will for many decades to come.
Gary Gallagher is a wonderful commentator and his extensive knowledge is evident. I haven't been able to discover, though, what may be his own experience in uniform. It seems that it might color his interpretation of military actions.
great presentation pards *LIKED* and *SUBSCRIBED* I'll be saving this video to audiobook to listen to on way to both 160th Gettysburg reenactments this summer.
My first Civil War excursion was Chattanooga and Lookout mountain in 1954 with my parents and my father’s parents(grandparents). I didn’t get to Gettysburg until 1992 with some Model A enthusiasts and never with my children. While I followed the Civil war centennial , I was off to college and Vietnam in the 1960’s. I didn’t come any interest in the Civil War until recently. I’ve only read about Union victories and I’ve always despised the traitors that fought the war for the Confederates. Finally things have come around to what I thought in 1954 and Grant’s reputation has been rehabilitated.
Dear John,
It's great to hear about your experiences and also thank you for your service to this country.
If you'd like to continue your intrigue in the Civil War you can join Gary Gallagher's live online course starting April 4th. Here's 20% off if you'd like to register just use promo code: GETTYSBURG2021.
Please reach out to our team if you have any questions, info@foreverscholars.com.
Best Wishes & Happy New Year!
There has been nothing, that has been told, in the last fifty years about Mr. Lincolns' war of
"Northern Aggession," that is the truth. It has all been told with the perspective, for indoctrination. Study the real people who lived it. If you seek the truth. And not the glamorized staring characters.
Thank you for your usually excellent presentation. I think had Lee seen the topography Ewell was confronted with he might have been less critical of him. I also don’t think the unimaginable pressure Meade was under to protect Washington while plunged in the midst of battle, loss of generals he most depended on and could trust, Sickles almost devastating insubordination and subordinates like his chief of staff that almost worked against him in this tiny temporal crucible are given their due. There is an excellent series on what happened after he got to Virginia. And Meade not knowing how destructive Pickett’s charge had been described Lee as the greatest counterpuncher he knew of as he worked hard at the end of the third day to reorganize his necessarily tangled units as they had been terribly mixed in the battle. With this in mind I think his efforts at pursuit are uderestimated
In my opinion, you disproved your premise with 2 comments. First, after the War, Southerners said they lost it there, and when Europe bowed out because of Gettysburg.
I started out with Bruce Catton.
Me too
Me too
Exceptional
Even if it's not the turning point, it's the quintessential battle of the war.
I kept waiting for him to tell us what the turning point was, but he never did. What was it?
Rather than concentrating on the left flank of the Union army and moving Johnson's Division to seek to concentrate the initiative on Culp's Hill, Picket's charge would have likely been successful. Can you imagine having Confederate artillery on Culp's hill? It could have concentrated on the Union Center and been far more effective than the barrage on the morning of July 3. If the Confederates would have defeated the Union Troops at Gettysburg, and head towards Washington DC, how would have that effected Lincoln's chances of winning the oncoming election? The Democrats would have likely defeated Lincoln and sued for peace- which was really Lee's goal- to weaken the North's resolve to continue on with a very bloody and costly war.
I also disagree with Gallagher's critique of Meade. In the annals of recorded history, there has never been a “high-end combat” battle that lasted more than 96 hours - that is simply the limit of human endurance. Absent fresh reserves to commit - and reserves who know what they are doing rather than anyone quickly thrown into the fray - it is almost impossible to transition from the defense to the offense and pursuit at the end of a battle like this one. A perfect example is Napoleon’s failure at Austerlitz to pursue beyond Stara Posta at the end of the day. Even his hardened forces of the Grand Armée of 1805 simply could not muster the energy to pursue after the climactic battle itself..Meade had lost important command structure like the loss of Renolds and had to regroup his corps command. Now Lincoln did admonish Meade as was presented in the lecture, but he never actually sent the letter to Meade. What would be the point to criticize the command leader after the victory? It was a war of attrition and Lee lost a large number of his force which could not be replaced. Meade had no way of knowing the remaining strength of Lee's army and to go on the offensive with an exhausted army would have been a very risky proposition. We can say in retrospect Lee had a severely depleted force, but Meade had no way of knowing the extent of his victory. The Union was looking at a significant number of soldiers finishing up the term of their service, so of course they had to look to enlist and seek to re-enlist soldiers to continue the fight- and that will take time to re-strengthen their force. In summary, I think the critique of Meade not to pursue Lee's army lacks context.
True - I agree with your well thought out comment so maybe you could offer a thought - seeing as how what you put down did not happen how could Gen Lee still send those men into imminent slaughter where even if they had broke through they were in no way able to continue to DC - the only thing that saved them was the withdrawal - retreat and regroup - we often hear about how these Generals consider every contingent - what happened?? IMO - the Civil War was the Worst thing that ever happened to America other than the buying and selling of our fellow Humans tho the practice is as old as sin itself -
@@sergepetrov7973 Thank you for your feedback. I agree Gabe. Other than slavery, the Civil War was as bad as it gets in American history: Friends killing friends, brothers killing brothers.
I dare say the double blow upon the South from its defeat at Gettysburgh and at Vicksburg in July of 1863 was the point where the Union became the dominant force in this epic struggle. It is always good to hear Gary Gallager expound on this monumental time in American history...and I imagine his assesment is more valid than mine. Live Free or Die ! May this nation continue to endure and provide Liberty and Justice for All the PEOPLE
Hi Paul,
We'd love to have you join Professor Gallagher's course in April. Here's 20% off if you decide to register. Just use promo code: GETTYSBURG2021.
Glad you enjoyed the lecture!
Best Wishes & Happy New Year!
YOU can justify any America President, in a "Constitutional REPUBLIC," to raise an Army against his own people by Passing the Law with A Quorum, from the Partisan Majority with 51%? Republic Republic! REPUBLIC?"
The common wisdom of Gettysburg is that Stuart was glory seeking whilst galivanting around northern Maryland, and Pennsylvania instead of doing his job and reporting to Lee and Longstreet the exact positions of United States troops. Not really! First Stuart did get his ass kicked by Union Cavalrymen at Brandy Station which started the Gettysburg campaign off. So Stuart did go scouting far away from Lees meandering troops as they headed into Pennsylvania. But- Stuart left over a brigade and a half of Cavalry under the command of Grumble Jones with Lee to do the scouting duties which because of their incompetent bungling they completely failed to do. Stuart was not able to get back to Lee in time to help with battlefield intelligence because Custer gave him a second pasting at Hannover blocking Stuart from getting back to the ANV. Custer would go on to repeat yet another disastrous defeat of Stuart at east Cavalry battlefield in which Custer brilliantly commanded combined forces of Mounted Cavalry charges( yes!) devastating field artillery under Pennington, and deadly dismounted cavalry- performing as massed volley firing infantry, prevented an attack by the Confederates on the rear of the army of the Potomac.
But that is probably because most historians don't ride horses and don't understand the importance of speed of attack, and maneuver.
best
Bruce Peek
Ad hominem: Look it up.
Brandy Station was a Confederate Tactical victory, my friend. Hanover was an indecisive engagement.
Grumble Jones' cavalry was never tasked with scouting. They were supposed to guard mountain passes.
Stuart failed to get back to Lee in a timely manner because Stuart attempted to carry out Lee's contradictory orders to gather both information and provisions. The supply train which Stuart captured slowed his movement. Custer had next to nothing to do with that. Just sayin.
Gettysburg denied victory to the confederates and denied defeat to the Union. That's important. But what really happened is that the Union decided to pay the price for victory and really went to war only in 1864 under Ullysses Grant. With that decision to press the war, the confederate fate was sealed.
21:00 A turning point is NOT something you can define at the time. It is seen in a historical context. So, uh, no.
Thanks for your comment! Although we disagree with your statement as a turning point can be so significant that it is evident to the people at the time, and at other times, the event's impact is clear in retrospect.
We appreciate your perspective and would be happy to welcome you to Professor Gallagher's live class in April to discuss further.
You can learn more by visiting: bit.ly/3BHrUY7.
If you have any questions or need assistance, please feel free to reach out to us at info@foreverscholars.com.
@@foreverscholars I think it's pretty clear that Churchill perceived rightly that El Alemein was the turning point of WW2 in the western European Theatre with his "now this is not the end... end of the beginning" quote. I'm not sure if the Soviets saw Stalingrad, Kursk or the combined victories as the turning point in the East, but certainly it was clear that the war would be won as of 7/43.
@@foreverscholars Gettysburg did not open up Virginia, it just turned Lee back and didn't allow him to gather even more supplies. Vicksburg closed Texas and Arkansas off from the Confederacy. That was a turning point. The Mississippi River was open again and goods/armies could use it again. None of that happened at Gettysburg. Lee was never going to be able to take Washington and he knew that. He just wanted the bloody fields to be in the North.
Thanx
Vicksburg was more important. It divided the South in half and denied the Confederates the free flow of needed supplies and reinforcements. It gave the Union complete control of the Mississippi River.
If the Union won at Vicksburg and lost Gettysburg, that would have been much better for the Confederacy in terms of recognition by Britain, and Lee could have continued north and gained more supplies, territory and the morale of the Union would have been far more affected.
@@ITILII I tend to agree. It really was both victories which gave the North further resolve to defeat Lee's Army of the Virginia. If there was a victory for Lee at Gettysburg, Lee would have continued up the Baltimore Pike towards Washington DC which in turn would have increased pressure on Lincoln to sue for peace. I would add it was the number of casualties (51,000 by some estimates) that provided the historical precedence over the Vicksburg campaign.
@@ITILII Great Britain had pledged, along with the United States, to stop the slave trade. They were never going to ally with the Confederate States of America.
Wasn’t the largest battle. It was the bloodiest
What was larger?
@@davidbowman4259 Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville involved more troops. Maybe a few others. I think Lee’s army was at its biggest at Gettysburg (70-75,000) but the Army of the Potomac was only 90-100,000 there, vs. as high as 130,000+ in other engagements.
@@davidclark3588 Thanks for that! We think of so many battles only in terms of casualties. Interestingly, I think Stones River had the highest percentage of casualties on both sides. Franklin had the highest number of Confederate generals killed. Antietam was the single bloodiest day of the war: Sept. 17, 1862. So many very sanguinary affairs. So appalling.
@@davidbowman4259 great points.
“The coming apocalypse and the evil influence of Twitter.” Hilarious!!! But ih so true.
The reasons Gettysburg is indeed the turning point of the war- 1. It was the first and last major battle fought on Northern soil. 2. It was the first major defeat for the Army of Northern Virginia which had been on an almost unbelievable run of victory after victory, up to that point. 3. The failure of Pettigrew and Trimble's divisions to advance on Cemetery Ridge and instead turning tail and running back to Seminary Ridge-leaving Pickett's men to do most of the fighting and dying the third day of the fighting-caused a rift across the entire Army of Northern Virginia that would never quite be healed.
Washington state 2022
Thomas Melissa Thompson Brian White Dorothy
Taylor Christopher Young Jeffrey Lee Thomas
Martin Joseph Johnson Jason Thompson Sharon
This person has some form of strange "outrage"against the narrative of the Union. Strange.
Indeed..
White Maria Williams Christopher Jones Donald
Did something change???????????? Is there a NEW understanding?????????
after gettysburg, it was obvious to all that the south had no chance of winning, and with the opening of the mississippi at vicksburg, the union had it in a vice.
all that was left was to drag it out for another 22 months the increase the senseless bloodshed, destruction, and despair that can only come from total war.
And Lee was up to the task
He held on for nearly 2 years as Georgia was ravaged, Tennesse was marched over thousands of times, and the carolinas lost their breadwinners to disease in the trenches around Richmond
That Lee - responsible for more southern deaths than all others combined