All Hokie, All the Time. Period. Presented by First Bank & Trust Company

Chris Coleman
Joined: 09/18/2001
Posts: 82,237
Likes: 167,378
Lifetime

Yes, more important than Gettsyburg, IMO.

Militarily, even if the south had won Gettysburg, unless it had destroyed a large chunk of the Army of the Potomac in the process, what could it have done to capitalize on that victory? Taken Washington? Unlikely with the Army of the Potomac still intact and combined with the capital defenses. Not to mention that the Army of Northern Virginia would have had trouble staying supplied that long north of the Potomac river. Yes, Lee knew a protracted war would end poorly for his side. That's definitely why he took so many risks. His goal was always not to beat the Army of the Potomac, but to isolate large sections of it and destroy them. He was never quite able to accomplish that. It's a very difficult thing to do when you are outnumbered and outgunned. His best chance was at Glendale on June 30, 1862, but Jackson (who was overrated tactically but brilliant strategically) had a bad day.
Posted: 05/07/2025 at 11:12 AM ET
(In response to this post by huskerHokie)

Thread Replies (6)

Full Thread →
Finally finished Foote's Civil War trilogy this week.
Chris ColemanAdmin 05/07/25 08:16 AM ET
Give me some insight into the evolution of the southern market economies.**
MikeVT85 05/07/25 12:31 PM ET
Vicksburg more important than Gettysburg?
huskerHokie 05/07/25 10:44 AM ET
I agree on the importance of Vicksburg. It was also a campaign as much as a
kennedyvt 05/07/25 06:00 PM ET
Grant's stubbornness outshone his brilliance :)**
huskerHokie 05/07/25 06:14 PM ET
Grant faced a lot of setbacks in attempting to lay siege to Vicksburg
huskerHokie 05/07/25 06:12 PM ET
Yes, more important than Gettsyburg, IMO.
Chris ColemanAdmin 05/07/25 11:12 AM ET