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.
Thread Replies (6)
Finally finished Foote's Civil War trilogy this week.
-- Chris Coleman
May 07, 2025 at 08:16 AM ET
Chris Coleman
•
05/07/25 08:16 AM ET
Give me some insight into the evolution of the southern market economies.**
-- MikeVT85
May 07, 2025 at 12:31 PM ET
MikeVT85
•
05/07/25 12:31 PM ET
Vicksburg more important than Gettysburg?
-- huskerHokie
May 07, 2025 at 10:44 AM ET
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
May 07, 2025 at 06:00 PM ET
kennedyvt
•
05/07/25 06:00 PM ET
Grant's stubbornness outshone his brilliance :)**
-- huskerHokie
May 07, 2025 at 06:14 PM ET
huskerHokie
•
05/07/25 06:14 PM ET
Grant faced a lot of setbacks in attempting to lay siege to Vicksburg
-- huskerHokie
May 07, 2025 at 06:12 PM ET
huskerHokie
•
05/07/25 06:12 PM ET
Yes, more important than Gettsyburg, IMO.
◄
-- Chris Coleman
May 07, 2025 at 11:12 AM ET
Chris Coleman
•
05/07/25 11:12 AM ET