Turning Point of the American Civil War

[chancellor_dan]

I did my advanced higher history dissertation on this last year.
I concluded that there was no single most important event of the war, but rather a combination of political (like the Emancipation Proc and the failure of Confederate diplomacy) and military (Antietam, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Atlanta etc) events which together conspired against the South.

What does anyone else think?

 

[YNCS]

I would agree that there wasn't a specific turning point in the American Civil War.

There is an interesting book, published in 1960, called Why the North Won the Civil War (edited by David Donald). The title is a misnomer, it really should be Why the South Lost the Civil War. This book is a collection of five essays by historians looking at various aspects of the Civil War: economic, military, diplomatic, social, and political.

In the economic essay, the Union victory is attributed to both the greater Northern economy and to the misuse of the one economic resource the South did have (the King Cotton scheme).

The military essay points out deficiencies in both Union and Confederate strategies. These often resulted from the fact that most of the senior generals on both sides (as well as Jefferson Davis) were West Point graduates and had been taught tactics and strategy by Dennis Mahan. Mahan (the father of Alfred Thayer Mahan) was an admirer of a book written by one of Napoleon's generals, Baron Antoine Henri Jomini. The problems with Jomini were that technology had changed warfare since the Napoleonic wars and that Jomini had a flawed understanding of Napoleon's strategy and grand tactics. It wasn't until Grant and Sherman disgarded Jominian strategy that a Northern military victory became inevitable.

The diplomatic essay shows how the Union, primarily Lincoln and Seward, were able to persuade Britain and France from recognizing the Confederacy, even as a de facto government.

The author of the social essay offers the intriguing thesis that an excess of Southern democracy killed the Confederacy. From soldiers in the ranks to Davis himself, too much emphasis was placed on individual freedom and not enough on military discipline.

The political essay suggested the deficiencies of Davis as a civil and military leader turned the balance. It has been claimed, many times, that if Lincoln and Davis had switched places, the Confederacy would have had a much better chance of gaining its independence. It also brings out the point that the South suffered from the lack of a second political party to force its leadership into competence.

I recommend this book as one of the clearer, yet shorter, discussions on various aspects of the American Civil War. I should note that a basic knowledge of the war and its leading personalities is necessary to full appreciate the book. For instance, someone unfamiliar with the Erlanger Loan will not understand the economic essay.

 

[Stylesjl]

I thought they lost the war because the north had railroads, more states, better economy, etc it was inevitable that the north would kick their ass

 

[DBear]

True, the north had more, but if the South had had any kind of diplomacy at all, the South would've gained independence. IIRC UK had abolished slavery and wanted nothing to do with the confederacy even to stick it to the US.

 

[privatehudson]

IIRC UK had abolished slavery and wanted nothing to do with the confederacy even to stick it to the US.

It certainly had yes. I'd say the only way the UK would intervene would probably be either if the North provoked us way too far, or if the South were already winning. I think it's Longstreet in Gettysburg who when asked if the British will come in on the south's side "oh they'll come in all right, when we don't need them no more"

 

[Bugfatty300]

I thought they lost the war because the north had railroads, more states, better economy, etc it was inevitable that the north would kick their ass

The south had other essential things, like nearly all of the competent American generals and officers, as well as more experienced troops.

The South's ability to fight was unquestioned in 1862 and the CS was pretty much doing the ass kicking at the big engagments (Bull Run, Fredericksberg, Chancellorsville) for the first years of the war.

Of course with the South, alone and cut off from all outside support by the Union Navy played a role in destroying the Confederacy's ability to fight.

 

[greekguy]

The South was doing good for a year or two because the North had such horrible generals. But once the North won Gettysburg and Vicksburg, and Grant assumed total command of the Army, the end for the South was inevitable.

 

[Stapel]

I'd say the turning point was in the beginning. And not on the battle field, but in politics. The South failed to operate as a union. The deep south states didn't contribute enough to the common cause.

Appearently, they trusted the north would only show a few muscles, and back down within half a year or so.

 

[Serutan]

I'd say the turning point was in the beginning. And not on the battle field, but in politics. The South failed to operate as a union. The deep south states didn't contribute enough to the common cause.

Jefferson Davis said later in the war that if the Confederacy failed,
that on its tombstone should be written "Died of a Theory" {State's
Rights}

Appearently, they trusted the north would only show a few muscles, and back down within half a year or so.

At the beginning, this attitude was prevelant on both sides. Each thought
that when it demonstrated in battle that it was in earnest, the other side
would quickly see the error in its ways and talk terms. It really took
Shiloh (April 1862) for it to be clear that both sides were in earnest, and that
this was likely a fight to the death.

@chancellor_dan - In his Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson
makes essentially the same argument (in a brief form).

 

[zjl56]

I think one of the major turning points is when the union started to want the confederacy to be destroyed, and unify the country.
Morale was a big reason why the South won a few major battles at the beginning. Confederates were fighting for what they believed in; whereas in the Union a draft had to be placed just get a large enough army.
When the North finially got the will to fight the war turned on the South for that and other reasons.

 

[Sickman]

I concluded that there was no single most important event of the war, but rather a combination of political (like the Emancipation Proc and the failure of Confederate diplomacy) and military (Antietam, Gettysburg, Vicksburg, Atlanta etc) events which together conspired against the South.

Very much in the same lines with you and YNCS. And those all books mentioned are worth to read for all interested about American Civil War.

I think Confederacy lacked clear goals above all and the organization was well let's say too loose to begin with from top to the bottom.

From military point of view after Antietam and Gettysburg it started to be over as basically the whole unfulfilled military potential of South started to decrease dramatically. The man losses were just unbareable when considering what strategic goals were reached with those costs.

I have always considered Lee's final attempt in Gettysburg (Pickett and Co charge) more like last desperate lunge to make an effort and shake the Union rather than real attempt to actually win the battle and possible win the war. I think especially Lee knew it was all over then. It was only matter of time after that.

Even though there has been said that south had chance to win the war, the odds favored north heavily. I think there was also matter of amazing consequences that favored the north's cause after amazing initial success of south.

After all, possible unevitable happened.

 

[YNCS]

Confederates were fighting for what they believed in; whereas in the Union a draft had to be placed just get a large enough army.

The South instituted a draft (conscription) on April 16, 1862. The North didn't start a draft for almost a year, March 3, 1863.

About 6% of the Union Army and approximately 30% of the Confederate Army were draftees.

 

[alex994]

I for one think that Gettysburg and Vicksburg kinda pretty much doomed the south...

 

[YNCS]

The first week in July 1863 was a bad time for the Confederacy.

 

[chancellor_dan]

Yes Gettysburg and Vicksburg occured with a day or two of each other i think.

 

[YNCS]

Gettysburg was fought from 1 July to 3 July. Vicksburg surrended on July 4th.

BTW, right now is not the time to be at Gettysburg. The reenactors are swarming all over the place.

 

[chancellor_dan]

right now is not the time to be at Gettysburg. The reenactors are swarming all over the place.

Some people need to get out more.

 

[Sir Bugsy]

If you played "what if" with Gettyburg, I think one comes to the conclusion that it was the turning point.

What if Renyolds didn't hold off the Rebs on the first day and the Rebs got the high ground that the Yanks eventually defended.

What if Chamberlain doesn't hold Little Round Top.

What if Ewell wasn't completely incompetent and presses home the attack on either Day One or Day Two.

What if Lee doesn't engage on day three and continues marching north.

If any of those events didn't occur, the south wins the battle and the Union must sue for peace. Otherwise RE Lee gets a vacation home in downtwon Philly or New York depending on his tastes.

 

[Ace]

There have been a lot of excellent points made here, but the most important one was missed. The turning point of the war was the moment when Lincoln dismissed McCellan as commander of the Army of the Potomac, forever. Yes, the Union lost battles after that, but from that moment on, the North fought to smash the Confederacy, not just to "contain" it.

 

[dgfred]

I think the turning point was when Grant didn't turn around 'fall back' after
his defeat- very much different from previous engagements. Aces 'smash'
theory.