Was Gettysburg the Decisive
Battle of the Civil War?
Ryan Toews
Richard McMurray, writing in The
Fourth Battle of Winchester: Toward a New Civil War Paradigm (2002) stated that the Battle of Gettysburg was
significant for only three reasons. It ended the Gettysburg Campaign, it
determined the site of the Gettysburg Address, and it spawned the tourism
industry of Adams County, Pennsylvania.
Yet the Battle of Gettysburg has become the iconic
battle of the American Civil War. Often described as the war’s decisive battle,
the turning point of the war, or the “High Tide of the Confederacy”, it is by
far the most written about engagement of the war. But should it in fact have
this reputation, and, if not, why has it assumed this distinctive reputation?
The battle was important. The Army of Northern
Virginia suffered its first major loss and was forced to retreat south back to
Virginia. But in a letter to Jefferson Davis on 31 July, 1863, Lee termed the
campaign “a general success”. Two weeks prior he had also written to Davis that
everything was “accomplished that could have been reasonably expected. The Army
of the Potomac has been thrown north of that river [the Potomac], the forces
invading the coasts of North Carolina and Virginia had been diminished, their
plan of the present campaign broken up…” This hardly sounds like a decisive
defeat or a turning point in the war.
When Lee’s stated plans following the Battle of Chancellorsville
are considered, it is evident that the main purpose of striking northwards was
to improve the logistical situation of the Army of Northern Virginia by
subsisting on the riches of Pennsylvania and force the Army of the Potomac to
leave Virginia for the season. The Gettysburg Campaign should therefore be seen
as a raid or a spoiling attack, not a strategic offensive to defeat the Army of
the Potomac.
Even if the Rebels had been able to defeat the Union
army at the actual battle would that had made that much difference? On July 1 the
command of Army of the Potomac had already made plans for the possibility of
taking up a position along what is termed the Pipe Creek Line. This would have
enabled for the Federals to be able to continue to protect both Baltimore and
Washington. Unless the Army of Northern Virginia could actually destroy the
Union army a Confederate victory would not do much more then again enhance the
reputation of the Rebel’s ascendency over their counterparts. And bear in mind
that in the course of the war the ability to destroy an opposing army simply
did not happen unless one side had an overwhelming superiority in numbers.
Should Lee have won at Gettysburg the Confederates
would still have had to abandon Pennsylvania before the end of the campaign
season. Although Pennsylvania could provide ample sources of foodstuffs as long
as the Army of Virginia was spread out to be able to forage, once it was concentrated
for battle it would be at a severe logistical disadvantage. And as long as the
Army of the Potomac was within striking distance the Southerners had to remain
concentrated. As well, the ammunition carried by the army, especially for the
artillery, was only sufficient for one battle and the supply line back to
Virginia was long and tenuous.
But, it has been argued, the loss of the Battle of
Gettysburg so badly crippled the Army of Northern Virginia that it never
recovered its former strength. However, in Lost
for the Cause: The Confederate Army in 1864, (2000) Steven Newton compares
the strength of the comparable elements of the Army of Northern Virginia as of
30 June 1863 and 20 April 1864. He demonstrates that the army had a “Present
for Duty” strength of 79,880 for the former date and 79,860 for the latter. Alfred
Young’s recent study of the strength of the Army of Northern Virginia, Lee’s Army During the Overland Campaign: A
Numerical Study, (2013), agrees with Newton’s conclusion that all the major
formations within the Army of Northern Virginia had been successfully brought
back up to strength by the spring of 1864 in spite of the heavy losses suffered
at Gettysburg. Indeed, it was the Army of the Potomac that was forced to
disband the I and III Corps during the winter of 1863-64. The old XI and XII
Corps, transferred to the west in September 1863, were also combined into a
single corps. The rebuilt Army of Northern Virginia remained quite capable of
mounting further large scale raids into the north as witnessed both by the
Bristoe Campaign in late 1863 and later by the appearance of Early’s troops in
front of Washington in mid-1864.
Why then has Gettysburg been described as the decisive
battle of the war? It can be argued that this is more a result of post-war
myth-making then of any strategic importance. Remember that Gettysburg was the
most obvious defeat of the Army of Northern Virginia by the hard-luck Army of
the Potomac. After almost two years of war the Union army in the east finally
won a clear victory on the field of battle. It also occurred in a location that
was on northern soil and was easily accessible to veterans wanting to memorialize
their sacrifices. The battle also garnered further significance by its
connection with the martyred Lincoln and his “Gettysburg Address”.
Post-war Confederate mythologizing also lent a hand.
The eastern theatre of the war was endlessly promoted by a number of important
Army of Northern Virginia veterans. Thomas Connelly examined the elevation of
Robert E. Lee by these post-war writers in The
Marble Man: Robert E Lee and His Image in American Society, (1977). Here he
outlined how Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia became symbolic of the
Southern side of the Civil War. And as Lee gained in importance, his only clear
defeat further served to strengthen the importance of the Battle of Gettysburg
for the veterans of the Army of the Potomac.
The contention that Gettysburg was the High Tide of
the Confederacy is also debatable. While the engagement was undoubtedly the
northern-most large scale battle, the term has any validity only if one accepts
that the eastern theatre was of primary importance in the war. Yet elsewhere in
June of 1863 the Confederacy was hard-pressed. Both Vicksburg and Port Hudson
were under siege and would fall in early July. In Tennessee Rosecrans’ army
moved against the Army of Tennessee on the 23rd of June and by the
end of the first week of July had forced the Rebels to fall back to
Chattanooga. Lee’s defeat was only one of a number of disasters to befall the
Confederates in the summer of 1863. By mid-1863 the Confederate tide had
already been ebbing for half a year.
If one wishes to establish a point in time in which
Rebel fortunes looked most promising it may be best to look at the situation in
early to middle September 1862. In the first weeks of September Hindman’s newly
created Rebel army in Arkansas advanced north across the Boston Mountains to
take up a position near the old Pea Ridge battlefield. Although still too weak
to move further into Missouri it still posed a potential threat to that state.
In western Tennessee Grant’s army was dispersed to
garrison that region while Van Dorn and Price maneuvered to combine their
troops and advance against the Federal forces. In Kentucky the change in the
strategic situation was the most dramatic. On 30 August Kirby Smith’s small
army had destroyed a similar sized Union force at the Battle of Richmond and
had subsequently occupied Lexington. Bragg had also pushed his army northwards
and on the 17th of September captured Munfordville, cutting the rail
line along which Buell’s Federal army was retreating to Louisville.
Further to the east the Confederate threat to Maryland
had caused the withdrawal of Union troops from the Kanawha Valley in West
Virginia and on 13 September Charleston was occupied by the Rebels. Last of all,
in Maryland the Army of Northern Virginia captured 12,500 Union troops at
Harpers Ferry on 15 September. In the next two days the Army of Northern Virginia
was able to concentrate its troops and hold on to its position at Antietam.
Only after this last battle was Lee forced to fall back over the Potomac,
although the Southerners remained in the upper Shenandoah Valley for almost
another two months.
Thus if one must set a date for the High Tide of the Confederacy
the 17th of September 1862 is a much better candidate then the Battle
of Gettysburg the following year.
Good, well argued article. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThanks John, Ryan always comes up with something thoughtful about the war and I thought others would be interested. It's good history.
DeleteThis is very interesting and of wider application. As you know I've dabbled a bit with Brunanburh and in a piece titled "Brunanburh: The Defeat of Empire" examine the evidence for Brunanburh being firstly decisive and secondly a great English victory. I concluded that the main evidence for it being either was that the English said it was. yet all objective measures such as the behaviour of the combatants post bellum, subsequent diplomatic and political relations between England and Scotland and the military performance of the English in the years following all bring this into question. My own view, controversially, is that in strategic terms Brunanburh was a defeat for Athelstan and a victory for Alba and Strathclyde. A major beneficiary of the battle (who may not even have been involved) was the Welsh king, Hywel Dda.
DeleteControversial indeed but very interesting.
DeleteForgive me for hijacking a Gettysburg piece but just to clarify my reference to modern scholarship. Alex Woolf, Wm Knox "Scottish History for Dummies", Karen Jolly and Pauline Stafford, "A Companion to the Early Middle Ages", 2013, have all recently asked the question as to whether Brunanburh was a Pyrrhic victory. So far as I can tell the earliest suggestion was by me in the piece mentioned which has resided on my Academia page for several years. To what extent, if any, it has influenced a revision of attitudes to the battle I can't say and it's entirely possible other historians reached similar conclusions entirely independently.
ReplyDelete