Had a very good discussion with a friend with a broad knowledge of the Civil War. He is teaching a continuing education course on the Civil War. He did a class on on the four battles that had the most impact on the war. As I was discussing the topic with him I thought this would be a good question for this learned group.

So what were the four battles that had the most impact on the outcome of the war?

Fort sumner. Fort Henry/Donaldson. Shiloh. Peninsula campaign (hard to believe it didn't end there). Uneducated knee jerk reaction…
Edited to correct fort name

Must include "why," I think, to make it valid.

Shiloh - essentially the last chance in the west. CSA loss made it a matter of time

Spotsylvania Chancellorsville (duh) - Loss of T. Jackson

Antietam (or Franklin for the same reason) - demonstrated Federal resolve in the face of massive casualties. Franklin was not nearly as massive, but the ratio of time:casualties is staggering.

Chickamauga - opened the door to GA ->ATL->SAV

The success of the Federal blockade is probably one of the most important factors, but not necessarily a "battle."

I'm going to cheat a little and lump Fort Sumter together with the CSA seizure of Columbus, KY (which wasn't a battle at all). Both of these were tremendous own goals by the Confederates at the political level. Sumter made them the aggressors, at least in Northern eyes. The seizure of Columbus was an aggressive action moving troops into a state which had not seceded, and pushed Kentucky firmly into the Union camp.

First Bull Run/Manassas - this battle showed that it would be a long war, and it wouldn't be settled by a 'one and done' Napoleonic decisive battle. Though that wouldn't stop some generals, most notably R.E. Lee, from trying to achieve it.

Antietam - made it possible for Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. That put an end to any possibility of European intervention on the South's behalf.

Vicksburg (which is properly a campaign, not a battle) - cut the western part of the South off completely from the rest of it. Further, Union control of the Mississippi freed up the bulk of Grant's army (led by Sherman after Grant's promotion) for operations against Atlanta and the CS interior.

-----------------
And Jackson died of wounds suffered at Chancellorsville in 1863. Spotsylvania was the second battle of the Overland Campaign, in 1864.

1. Henry and Donelson: opened central Tennessee to occupation which in term made it possible to strike at Vicksburg and into Georgia

2. Perryville: Last real chance for the Confederacy to break the Border States up and threaten the Ohio Valley.

3. Antietam: More than Gettysburg, it was Lee's best shot at creating momentum for a negotiated end to the war. The issuance of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation afterwards changed the entire nature of the war and the United States.

4. Wilderness / Spotsylvania / North Anna: If Lee is able to drive Grant back, Lincoln's reelection become precarious at best. Obviously the capture of Atlanta sealed the deal, but Grant pushing deep into Virginia and trapping Lee at Petersburg made an endgame apparent.

I'll throw an "out-of-the-box" idea at you guys.

What about the non-battle early in the war when Grant was to attack the Southern military camp commanded by Colonel Thomas Harris? There was no battle because Harris had abandoned the camp in the face of Grant's advance. The event had a profound effect in shaping Grant's character as a commander:

Quote:

---

Grant speculated that Harris was "as afraid of him as he was of Harris." This train of thought deeply affected Grant, and it changed the way he approached battle for the remainder of the war. He would write later, "From that event to the close of the war, I never experienced trepidation upon confronting an enemy.… I never forgot that he had as much reason to fear my forces as I had his."

---

What if Harris had stood his ground and fought Grant? Would Grant's character as an extremely aggressive commander never formed? Grant's eager willingness to fight certainly shaped the rest of the war and probably helped save the North from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Fort Donelson- emergence of Grant
Antietam- end of foreign intervention, EP
Vicksburg (Champion Hill if it has to be reduced to a battle) - Confederacy cut in two
Wilderness - no more retreating after a loss against Lee.

Jabin said:

---

I'll throw an "out-of-the-box" idea at you guys.

What about the non-battle early in the war when Grant was to attack the Southern military camp commanded by Colonel Thomas Harris? There was no battle because Harris had abandoned the camp in the face of Grant's advance. The event had a profound effect in shaping Grant's character as a commander:

Quote:

---

Grant speculated that Harris was "as afraid of him as he was of Harris." This train of thought deeply affected Grant, and it changed the way he approached battle for the remainder of the war. He would write later, "From that event to the close of the war, I never experienced trepidation upon confronting an enemy.… I never forgot that he had as much reason to fear my forces as I had his."

---

What if Harris had stood his ground and fought Grant? Would Grant's character as an extremely aggressive commander never formed? Grant's eager willingness to fight certainly shaped the rest of the war and probably helped save the North from snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

---

That's an interesting thought experiment. I don't have a good answer. My assumption is that Grant would have emerged as Grant, just as Sherman had a breakdown early in the war but still emerged as Sherman. Contingency is always fun to think about, though.

Quote:

---

My assumption is that Grant would have emerged as Grant, just as Sherman had a breakdown early in the war but still emerged as Sherman.

---

That's probably right.

Another question for you learned Civil War buffs.

The strategic import of the North capturing Vicksburg is traditionally stated as that it split the Confederacy in half. But did it?

First, it wasn't literally "half". Only LA, AR & TX were to the west of the Mississippi.

And how much did LA, AR & TX really contribute to the Southern war effort?

Isn't the real significance of Vicksburg that it gave the North control of the Mississippi and, in effect, the port of New Orleans? Now the North could use the Mississippi to get crops and goods to and from the Northwest and further deprived the South of the use of the Mississippi for the same purpose for the southern states to its east.

Smeghead4761 said:

---

I'm going to cheat a little and lump Fort Sumter together with the CSA seizure of Columbus, KY (which wasn't a battle at all). Both of these were tremendous own goals by the Confederates at the political level. Sumter made them the aggressors, at least in Northern eyes. The seizure of Columbus was an aggressive action moving troops into a state which had not seceded, and pushed Kentucky firmly into the Union camp.

First Bull Run/Manassas - this battle showed that it would be a long war, and it wouldn't be settled by a 'one and done' Napoleonic decisive battle. Though that wouldn't stop some generals, most notably R.E. Lee, from trying to achieve it.

Antietam - made it possible for Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. That put an end to any possibility of European intervention on the South's behalf.

Vicksburg (which is properly a campaign, not a battle) - cut the western part of the South off completely from the rest of it. Further, Union control of the Mississippi freed up the bulk of Grant's army (led by Sherman after Grant's promotion) for operations against Atlanta and the CS interior.

-----------------
And Jackson died of wounds suffered at Chancellorsville in 1863. Spotsylvania was the second battle of the Overland Campaign, in 1864.

---

you're right.. it was Chancellorsville. Don't know where my brain was...

Sapper Redux said:

---

1. Henry and Donelson: opened central Tennessee to occupation which in term made it possible to strike at Vicksburg and into Georgia

2. Perryville: Last real chance for the Confederacy to break the Border States up and threaten the Ohio Valley.

3. Antietam: More than Gettysburg, it was Lee's best shot at creating momentum for a negotiated end to the war. The issuance of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation afterwards changed the entire nature of the war and the United States.

4. Wilderness / Spotsylvania / North Anna: If Lee is able to drive Grant back, Lincoln's reelection become precarious at best. Obviously the capture of Atlanta sealed the deal, but Grant pushing deep into Virginia and trapping Lee at Petersburg made an endgame apparent.

---

Been to Henry and Donelson a looooooong time ago. Good addition.

Had an ancestor at Perryville. Been there too.

Well technically it didn't until Port Hudson fell two weeks later but Vicksburg was still the biggest part of it. And yes it did split the Confederacy in half. Texas and North Louisiana cotton were highly prized. So was Texas beef and that was all cut off from the seat of war. As were any additional manpower they might provide to the cause.

But you are probably right the opening of the Mississippi to Yankee commerce from the mid-west was the biggest thing as it solidified those states support for the war, because their economic suffering was at an end.

Jabin said:

---

Another question for you learned Civil War buffs.

The strategic import of the North capturing Vicksburg is traditionally stated as that it split the Confederacy in half. But did it?

First, it wasn't literally "half". Only LA, AR & TX were to the west of the Mississippi.

And how much did LA, AR & TX really contribute to the Southern war effort?

Isn't the real significance of Vicksburg that it gave the North control of the Mississippi and, in effect, the port of New Orleans? Now the North could use the Mississippi to get crops and goods to and from the Northwest and further deprived the South of the use of the Mississippi for the same purpose for the southern states to its east.

---

Aside from eth significant military contributions of Texan regiments, the ability to continue exporting cotton, even when overland through Mexico after the blockade of coastal ports, was probably a significant economic piece.

First Bull Run belongs on the list. Had the Union won that battle and subsequently taken Richmond, the war may well have ended in its first year. Instead, the Confederate victory inspired the South and gave it confidence it could prevail against the richer, more populous North. It gave the South the battlefield credibility it badly needed at that early moment.

"By July 1861, two months after Confederate troops opened fire on Fort Sumter to begin the Civil War, the northern press and public were eager for the Union Army to make an advance on Richmond ahead of the planned meeting of the Confederate Congress there on July 20. Encouraged by early victories by Union troops in western Virginia and by the war fever spreading through the North, President Abraham Lincoln ordered Brigadier General Irvin McDowell and his 35,000 troops to mount an offensive that would hit quickly and decisively at the enemy and open the way to Richmond, thus bringing the war to a mercifully quick end. The offensive would begin with an attack on more than 20,000 Confederate troops under the command of General P.G.T. Beauregard camped near Manassas Junction, Virginia (25 miles from Washington, D.C.) along a little river known as Bull Run. The Confederate victory gave the South a surge of confidence and shocked many in the North, who realized the war would not be won as easily as they had hoped".

How about the Battle(s) of Chattanooga? Chattanooga was strategically important as a rail hub and its capture paved the way for Sherman's later march into Georgia.

It was actually captured by Rosecrans without a battle, although the November battle did secure the capture.

Yeah, I was thinking of the November battles, Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge.

I'm going with:

Shiloh....losing the battle gave Grant control of the Northern Mississippi, and ultimately allowed him to move on down to Vicksburg, sealing the fate of the Western part of the Confederacy. In addition, even with the victory, Grant was still a scapegoat because he was caught off guard. Can you imagine if they had lost the battle all-together? He's probably done, and the war goes differently!

Antietam: turning back Lee's invasion gave the North the desire for a continued war effort, and as stated, Lincoln's issue of the EP....giving some in the North a moral cause to keep fighting for as opposed to just restoring the Union.

Gettysburg: Lee gets a victory and it just might have been enough to end the North's desire to continue the fight and the war comes to an end. Lincoln may have been forced to sue for peace. Lee's ANV gets hammered and he pulls back to stay in Virginia and make it a war of attrition, which ultimately fails.

Siege of Petersburg: come on...Grants got you surrounded and your ultimately going to run out of supplies, and morale is going to dwindle to the breaking point. Siege's aren't always successful, but with Grant's overwhelming numbers, it was just a matter of time...

Big Hunter:

I was coming back to congratulate everyone for not putting Gettysburg and then you ruin my compliment.

Bloody mess that had little impact on the war whatsoever.

Bighunter43 said:

---

Siege of Petersburg: come on...Grants got you surrounded and your ultimately going to run out of supplies, and morale is going to dwindle to the breaking point. Siege's aren't always successful, but with Grant's overwhelming numbers, it was just a matter of time...

---

Never was a true siege such as Vicksburg. It was really a campaign to protect /cut the Southside Railroad. Grant/Meade continued the Overland Campaign by moving and attacking to the left except this time they dug trenches and built forts when they met resistance. With Lee's finite number of soldiers, it was just a matter to time before he became over extended.

BQ78 said:

---

Big Hunter:

I was coming back to congratulate everyone for not putting Gettysburg and then you ruin my compliment.

Bloody mess that had little impact on the war whatsoever.

---

Absolutely disagree 100%....(Respectfully as I consider you quite the ultimate CW authority on this board, and always look forward to your contributions) A victory by Lee and the war quite possibly comes to an end.....that in itself certainly makes it worthy of the list. Union victory renewed the North's effort to continue, and a new found confidence that Lee's ANV wasn't invincible. It especially changed the overall perspective of the war from the North's point of view. It changed Lee's future actions.....resolved to retreat into Virginia to force a war of exhaustion that ultimately failed. In addition, the loss of officers at different levels would be difficult for Lee's Army to recover from. In essence, it propelled the war into its next and final stages.

"Bloody mess that had LITTLE IMPACT on the war whatsoever" might be a rather bold statement considering it's referred to as THE battle that turned the tide of the war!

I think the emotions and the scale of the battle weight it more than it deserves from an overall strategic standpoint. Where was Lee going to go after Gettysburg? He had enough ammo for one big battle and Washington was a fortress by that point in the war. He was never going to completely destroy the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg. Unless the Confederacy immediately resolved to end slavery, foreign intervention wasn't happening in 1863. Vicksburg was still gone. What may have changed was that Grant may have come east sooner.

I think you are convoluting a major what-if with the question at hand and that is actual impact. Both Lee and Meade failed to do anything impactful at Gettysburg other than kill a lot of good men. Lee didn't get close to the coal mines north of Harrisburg and Meade failed to trap Lee's Army north of the Potomac. Had either achieved those goals you would have had an impactful battle.

As far as being considered the war's "turning point". I will concede there is a popular notion of that but no one in Lee's Army felt that way and Meade was crapping his pants all fall because Lincoln was pushing him to attack Lee and Meade was scared of what Lee might do to him if he did. Lee launched another northern invasion in the summer of 1864 and only his army was capable of sustaining a tactical offensive around Petersburg until just before the end. If a turning point had been reached at Gettysburg, how could those things have happened?

Bloodiest battle? Sure. Ripe with counterfactual outcomes? Definitely. Impactful? hardly.

Sapper Redux said:

---

I think the emotions and the scale of the battle weight it more than it deserves from an overall strategic standpoint. Where was Lee going to go after Gettysburg? He had enough ammo for one big battle and Washington was a fortress by that point in the war. He was never going to completely destroy the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg. Unless the Confederacy immediately resolved to end slavery, foreign intervention wasn't happening in 1863. Vicksburg was still gone. What may have changed was that Grant may have come east sooner.

---

The Confederate goal on this campaign was to breed discontent in the Northern War effort and a decisive victory at Gettysburg could have achieved that. The Union Victory ultimately caused their ranks to swell as new volunteers signed up.....a Confederate victory might have had the complete opposite effect. A Confederate victory would have completely destroyed northern morale and Lincoln's chances of re-election, as people already thought he had terribly mismanaged the war, and a great loss at Gettysburg would probably have caused Congress to press Lincoln to sue for peace. Confederate VP Alexander Stephens had already been dispatched to meet with Lincoln for peace if Lee would have won a great victory on his campaign. You don't know what Britain does as far as responding to a victory by Lee.....Could Lee have reached Washington....we will never know, but then again he might not have had too. Yes, it's an emotional battle, but to belittle its significance and impact is rather cretinous!

Remember Lee and Meade didn't want the battle at Gettysburg but when the first day went so well for the Confederates, Lee felt compelled to keep fighting.

As for Meade, if he had his way he would have fought a defensive battle on Pipe Creek defending Washington. But that would have played right into Lee's plan to destroy anthracite coal mines north of Harrisburg. It is also why Lee blew off Longstreet's suggestion on the second day to go around the Union left. Washington was not his goal, Pennsylvania mines were.

Impact is defined as a marked impression or effect.......significant.......As to the "impact" of Gettysburg, I will defer to some of the most noted Civil War experts and historians,

Professor James McPherson....."Gettysburg is the largest, most significant and most important battle of the Civil War."

Bruce Catton...."Gettysburg was the greatest and most important battle of the war."

Noah Trudeau: "at Gettysburg, Lee had staked everything.....his splendid army, the fate of Richmond, and perhaps even the Confederacy itself in an effort to destroy the Federal army....and he lost the bet..."

Gettysburg had a profound "impact" on the course of the war......it changed the dynamics of Lee's overall strategy.....Lee wins and the war is completely.....thus, the Union victory had an undeniable "impact".

Guess everyone else was wrong when they didn't put it in their top four. As stated before it is popular to give it credit beyond its true impact. It did not cripple the south and within months the Army of Northern Virginia was back where it was when the campaign began and practically at the same strength.

That is an impressive list of historians so we'll leave it at that. I know for a fact Trudeau would say it was a bit of hyperbole.

Historians also credit Atlanta and Sheridan in the Valley with re-electing Lincoln and they say that is a huge impact because what would have happened if Lincoln had not won the election?, I.e. the war would have been lost. I disagree with them on this too. Lincoln and Grant would have turned up the heat sooner and defeated Lee a month earlier (with more casualties for sure) and then turn the administration over to McClellan. So hyperbole from Civil War historians is not just Gettysburg.

Glad this topic came up as I've been wanting to ask what is probably a "stupid" question.

Currently reading "Rebel Yell" about Stonewall Jackson. I get that Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and that had he not done so then "democracy" would have failed which he wanted to avoid.

That said, was it worth it? Seems initially Lincoln was willing to let things continue as they had been if he could bring the Union back together. After Antietam it was total war on the South. The country, as a whole, seems to still suffer from it.

Why not just have a peaceful divorce?

Quote:

---

Why not just have a peaceful divorce?

---

I was taught that that was an issue (i.e., secession) that the framers were very aware of and punted on because they had no good answer - or at least any answer would not have been an obstacle to ratification.

BQ78 said:

---

Remember Lee and Meade didn't want the battle at Gettysburg but when the first day went so well for the Confederates, Lee felt compelled to keep fighting.

As for Meade, if he had his way he would have fought a defensive battle on Pipe Creek defending Washington. But that would have played right into Lee's plan to destroy anthracite coal mines north of Harrisburg. It is also why Lee blew off Longstreet's suggestion on the second day to go around the Union left. Washington was not his goal, Pennsylvania mines were.

---

And England had contemplated ending the war on a humanitarian basis as well. That was being discussed, how seriously I'm not certain.

Quote:

---

humanitarian basis

---

The humanitarian basis England was interested in, was first, getting the English cotton mills up and running again for the owners and secondarily to get the many unemployed workers of those mills, working again.

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

Glad this topic came up as I've been wanting to ask what is probably a "stupid" question.

Currently reading "Rebel Yell" about Stonewall Jackson. I get that Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union and that had he not done so then "democracy" would have failed which he wanted to avoid.

That said, was it worth it? Seems initially Lincoln was willing to let things continue as they had been if he could bring the Union back together. After Antietam it was total war on the South. The country, as a whole, seems to still suffer from it.

Why not just have a peaceful divorce?

---

Lincoln wanted to do more than preserve the Union. Early on he took advantage of the war to end slavery for some people with the Confiscation Acts. He shared the Emancipation Proclamation with his cabinet a few days after the 2nd Confiscation Act but was urged to wait until after a major Union victory. He quickly went from only worrying about preserving the Union to ending slavery.

He also had suggested that Congress authorize a bill for enslavers to be paid $400 per slave to avoid war and save money in the end. It was ignored obviously.

BQ78 said:

---

Quote:

---

humanitarian basis

---

The humanitarian basis England was interested in, was first, getting the English cotton mills up and running again for the owners and secondarily to get the many unemployed workers of those mills, working again.

---

That was the crux of the argument publicly but I do think Ambassador Lyons and Palmerston were queasy about the number of dead in the war. To what extend, I'm not certain.