rjh57 wrote:
in a broader context, Lee's failure to win a Napoleonic-style decisive battle of annihalation over the AotP thus hoping to end the war, was NOT a disaster for his AoNV as was Franklin & Nashville for Hood's Army of Tennessee. Nor was Lee's repulse at Gettysburg as damaging to the CSA as the loss of Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Corinth in the West. I think the real turning point in the Eastern Theatre was NOT Gettysburg as some claim, but occurred later the following year on May 7, 1864 when Grant ordered the movement south to Spotsylvania CH after the horrific Battle of the Wilderness - unlike previous Union commanders in Virginia which had always withdrawn north behind the nearest river after fighting the AoNV - and the strategic initiative passed to Grant, never to be regained by Lee. I think most of the controversy, fault-finding and finger-pointing about Gettysburg occurred after the war. An interesting speculation is what the impact might have been if Lee - a Virginian to the core - could have been convinced to reinforce Vicksburg rather than invade Pennsylvania.
I am not sure a Napoleonic style decisive battle was possible during the Civil War. CW armies lacked the type of cavalry required to exploit the routing of an army. It was also very difficult to actually route a CW army the way Napoleonic armies routed. Not sure of the reason for that. It took the extreme mishandling of an army to cause Hood's route. Early's route in the valley mostly reflected overwhelming odds.
I agree Gettysburg was not a decisive defeat for the South. It actually neutralized the Union in the Eastern theatre for almost a year. Vicksburg was a much more critical strategic defeat. Grant of course saw the underlying weakness of the South and was unrelenting in exploiting it.
I have seen a number of writings on whether Lee could have reversed things in the West. One of the most insightful pointed out at the time Davis called Lee to Richmond to see if troops could be detached from the ANV and sent to Vicksburg it was to late for them to reach Vicksburg before it surrendered. The South's rail system just couldn't move enough troops that far in a timely manner.
A more interesting question would be if Lee was sent West in early 63 so he could handle stopping Grant before he reached Vicksburg. Grant exposed his army to easy destruction if opposed by a compentent commander. The South had the troops just not the leader. But then there is the question of what would have happened in Virginia without Lee.