If Vicksburg had held out until July of 1864, would it have made a differnce in

Question:If Vicksburg had held on for another whole year? It's an interesting question to me; after all, Grant's Campaign against Vicksburg lasted a very long time. I think he tried seven or eight different strategies.

Although what you suggest was conceivably possible, if for e difference too), it seems inconceivable that the mighty Union with its powerful naval and huge army assets could have been resisted for very long.

First of all, Lincoln knew he needed a fighting general in the East and probably would have brought Grant to the Army of the Potomac with or without the fall of V'burg - I can't see how he would have had much other choice. Meade was not the guy to lead the charge against Lee.

But the election of 1864 seems like a different matter. The amazing double victories of V'burg and G'burg, both basically on the Fourth of July, 1863, must have had an immeasurably positive effect for Lincoln's political reputation. Even so, Lincoln almost lost the electon of 1864 to the fool George McLellen. Had V'burg held out in May and June of 1864, as the Army of the Potomac was being slaughtered at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor ... it seems like it would have been very demoralizing for the North. The war would have seemed endless (this was George McLellen's campaign strategy) Failure to have crushed Vicksburg on the 4th of July, contemporaneous with the G'burg victory, would have denied Lincoln a massive public relations victory (as a victorious war leader) and likely would have denied him the votes he needed in 1864.

But this would have probably been very good for America in the long run!

If Lincoln had not been elected in 1864, he would not have been assassinated in 1865, and America's greatest leader ever would have lived to do all kinds of wonderful things. Just imagine if Lincoln had led the US during Reconstruction and the settlement of the West (instead of the fool Taylor and the corrupt Grant administration).

What diference can a competent leader make compared to an incompetent leader??? Just imagine the different fates that would have occurred to the the victims of the Iraq War, the Katrina victims, the Ameircan mortgage crisis, etc... if the Noble Peace Prize winner and authentic Vietnam War Hero Al Gore had been elected in 2000 instead of Bozo the Clown

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: If Vicksburg had held on for another whole year? It's an interesting question to me; after all, Grant's Campaign against Vicksburg lasted a very long time. I think he tried seven or eight different strategies.

Although what you suggest was conceivably possible, if for e difference too), it seems inconceivable that the mighty Union with its powerful naval and huge army assets could have been resisted for very long.

First of all, Lincoln knew he needed a fighting general in the East and probably would have brought Grant to the Army of the Potomac with or without the fall of V'burg - I can't see how he would have had much other choice. Meade was not the guy to lead the charge against Lee.

But the election of 1864 seems like a different matter. The amazing double victories of V'burg and G'burg, both basically on the Fourth of July, 1863, must have had an immeasurably positive effect for Lincoln's political reputation. Even so, Lincoln almost lost the electon of 1864 to the fool George McLellen. Had V'burg held out in May and June of 1864, as the Army of the Potomac was being slaughtered at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor ... it seems like it would have been very demoralizing for the North. The war would have seemed endless (this was George McLellen's campaign strategy) Failure to have crushed Vicksburg on the 4th of July, contemporaneous with the G'burg victory, would have denied Lincoln a massive public relations victory (as a victorious war leader) and likely would have denied him the votes he needed in 1864.

But this would have probably been very good for America in the long run!

If Lincoln had not been elected in 1864, he would not have been assassinated in 1865, and America's greatest leader ever would have lived to do all kinds of wonderful things. Just imagine if Lincoln had led the US during Reconstruction and the settlement of the West (instead of the fool Taylor and the corrupt Grant administration).

What diference can a competent leader make compared to an incompetent leader??? Just imagine the different fates that would have occurred to the the victims of the Iraq War, the Katrina victims, the Ameircan mortgage crisis, etc... if the Noble Peace Prize winner and authentic Vietnam War Hero Al Gore had been elected in 2000 instead of Bozo the Clown

Vicksburg was the most important battle of the war. Winning Vicksburg meant controlling the Mississippi which meant transportation etc. Its a misconception that Gettysburg was important but it was only a distraction from Vicksburg. (gettsyburg was when the south invaded the north for the first, last, and only time and they did it to lure northern troops away from Vicksburg)

Hard to say, but wasn't the Federal victory at Vicksburg the one battle which brought US Grant to Lincoln's attention? If Grant wasn't appointed the supreme commander of the Federal forces, then perhaps the war might have either gone the other way or at a standstill. Before Grant all the other Federal commanders weren't vigorous or good enough.

No--it would've only prolonged it. Shelby Foote said something to the effect that the South never would've won. They didn't have the men, the supplies, nor the manufacturing. Lincoln was committed to winning--not like the South that was fighting in order to get some sort of stalemate that would force the North into some form of treaty. The South had the better Generals and better fighter man for man, but there was no way they were going to win.

With manufacturing centered in the North, and the likelihood of European support for the South diminished after the Emancipation Proclamation, any delay at Vicksburg would only have prolonged the inevitable, not blunted it.

The opportunity for the better-led, lesser-numbered Southern forces to win - as with any outnumbered force - was the first weeks of the war, when a full-scale assault on the incompetently led Union forces would have resulted in a rapid and complete victory. The capitol could easily have been taken and the entire conflict diluted or avoided.

probably not...to say otherwise would be to deny Lincoln's uncanny intellect. He would have countered no matter what. The dissolution of the Union for him, was not an option.

I don't see how it would have influenced the end result since the main causes of the union victory would not have been affected. It would only have prolonged the whole bloody mess.

Yes. People forget that the outcome of a war includes the number of dead and the time it takes to fight the war. And in this case the outcome would have also included a presidential election. How far do you think both the Union victories at Gettysburg and Vickburg in July of 1863 went to helping support Lincoln getting re-elected in 1864? Yes, the Union had won major battles in the Western Theater of the war, but the people really only paid much attention to what was going on in the Eastern Theater. Vicksburg cut the Confederacy in two when it fell, and that is something people noticed.

Had Vicksburg not fallen in 1863 the Union might still have won the war, but the cost of lives would have been much higher with more battles being fought and a longer duration. Then again Lincoln might not have been re-elected and the new president would have been more likely to call an end to the war, making peace with the Confederacy.

Interesting question. I agree with Greg S that the Vicksburg campaign (and not just the siege) was probably the most important campaign of the war. Certainly the Union devoted masses of manpower, material and time to the capture of the town, that shows just how important they saw it.

The loss of Vicksburg certainly cut the Confederacy in two and turned the fighting in the far west into nothing more than a sideshow. More importantly though, Vicksburg finally convinced Lincoln that Grant (for all his faults) was the man who knew how to win the war. So it could be argued that if Vicksburg had held out for another year Grant may not have been elevated to Lieutenant General at all.

Without Grant in charge, Sherman would probably never have been ordered to make his strike against Atlanta and then on to the sea. Without that, Lincoln would almost certainly have lost to McClellan in 1864 - a prospect even more certain had Vicksburg held out for as long as you suggest. McClellan would have made any kind of peace he could with the Confederacy, that was his principal election promise.

Proof of the vital importance of the Vicksburg campaign to the eventual Union victory.