From: zursch@whizkid.corp.sgi.com (Jeff Zurschmeide)
Newsgroups: soc.history
Subject: Re: Battle of Shiloh
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:42:31 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA

dickwin@sequent.com (Dick Winningstad) writes:
>I have been doing some reading on the civil war and have become
>interested in the Battle of Shiloh.  From what I have read, I believe
>that Shiloh could be considered the turning point of the Civil War for
>the following reasons:
>1.  This battle stopped confederate advances in the west which enabled
>the union to move on Vicksburg and then Atlanta/Carolinas.

The Confederates were always unable to follow up a victory and exploit
it. In the early part of the war (before Shiloh) the pattern was a Confederate
victory, followed by advance, followed by withdrawal when they couldn't
keep up their supply lines or get reinforcements. I'd say, then, that 
Shiloh was a Union success because the North finally had enough troops
to keep it from being a rout and a man (Grant) who held the field at
the end, albeit at tremendous cost. His tenacity in holding the field 
was the one thing that worked most to defeat the rebels from then on,
I think. He showed this tenacity earlier, too, at Henry and Donelson. 
The point is, Shiloh may be the first major battle where the Union held
the field at the end, but I'd hardly say that it was a turning point
in the sense that Gettysburg was. Leading up to Gettysburg, you had 
battles like Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, and after Gettysburg
it was all downhill, a chase back to Virginia and siege and starvation
through the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, and Petersburg. In
the West, however, it was more than a year before Grant stood in front
of Vicksburg, and only then at great cost. After Vicksburg, though, it
was a chase back across the Confederacy through Chatanooga, Atlanta,
and Charleston. 

If we don't call Shiloh the turning point, we can at least call it the 
first sign that the tide would turn. 

>2.  After Shiloh Grant became convinced the south would have to be
>conquered and that a short war was not possible.

This is definitely the case, and most assuredly changed his strategies 
from then on. 

>3.  This battle cemented the partnership of Grant and Sherman giving
>each confidence in the other's abilities.

I think they were pretty tight before then. But I'd go along with this.

>I believe the west was the decisive theater because in the east each
>side was stalemated and unable to gain advantage over the other until
>Sherman was marching up on Lee's rear.  I know there were many other
>factors, but the advance from the west seems to be the most important.

And the fact that after Vicksburg, the Confederacy was cut in two. Julius
Caesar's "Divide and Conquer" principle works to this day...The navigation
of the Mississippi helped the Union, too. And Sherman's little toodle
through the land that was supplying the armies of the Confederacy put the
nails in the coffin. In the East, it was a war against armies. Lee's army
was the rebellion, and it could strike at Washington and the Union at large. 
In the west, it was a war on the Confederacy and it's people to destroy
the ability to stay in rebellion and to supply the army of the East. 

>Sherman, in his memoirs, said Vicksburg and Gettysburg were the
>turning points of the war. So I am going against his judgement.

You make really good points. I wouldn't ever discount Shiloh as
an important battle. I just don't think it fits my definition 
of "turning point". 

>Any Comments?

Many. See Above. ;^} 

JZ
-- 
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
	      One Shift		 ,			   Two Shift
Re d  S   h    i     f      t    ,       B     l      u      e     S    h  i ft
Newsgroups: soc.history