View single post by Mark
 Posted: Sun Mar 21st, 2010 03:15 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Mon Mar 30th, 2009
Posts: 434

  back to top

Are we looking too much at what the loss of Vicksburg meant to the South as opposed to what its gain meant to the North? I think it was more of a symbolic than actual objective to the South, but its loss eroded Southern morale much more than the defeat at Gettysburg (the Southern press found that it is hard to spin the loss of an entire army). But on the other hand, opening up the Mississippi River to economic traffic was extremely beneficial to Northern merchants and farmers in the old Northwest. In fact, in 1862, there was a halfhearted movement afoot in the Confederate Congress to peal the Northwest away from the Northern war effort by opening up the Mississippi to economic traffic. I think the economic benefits gained by the North vastly outweighed the loss of any troops (that were out fighting Indians in west TX) or food (as Ole pointed out, the Southern logistical system ensured that most of the food consumed by Confederate armies came from local sources) were to the Southern cause.



 Close Window