English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

12 answers

It is hard to argue against the first bull run for the very significance of a quick defeat and the embarassment of the South walking into DC on pretty much the "first day".

But for me, I have always looked at Shiloh as the most significant. This was a battle that was the south's to win or lose, but the poor leadership of the south was costly.

It was a grand battle for the south to begin with, because it was a surprise attack on no other than US Grant, and he should have been awake to the fact. In a war where public pressure was strong (especially considering the time peroid) and results were expected quickly (relative to the time agian of course) a defeat of Grant at this junction of his career, especially one at the hands of a surprise attack, could have been the downward spiral of his career especially considering that even in victory at Shiloh, the public frowned on Grant, but just imagine if he lost.

On the south you had Gen. Al Johnston, who at the beginning was full of guts and determination, that later fizzled into a two day old opened can of diet coke. They attacked inadequately with Johnston inability to control PGT Beauregard and make him follow the orders that caused their line to be poorly formed and poorly advanced and then a bulk of the south's men spent hours at a place on the battle field called the hornet's nest, where despite being an inconsequential piece of land, that if surrounded would have been surrendered to them, they instead made repeated and I mean repeated fruitless and costly (in terms of men on their side and not the Unions) charges into the nest.

The amount of time the south spent in their attack failed to push Grant either into the swamps or run him into the river on that day (just picture in your mind a retreating army with no where left to run), thus giving Grant time to regroup and allow for the needed reinforcements of almost 20k troops!! The south also lost Johnston in the fighting and the next day, it was the North that had the advantage and they drove the South out of the area. This began a long road of retreats across the Southern and Western theaters for the South that would see the fall of Vicksburg, the seperation of the West, the fall of New Orleans and the desimation of the great Southern cities at the hands of Sherman (who by the way could have even been killed or captured at Shiloh had the South done it right).

Yes, there are so many battles that are significant and so many battles fought poorly by both sides. Gettysburg is kind of the signal of the end for the South, but that is only because the other theaters of the war had already been lost. Shiloh kept the South from forcing the North to concentrate on two theaters of the war.

Shiloh, just another significant war in this war between the states that hastens more what if's and could have been's and so on.

2006-07-14 13:12:16 · answer #1 · answered by Donut44 3 · 2 1

The Battle of Vicksburg.
This battle split the South in two, allowing the North to gain control over the South. The control over the Mississippi was very important in that the South could no longer send or recieve supplies down the river.
Not Bad for an 8th grade education!!!

2006-07-15 04:08:46 · answer #2 · answered by Merry 2 · 0 0

Lemme see the candidates:

Antietam: 1st Confederate invasion of the north

Vicksburg: split the Confederacy in half

Gettysburg: everyone sees this as the Confederate high water mark

All the other battles were not decisive to the extent of determining the outcome of the war. Of the three strategic battles above, my pic is Antietam....most would've picked Gettysburg. A victory at one or more of these battle meant a Confederate victory in the war.

2006-07-14 13:49:30 · answer #3 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0 0

The conflict of Puebla represents Mexico's first severe steps to expel Emperor Maximilian, an Austrian positioned on the throne of Mexico via the French. that's, via the way, the form celebrated in "Cinco de Mayo" festivities in Mexico and the U.S. The U.S. had grave reservations of a ecu potential increasing its empire in the Americas, extraordinarily on the U.S.'s southern border. Federal government i.e., the North, have been in no place to expel the French in the time of the Civil warfare. in addition to, the accomplice States i.e., the South, considered the French as a capacity best chum in its warfare. The graduation of open hostilities between the French and Mexicans dwindled the perceived threats to the Federals permitting them to totally communicate their very very own Civil warfare.

2016-10-07 22:33:19 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

You will get a hundred different answers to this one, and likely none would be strictly wrong. Just for fun I would pick First Bull Run because not only did it have audience (like at a soccer match), but the Union troops were smashed and the Rebs could have taken Washington and captured Lincoln--all on the first real day of fighting! But they did not, which only proves that sometimes military intelligence are two, different, exclusive words.

2006-07-14 12:33:50 · answer #5 · answered by rayhanks2260 3 · 0 0

Probably the siege and fall of Vicksburg, it opened the Mississippi river up from Minnesota to the gulf of Mexico for the union and cut the confederacy in half. Lincoln and Davis knew strategically this was a bigger defeat for the south than Gettysburg.

2006-07-14 13:34:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Probably Gettysburg the South was on the defensive for the rest of the War -- so it was the turning point. Before, that Lee seemed unbeatable. In fact, part of the reason he lost was because he thought he couldn't lose and ignored Longstreet who told him not to do Pickett's charge.

2006-07-14 12:34:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Probably Gettysburg. It is what broke the back of the south. If they had won it, they might have won the war, but the loss cost to much.

2006-07-14 12:33:31 · answer #8 · answered by Norm 5 · 0 0

It was 'needing' to know how to regurgitate information like you are asking in this question. . .
that allowed me to acquire an extreme dislike for history ---
this (war facts) and dates of battles - and commemorations of other atrocious man-against-man behaviors.
Guess it takes all kinds to keep the world turning, but - seems to me that - as long as we continue to 'teach' war, we shall continue to practice what we teach!
Please, look up what you want to know in a history book -there's more than enuf of them available. . .

2006-07-14 12:39:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

i would say the civil war because that was the only war that was fought in the u.s.

2006-07-14 12:44:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers