Grants armies converged on Vicksburg and trapped a Confederate army 

Date- May 18th, 1863 to July 4, 1863  

Where- Warren County, Mississippi  (Vicksburg)

Why is it a turning point?

After

Precedent/Pattern

Counterfactual

Summary (What happened, stick to just the crucial details)

 
What makes it a turning point?

What was different BEFORE and AFTER the event?
​

What subsequent important events did it directly lead to that would not have
happened otherwise?

Did it set a precedent that was important for the war or did it represent the first in a
pattern that emerges during the war?

Counterfactual: if this event DID NOT happen, then how would this have had a dramatic impact on the course of the war?

Where: Sharpsburg, Maryland

    McClellan knows Lee’s plan, but waits a day to act on them.  By the time he arrives in Sharpsburg Lee has already dug in and it turns into the bloodiest day of the Civil War where over 5,000 soldiers were killed.  There were approximately 23,000 total deaths and injuries.  It ended in a tie and Lee retreats.  When McClellan does not follow Lee’s army, Lincoln fires him.  

Event: Appointment of Ulysses Grant as General-in-Chief

Date: March 9, 1864

Where: Washington D.C

Summary (What happened, stick to just the crucial details)

Grant was appointed General of the Union army after the underwhelming stints of previous generals like McClellan. Abraham Lincoln had become irate with the cautiousness of the previous Generals. They always hesitated to attack, and it was apparent that a new General was needed. Grant had given little thought to the abolitionist cause before the war, but as it progressed, he became a supporter of the cause.

What makes it a turning point?

 Before Grant was the General-in-chief, the current General-in-Chief was named McClellan and he was incredibly indecisive and slow to make a decision. The other generals had not been much better, like Robert Anderson, who famously gave up Fort Sumter in the first engagement of the Civil War. By putting Grant in charge, he was able to make more decisive choices in a more timely manner, leading to them effectively beating the Confederates. If Grant hadn’t been put in charge of the army, many of his amazing tactical and military decisions wouldn’t have been made. Unlike previous generals, he embraced the more aggressive approach, committing mass casualties that were often criticized by the media. 

The appointment of Grant did not really set a precedent, because the appointment of new generals was something that had done many times before. Grant just happened to be a great fit for the job that he was assigned, and he was able to have more success than others.

The Union would most likely not have won the war without this development. In order to combat Robert E. Lee, the army had to be aggressive and offensive, not defensive like previous generals had been. Without Grant, the Union army would most likely have remained disorganized and meek in the eyes of the Confederates and history. 

Before: The war was thought of as a fight to combat the spread of slavery.

Before: General McClellan is in power with his slow moving and cautious tactics.

Before: Britain and France were close to recognizing the independence of the Confederate states. 

After: War effort took a new shape and the idea of ending slavery begins to take root. 

After: McClellan is removed from his position. 

After: European powers backed away and remained neutral. 

The battle epitomizes the horrific nature of battle and is symbolic of the bloodshed that took place during war, as it was the bloodiest day in United States battle history. 

Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation after the Battle of Antietam, which was seen as a victory by the north.  This was important because is set the idea that the war was not about thwarting the expansion of slavery but rather an engagement to end the institution of slavery as a whole.  

The first pictures of the battlefield helped the north gain support.  It depicted the war as dangerous and not ‘remote’ or ‘romantic’. 

If this event did not happen, McClellan might have not been fired, at least not this quickly. Public favor surely would have dropped in the subsequent battles, but Antietam greatly speed up the process. 

Date: July 1st-July 3rd, 1863

Where: Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

 

It was the Union army vs. the Confederate army. Robert E Lee was trying to take the north for his second time. After 3 days of fighting, his forces were blocked and he could not advance. Both sides lots of men (around 51,000 casualties) and the Union won the battle.

Confederates lost 28,000 soldiers.

Before: The Confederacy had never gone into free territory before.

After: The Confederacy lost a lot of men. Proved the Confederacy could not take over the north. Lost a lot of hope especially since Robert E Lee lost.

Events it lead to: Directly when to the Gettysburg address by President Lincoln

Symbolism: The realization of a long and costly war, a turning point for increased union victories. 

Precedent/Pattern: This battle did set a pattern. After the Union won the battle, the union continued to press forward at the Confederacy and won many battles after Gettysburg. Coming to the conclusion of the war, the Union ended up winning

Counterfactual: Had the war not have happened, other union victories would have humiliated the Confederacy. The battle racked up bodies and decreased the chances of foreign recognition for the confederacy. Aided with the battle of Vicksburg with Ulysses S. Grant, the tide favored the union.

What did it represent that would become crucial to the outcome of the war?

After: Setback for Confederacy, strong negative effect on the South through military prospects, the morale of its army, and of the general public at large

What subsequent important events did it directly lead to that would not have happened otherwise?

The subsequent event after Jackson’s death was the battle of Gettysburg. The teamwork between Lee and his new second in command, Longstreet, was very weak and the south lost the battle. Had Jackson not died, they may have had better communication and the south may have won the battle. The North gained momentum that may have gone to the south had they been able to win the battle. 

Event: Fall of Atlanta

Date: July 22, 1864

Where: Just east of Atlanta, Georgia

Summary (What happened, stick to just the crucial details)

Union forces led by James B. McPherson under William T. Sherman neutralized the city of Atlanta against the forces of John B. Hood.

The capture of the city of Atlanta was crucial both symbolically and strategically.  The fall of the city meant that the main railroad hub of the Confederacy was now cut off, which meant that transporting people and goods across the Confederacy was made far harder.  Symbolically, it was a major city whose capture led to Lincoln gaining a boost in popularity, which helped him to defeat the Democrat George B. McClellan in the 1864 election by a landslide in the electoral college.

The major victory acquired by the Union forces would ensure Lincoln victory against his Democratic challenger McClellan, who was talking about making a truce with the Confederates.

Sherman’s March to the Sea went straight through northern Georgia to Savannah, and without the capture of Atlanta by the Union forces, it would have been made far more difficult or impossible so long as the major city of Atlanta stood in the way of it.

This set a precedent where taking supporting supplies and connections was the key to victory. This lead to many future events including Sherman's march to the sea. Securing the Confederate war supplies really helped signal the beginning of the end. The Confederates were cut in three and diminished in size as time went on.

If the fall of Atlanta had not happened the Confederate troops would still be supplied with war necessities.  With the Union taking over, a great Confederate asset was captured. This squeezed the confederates of war supplies further boosting the Union cause. This take over crippled the confederates resupply and shifted the power to the Union.