Was Shiloh the real turning point?

This is a forum to discuss if Shiloh maybe was the real turning point of the war, not Gettysburg. Some might say that given the odds, Johnson couldn't have done any better in the end than his successors, and others might say that he was the "Bobby Lee" of the west.... I don't have much time so I'm going to post my opinion on this later....Have fun.

I don't believe Johnson would have turned the war in favor of the South if he had still been alive. The attacks he had sent were only swinging the Union Army to Pittsburg landing, not sending them away from there like planned before. Buell got there the first night, so, he would have only killed more confederates.

Once again, boys and girls, we see that the confederates win day one, the yankees get an army of reinforcements during the night, and force the confederates to retreat on day two.

Ok, this is why I think that Shiloh could have been the real turning point in the war, though it happened in such a way that the huge effects of the battle didn't show themselves until much later. First of all, U.S. Grant was not by any means a popular general when it came to the union command. He had a reputation as a drunk, and was disliked by many high-minded west point graduates, who considered him an embarrassment to the institution. As it was, Halleck, general-in-chief of union armies, was practically searching for an excuse to sack him. If Grant had lost the Battle of Shiloh, he would have been packing his bags for home in no time.
Instead, Johnson was mortally wounded, and the confederate attack was stalled by Maj. Gen. Prentiss' division, holed up in the "Hornet's Nest". This forced the battle to continue to the next day, by which time Don Carlos Buell's fresh army had arrived to reinforce Grant, and hand him an unearned victory.

Grant had committed military suicide by placing his army at Pittsburg Landing as he did, without entrenching or putting up defensive barriers of any sort. He was begging for Johnson to come and sweep him and his men over the bluffs and into the river in his rear. In the weeks leading to the battle, both Grant and his good friend Sherman displayed the poorest traits of tactical command. Sherman was constantly sent reports or rebel cavalry scouting out his front, and yet he did nothing whatsoever to prepare to recieve an attack. The only thing that saved Grant and Sherman from instant dismissal was the fact that Prentiss committed a tactical error by holding strong long enough for the rest of the army to retreat and reorganize, which was also long enough for the rebels to completely surround his position; by holding his position, Prentiss and his entire division were captured, yet by losing his division, he saved Grant's carrear, and possably the whole war.

Unearned victory? He patched up the union forces into a very good defensive position at Pittsburg landing. Even if Buell hadn't have arrived, Beuregard would have found it hard to crack. I mean, the only way Johnston could have even lived to that point is if he hadn't of tried to lead a charge personally at the Hornet's Nest. (and if they had found where his wound was earlier). But, we can't rewrite history.

In my opinion, Hallek was a dork and didn't know what kind of men he had under his command. He wanted Sherman arrested for insanity and Grant for drunkness and personal jelousy because Grant was getting alot of military success that Hallek wish he had got. Granted, Grant didn't entrench. But, if that is military suicide, then, Lee commited military suicide at Gettysburg and Antietam and Spotslvania. At Spots, he pulled cannon from the mule shoe, on the night before the main assualt was going to happen. At Antietam, he had split up his army to such an extent that if McClellan had been a little more aggresive, he would have lost. And, at Gettysburg, with Pickett's Charge. But, I have great respect for both men. And, as such, I don't pass harsh judgement on thier actions.

Sorry IBG, but you aren't quite justified in saying that Lee too committed tactical suicide.

1.Antietam: Lee was spead out, because when you have fewer men than your enemy, few have to do the work of many. And Antietam never would have happened if McClellan hadn't found Lee's plans for the entire campaign. This was not Lee's fault, therefore, it was not tactical suicide.

2.Spotsylvania Courthouse: this is as close as Lee ever came to a tactical blunder; he did order the 22 guns of the battery defending the Mule's Shoe to withdraw, but he ordered the artillery on the rest of the line to stay put. This was in anticipation of an early march to beat Grant to the next position of choice to his right, much like the march from the wilderness a few weeks before. The problem was, because he was outnumbered, Lee had to be right all of the time, or else it was lights out. With no room for error, Lee had to play it safe with some things, like taking up the offensive, and stay aggressive on others, like outguessing Grant and beating him to the punch. But I think the decision to pull back the guns was justified under the circumstances, and therefore doesn't qualify as tactical suicide.

3.Gettysburg: Please read my post on the Pickett's Charge topic. Believe me, Lee had no other choice but to press the attack the third day. Otherwise, he would always be accused of not committing all of his men. I believe several union generals (McClellan, Hooker, Burnside, McDowell, Pope, etc.) were sacked for this major no-no. How would it sound to say that Lee abandoned the entire offensive and campaign when he still had nearly 10,000 men who hadn't seen any action? History would never let him forget it. It was a reckless gamble, granted, but it was his last choice.

I don't like to make harsh judgements on anybody either. But I hate reading about a blunderer-turned-victor who overpowers his noble opponent by sheer numbers. SHEER WEIGHT OF NUMBERS. And Shiloh was not an earned victory. Great, Grant decided to actually come downriver and see his army the morning Johnson happened to attack, and helped rally the routed troops and set up defensive positions. Just a few weeks too late.

Excellent points, Jeb! I just voted and put it into a three-way tie lol. There are good arguements going both way, but if Johnson had only kept the federals out of Mississippi, chances are good that that would have been enough to help end the war earlier, with a rebel victory.

Not earned. Ha. Once he got back on his feet, Grant held his position. The only reason he didn't get to prove it was the fact that night fell before the SOuth could make a very good assualt on his position. And, as for Prentiss, there was two more commands at the Peach Orcahrd and on his flanks that fought just as hard. It was them that kept his command from being captured earlier.The commanders were killed in action, though, thus allowing him to reep the glory of it all.

That's true, but the Prentiss' position did hold out the longest. And then Grant showed his intelligence, or lack-thereof, by trying to court-martial Prentiss after the battle. Honestly...lol

Where's an account of that? I have never heard of that before. All I heard was Prentiss made himself big by telling everyone he ordered those units into position. Which wasn't true. The only reason he even got the help was the fact that it was a central location which could be defended. And, as for holding out as long as possible, only Prentiss got that order. The rest weren't. And, when you come to think about it, they delyaed the rebs longer by surrendring instead of retreating. I mean, two thousand men had to be taken to the rear and thier surrender had to be accepted....

Sorry IBG, I know I read somewhere that Grant was so displeased with Prentiss' refusal to obey orders that he gave serious thought to court-martialing him. But I just googled it, and the only thing that came up was that the governor of Ohio wanted to court-martial Grant and Prentiss and have the pair shot by a firing squad. I'll go through my books again and see if I can find that again....

In my eyes, no matter how I look at it, the turning point of the war is still Gettysburg/Vicksburg. It doesn't mean that battles like Lee defeating McClellan in the Peninsular Campaign aren't pivotal, or Shiloh, or Antietam, etc.

There was no one pivotal battle. Even the Gettysburg/Vicksburg combo wasn't pivotal--otherwise Lincoln would have expected to lose the presidental election as he did in Aug. 1864.

The one thing that Shiloh showed was the war was going to be long and bloody. This battle as we know was the 1st with the amount of Killed, wounded and missing.

The more I think about it, the more pivotal Shiloh seems to me. Think about it: if Johnson had lived and won the battle, Grant would have been immediately sacked, there's no doubt about that, Halleck was waiting for any excuse to do so. By the South defeating both Grant's and Buell's armies, they would have retaken all of Tennessee and maybe even surged further north. Then, even if Lee had lost Gettysburg, he would have been faced with another situation as was presented after Antietam. And after Antietam, he came right back and won Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. He was brilliant at outwitting his opponent and chasing him back north. He did exactly the former to Grant, but Grant refused to retreat, and he had enough men and supples to sustain this bull-headed attitude to the bloody finish. But if Grant had been discharged from the army, Lee would have only faced Meade; and we can see that Meade was inept at the offensive -particularly when facing Lee- by the post-Gettysburg fiasco.

The South definitely would have lasted years longer, even in an eventual defeat, if it had won at Shiloh.

Bull-headed maybe. But, it was the bull-headed attitude that did finally drive the Confederacy to the ground.

You've got too many ifs: Johnson living and then beating both union armies. Given his flawed battle plan--the corps by corps line of attack which was directly responsibile for the loss of command and control--victory was not as likely as it should have been.
His troops would have to finish Grant off, then face fresh troops the next day. I don't see a victory in those conditions. Does Johnson attack Buell across the river? Does he just sit there and let Buelll and the gunboats take the initative? Does he withdraw in the face of Buell's fresh forces?

Getting a victory in the circumstances requires several what ifs, not just one.

Absolutely right, Reb. However, remember that if the rebel forces had pushed all the way to the Landing on the first day, and shattered what remained of Grant's army, Buell's force wouldn't have had any place to land. Or, they would have attacked piece-meal, greatly enlarging their chances for failure, even against tired troops. I agree, it is unlikely that Johnson would have been able to entirely route both Grant's and Buell's armies, but by the loss of Grant's force, union commanders higher up probably would have prudently pulled Buell back. At that point, they would have effectively lost half their strength, along with their entire hold on the southern side of the river. There is no way Buell would have been ordered to take the offensive, under any conditions. Prudence might have also called for a Confederate withdrawal after the battle, but in either scenario, the federal armies don't gain any ground; to the contrary, they lose it. Even considering the gunboats, Buel would have been court-martialled for staging a further offensive across the river, had Grant been lost the first day.

So, considering all this, the question is: would the Southern armies have been able to complete Grant's destrution, had Johnson lived? That's open to debate. But the main issue here is whether Shiloh was the true turning point of the war, a battle that set the board for the days to come. I believe so.

Turning point in the sense that it set the board, yes. Decisive? I personally don't see any one battle or combo like Gettysburg/Vicksburg as decisive because even in Aug. 1864, Lincoln expected to lose the presidental election.