this moment marks exactly 150 years since Robert E. Lee began his monumental error of attacking the Union center at Gettysburg which would end so disastrously with Pickett’s Charge two hours later
Why did not Longstreet move his forces up to the Emmittburg Road during the night before and attacked the Union lines at first light when the opposing soldiers would be least prepared? As it was they had the full day to dig and and wait for the attack which Meade was convinced was coming. The Confederate forces never had a chance to cover all that ground under the bombardment by the Union artillery. By the time they made it to that road the forces were already decimated. Even Longstreet knew there was no chance in hell it would work but why did Lee think otherwise?
How might the Civil War turned out if Lee just hadn’t committed so many to such a long assault over such easily defended ground? We shall never know but in America’s bloodiest war this was its bloodiest moment and will be forever remembered as the high water moment of the Confederacy. Such horrible waste of valiant brave men on both sides!
Always been a mystery to me as well. Lee, the engineer he was, knew the good ground would win the day. The enemy held the good ground and he attacked in violation of all his previous experience. Basically repeated Fredericksburg, with the tables turned on him. I really do believe Lee believed in the righteousness of the Southern cause, I think that may have played a part.
Also, in the realm of what-if’s, what if Albert Sydney Johnston hadn’t been shot just prior to his near-victory at Shiloh, and lead the attack in before nightfall, crushing Grant’s army against the river, instead of falling to a likely friendly fire wound to the leg, leaving blundering Bouregard to dither until the next day and allowing Grant to regroup and counter attack? The whole Western theater would have been played out differently, if not the whole war. Always been my other big what-if question from that war.
[QUOTE=Slick Cam;114012]Always been a mystery to me as well. Lee, the engineer he was, knew the good ground would win the day. The enemy held the good ground and he attacked in violation of all his previous experience. Basically repeated Fredericksburg, with the tables turned on him. I really do believe Lee believed in the righteousness of the Southern cause, I think that may have played a part.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know so much about that but many historians have speculated that with so many clear victories leading up to Gettysburg that Lee had become a bit delusional at his invincibility in the field and a belief in the inevitable fallibility of the Union Army leadership. Still how does such a brilliant man miss something so plainly obvious at that more than a mile of open ground that all those men would have to cross in the face of Union artillery batteries and still had enough strength left to take those final 200yards? It was asking too much of any men and Longstreet could see that and he was a coward to not drop a STOP card then and there on his commanding officer and say NYET!
Regarding “the cause”…there is a part of me that makes me believe that Lee never ever had his heart in the Confederacy but was mainly motivated by his devotion to Virginia. It is hard for us today (at least in the North) to understand how a sense of loyalty to a state can trump loyalty to country.
c.captain, You are on the spot. First, the battle should never of happened. With JEB Stuart running around gaining glory instead of doing his job, he left the army blind. With many Yankees being against the war, especially with all their losses, Lee advanced into the North to not only further that purpose but to also raid to refurnish his meager supplies. While doing so, bringing the Army of the Potomac away from Virginia and granting a possible opportunity to attack at his choosing. There were several key mistakes that led them to that tragic day. One, he didn’t have Stonewall. Two, he had to depend more on Longstreet who was soft spoken and not wanting to throw down the STOP card. I wouldn’t call it cowardice, just a little to gentlemanly. Three, he had AP Hill, and only because of relation and a sense of obligation. Oh yeah, and Stuart. I’ve read several books about the battle and many more about the war in general. I love history. The two best, off the top of my head are a biography on Lee written by Emory M Thomas and The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara (the father, not the son). The biography can get a bit dry, but it is a very balanced book about Lees life and gives a pretty good sense of who he is. Killer Angels gives a pretty good overview of all those in command at key points and fights within the battle. I’ve a few more books that are buried in boxes but not as good on Gettysburg. As to sense of pride for state over country, that’s the reason for the 10th Amendment. It brought the North and the South together in the First Great War that we honor today, the 4th. And being a 7th generation Texan, it’s a no brainer.
Well Longstreet threw the stop card at Lee, but lacked the conviction to really follow through or to be insubordinate to Marse Robert. That Longstreet wanted nothing to do with the final day was well known. Lee may very well have known how disastrous of a plan it was in his heart, but he was cocky, his soldiers were cocky, and they really didn’t know what wholesale defeat was like; even Antietam was more of a draw (the Federals claimed victory because they stopped Lee, but he was not defeated). Withdrawing now in the face of the enemy was not in his nature nor the nature of the ANV; it would have been a serious blow to morale and to their perception of themselves. Like you said, he also had bet on Union generals being inferior and making mistakes before and had always been proven right. Two months prior at Chancellorsville he had done the unthinkable, divided his army against a much larger foe and been fairly successful (very much so initially). It’s hard not to get cocky after something like that. So who is to say that after two days of fighting around the flanks that a large artillery barrage followed by a charge up the middle wouldnt break the line? They had taken similar risks before and been successful. Some credence might also be given to Lee’s health during the battle. Some historians speculate that he had had a heart attack earlier in the year, and showed effects of that during the battle which may have blurred his judgement somewhat.
Each side also knew how important this battle was. Ending the war was on Lee’s mind. If he could only crack the federal line, the ANV could threaten Washington and perhaps force the US to sue for peace. He was very much aware that the Confederacy could not sustain a long term conflict; that they had made it this far was a miracle unto itself. It is difficult to put ourselves in their shoes and see beyond our historical hindsight, but in 1863 the conclusion of the war was very much undecided. The chance of the Confederacy winning its secession was a real possibility. If you begin thinking of Gettysburg in their shoes as “the confederacy might actually pull this off”, rather than the appointed “turning point” of the war that we see, some of the decisions make a little more sense.
Oh I believe that 100%, c. captain. I said “cause” but I agree with you that Lee was not one for Confederate cause at heart. I try to tell that to people all the time. “They were traitors! The confederacy was evil!” To that I say, NO, they did what they thought they must do in the face of a horrible situation. Lee was Virginian to the core, no way in hell he would fight against her. And yes people don’t understand state loyalties anymore, and why some men would chose to side with a cause that now, looking back, appears evil in many respects. Tomorrow, if the feds said they were going to invade your state and enact marshal law, and kill anyone in their way, whose side would you take? Only people I meet anymore who really keep the old way of state pride are Texans. But alas, I also am Virginian to the core, and I visit Mr. Lee’s home often. Glad to see there are others with an interest in history on here.
[QUOTE=Slick Cam;114187] Tomorrow, if the feds said they were going to invade your state and enact marshal law, and kill anyone in their way, whose side would you take? Only people I meet anymore who really keep the old way of state pride are Texans.[/QUOTE]
Interesting question that I really never gave much thought to.
Martial law in the US seemed an abstract concept to me until recently, Then this happened not far from where I live:
Granted, the circumstances for this show of force in April was understandable considering the reign of terror the two brothers cast through Boston and it’s suburbs but damn, look haw quickly police & national guard went into combat mode. I’m still haunted by this image and it possible implications.
