OT: Blame for the Battle of Gettysburg

[jeffk3510]

While I blame Lee for his unusual lack of judgement by initiating "Pickett's Charge", I have always been under the impression that the Confederates lost Gettysburg prior to July 3rd. July 3rd was just a pointless loss of life IMO... I still, to this day, can't image why Lee thought they could take the Union's center...did he just think they couldnt be stopped? Moved troops to the flanks? Who knows.

Dan-

You say Jackson could have helped the Confederates had he not of been shot and killed... he, too, had bad campaigns...His Penninsular Campaign was anything but stellar...

Howard kept 2 brigades back from von Steinwehr's division that the entire Union army eventually formed around, making their lines for the balance of the battle so to speak. I don't have books or anything in front of me to give proof, but it sounds to me like the Union army would have pushed back an assault at Culps Hill had it been tried in organized detail by Jackson or anyone...but I can't say that for sure at all. They had rather amazing defensive ground.

Not having Stuart available more than likely crippled Lee more so than anything else IMO...

I don't really know who to blame for the loss.. I would say it just got to that point where the Union army could stand toe to toe with Lee, and actually come out on top. Yes, there were some blunders, but for the most part, he just got beat. The Union army at this time had some very promising officers in the right places, and men that had a hefty amount of combat experience under their belt.

Just my 2c.

Lemon- I loved playing SMG too.. probably wore my computer out playing it.. I wanted to play the multi player with other people so bad, but couldn't ever get it to work...."Sir this no good Yankee cavalry.."

[Canoerebel]

I have the old Talonsoft Chickamauga (and Bull Run, Gettysburg and Antietam).
 
One of the great features of that series was Bobby Horton's renditions of Civil War songs.  Here's a great example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVYOMi5TDEI
 
If you play that song, listen to the reference to Longstreet in the second to last stanza.  I think Stonewall's men were "gigging" Longstreet in the same spirit that I meant to gig Bullwinkle yesterday.  [:)]
 
John and others, thanks for additional good information.  The AE Forum is wonderful place to get insightful comments on just about any topic imagineable.  I use you guys shamelessly! 

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

(I am interested in your opinions - rather than opinions from the "General" Matrix forums - because I know most of you and therefore know the reliablity of what you might post).

Who do you think was most culpible for the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg?

Shortly after the war, Jubal Early blamed Longstreet for failing to move with alacrity on the right flank on the second day of the battle.

A bit later, Longstreet had some pretty harsh criticism of Lee in choosing to fight an offensive battle when the circumstance, so Longstreet thought, called for a defensive battle.

Today, I think the weight of opinion is that Ewell carries the most blame in failing to attack the Union left on Cemetery Hill at the close of the first day.

We just received a manuscript at the magazine I work for intimating that Jubal Early is most culpable. This caught me by surprise and I'm trying to figure out if the writer has a legitimate theory. He says Early failed miserably in attacking Cemetery Hill on day two. But I've always felt that Early had a nearly impossble task - assaulting a well-dug-in enemy on the high ground.

Do any of you guys think Early is at fault? Or do you think that's a real stretch?

If not Early, who then? (I say Ewell, but that may be a shallow adoption of a commonly accepted but not necessarily well thought out theory).

Canoe, my two cents for what it is worth,

Early did not lose the battle on the 2nd day. Simply because the battle probably could not have been won on the 2nd day. I know there are a lot of what ifs about the Round Tops, Sickle's mistake, and the attack on Culps Hill. But the fact is a good but weaker Confederate Army was attacking a veteran Union Army that had superior artillery, better ammunition, good and fresh cavalry protecting its flanks and equal number of troops at the beginning of the day and superior numbers by the end of the day. And that Union army was an an excellent defensive position holding interior lines with a better supply flow. Even if on the outside chance that the Union army was completely driven from that position it is doubtful that the Confederate army had the reserves, cavalry strength or ammunition to make much of it. It would have had to end in a total Union rout and given lack of Confederate reserves, cavalry and the shorage of ammo, I doubt that could ever have happened. For this reason, the blame for the loss can only go to the participants of the first day, who in my opinion were the only participants who had a decent chance to win a decisive battle for the Confederacy. Day 2 and 3 were only a foregone conclusion.

Longstreet was a good field commander and had his qualities. However, his strategic vision was narrow and limited. His fantasy about marching around the Union army's flank was the height of lunacy in my mind and apparently Lee's. This was not Chancellorville and to think that a smaller army in hostile territory with only a small number of inexperienced cavalry, limited provisions and ammunition and a major river between it and friendly territory-not to mention encumbered by a large train and thousands of wounded from the first day's fighting could do this was insane. The risk would have been too great and failure would have been nothing less than disaster. Meade was a cautious man but he was no fool and a proven general who was not afraid of a fight. I don't blame Lee. He knew that his options were to attack and win or retreat. There was no other option open to him. I think he was fully aware of the odds on the 2nd and 3rd day but felt he had little choice.

Much is made of Stuarts arrival late in the 2nd day but Stuart's cavalry arrived on the field completely blown. Deep in enemy territory, he had no access to fresh remounts while Montgomery Meigs (unsung hero) kept an ample flow of remounts moving up to the Yankee cavalry. In a campaign of manuever the Confederate cavalry would have only grown weaker each day while the arguably superior Union cavalry would have remained relatively fresh.

Simply put, I think the battle could have only been won on the first day. And considering Yankee reserves, I am even doubtful that a victory on the first day would have led to a sucessful conclusion to the campaign for the Confederacy.

I am a Southern boy and love my rebs but lets be realistic here. In the words of Shelby Foote the North was fighting the South with one had behind its back. The South was trying to beat an industrial powerhouse that had the confidence to begin building the transcontinental railroad while fighting a major war! I don't think the South ever had much of a chance. But whatever slim chance exsisted ended when Grant took Vicksburg. At that point, I don't think Gettysburg mattered any more.

[Canoerebel]

jeffk, Jackson indeed made mistakes, especially early in the war.  He could also be brutal to subordinates and men (witness:  Dick Garnett and the AWOL soldiers and fell-asleep-on-duty sentries that he had shot).
 
By 1863, though, Jackson had matured into a fearsome and bold leader whose men would follow him anywhere.  Most importantly, his motto (and proclivity) was:  When in doubt, do something!  At Gettysburg, the very aggressive Jackson would have been all over the Union right flank on Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill.  Neither would the Confederate left have been quiescent and dalliatory on day two. 

[John 3rd]

Matrix updated these games so they can be run by new computers. I REALLY wished they did more then that but it was nice to get them playing again.

Jeff makes my point regarding an assault up the Cemetery near the end of Day One. Would have been VERY costly!

Forstchen and Gingrich have Lee actually take 'in hand' his two new Corps Commanders and THEN listen to Longstreet for Day Two...

[Canoerebel]

crsutton, thanks for posting.  Note, however, that Vicksburg capitulated on the same day that Lee retired from Gettysburg - July 4, 1863.  Thus, my family refuses to celebrate that as a holiday (we do so jokingly, though, even while on our way to observe fireworks in celebration of Indepence Day).

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

jeffk, Jackson indeed made mistakes, especially early in the war.  He could also be brutal to subordinates and men (witness:  Dick Garnett and the AWOL soldiers and fell-asleep-on-duty sentries that he had shot).

By 1863, though, Jackson had matured into a fearsome and bold leader whose men would follow him anywhere.  Most importantly, his motto (and proclivity) was:  When in doubt, do something!  At Gettysburg, the very aggressive Jackson would have been all over the Union right flank on Culp's Hill and Cemetery Hill.  Neither would the Confederate left have been quiescent and dalliatory on day two. 

Concur TOTALLY on this thought. The synergy between Lee--Longstreet--Jackson was frightening. Lee's use of them as Hammer (Offense) and Anvil (Defense) was masterful.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

crsutton, thanks for posting.  Note, however, that Vicksburg capitulated on the same day that Lee retired from Gettysburg - July 4, 1863.  Thus, my family refuses to celebrate that as a holiday (we do so jokingly, though, even while on our way to observe fireworks in celebration of Indepence Day).

A sad day indeed. Ole Sam Grant cut the jugular of the Confederacy that day.

[Schanilec]

The causes of the Conderate defeat at Gettysberg were many. But I feel the main reason for thier defeat was the failure to establish air superiority.[:D]

[Cribtop]

Y'all have hit the high points, and I concur in general that the battle had to be won on the first day or not at all. And that given the technology of the time the best approach was similar to Sherman's northern Georgia campaign. Flank the enemy and give him the choice of attacking you in a strong defensive position or withdraw.

However, have any of you ever read Lost Triumph?

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Triumph-Lees ... B000ANSOIC

I did, and while I'm not completely sold, the book makes some interesting arguments and backs them up with interesting evidence. To me, I've always been surprised about Pickett's Charge. While Lee always liked the offensive, he didn't go in for frontal assaults after the costly victories in the Peninsular Campaign. He was all about the flanking move. It never sat right to believe that, when the chips were really down, Lee would go against type with a frontal assault. The theory advanced in Lost Triumph is the only thing that scratches my itch about Lee at Gettysburg. I don't think he was the perfect general of southern legend, but I don't buy he was a buffoon either. But whatever you think of him, his pattern was the indirect attack, and thus Gettysburg is a mystery waiting for an answer deeper than "he just had a bad day," IMHO.

[mdiehl]

Comment of the month, Schanilac. Almsot made coffee shot out my nose![:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Just in case anybody took my "Pfft.  Minnesota" comment to Bullwinkle seriously, I had better explain (or, it might have been better not to have said it, even in jest, since sometimes electronic communication just doesn't come across the way it was intended).

I consider Bullwinkle a very good friend.  (I don't know what he consider me, and I'm afraid to ask. [:)]).  There is a longstanding practice in the good ol' USA of intersectional and inter-state rivalry and harrassment.  I poke fun at the New York Yankees.  John Dillworth would reciprocate by poking fun at the Atlanta Braves.  I "harrass" Minnesotans and Bullwinkle might respond by dissing Georgians.  All of this is normal and healthy and fun...as long as it's meant that way, which it almost always is.

Well, Georgia got my ex-wife, so enjoy. [:)]

One feature of being a Navy brat is you never really have a hometown. In my life I've lived, long enough to get mail, in California (2 cities), Hawaii (2 times), Virginia (3 cities), Rhode Island, Georgia, CT (2 cities), New York (2 cities), South Carolina (2 cities), North Carolina (3 cities), and Minnesota (2 cities). I am neither southern nor northern, neither east or west coast.

I do, however, hate the NY Yankees with all the fire they deserve. When they're in the Series it's the only time I root against the American Leauge.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

I am a Southern boy and love my rebs but lets be realistic here. In the words of Shelby Foote the North was fighting the South with one had behind its back. The South was trying to beat an industrial powerhouse that had the confidence to begin building the transcontinental railroad while fighting a major war!

And the Homestead Act. Fighting a civil war, settling the frontier at the same time. Kind of like Americans in 1943 still having ice cream at the local counter, women's make-up, and fabric available for neck ties.

[mdiehl]

I do, however, hate the NY Yankees with all the fire they deserve. When they're in the Series it's the only time I root against the American Leauge.

Seconded.

[geofflambert]

I'm from West Virginia originally, but if I were from the South, I would blame Buford, Hancock and Chamberlain in that order. 

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I'm from West Virginia originally, but if I were from the South, I would blame Buford, Hancock and Chamberlain in that order. 

Yep, good point. We focus on what the Confederate commanders did wrong but have to take into account what some very fine Yankee officers did right as well. Buford's excellent delaying action. Reynolds quick reaction to Buford's appeals for help and Meade trusting in the judgement of his officers and decision to change his plan on the fly and concentrating his army as fast as possible on Gettysburg. Even Abner Doubleday had a good day, and Abner was not known for having good days...[;)]

[zuluhour]

Nothing favored the Army of Northern Virginia at Gettysburg, not supply,not lines of communication,not terrain,not artillery , not numbers, nothing. It is a complete mystery to many why Lee chose to fight there. When you walk the Confederate lines today you are always looking up. When you walk the Union lines you can see forever. While one can appreciate the eloquence of Lees orders I believe like some, they were far to open to interpretation which led to a breakdown in virtually every stage of the battle. Its been recently discovered that the battlefield has more trees now then at the time of the fighting as some of the photographs taken three days later were not of terrain intitially thought. I'm sorry Dan, in my opinion, Gettysburg was the turning point because RE Lee's judgement failed him and the south. I strongly think emotions influenced his thought process sans logic and rationalism. There is something different about Lee those hot July days so long ago. As a northerner reflecting back on Little Roundtop I see one very hot and humid three days. Lee, frustrated with Stuart, angry at Heth, arriving to a chaotic scene, unaware of the divisions marching north from Westminster already far to the front of Stuart at Union Mills, begin a series of commands he will regret long after his ride back to the Patomac.

I just hung up with a local school pal who shares an interest in military history, he concurs on the Longstreet proposal to draw the Union Army back towards a prepared and previously surveyed position and allow the Union to impale itself. I will look for the source. If I recall (I'm not positive it was Lee, some help here) it was an ambiguous order to men in the sunken road which unhinged the Confederates at Sharpsburg. My humble yankee conclusion; something is wrong with Gen Lee and compounded by his "open" style of giving orders were to much to overcome yankees on their own soil with far better leadership than the previous months in Virginia. No one will deny the elan of the men in grey those three days, did not Lee admit so to his own men in the rain whom was to blame for this?

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

On that note, had the Union managed to lose at Gettysburg, Sickles would have taken a fair bit of the blame.  For reasons unknown, he advanced his division well to the front of the Union MLR on the second day of the battle.  His division got mauled as a result.  (He was primarily a political appointment, so he had little military training).

Sickles' advance made sense, in isolation. He advanced to more defensible terrain (Cemetery ridge petered out just north of his assigned position). IIRC, he consulted with reknowned Union artillerist Henry Hunt before shifting his position. Sickles' unforgivable military error was in not first getting permission from Gen'l Meade, or at least coordinating with Hancock to his right before moving forward into a position with his 'flanks in the air.'

To your original question, I'd find it hard to blame Early for failing to take Culp's Hill on day 2. There were weaknesses in the Union position, particularly south of the hill, but the whole Union army was near there in a bunch, and reinforcements could have been rushed to conatain any CSA breakthrough. Whatever Meade's failings on that battlefield, he was quick to reinforce threatened sectors.

If we're looking to apportion blame for missed opportunities, I'd go with 1) Ewell for failing to pursue the broken XIth Corps on Day 1, 2) Stuart, for his third attempt to ride around the Union Army, 3) -- as much as I hate to say it -- Lee, for ignoring Longstreet's advice to march around Meade's southern flank, and for asking too much of his men on the third day.

I have to give this one a +1. The post about Lee missing Jackson also goes a long way. Jackson had a knack for interpreting and then executing Lee's order better than any of his other commanders.

[JeffroK]

Maybe define the difference between blame & responsibility.

You could argue the responsibilty for Market-Garden was with Eisenhower, did he deserve the blame?

The responsibility for Eighth Army's slow chase after Alamien lies with Monty, but is he to blame for tired men being careful in chasing a renowned counter attacker, plus the weather etc etc.

I find it very hard to associate blame to lots of historical events, we have the ability to sit back and go through every decision made, have 100% perfect maps and knowledge of the enemies OOB.
A very tired Lee, maybe ill, had to make these decisions on the spot, real time, with imperfect knowledge of everything.

Plus, in this campaign, the Southern Army was unlucky. So many things that in previous campiagns had fallen there way (while fighting on home soil) didnt work for them this time (on enemy soil)

(Next subject, how did the South let Grant bottle them into Vicksburg???, the the Seven Days battles)

[JohnDillworth]

I consider Bullwinkle a very good friend. (I don't know what he consider me, and I'm afraid to ask. ). There is a longstanding practice in the good ol' USA of intersectional and inter-state rivalry and harrassment. I poke fun at the New York Yankees. John Dillworth would reciprocate by poking fun at the Atlanta Braves. I "harrass" Minnesotans and Bullwinkle might respond by dissing Georgians. All of this is normal and healthy and fun...as long as it's meant that way, which it almost always is.

For the record, I am a long suffering Met fan. Like the RedSox too. My daughters can marry who they like.......except Yankee fans. I other forums I go by the nickname SwampYankee. A SwampYankee is a decedent of a poor dirt farmer that has been in New England since before the Revolution. I can trace my family to 1706. We fought on the Royalist side in the revolution and my descendents had to sign a loyalty oath after our side lost. We fought on the other side (Northern) in the civil war and my relatives may have very well met CR's somewhere outside Atlanta. But we are all gentlemen here and I don't mind a little teasing by our souther brethren. BTW, General Meade fought well and threw his victory aside by failing to pursue for the next 10 days. For better or worse, if he follows up, the war ends a year earlier than it did. I can rationally discuss politics and strategy all day, but being called a Yankee fan cuts to the quick.[:D][:D][:D]