If only Lee didn't go to Gettysburg - Page 3




 
--
 
February 4th, 2010  
Spaniard
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodoldrebel
In the early 1870s after Lee had died, the south sought to shifted blame for the loss of the war from Lee to Longstreet in order to promote the so called "lost cause." The Southern population wanted a scapegoat and Longstreet was a good target because he publicly admitted that the Confederate army's strategies and tactics were flawed.

Actually, it wasn't until July 1 1863 that Lee decided to attack the yankees yet did not decide where until the next morning. Longstreet did not really do much of anything that morning and he must take responsibility for that. Even if he objected to Lee's attack, Longstreet should have been alot busier that morning.

While it is true that Longstreet was openly angry at Lee's orders to attack in spite of his objections, and without doubt Longstreet made mistakes at Gettysburg, look at it this way, Lee should have listened to Longstreet to begin with.

It was Longstreet who told Lee point blank that a direct assault on the yankees would be fatal but Lee wouldn't listen and stubbornly continued to Cemetary Ridge so what could Longstreet do but follow the stupid orders and send Pickett and Hill ahead.

Getting between the yankees and Washington was Longstreet's idea. In the end I think Longstreet's idea would have been the more intelligent move.

Again, its all armchair quarterbacking but the decision for Lee to go to Gettysburg is still considered the biggest mistake in American history.

There was over 50,000 casualties on both sides for Gettysburg, Just plain butchery, sheer human carnage.

J
February 4th, 2010  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodoldrebel
In the early 1870s after Lee had died, the south sought to shifted blame for the loss of the war from Lee to Longstreet in order to promote the so called "lost cause." The Southern population wanted a scapegoat and Longstreet was a good target because he publicly admitted that the Confederate army's strategies and tactics were flawed.

Actually, it wasn't until July 1 1863 that Lee decided to attack the yankees yet did not decide where until the next morning. Longstreet did not really do much of anything that morning and he must take responsibility for that. Even if he objected to Lee's attack, Longstreet should have been alot busier that morning.

While it is true that Longstreet was openly angry at Lee's orders to attack in spite of his objections, and without doubt Longstreet made mistakes at Gettysburg, look at it this way, Lee should have listened to Longstreet to begin with.

It was Longstreet who told Lee point blank that a direct assault on the yankees would be fatal but Lee wouldn't listen and stubbornly continued to Cemetary Ridge so what could Longstreet do but follow the stupid orders and send Pickett and Hill ahead.

Getting between the yankees and Washington was Longstreet's idea. In the end I think Longstreet's idea would have been the more intelligent move.

Again, its all armchair quarterbacking but the decision for Lee to go to Gettysburg is still considered the biggest mistake in American history.
Longstreet understood how to fight in the situation at hand, and he was very successful, but he wasn't the guy the CSA wanted. I'd say he was probably the best general the south had during the conflict.
February 4th, 2010  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
Longstreet understood how to fight in the situation at hand, and he was very successful, but he wasn't the guy the CSA wanted. I'd say he was probably the best general the south had during the conflict.
It's a shame people like Bragg, Polk & Hood got opportunities that Patrick Cleburn didn't.
--
February 9th, 2010  
YankeeSgt2
 

Topic: Google Philip Kearny,,,according to Winfied Scott


he was the bravest Officer he ever met, an he new them all in Mexico.
He foght in Mexico, two European and and then the civil war.

He had time and grade over Hooker, had he not been killed at Chantilly
he would defeated Lee in the spring of 1863.
Like Patton, ATTACK,ATTACK AND ATTACK.
" THE ONE ARMED DEVIL'

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/kearny.htm
April 10th, 2010  
pendennis
 
 
If Lee, or anyone else in the ANV had read Sun Tzu, they had obviously ignored or forgotten the lessons learned. There was nothing about Gettysburg for which the CSA could gain.

In all the histories I've read, General Buford stands out as the great hero of the battle, Joshua Chamberlain notwithstanding.

However, was Meade really at fault for not pursuing Lee? His casualties in a defensive position had been high, and that has to be balanced against taking the offensive and pursuing and enemy who was hurt, but not fatally.
April 10th, 2010  
MontyB
 
 
I think the general consensus is that Meade could have trapped the ANV on the wrong side of the Potomac had he vigorously pursued Lee, certainly both sides had suffered heavy casualties but Lee's forces were retreating, demoralised, low on supplies and out of replacements.
February 27th, 2011  
MC Martel
 
Ok, lets first correct a few misconceptions that seem to be held
1. This wasn't a war of northern agression, it was a war of southern agression (having fired the first shots) and the North putting down a group of treasonous rebels.
2. The north DID have quite a number of good generals, Grant was quite an excellent general and came out of the war with a total positive K ration (roughly 1.5:1.1), also, for example, the great unsung hero of George Henry Thomas.
3. Lee has been lionized quite a bit over the last 150 years when he was, overall, a good general, but not fantastic. He failed pretty badly on both of his offenses and a good number of his early victories can be traced to union blunders rather than anything particularly brilliant he did.
February 27th, 2011  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MC Martel
Ok, lets first correct a few misconceptions that seem to be held
1. This wasn't a war of northern agression, it was a war of southern agression (having fired the first shots) and the North putting down a group of treasonous rebels.
Your reasoning is flawed. There nothing in the Constitution saying they couldn't seceede & any powers not given to the Fed. Govt remains with the States. The States legally left the Union, they wern't trying to take over the US, so they wern't rebels, nor was it a Civil War. Now then, lets look @ the New England States that held a secession Convention during the War of 1812, threatening to seceede because they wanted to resume Trade with the enemy during a declared War with that enemy.....
February 28th, 2011  
MC Martel
 
1. No, they were not legally seceding, the idea that they were is ludicrous.
2. So therefore it is a civil war, as they were rebels
3. Finally, once again, the south fired first, this makes then quite clearly the aggressors.
February 28th, 2011  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MC Martel
1. No, they were not legally seceding, the idea that they were is ludicrous.
2. So therefore it is a civil war, as they were rebels
3. Finally, once again, the south fired first, this makes then quite clearly the aggressors.
They wern't trying to take over the US Govt., so no Civil War. If they didn't legally seceede, there would have been no need to readmit them to the Union.
 


Similar Topics
Army's Logistics Branch Is Inaugurated At Fort Lee
Lee Myong-bak, Korea's new President
Navy Chaplain Pleads Guilty
Astros sign Carlos Lee, Woody Williams
Was Lee Whi-So killed by the U.S Government?