If only Lee didn't go to Gettysburg

goodoldrebel said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

J
 
goodoldrebel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Other Guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's a shame people like Bragg, Polk & Hood got opportunities that Patrick Cleburn didn't.
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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:D 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.
 
MC Martel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.....
 
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.
 
MC Martel said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
1. War within a country, civil war
2. They illegally seceded, so they had to be readmitted. For example, if you steal something illegally, you still have to give it back.
 
MC Martel said:
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.
Click to expand...

The legality of secession was not decided until 1869 in SCOTUS's ruling in Texas vs White.

Prior to that there was no Constitutional interpretation or precedent concerning secession, even when the New England States threatened it during the war of 1812 .
 
MC Martel said:
1. War within a country, civil war
2. They illegally seceded, so they had to be readmitted. For example, if you steal something illegally, you still have to give it back.
Click to expand...
1. Maybe under the watered down definitions people use today, but a secession attempt isn't a Civil War. The English Civil War where 2 groups fight for control of a country is a Civil War. 2.The official US position during the War was the southern States didn't legally seceede so they were still part of the US, therefore there wouldn't be a need to readmit. Comparing to theft is silly.
 
George said:
1. Maybe under the watered down definitions people use today, but a secession attempt isn't a Civil War. The English Civil War where 2 groups fight for control of a country is a Civil War. 2.The official US position during the War was the southern States didn't legally seceede so they were still part of the US, therefore there wouldn't be a need to readmit. Comparing to theft is silly.
Click to expand...

Whatever you want to pretend about todays definitions, a civil war is, by current academic standards in the the field of political science, roughly defined as a conflict between two groups within the same country in which there have been over 1000 casualties total, and at least 100 on both sides. Some maintain that it needs to be 1000 casualties annually, but this is still fits in any case
 
An advance into the North was only truly feasible after the First Battle of Bull Run, where the Confederates had the Union army routing.

I believe the Confederates could've pursued and went for Washington.
 
Logan Gustavson said:
An advance into the North was only truly feasible after the First Battle of Bull Run, where the Confederates had the Union army routing.

I believe the Confederates could've pursued and went for Washington.
Click to expand...

I disagree while taking Washington was a possibility early on any advance into the North was a pipe dream at best because the South lacked the infrastructure to support the force.

As it was the South had enough trouble moving and supplying troops while fighting a defensive war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top