Gettysburg / Gods and Generals (2 Viewers)

[Robert E. Lee]

RE Lee

We are talking about Gettysburg here - not the entire war. I would think that you would agree that the Battle Plan for Gettysburg that Lee drew up was bad. Right?

Ron

Of course I agree that Pickett's charge was a disasterous mistake. So does everybody else

 

[kilted vampire]

I thought we were talking about Gettysberg the Movie? Which was not a disaster

 

[maloyalo]

Its interesting how in the end, it came down to Grant vs Lee. The two most successful commanding generals of the north & south.

In one of the first battles against each other a union officer was warning Gen. Grant about the various threats to guard against, when facing Gen. Lee. Grant told him to stop worrying about what Gen. Lee would do, and taking the initiative force Lee to have to react to what they would do.

With the two commanders having even only roughly equal abilities, Grant having an overwhelming advantage in men & equipment was bound to win, unless.
Unless the north loss the will to fight. I think that was a definate possibility, but was averted in part, by Grant's arrival, character and will to fight.

These two remind me a little of Patton & Rommel.

 

[wellington]

If the Union was sooo big (which it was) and they had endless supplies (compaired to the South)....then Lee sould have been smart enough to figure out his game would have eventually ended, not to mention the fact that the majority of United States sided with the North.....If he loved his Country and his men as much as history says then why as a leader continue to send them to their deaths on a war he could never have won. As far as I'm concerned anyone who attacks my Country from within and attempts to take over a gonvernment that was elected by the majority is no fellow Countryman of mine.....Unless my Government is doing something that is WRONG..ie.....Hitler.




PS THIS WILL LIVIN THINGS UP A BIT!!!!! ONLY MY OPINION.


WELLINGTON

 

[UKReb]

If the Union was sooo big (which it was) and they had endless supplies (compaired to the South)....then Lee sould have been smart enough to figure out his game would have eventually ended, not to mention the fact that the majority of United States sided with the North.....If he loved his Country and his men as much as history says then why as a leader continue to send them to their deaths on a war he could never have won. As far as I'm concerned anyone who attacks my Country from within and attempts to take over a gonvernment that was elected by the majority is no fellow Countryman of mine.....Unless my Government is doing something that is WRONG..ie.....Hitler.




PS THIS WILL LIVIN THINGS UP A BIT!!!!! ONLY MY OPINION.


WELLINGTON

Not sure a Brit should rise to a Canadians deliberate bait on such a delicate subject of why Robert E Lee led his army to a deliberate death in a war he couldn't win etc. But hell here's my two cents input for what its worth.
Actual fact is that Lee did believe he could win this war on the single premise of a complete and decisive defeat of the Army of the Potomac in the field.
Now before I receive an enfilade of artillery fire from other "froggers" let me try and put some facts behind that somewhat profound statement.

Lee has been much criticised in recent Civil War literature for being too aggressive resulting in needlessly bleeding the ANV to death, according to his critics his strategy for the Confederacy was too costly for a country so desperately short of resources and manpower. Their logic was that he should have maintained a completely defensive position and waited for the Union to grow tired of the war.
Such criticism of Lee (and Davis who had to approve Lee's plans) is not so much his generalship as of his strategic vision. But Lee fully understood that time was not on the side of the South as the war was having devastating effects on the Southern economy and society. Davis and his secretaries of the treasury never got a grip of the Confederate finances and actually financed the war by simply printing money causing hyper-inflation and a complete disruption of its entire civilian population, very evident in the Richmond "bread riots" just a few weeks before Lee's Gettysburg campaign began. Lee was convinced from the very beginning that the South could not wait out the Union and firmly believed he must defeat the Union army in the field as soon as possible and he could not do that by fighting a totally defensive war.

Lee's first offensive had ended badly at Antietam but he never accepted this as a defeat considering it just a set back caused by bad luck (the famous lost order giving away his plans to McClellan). He began planning a new invasion at once but had to postpone these plans when the Union offensive in Virginia forced him to fight a series of brilliant defensive battles in the winter/spring of 62-63. Following his victory over Hooker at Chancellorsville Lee returned to his offensive plans.

This was Lee's strategic vision well before Gettysburg that he must convincingly and finally defeat the Union Army in the field, this would permit him to make a real threat to Northern life and property to force Lincoln to abandon the war and sue for peace or be beaten in the next presidential elections by an appeaser candidate (Washington was awash with such gentlemen). Lee understood all these realities and he told Davis at his pre-Gettysburg meeting with him that if the war in Virginia continued indefinitely by fighting a defensive strategy it could only end in a siege of Richmond.
The Old Gray Fox was right enough there!

 

[Robert E. Lee]

Not sure a Brit should rise to a Canadians deliberate bait of why Robert E Lee led his army to a deliberate death in a war he couldn't win etc. But hell here's my two cents input for what its worth.
Actual fact is that Lee did believe he could win this war on the single premise of a complete and decisive defeat of the Army of the Potomac in the field.
Now before I receive an enfilade of artillery fire from other "froggers" let me try and put some facts behind that somewhat profound statement.

Lee has been much criticised in recent Civil War literature for being too aggressive resulting in needlessly bleeding the ANV to death, according to his critics his strategy for the Confederacy was too costly for a country so desperately short of resources and manpower. Their logic was that he should have maintained a completely defensive position and waited for the Union to grow tired of the war.
Such criticism of Lee (and Davis who had to approve Lee's plans) is not so much his generalship as of his strategic vision. But Lee fully understood that time was not on the side of the South as the war was having devastating effects on the Southern economy and society. Davis and his secretaries of the treasury never got a grip of the Confederate finances and actually financed the war by simply printing money causing hyper-inflation and a complete disruption of its entire civilian population, very evident in the Richmond "bread riots" just a few weeks before Lee's Gettysburg campaign began. Lee was convinced from the very beginning that the South could not wait out the Union and firmly believed he must defeat the Union army in the field as soon as possible and he could not do that by fighting a totally defensive war.

Lee's first offensive had ended badly at Antietam but he never accepted this as a defeat considering it just a set back caused by bad luck (the famous lost order giving away his plans to McClellan). He began planning a new invasion at once but had to postpone these plans when the Union offensive in Virginia forced him to fight a series of brilliant defensive battles in the winter/spring of 62-63. Following his victory over Hooker at Chancellorsville Lee returned to his offensive plans.

This was Lee's strategic vision well before Gettysburg that he must convincingly and finally defeat the Union Army in the field, this would permit him to make a real threat to Northern life and property to force Lincoln to abandon the war and sue for peace or be beaten in the next presidential elections by an appeaser candidate (Washington was awash with such gentlemen). Lee understood all these realities and he told Davis at his pre-Gettysburg meeting with him that if the war in Virginia continued indefinitely by fighting a defensive strategy it could only end in a siege of Richmond.
The Old Gray Fox was right enough there!

Well said, well said!

 

[maddadicus]

Also, Southern victories were needed to keep a vacillating Europe ( especially Great Britain )interested at some point acknowleging the South, as an independent nation..As for sacrificing an army....look at Hood in the Western theatre, after Gettysburg.........Michael

 

[kilted vampire]

Also, Southern victories were needed to keep a vacillating Europe ( especially Great Britain )interested at some point acknowleging the South, as an independent nation..As for sacrificing an army....look at Hood in the Western theatre, after Gettysburg.........Michael

Michael , we were just another pawn in the French British pissing match that had lasted for several hundred years. Kind of like US/ USSR Cold War

 

[maloyalo]

The subject has shifted somewhat, but they do that!

When looking at Lee, or any American Civil War generals, besides their personal qualities there is also the quality of the armies they led to consider. Some German general (I forget the name, maybe Molke ?) characterized the war as being between organized mobs. And such it was, as have been other wars with large rapid conscriptions of civilians.

But something that always mystified me, was how the southern forces did so much better, with less, for so long, on the Nothern Virginia front. The battle record bears that out surely.

I like Lincoln's response to a general complaining about the Union forces lack of experience. 'Yes, we are green, but they are green also. We are all green alike'.

Lee seems to have not been entirely defensive or offensive, but to have used both. Holding a field defensively will keep down losses, but it takes going over to the offensive to decisively defeat/destroy an enemy army.

Lee was offered command of the Union army, I believe, at the beginning of the conflict. He said his decision to join the south, was based on not being able to fight against his own home state. The conflict arose out of growing differences that polerized two halves of the country. In such conflagerations are individuals drawn, and I can not blame someone for siding with family & friends.

Lee certainly became a very good (imo. excellent) general and his army good soldiers. Lee said his defeat at Gettysburg was based on his unrealistic overestimation of what his soldiers could do. Napoleon did as much. Its the point where the general believes because he wills it so, it will be so. Its overshooting yours and your armies abilities, and inevitably leads to disasters.

 

[Tex]

Michael , we were just another pawn in the French British pissing match that had lasted for several hundred years. Kind of like US/ USSR Cold War

I would agree to an extent, but both the French and British were somewhat partial to the South. Both made a killing in selling supplies to (and in the case of the British, building commerce raiders for) the CSA. From my own interests, some examples are Enfield Rifles and LeMat pistols.
Some have said that the Emancipation Proclamation was a testament to the Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln--the British could not enter the war on the side of the pro-slavery South due to their anti-slavery policies.

As far as the war being fought by "organized mobs," I think that would be an accurate description for the fighting at the start of the war. By the end of the war, I do not believe this would apply, at least not to the Union army. Additionally, the trench warfare that developed toward the end, and the use of cranked machine guns, not just gatling guns, showed the way of things to come. I think that German general's quote may be rooted more in the total disdain Europe had for anything American, especially the US Army, during this time period.

 

[UKReb]

Agree with Tex, I cannot speak for the French but there is enough historical evidence that the British were pretty well determined to support the South with much more than just materials and trade.

The "Trent Affair" came close to calling up the Royal Navy and the lack of cotton for the Lancashire mills caused starvation and tremendous hardship for the thousands of mill-workers and their families that put enormous pressure on Palmerston's government to come up with a solution. Gladstone, Palmerston's Chancellor of the Exchequer actually made a speech in Parliament stating "England must support the Confederacy by sending the Royal Navy to lift this blockade". The government did send a number of British regiments to Canada that were amassed on the Canadian/US border.

Antietam (145th anniversary this very week) and it's aftermath silenced the British dogs of war! But it was a close run thing and had little to do with whether the Brits could piss further than Paris!

 

[UKReb]

The subject has shifted somewhat, but they do that!

When looking at Lee, or any American Civil War generals, besides their personal qualities there is also the quality of the armies they led to consider. Some German general (I forget the name, maybe Molke ?) characterized the war as being between organized mobs. And such it was, as have been other wars with large rapid conscriptions of civilians.

But something that always mystified me, was how the southern forces did so much better, with less, for so long, on the Nothern Virginia front. The battle record bears that out surely.

I remember years ago at uni during those dull days of research I happened on an old script written by a long forgotten soldier/author and probably a Southerner. I eventually used it in one of my history dissertations because I believed then that it perfectly described in part how the southern forces did so well against such overwhelming odds. The following -although a bit prosaic- is the best I can recall as it is far from complete but the guts of it stayed with me like a favourite poem or quote.

With his trusty gun in hand-captured from the enemy and substituted for the old flintlock musket or shotgun with which he was originally armed-Johnny Reb stands in his patched up shreds-picturesque, grotesque, unique- the model citizen soldier, the military hero of the nineteenth century.
Johnny is not one of your dress parade soldiers but he is the most independent soldier that ever belonged to an organised army. He has respect for authority, and he cheerfully submits to discipline because he sees the necessity of organisation to affect the best results, but he maintains his individual autonomy and never surrenders his sense of personal pride and responsibility. He may appear ludicrous enough on the display occassion but place him where duty calls, in the imminent deadly breach or the perilous charge and none in all the armies of the earth can claim a higher rank or prouder record. The worn and faded gray jacket, glorified by valour and stained with the life blood of it's wearer, becomes in it's immortality of association a more splendid vestment than the mail of a medieval knight.
Half clad, half armed, often half fed the Confederate soldier fought against the resources of the world and when at last his flag was furled, his arms grounded in defeat and the cause for which he struggled was lost, he had won the faceless victory of being the finest 19th Century citizen soldier who ever stood and fought on a battlefield.

Take that and throw in a bunch of outstanding Southern West Point officers and you're halfway there in how they did it.

 

[wellington]

As I said its only my opinion.....I believe in what Lincoln and the North stood for....There will always be a difference in opinion thats why you had a Civil War to begin with......as for the British they should have minded their own business......America won there Independence. Let them govern their own affairs. If I was to pick up arms it would have been for the North, it's obvious Britain wanted to create a war within America...perhaps payback for the Revolution, I guess they got what they wanted. Remember a house is destroyed from within...the Romans certainaly found that out.


WELLINGTON

I guess LEE thought wrong.

 

[UKReb]

PS THIS WILL LIVIN THINGS UP A BIT!!!!! ONLY MY OPINION.


WELLINGTON

My apologies I had assumed you mean't your comment above, boy did I get that wrong!
As a Brit I'll take your advice and in future mind my own business.

 

[wellington]

Don't need to apologize...we all have our opinions....none of us were there and none of us are experts...I'm just havin fun..who am I nobody some guy who collects toy soldiers who's views change as my moods change.....



WELLINGTON

 

[maloyalo]

As far as the war being fought by "organized mobs," I think that would be an accurate description for the fighting at the start of the war. By the end of the war, I do not believe this would apply, at least not to the Union army. Additionally, the trench warfare that developed toward the end, and the use of cranked machine guns, not just gatling guns, showed the way of things to come. I think that German general's quote may be rooted more in the total disdain Europe had for anything American, especially the US Army, during this time period.

Tex, I definately agree with you about it changing over the course of the war. I think the change was delayed some though by murderous losses, and the large ammount of enlistments that ended in 63 (on the union side). Often, the most experienced units were practically destroyed, say like the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg.

You can see the experience coming out in later accounts, with outflanking replacing frontal assaults & the trench warfare developing like you mentioned. I especially noticed it in the writings from the last year of the war.

Yes, the distain was assumed. But I do really think the soldiers, once they learned their business (both sides) would have held their own against any troops, of that time. All things point to them having a very determined and steadfast nature.

Interesting piece UKReb. It does highlite something about the pyschology. It has sometimes been said that the average Confederate was somewhat more experienced with shooting (hunting) and horsemanship. But most were really just farmers as were a large part of the union volunteers.

 

[wellington]

Perhaps it was because the Rebs had more men (larger target) to shoot at.....


WELLINGTON

 

[Tex]

I know that the outdated Napoleonic tactics used in most of the fighting of the ACW made potential use of camouflage unnecessary, but I can't help but wonder if Confederate grey and butternut-brown uniforms were an advantage in the smoky haze of battle over the blue union uniforms.

 

[Tex]

Let me correct myself--union (and I believe some confederate) sharpshooters did wear green uniforms for the purpose of camouflage.

 

[maloyalo]

Perhaps it was because the Rebs had more men (larger target) to shoot at.....


WELLINGTON

LOL, I thought for a minute you were referring to fat reenactors

I hadn't thought about the camo effects of grey & butternut. Does make sense. The captured union blue pants would have stood out some.