The Civil War Thread (1 Viewer)

[UKReb]

Being convinced that he was always outnumbered, despite all intelligence to the contrary, is just further evidence of "the Little Napoleon's" incompetence. As far as Lee is concerned, I don't think he was gambling - he knew he was up against incompetents and he exploited that advantage. Lee was talented enough that a young Erwin Rommel studied his tactics. As great a general as Lee was, even considering the incredibly poor quality of Union Generals for the first couple of years of the war, he faced virtually insurmountable odds. The Union had all the railroads, an unlimited supply of men (the Union never had more than 10% of its male population in arms at any point during the War), all the industry, virtually the entire Navy. The fact that Lee kept the South in the war as long as he did, and even had a chance of winning, is a testament to his greatness as a general.

Unfortunately for Lee, he gambled once, and crapped out, at Gettysburg. Pickett's Charge was an insane gamble built on an over-estimation of his men's capabilities. If you've been kicking the heck out of players who are incredible poorly coached, that doesn't make your players superstars, or prove that the other players lack talent. It makes the other players poorly coached, nothing more, nothing less. By letting himself believe that his men would always win, and were just so much better than Union troops that they could overcome all odds and take Cemetary Ridge, just because they had not lost in the past, Lee himself made a huge coaching mistake, and it cost him the whole shooting match. That doesn't take away from the fact that he was a great General, but it does mean he made one fatal mistake and went down in history as one of the greatest generals to lose a war.

Politely passing over another of Randy's "cute" squirrel shots I'd like to bring the thread back to an interesting point Peter & Louis have raised. A similar issue was posted on another forum by maddadicus which petered out after my reply so I'll have another go here.
Lee's performance on the third day of Gettysburg is still hotly debated by military historians today. Having studied the battle for more years than I care to remember here's my 10 cents worth. Louis's elucid coaching assessment of Lee I cannot argue with, however what is missing from his comment is the dreadful performances from his experienced Officer Corps. Lee was indeeed careless at Gettysburg, his orders were vague, he suggested when he should have commanded and he sacrificed a whole infantry division when he should have realised the battle was most probably already lost, but for 3 whole days he was let down by his "star player subordinates".

Stuart and his cavalry's absence left Lee completely blind in enemy territory for almost a week.
Ambrose Powell Hill III Corps Commander was for all practical purposes AWOL-due to sickness- during the 3 days of battle.
Ewell who had taken over Jackson's II Corps and can be generously described as unimaginative thereafter threw away the victory of July 1st by not pursuing the fleeing Federals up Cemetery and Culp's hill and capturing the high ground. Jackson would not have waited for Lee's order to execute the military obvious.
And Longstreet after Lee refused his idea of a left flank manouevre acted like a petulant child on the third day with an almost fait accompli attitude that Pickett's charge had failed before it began.
Yet when Armistead breached the angle with his and the remnants of Garnett and Kemper's brigades there was just a slim chance with supporting brigades that the result could have been different. Historians write of The Hundred Days of Napoleon but they could quite easily write of The Hundred Seconds of the Confederacy because for two minutes-quite literally- with Armistead over the wall and the 71st Pennsylvanian running and the 72nd frozen, the road lay open all the way to Washington.
But the Confederate High Command appeared paralysed. Lee gave no orders whatsoever, Pickett left it awfully late to request support, and when he did Longstreet, although Early, Posey and Rodes had brigades all ready to advance, only offered Wilcox's beaten and tired brigade resting in the peach orchard and then left it to Pickett to order Wilcox to advance if required. All too late! Back at the wall during the now furious hand to hand fighting the Virginians kept looking behind them fully expecting the whole of Lee's army to be charging up the ridge in support. I can imagine a fighting man's spririt to be completely broken when they realised they were very much on their own and when the cry went up "Armistead is down" it was all over.

Did all the Reb generals just have a bad hair day? Who knows? But Lee recovered enough to perform brilliantly at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna and Cold Harbor and Longstreet's daring action won Chickamauga. Louis mentions that Lee believed his army invincible, that's true, they were when fighting on their home turf-Virginia- I believe their lies part of the answer, Lee underestimated the fighting resolve of the Union soldier when suddenly he found himself fighting to protect his home and his family from the invading Rebs.

Almost every great commander in history, even while making skillful and correct decisions while on campaign, at some inopportune time meets with disappointment and/or defeat. And so it was with Lee at Gettysburg. Adversity is the true test of an individuals spirit and the depth of a person's genius, and the personal disppointment brought about by the failure in Pennsylvania surely plagued Lee to the end of his life. But despite this outcome, the best soldier on the North American continent demonstrated anew in 1864 why any hope for the Confederacy had been and always would be on the shoulders of the one man General Winfield Scott had called "the very best soldier I ever saw in the field" Robert Edward Lee.
Reb

 

[Robert E. Lee]

I appreciate your kind comments Reb

 

[UKReb]

I appreciate your kind comments Reb

You're very welcome!
However, instead of sitting back wallowing in accolades a view from yourself on the topic-especially for your namesake- would have been more appreciated.
Perhaps next time!
Reb

 

[Harrytheheid]

You're very welcome!
However, instead of sitting back wallowing in accolades a view from yourself on the topic-especially for your namesake- would have been more appreciated.
Perhaps next time!
Reb

Seriously though, I wish I could contribute to this thread, but I simply don't know enough about the subject to be able to add anything meaningful. I am however enjoying the education. Thanks to all who have posted their well thought out viewpoints here, it really is extremely interesting.

Regards
H

 

[Louis Badolato]

Politely passing over another of Randy's "cute" squirrel shots I'd like to bring the thread back to an interesting point Peter & Louis have raised. A similar issue was posted on another forum by maddadicus which petered out after my reply so I'll have another go here.
Lee's performance on the third day of Gettysburg is still hotly debated by military historians today. Having studied the battle for more years than I care to remember here's my 10 cents worth. Louis's elucid coaching assessment of Lee I cannot argue with, however what is missing from his comment is the dreadful performances from his experienced Officer Corps. Lee was indeeed careless at Gettysburg, his orders were vague, he suggested when he should have commanded and he sacrificed a whole infantry division when he should have realised the battle was most probably already lost, but for 3 whole days he was let down by his "star player subordinates".

Stuart and his cavalry's absence left Lee completely blind in enemy territory for almost a week.
Ambrose Powell Hill III Corps Commander was for all practical purposes AWOL-due to sickness- during the 3 days of battle.
Ewell who had taken over Jackson's II Corps and can be generously described as unimaginative thereafter threw away the victory of July 1st by not pursuing the fleeing Federals up Cemetery and Culp's hill and capturing the high ground. Jackson would not have waited for Lee's order to execute the military obvious.
And Longstreet after Lee refused his idea of a left flank manouevre acted like a petulant child on the third day with an almost fait accompli attitude that Pickett's charge had failed before it began.
Yet when Armistead breached the angle with his and the remnants of Garnett and Kemper's brigades there was just a slim chance with supporting brigades that the result could have been different. Historians write of The Hundred Days of Napoleon but they could quite easily write of The Hundred Seconds of the Confederacy because for two minutes-quite literally- with Armistead over the wall and the 71st Pennsylvanian running and the 72nd frozen, the road lay open all the way to Washington.
But the Confederate High Command appeared paralysed. Lee gave no orders whatsoever, Pickett left it awfully late to request support, and when he did Longstreet, although Early, Posey and Rodes had brigades all ready to advance, only offered Wilcox's beaten and tired brigade resting in the peach orchard and then left it to Pickett to order Wilcox to advance if required. All too late! Back at the wall during the now furious hand to hand fighting the Virginians kept looking behind them fully expecting the whole of Lee's army to be charging up the ridge in support. I can imagine a fighting man's spririt to be completely broken when they realised they were very much on their own and when the cry went up "Armistead is down" it was all over.

Did all the Reb generals just have a bad hair day? Who knows? But Lee recovered enough to perform brilliantly at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, North Anna and Cold Harbor and Longstreet's daring action won Chickamauga. Louis mentions that Lee believed his army invincible, that's true, they were when fighting on their home turf-Virginia- I believe their lies part of the answer, Lee underestimated the fighting resolve of the Union soldier when suddenly he found himself fighting to protect his home and his family from the invading Rebs.

Almost every great commander in history, even while making skillful and correct decisions while on campaign, at some inopportune time meets with disappointment and/or defeat. And so it was with Lee at Gettysburg. Adversity is the true test of an individuals spirit and the depth of a person's genius, and the personal disppointment brought about by the failure in Pennsylvania surely plagued Lee to the end of his life. But despite this outcome, the best soldier on the North American continent demonstrated anew in 1864 why any hope for the Confederacy had been and always would be on the shoulders of the one man General Winfield Scott had called "the very best soldier I ever saw in the field" Robert Edward Lee.
Reb

UKReb,

I agree with everything in your post, especially your comment about the loss of Jackson. I think Jackson (who, like Napoleon, was trained as an artilleryman) was the best infantry commander the United States ever produced. His loss, at the hands of Confederate troops who thought he was Union Cavalry when they saw him and his staff on horseback in front of their lines, was cripling to the Confederacy. He was as important to Lee and the Confederacy as Sherman was to Grant and the Union.

 

[Capitolron]

First Thank You All Who Have Appreciated This Thread.

UK Reb and I will keep it up - so jump in and talk about what you know or even what you dont know about the Civil War.


As for the Gettysburg discussion - UK Reb what I found the most troubling of the entire attack on the third day - was to be JEB Stuart's Calvary Attack behind the lines of the Union Center - which was to be coordinated with the Artillery and Infantry Advance on the Stonewall / Clump of Trees - Center.

man-o-man where did Lee think this type of coordinated attack could ever be pulled off with the trouble he was having the last two days at Gettysburg.

This is where I believed Lee out planned himself and over-expected his ability of the troops in the field. The advance by Pickett was to take advantage of a Union Center under seige.

First the Artillery was to pound the front and then the Calvary was to pinch the back - making the attack from Pickett workable. Well Artillery over shoots and Stuart gets held up and even beaten by Custer in the rear - all led to what we now know as the end of the Confederacy.

The battlefield is really something to see - all should make one trip there in their lifetime. You cant help but to feel the battle standing on top of Little Round Top.

Really Great !

 

[Capitolron]

Awesome thread Ron!!!! Fascinating about Florida then and now and very little having been said of it - this is the first I've heard about Florida being repatriated to get votes.

Thanks Gideon - We will try to keep finding the unusual stories to keep the interest up !

 

[tdubel]

Being convinced that he was always outnumbered, despite all intelligence to the contrary, is just further evidence of "the Little Napoleon's" incompetence. As far as Lee is concerned, I don't think he was gambling - he knew he was up against incompetents and he exploited that advantage. Lee was talented enough that a young Erwin Rommel studied his tactics. As great a general as Lee was, even considering the incredibly poor quality of Union Generals for the first couple of years of the war, he faced virtually insurmountable odds. The Union had all the railroads, an unlimited supply of men (the Union never had more than 10% of its male population in arms at any point during the War), all the industry, virtually the entire Navy. The fact that Lee kept the South in the war as long as he did, and even had a chance of winning, is a testament to his greatness as a general.

Unfortunately for Lee, he gambled once, and crapped out, at Gettysburg. Pickett's Charge was an insane gamble built on an over-estimation of his men's capabilities. If you've been kicking the heck out of players who are incredible poorly coached, that doesn't make your players superstars, or prove that the other players lack talent. It makes the other players poorly coached, nothing more, nothing less. By letting himself believe that his men would always win, and were just so much better than Union troops that they could overcome all odds and take Cemetary Ridge, just because they had not lost in the past, Lee himself made a huge coaching mistake, and it cost him the whole shooting match. That doesn't take away from the fact that he was a great General, but it does mean he made one fatal mistake and went down in history as one of the greatest generals to lose a war.

Louis,

Good points for sure, but I must say, even with the gamble, The South was running out of everything at this point, and the biggest piece missing was Stonewall. I have studied the Civil War since I was 16, and I admit I have always studied and admired the Southern generals, as for the most part, they were far superior, but Gettysburg was a cluster of mistakes including:
1. Lee not allowing Heth to take the high ground on Day 1 or ordering him to do it too late.
2. Hoods inability to defeat Chamberlain.
3. Stuart's huge ego when he decided to "ride around the entire Union Army" because he could.
4. AP Hill did not have his best day either.
5. Jackson missing
6. Pickett's disastorous charge

You could go on and on, it just was a calamity of errors and miscues.

Now, if you want to study a battle, Antietam is a dandy. Of course I am partial since my family grew up there and my Grandfather still lives there. But, it is an exciting battle to study. I remember my grandfather taking me on a drive on the exact route AP Hill used to "save the day" for the Confederates. One thing I have found is that no matter how often I have been to the parks, I always learn something new.

One of these days, I am going to make it to Shiloh, Chattanooga, etc and study the War in the West as I am a Bedford Forrest fan.

And finally, for those of you that have a chance, starting at Manassas and working your way down to Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Wilderness, Stonewall Jackson's Shrine and then Petersburg and Richmond is an awesome trip.

Finally, a nice souvenier that I have found over the years are the LEIB Archive Photos of the generals, great time pieces. By the way, if you ever see the Turner Ashby one, look closely as it was taken after he was killed!

TD

 

[tdubel]

PS to the post above, sorry it rambled from topic to topic!!!!

Tom

 

[UKReb]

PS to the post above, sorry it rambled from topic to topic!!!!

Tom

Tom
No need to apologise (poor old Randy, when he posted his squirrel shot, felt bad about "spoiling the thread"). As I said to him a Confederate gray squirrel will always be welcome here.
Agree with your comment of Antietam being a dandy of a battle to study and I hope we will get to that later downstream, but I would just like to add a comment or two to yours and Ron's synopsis of Gettysburg.
Concur with your calamity of errors and miscues quote and also Ron's comments on the cavalry rear attack at east field. But Ron I believe Lee deliberately got his prodigal son Stuart involved for a very good reason as he said to him when he finally returned on the night of the second day "Please help me fight these people". The hastily put together plan was for his three brigades of cavalry to ride to the left of Ewell and in advance of him, where a commanding ridge completely controlled a wide plain of fields stretching towards Hanover, Lee's plan would be two-fold. Maximise the enemy's psychological discomfort of cavalry in their rear and divert Federal attention and reinforcements away from the decisive point the Confederates were attacking along Cemetery Ridge.
Sounds a good plan on paper but it was flawed and lacked Lee's normal strategic brilliance as indeed did the whole third day plan. Stuart's men and horses were dog-tired after, as Tom aptly put it, another grand ego ride around the entire Union army- Lee knew that Federal cavalry were on the field, Buford's 1st Division had held him up on the first day, but where else on the third day could Lee use Stuart and his cavalry?.

Why use him at all? This is not mentioned in many history books but reading diaries and letters from the Confederate Officer Corps, Stuart was not flavour of the week, in fact a great number of Confederate officers and in particular Longstreet considered the whole mess of Gettysburg was Stuarts fault and that he should be immediately court-martialed and stripped of command and he let Lee know his and the other officers feelings.
Lee just may have thrown in the cavalry as a way of exonerating Stuart's disastrous mistake of leaving the ANV blind for 10 days and "please help me fight these people" just may, at a very far stretch, not have been referring to Meade and his men.
And Stuart and his troopers gave it their all when they met Custer and his Wolverines, it was one hell of a scrap, the fighting was so intense and close-quarters that it was said that some of the killed were found in pairs of blue and gray, pinned to each other by tightly clenched sabres driven through their bodies. Another example of the intimacy of this cavalry battle was found by a farmer returning to his farm after the fight. In addition to thirty dead horses littering his lane, he found the macabre sight of two opposing cavalrymen whose fingers, though stiff in death, were firmly imbedded in each other's flesh that they could not be removed without the aid of force.

I have absolutely no proof whatsoever of my supposition, however, Stuart never ever left Lee blind again and it was his insistence of getting information of enemy movements back to his commander that indirectly led to his death at Yellow Tavern some 9 months later.

 

[Rob]

I'd like to echo Harry here.As someone who has studied WW1/WW2 all his life i know only the basic facts about the ACW,these i have mainly gleamed from Ken Burns excellant American Civil War DVD series and one or two books.So i would just like to say that this thread is absolutely fascinating, reading the posts of UK Reb and all you other guys i am learning a lot.So thanks very much.

Rob

 

[UKReb]

I'd like to echo Harry here.As someone who has studied WW1/WW2 all his life i know only the basic facts about the ACW,these i have mainly gleamed from Ken Burns excellant American Civil War DVD series and one or two books.So i would just like to say that this thread is absolutely fascinating, reading the posts of UK Reb and all you other guys i am learning a lot.So thanks very much.

Rob

Hi Rob

I am really chuffed you, Harry and perhaps others are finding Ron's thread interesting.
It really is a fascinating war (not sure that's an apt description for a dreadful civil war because whichever you cut the cake for it's reasons, be it State rights; abolition of slavery or saving the Union it still ends up with Americans killing Americans by the thousand)

It has however a great number of firsts.
It was the first modern war with modern weapons but being fought by Napoleonic musket and cannon tactics that was still being taught at West Point, hence the dreadful battle casualties caused by the rifled cannon and the Springfield/Enfields both sides used on close formations of advancing infantry.(Take a look at my Antietam/Gettysburg dios on the dio thread where I have attempted to depict that type of carnage)
The first trench warfare
The first submarines
The first land-mines
The first concentration camps
The first machine-guns
The first iron-clad ships
The first dog-tags (the soldiers wrote their names on pieces of paper and pinned them on their sleeves before the battle, then the sutlers (provisionists) started making lead ones for the soldier to hang round his neck on string)
I could go on but hopefully you can see my fascination in it when aligned with WWI and WWII.

And as a fellow Brit we were da#n close getting involved ourselves, with the Union blockade of all the Southern ports stopping cotton being shipped to our mills in Lancashire the mill-workers were starving, no cotton. no wages. The British government was under enormous pressure to send the Royal Navy to lift the blockade. Lincoln's Emancipation Declaration put paid to that as we could not be seen to be siding with the Confederacy whose major economy was based on slavery.
Good talking Rob and hope you and your good lady are in the very best of health
Reb

 

[Rob]

Again i thank you Reb for a very interesting post.And it is fascinating (i know what you mean about the word!)to see the Historical firsts that started in the ACW and went on to be standard practice/weaponry in future Wars.As you say when you mention trench warfare you do tend to think of WW1 but few know that they were used in the ACW.

So can i ask a basic ACW question.I know to you guys this is probably day one stuff when studying the War but as a novice i'm still learning.Could Lee have gone on to win the War if he'd won at Gettysburg?.I understand that the South was outnumbered in men and that the North was outproducing the south in everything from food to weapons and everything in between.So with everything ranged against Lee would a victory on that day just have prolonged the War or could he have gone on to triumph?.

Thanks for the help guys.

Oh and best wishes to you and your good lady Reb

Cheers

Rob

 

[UKReb]

Again i thank you Reb for a very interesting post.And it is fascinating (i know what you mean about the word!)to see the Historical firsts that started in the ACW and went on to be standard practice/weaponry in future Wars.As you say when you mention trench warfare you do tend to think of WW1 but few know that they were used in the ACW.

So can i ask a basic ACW question.I know to you guys this is probably day one stuff when studying the War but as a novice i'm still learning.Could Lee have gone on to win the War if he'd won at Gettysburg?.I understand that the South was outnumbered in men and that the North was outproducing the south in everything from food to weapons and everything in between.So with everything ranged against Lee would a victory on that day just have prolonged the War or could he have gone on to triumph?.

Thanks for the help guys.

Oh and best wishes to you and your good lady Reb

Cheers

Rob

That's one hell of a good question that I have been asked many times (I teach this stuff twice a month at a military college and your question always gets a heated debate going)
In a word and others on the forum will disagree- NO- his army after 3 days of horrendous fighting and the massive casualties inflicted on his men they simply would not have had the strength to threaten either Philadelphia or Washington (which was the basic plan) Washington was extremely well defended with siege guns and infantry. And there was a whole Union Corps still marching towards Gettysburg that was never used. The war was not going well for the Confederacy in the western theatre and Vicksburg fell to Grant the next day 4th July, the whole idea for invading the North was to relieve the pressure in the West by threatening Washington.

However, if Lee instead of being forced to fight at Gettysburg had found a better defensive field and the Union army forced to attack him the whole game may have come out a whole lot different.

Rob unknowingly you've left me here with both flanks exposed as some other froggers will now crucify me for stating it wrongly. But that's what I believe!
Reb.

 

[Rob]

Thanks Reb.I wondered if although Lee was a brilliant general he was facing huge odds and perhaps his skill as a Miltary leader was simply not enough at that stage in the War.(as with the Germans in WW2).I guess you might get some flak now (sorry about that!)but i think your answer is the right one in my opinion and i appreciate you taking the time to explain it for me.

Cheers

Rob

 

[tdubel]

Unfortunately, win lose or draw at Gettysburg, Lee and the South were doomed to lose. IMO, just too little men, too little supplies and time was fleeting as they say. BUT, they still were the best leaders and generals as a whole and that is probably the reason they whipped the North for 2 years in Battle and even made it to Gettysburg. Stuart was egotistical, but he was a wizard at his craft.

Now, if you really want to study a general, look up Forrest, not military training, but **** good sense. He was quite a character. He took a bad rap later in life as the founder of the KKK, but unfortunately, what out politically correct BS history books don't tell you is that originally, the KKK was started as a underground movement to disrupt Northern reconstruction, NOT RACIAL at all. Forrest tried to disband the clan when he discovered that others were acting unscrupulous and violent.

Not to get into this here, but you really have to search and find NON PC history books nowadays about the War Between the States. Our country has somehow forgot most of its history, I know my son will certainly not learn the Civil War the way it was taught to me in school, ya know, we can't offend anybody over here even it it happened 150 years ago. Sorry for the rant, but being a student of this, I can't stand what is going on today. AND for the record, I have relatives who fought on both sides of the war, Calvary on the South and if my research is correct, they fell under Stuart's command and Infantry for the North. out of 5 that I found, 1 killed at Yellow Tavern, rest lived. I just put this in there to indicate that I really don't have a bias, its just the Southern battles and genrals are **** more interesting to read about!!

Great thread, I only wish I knew more.

TD

 

[Harrytheheid]

Unfortunately, win lose or draw at Gettysburg, Lee and the South were doomed to lose. IMO, just too little men, too little supplies and time was fleeting as they say. BUT, they still were the best leaders and generals as a whole and that is probably the reason they whipped the North for 2 years in Battle and even made it to Gettysburg. Stuart was egotistical, but he was a wizard at his craft.

Now, if you really want to study a general, look up Forrest, not military training, but **** good sense. He was quite a character. He took a bad rap later in life as the founder of the KKK, but unfortunately, what out politically correct BS history books don't tell you is that originally, the KKK was started as a underground movement to disrupt Northern reconstruction, NOT RACIAL at all. Forrest tried to disband the clan when he discovered that others were acting unscrupulous and violent.

Not to get into this here, but you really have to search and find NON PC history books nowadays about the War Between the States. Our country has somehow forgot most of its history, I know my son will certainly not learn the Civil War the way it was taught to me in school, ya know, we can't offend anybody over here even it it happened 150 years ago. Sorry for the rant, but being a student of this, I can't stand what is going on today. AND for the record, I have relatives who fought on both sides of the war, Calvary on the South and if my research is correct, they fell under Stuart's command and Infantry for the North. out of 5 that I found, 1 killed at Yellow Tavern, rest lived. I just put this in there to indicate that I really don't have a bias, its just the Southern battles and genrals are **** more interesting to read about!!

Great thread, I only wish I knew more.

TD

TD,
Great post. Although I don't know too much about the ACW, I do completely agree with your comments regarding the EVILS of the PC that permeats society. Of course no minority group of any kind ought to be targeted in any way.....but society has swung so far in the other direction that ordinary people are scared to say anything for fear that people who take a delight in wanting to be offended will do so. What's wrong with treating people as people, rather than constantly having to weigh up what you say because of race, religion, male/female/in-between, fat/thin, short/tall, and so on, ad nauseum.
There, that's my rant for tonight.
Cheers
H

 

[tdubel]

Harry,

Exactly! Thanks for summarizing my rant.

Also, I wish I could edit my post as I seem to have made a few spelling errors during my "torrent of typing"!!

Editor please????

Tom

 

[Harrytheheid]

Harry,

Exactly! Thanks for summarizing my rant.

Also, I wish I could edit my post as I seem to have made a few spelling errors during my "torrent of typing"!!

Editor please????

Tom

Och Tom,
If I remember to do it, I usually hit the "ABC" icon in the top right-hand corner of the reply window. It means that I've managed to convince sum peeple that aahm edjukated....
Cheers
H

 

[Robert E. Lee]

Well Bobby Lee has stoped wallowing in accolades and is determined to join this conversation.

I thought Rob's question was very intresting because I often get in fights at wargaming meetings because of it. The reason the battle of Gettysburg was fought was because General Pettigrew believed that there was a large supply of shoes in Gettysburg which his soldiers desperatly needed. If Henry Heth had not violated Lee's order to avoid a general engagement than Lee would be able to continue his invasion and pick ground of his choosing to fight the Army of the Potomic. If he could decisively destroy Meade's army with minimal losses of his own than all the large, srategicly important citys of the North East would be ripe for the picking. If this scenario did take place than all the manpower and industrial might of the north would count for nothing. Combined with the mass hysteria that would result in this situation and the threat to Washington D.C. The North would have no choice but to sue for peace.

Just my humble opinion,
Michael