OT: Battle of Gettysburg

[meyers7]

I just read that Hooker resigned first. Lincoln accepted and appointed Meade as the Commander of the Army of the Potomic.

Lincoln had trouble with most of his Commanders until he got to Grant. Which was very interesting in itself. Grant wasn't very good, at anything, before or after the Civil War. I guess right man, right job, right time.

 

[Icebear]

Dicussions like this make me miss OSouthbranch very much.

 

[pinotbear]

Lincoln had trouble with most of his Commanders until he got to Grant. Which was very interesting in itself. Grant wasn't very good, at anything, before or after the Civil War. I guess right man, right job, right time.

I have long felt that Grant understood something, or perhaps accepted something, that eluded most prior commanders: the north needed to run a war of attrition. Some commanders either deluded themselves about the size of the southern army facing them (McClellan, certainly), or exercized great caution in order to maintain supply lines, or a viable line of retreat. Since home-state politics played such a large role in creating units, and their command structure, politcal acumen occassionally trumped military judgement.

Grant had a more realistic appraisal of southern strength, and he wasn't particularly interested in political posture. He accepted that casualties were going to happen, and, likely, be large. His classic reply to the reporter's question sums it up nicely. Essentially, when asked, after a taxing battle, when the Army of the Potomac was going to back off and regroup, Grant answered, "I propose to fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer." No matter how unpleasant the task, he wasn't going to back down, nor worry about how pretty things looked - he was going to fight, and keep fighting, exhausting his opponent.

 

[vtcwbuff]

I have long felt that Grant understood something, or perhaps accepted something, that eluded most prior commanders: the north needed to run a war of attrition. Some commanders either deluded themselves about the size of the southern army facing them (McClellan, certainly), or exercized great caution in order to maintain supply lines, or a viable line of retreat. Since home-state politics played such a large role in creating units, and their command structure, politcal acumen occassionally trumped military judgement.

Grant had a more realistic appraisal of southern strength, and he wasn't particularly interested in political posture. He accepted that casualties were going to happen, and, likely, be large. His classic reply to the reporter's question sums it up nicely. Essentially, when asked, after a taxing battle, when the Army of the Potomac was going to back off and regroup, Grant answered, "I propose to fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer." No matter how unpleasant the task, he wasn't going to back down, nor worry about how pretty things looked - he was going to fight, and keep fighting, exhausting his opponent.

Grant also had the ability to select General officers with the same abilities. His selection of Sherman and Sheridan are the most obvious.

 

[freescooter]

Many of our Southern friends call it "The War of Northern Aggression."

I call them traitors, which is what they would call someone who took up arms against the United States government...

I've always been fascinated with Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, commander of the 20th Maine who ordered the famous bayonet charge that turned the day on Little Round Top. They had been posted there on the assumption that they wouldn't see action because they were still largely untrained. The charge caught the Confederates by surprise, shock migh be a better term, and caused them to retreat in panic. Chamberlain went on to have a stellar career, including promotion to major General in the final months of the war. I twas he who was in command at the surrender of Lee's troops at Appomattox. He caused some degree of controversy for calling his men to attention and saluting the confederate troops as the marched in to surrender. Great New Englander and a great American.

Another intersting side note, among those killed on Culp's hill was a desendent of the family for whom the hill was named. he was fighting for the confederates and was killed in on eof the charges to take the hill.

 

[vtcwbuff]

I call them traitors, which is what they would call someone who took up arms against the United States government...

I've always been fascinated with Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, commander of the 20th Maine who ordered the famous bayonet charge that turned the day on Little Round Top. They had been posted there on the assumption that they wouldn't see action because they were still largely untrained. The charge caught the Confederates by surprise, shock migh be a better term, and caused them to retreat in panic. Chamberlain went on to have a stellar career, including promotion to major General in the final months of the war. I twas he who was in command at the surrender of Lee's troops at Appomattox. He caused some degree of controversy for calling his men to attention and saluting the confederate troops as the marched in to surrender. Great New Englander and a great American.

Another intersting side note, among those killed on Culp's hill was a desendent of the family for whom the hill was named. he was fighting for the confederates and was killed in on eof the charges to take the hill.

I would argue that the men who fought for the south were not traitors. They were fighting for their country, the Confederate States of America. Excepting the Virginians of course.

 

[johnnyc]

C-SPAN 3 coverage of the 150th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg. Brooks Simpson's talk is excellent.

http://www.c-span.org/History/The-Civil-War/

 

[ursusminor]

McClellan was an excellent organizer; he trained and supplied and generally took care of his troops as well as anybody could. He was also a pompous ass that far exceeds any sort of behavior I've ever seen here on the Boneyard . He definitely loved his men, possibly to the point where he refused to risk their lives. With a war on.
As a result, he preferred to believe that the Confederate forces were 2-3 times larger than they actually were. It gave him the excuse he needed to always retreat.

 

[jplotinus]

Yup. IF Jeb Stuart had not been out raiding Union supply trains and IF Gen. Lee had ORDERED Longstreet to proceed directly to secure Little Round Top rather than suggesting (which was his gentlemanly way) or IF Longstreet had been more amenable to following Lee's "suggestions" or IF Lee had taken his first day's losses and moved on or......history would have been much different. I visited the battlefield once, as part of a month-long tour of CW battle sites. Although I am not given to belief in spirits or vibes or suchlike, I will have to admit that just walking onto that hallowed ground raised the hair on the back of my neck. Pickett's charge has to go down with the charge of the Scots at Culloden and the Light Brigade's charge at Balaclava as one of the most gallant, totally misguided and disastrous single actions in the history of warfare.

The perspective thing casts some light on Lee's decision. I have always wondered how such an astute general could make such a totally insane-seeming blunder.

Blunder? It may be that Lee did the best he could with the cards dealt him. In particular, his cavalry, under Jeb Stuart, was missing and had not provided intel on Union army movements. Sometimes the best that can be done is to stand and fight. Had Lee retreated prior to the 3rd day, his army could have been broken. Once troops retreat, it's difficult to charge again, as retreat generates fear in the retreating side and courage in the side that stands pat.

Why on earth the south thought it could successfully invade the north is the more acute question IMHO. For that matter, why the south thout it could secede successfully in that era might be the one true blunder. The south could not win a war of attrition against the far richer north.

At present, the degree of cultural difference between the south and the northeast/west coast is so large and growing, it might be that now is a better time to consider secession. This time around, there might not be as much opposition if MS,AL,GA, SC,LA,TX,AR,NC,SC, TN were to up and split, as many in those states are calling for. North might try to hold on to VA and FL though. KY which split its allegiance last time around would probably fit better in the south. So maybe a trade of KY for, say, NC could be worked out.

Civil war is sad and tragic. But, the divide now is almost as deep and as wide as it was in 1860.

Just sayin'

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

Very interesting comments all, 3 points -

- To Kibitzer? who recommended Catton - yes, anything by Catton is literate, easy to read, and some of the best writing on the Civil War. He also did an individual volume on Gettysburg, late in life.
- Grant is often misunderstood. From what I have read, he really wasn't quite the "butcher" that folks want to make him out to be. But, as said above, he understood that the opponent was the army, not the territory, and if the pressure of northern numbers could be brought on the confederate army, a victory would be won.
- Regarding jplotinus' remarks about the invasion of the north and the war in general - I can't answer 100%, but I am well convinced by a presentation I heard that, ultimately, the south did NOT have to win the war in the same way as the North. The North needed total victory - put the South out of business, if you will. The South just needed to make the North give up on trying to reunite the country - make them war-weary if you will, and there are arguments that, at certain times, the South came quite close, actually including the period shortly before Lincoln's second election. Sherman's victories around Atlanta sealed that deal, however.

 

[Waquoit]

Why on earth the south thought it could successfully invade the north is the more acute question IMHO.

Seems to me it was just hubris. They believed their own press clippings so to speak. Once the North started fighting without one hand tied behind their back, it was over for the rebels.

 

[Waquoit]

I would argue that the men who fought for the south were not traitors. They were fighting for their country, the Confederate States of America. Excepting the Virginians of course.

Even the officers that attended West Point?

 

[jplotinus]

Very interesting comments all, 3 points -

- To Kibitzer? who recommended Catton - yes, anything by Catton is literate, easy to read, and some of the best writing on the Civil War. He also did an individual volume on Gettysburg, late in life.
- Grant is often misunderstood. From what I have read, he really wasn't quite the "butcher" that folks want to make him out to be. But, as said above, he understood that the opponent was the army, not the territory, and if the pressure of northern numbers could be brought on the confederate army, a victory would be won.
- Regarding jplotinus' remarks about the invasion of the north and the war in general - I can't answer 100%, but I am well convinced by a presentation I heard that, ultimately, the south did NOT have to win the war in the same way as the North. The North needed total victory - put the South out of business, if you will. The South just needed to make the North give up on trying to reunite the country - make them war-weary if you will, and there are arguments that, at certain times, the South came quite close, actually including the period shortly before Lincoln's second election. Sherman's victories around Atlanta sealed that deal, however.

Hi KnightBridge

Thanks for your comment and insight. I've also seen reference to the South's objective, defined as causing the North to give up, so to speak. And, had McClellan won the '64 election, it is possible, I suppose, that a slightly different outcome might have come about. But, by that year, the South had already lost the war as a practical matter because Gettysburg was the decisive turning point, after which there was no real chance of a South victory.

So, it is difficult to accredit a perspective that the South did not need the same kind if victory as the North. I would put it a little differently: The South had little chance of beating the North, to be sure. But the South did not have the ability to define the parameters of what the North would do or how the North would define its objectives. The South beeded a limited war, but the Nirth did not have to oblige the South!s needs in that respect.

In war, the adversary is rarely obliging.

That is the peril born of secession and of firing on Fort Sumpter.

What was true then of warring remains true today. The US, having committed itself to warring only against militarily hapless countries cannot be sure that countries with competent war capabilities will remain uninvolved indefinitely. Militarily competent countries may decide to be less obliging of the American need to use high tech weaponry against countries that have no ability to fight back in that way. A second peril is that the cost of military superiority may completely, rather than only mostly, bankrupt the US before the hapless 3rd Wirld countries give up.

All we are saying is give peace a chance.

 

[johnnyc]

It gave him the excuse he needed to always retreat.

Well not so much retreat but it gave him the excuse not to attack. Even a visit from the Commander in Chief would not move him. But even for all that and other poor Union leadership the Union may still have won the day at Antietam if not for some timely Confederate reinforcements. If I remember correctly from reading, McClellan still had enough fresh troops to follow up and press the issue but a lot of killing went on at Antietam and as others have alluded to McClellan just didn't have it in him. So one result I think was that Lee still didn't think much of Union leadership and was not dissuaded from thinking he could invade the north hence......Gettysburg.

 

[uconnfan68]

I would argue that the men who fought for the south were not traitors. They were fighting for their country, the Confederate States of America. Excepting the Virginians of course.

Except that they had to be traitors to this country to form the other country. And no, they haven't forgotten. They are waging war in their own way still today. Sucking every dollar and job and defense installation from the North to the South. Then they'll secede again.

 

[meyers7]

Except that they had to be traitors to this country to form the other country. And no, they haven't forgotten. They are waging war in their own way still today. Sucking every dollar and job and defense installation from the North to the South. Then they'll secede again.

I remember some of those slogans (bumper stickers) I used to see from our Southern friends.

"The South's Gonna Rise Again"

ummm, when? It's been like 150 years.

"The South's Gonna Do It Again"

Do what? Lose?

 

[vtcwbuff]

Except that they had to be traitors to this country to form the other country. And no, they haven't forgotten. They are waging war in their own way still today. Sucking every dollar and job and defense installation from the North to the South. Then they'll secede again.

The supporters of the south withdrew from the union, a move that was not prohibited by the constitution. Their reasoning was that in a federal republic the rights of individual member states trumped the laws and demands of a central government that they felt no longer represented their interests.

There is a reason why the economies of some southern states are becoming more and more powerful. If they are sucking industry and jobs away from the North, blame the North.

 

[freescooter]

Except that they had to be traitors to this country to form the other country. And no, they haven't forgotten. They are waging war in their own way still today. Sucking every dollar and job and defense installation from the North to the South. Then they'll secede again.

I agree. I get a kick out of all these anti-government "patriots" in places like South Carolina where the state gets more than $2.13 in federal benefits for every $1 it generates in taxes. Same with Mississippi. Pretty much every southern State except Texas and Virginia gets more money back in federal spending than it generates in taxes. And has for decades. Meanwhile such blue states as Connecticut (0.73), Massachusetts (0.83) New Jersey (0.77), Maryland (0.71) all subsidize our southern bretheren, then have to listen to them complain about it.New York essentially breaks even, getting back a buck in federal benefits for every one it generates in taxes.

 

[pinotbear]

Well not so much retreat but it gave him the excuse not to attack. Even a visit from the Commander in Chief would not move him. But even for all that and other poor Union leadership the Union may still have won the day at Antietam if not for some timely Confederate reinforcements. If I remember correctly from reading, McClellan still had enough fresh troops to follow up and press the issue but a lot of killing went on at Antietam and as others have alluded to McClellan just didn't have it in him. So one result I think was that Lee still didn't think much of Union leadership and was not dissuaded from thinking he could invade the north hence......Gettysburg.

As you say, McClellan did not fully commit at Antietam: fully a third of his troops never saw the battlefield that day. So, although he numerically had a 2-1 advantage, in terms of troops on the field, it was more 4-3, with the "3" holding good defensive position. But, as you also note, some of the Confederate numbers arrived on the field just in time to keep Lee's flank from being overrun - earlier in the day, it wasn't 2-1, or 4-3, but something like 3-1, and 2-1. McClellan had overwhelming numbers, even holding some reserves, if he had moved quickly. "McClellan" and "moved quickly" were rarely in the same sentence. If he were playing in today's Poker World Series, he'd be the guy hemming and hawing over every bet, then cautiously betting as little as possible - never "all in".

Ursusminor has done some re-enacting, and some years back, she & I went to the Harper's Ferry Christmas re-enactment. While she did her "bit", I wandered the town and the event. Afterwards, we drove up to Antietam for the annual battlefield Luminaria - really, really cool. They put up a luminaria for each of the 20,000+ casualties of the battle, and intersperse camping re-enactors throughout the grounds. I highly recommend it, should you have the chance. But, get there early - the line starts forming a couple of hours in advance, and goes about 2 miles long.

Getting back to Gettysburg and the invasion of the north. It's been my impression that, in addition to the reasons already noted, there were two other rational for the move into Pennsylvania. First, the months spent fighting in Virginia had taken a toll on crops, infrastructure, livestock, etc. The Army of Virginia struggled to find basic supplies there, on which to live and fight. Pennsylvania looked like a fat breadbasket to them. Second, the Confederacy was seeking formal recognition of its' existence from Britain, France, etc.., and the economic advantages that might arise should the Union blockade now be formally interfering with European nations trading with an officially-acknowledged nation. In short, if the CSA was a real entity in Britain's eyes, and the two nations had a trading relationship, then the Union blockade would run the risk of angering Britain, and perhaps English frigates would be called upon to enforce Her Majesty's trading rights.

Carrying the conflict onto northern soil, instead of constantly being on the defensive, would make it easier for the Confederacy's representatives in London & elsewhere to make the case for formal recognition. "See? We're carrying the war to them! See what they're newspapers are saying, about settling this, about suing for peace! This is gonna end soon, the North is losing its' resolve. Lincoln won't win re-election, and the new administration will work out a settlement. And, you know how much you love our cotton, and you know how much we love your manufactured goods, so, let's make this official, shall we?"

It helps to remember that it had only been about 50 years since British troops burned Washington, DC., and less than 90 since the revolution, Yorktown, etc. - there wasn't the warm "first among allies" relationship that has existed between our two nations for nearly 100 years now. The United States was still an upstart, crude, PITA reminder of one of the Empire's most embarrassing losses - and, Lincoln, that rube born in a log cabin, self-educated lawyer from frontier Illinois, almost epitomized the caricature that England had of their "American Cousins". Remember, Jeff Foxworthy still gets laughs about redneck jokes - to Great Britain, the Empire on which the sun never sets, with centuries of history, with the bluest bloodlines - our whole country, especially Lincoln, was a redneck joke. They had little reason to love the United States, and some interest in dividing it, and taking it down a peg. If the south succeeded in seceding, well, that might be a good thing in London.

 

[Waquoit]

Their reasoning was that in a federal republic the rights of individual member states trumped the laws and demands of a central government that they felt no longer represented their interests.

Their interests being a white supremacist society. Don't leave that part out, it's kinda important.

 

[Icebear]

Their interests being a white supremacist society. Don't leave that part out, it's kinda important.

And an unfettered will to impoverish their citizens.

 

[jplotinus]

As you say, McClellan did not fully commit at Antietam: fully a third of his troops never saw the battlefield that day. So, although he numerically had a 2-1 advantage, in terms of troops on the field, it was more 4-3, with the "3" holding good defensive position. But, as you also note, some of the Confederate numbers arrived on the field just in time to keep Lee's flank from being overrun - earlier in the day, it wasn't 2-1, or 4-3, but something like 3-1, and 2-1. McClellan had overwhelming numbers, even holding some reserves, if he had moved quickly. "McClellan" and "moved quickly" were rarely in the same sentence. If he were playing in today's Poker World Series, he'd be the guy hemming and hawing over every bet, then cautiously betting as little as possible - never "all in".

Ursusminor has done some re-enacting, and some years back, she & I went to the Harper's Ferry Christmas re-enactment. While she did her "bit", I wandered the town and the event. Afterwards, we drove up to Antietam for the annual battlefield Luminaria - really, really cool. They put up a luminaria for each of the 20,000+ casualties of the battle, and intersperse camping re-enactors throughout the grounds. I highly recommend it, should you have the chance. But, get there early - the line starts forming a couple of hours in advance, and goes about 2 miles long.

Getting back to Gettysburg and the invasion of the north. It's been my impression that, in addition to the reasons already noted, there were two other rational for the move into Pennsylvania. First, the months spent fighting in Virginia had taken a toll on crops, infrastructure, livestock, etc. The Army of Virginia struggled to find basic supplies there, on which to live and fight. Pennsylvania looked like a fat breadbasket to them. Second, the Confederacy was seeking formal recognition of its' existence from Britain, France, etc.., and the economic advantages that might arise should the Union blockade now be formally interfering with European nations trading with an officially-acknowledged nation. In short, if the CSA was a real entity in Britain's eyes, and the two nations had a trading relationship, then the Union blockade would run the risk of angering Britain, and perhaps English frigates would be called upon to enforce Her Majesty's trading rights.

Carrying the conflict onto northern soil, instead of constantly being on the defensive, would make it easier for the Confederacy's representatives in London & elsewhere to make the case for formal recognition. "See? We're carrying the war to them! See what they're newspapers are saying, about settling this, about suing for peace! This is gonna end soon, the North is losing its' resolve. Lincoln won't win re-election, and the new administration will work out a settlement. And, you know how much you love our cotton, and you know how much we love your manufactured goods, so, let's make this official, shall we?"

It helps to remember that it had only been about 50 years since British troops burned Washington, DC., and less than 90 since the revolution, Yorktown, etc. - there wasn't the warm "first among allies" relationship that has existed between our two nations for nearly 100 years now. The United States was still an upstart, crude, PITA reminder of one of the Empire's most embarrassing losses - and, Lincoln, that rube born in a log cabin, self-educated lawyer from frontier Illinois, almost epitomized the caricature that England had of their "American Cousins". Remember, Jeff Foxworthy still gets laughs about redneck jokes - to Great Britain, the Empire on which the sun never sets, with centuries of history, with the bluest bloodlines - our whole country, especially Lincoln, was a redneck joke. They had little reason to love the United States, and some interest in dividing it, and taking it down a peg. If the south succeeded in seceding, well, that might be a good thing in London.

Yes, the South had hoped that its calculus that the North would give up and that UK and France would aid its cause by contesting the blockade was correct. But, the chances of either part of that calculus being correct was negligible. Further, and in any event, the South was dependent upon decisions, respectively, of its adversary and of those who were neutral (in favor of the North, and not neutral in favor of the South - slavery-) for any chance of winning.

Put differently, the South was doomed from the outset. Warring when the odds are not favorable usually ends badly.

 

[geordi]

The supporters of the south withdrew from the union, a move that was not prohibited by the constitution. Their reasoning was that in a federal republic the rights of individual member states trumped the laws and demands of a central government that they felt no longer represented their interests.

There is a reason why the economies of some southern states are becoming more and more powerful. If they are sucking industry and jobs away from the North, blame the North.

Sorta like conference realignment.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I agree. I get a kick out of all these anti-government "patriots" in places like South Carolina where the state gets more than $2.13 in federal benefits for every $1 it generates in taxes. Same with Mississippi. Pretty much every southern State except Texas and Virginia gets more money back in federal spending than it generates in taxes. And has for decades. Meanwhile such blue states as Connecticut (0.73), Massachusetts (0.83) New Jersey (0.77), Maryland (0.71) all subsidize our southern bretheren, then have to listen to them complain about it.New York essentially breaks even, getting back a buck in federal benefits for every one it generates in taxes.

Uh, uh, uh. That's getting very close to "political," and that means the "we are apolitical" police will soon be calling for a move to the Cesspool as soon as the current takes even more of a left turn, since they never say boo about any comments that are red and right.

But while secess is still pooling here, I will add that the question about whether states have a right to secede has been fiercely debated by a number of legalists on both sides of the matter, some who say like the poster a couple of messages above that anything not expressly forbidden by the Constitution is legal, which seems a bit bizarre to me since the Constitution also does not forbid leaping into a volcano and eating asparagus and a lot of other things that shouldn't be done.

The constitutional document created "to form a more perfect union" also expressly forbids the states from entering into a "confederation," a word that sounds very much like Confederacy, but has been explained away by mealy mouthed secesionist apologists as not applying to the Southern states that unilaterally decided to leave the Union because they felt their rights to own slaves were in danger, and who therefore apparently have the right to pick up their shackles and go home to a new capital in Montgomery. That of course also spurred a bunch of western Virginia counties who disagreed with that notion to break off from Virginia. Apparently these same secessionists would state that George Wallace had the right to tell the National Guard to take a hike and have Alabama secede when Washington told him to end Jim Crow, because there are still no constitutional amendments banning any state from walking away from the government of the people founded on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that got its start 237 years ago tomorrow.

No, Lincoln did get it right.

 

[DobbsRover2]

The supporters of the south withdrew from the union, a move that was not prohibited by the constitution. Their reasoning was that in a federal republic the rights of individual member states trumped the laws and demands of a central government that they felt no longer represented their interests.

There is a reason why the economies of some southern states are becoming more and more powerful. If they are sucking industry and jobs away from the North, blame the North.

Yep, blame the North. That's always been the cry even 150 years after Gettysburg. Hear it from Knoxville occasionally.

And lets strip away the obfuscating euphemisms and say it as it was: "..... the right of individual member states to own slaves and repress human liberty trumped the laws and demands of a central government that they felt no longer represented their interests in holding slaves as property." But yeah, for secessionist apologists, your wording does sound nicer.