Battle of Gettysburg

[mkloby]

Thanks as I said I find your Civil war very interesting. One question I do have. Most battles elsewhere had the same name etc Why at stages were battles known as different names in the Civil War. You have for example Bull Run battles yet it was known as Mannassas Junction as well. Or Sharpsburg is another example. I have never been really clear on that issue.

Unfortunately Renrich I have to plead as being a neutral observer much like British Army Officers were at Gettysburg.

I have to admit though Southern Commanders had exceptional talent in battle. For example Robert E Lee and it seems to me he had the exceptional ability to gather around him good officers of the calibre of Longstreet and Ewell for examples but not only that he was admired by his own troops as a Commander. Totally different from example like McCelland who was self absorbed and Burnside etc. Lee had the ability no question about it that was lacking in some Northern Commanders greatly. Until such a time when Grant and Sherman came to the fore and it changed dramatically in another direction for the North

Manassas is the nearby town, Bull Run was a nearby river.

You could talk about Lee's brilliance all day long, but he still ordered a charge against the Yank center. Of course it was smashed and the rebel offensive was over. Perhaps this whole excursion into the North was the south's only shot at a successful outcome to the war. As sys brought up, they hadn't an icicle's chance in hell of emerging victorious in a prolonged struggle due to their piss poor industry and infrastructure... not to mention lack of a notable navy.

 

[Emac44]

Manassas is the nearby town, Bull Run was a nearby river.

You could talk about Lee's brilliance all day long, but he still ordered a charge against the Yank center. Of course it was smashed and the rebel offensive was over. Perhaps this whole excursion into the North was the south's only shot at a successful outcome to the war. As sys brought up, they hadn't an icicle's chance in hell of emerging victorious in a prolonged struggle due to their piss poor industry and infrastructure... not to mention lack of a notable navy.

Of course Mkloby. And the logistics of such a campaign would doom any army to failure at the time. I know Lee was not always in favour with the Southern Govt or people as his nickname became Granny Lee at one time for being over cautious in some opinions of the day. But ordering the charge by Pickett was a complete disaster of the worse kind in charging a defensive position over 2 miles in open country with cannon and rifle looking down the throat of advancing troops exposed to withering fire used by the Union Army at Gettysburg and a strong defensive position the Union had at Gettysburg. And Stuart off galvanting around the country side and forgetting his Cavalary in enemy territory was the Eyes and Ears of the Army of the South and I am looking at this as an outsider. But definitely applying modern order of battle tactics today one would never be out of touch with your own recon forces as Lee had to endure. But that isn't excusing him one bit Mkloby of course. I feel Lee made a drastic mistake in allowing his opponets to choose the battle ground either by bad management or mistake he had never done before previously. And one mistake only Lee is accountable for in my opinion allowing the enemy to occupy Little Round Top and giving time to fortify the position for up to 4 hours. By refusing Longstreet the opportunity to occupy Little Round Top when no one was on it. Threw away a strategic advantage that defies logic. That would have comprimised Meades Flank and positions of Meades Army. I can not understand why Lee did not pursue this blatant ideal position. I suppose no one else can either

As for an adequate Navy to combat Scotts Anaconda Blockade of Southern Ports and Harbours that in my opinion only signified the lack of fore sight by the Southern Govt and guarantteed failure by the Confedarcy. One has to have control over ones own ports and harbours to bring in supplies and much needed goods for ones Military and Civilian Commerce to equip such an Army of the South. Seems many lessons from the Napoleonic War was forgotten by the South by sheer ignorance or maybe arrogance of some. As for the manufacturing aspect of the South was appalling. For example one Iron Works like Tredgar Foundary couldn't possibley equip the whole of the Confedarcy needs for arms and cannon. Not when it came to an industrial complexes like the North had in comparison that had over abundance of arms and cannon to spare. I have read many quotes from Southerners of the time prior to your Civil War that one Southerner could whip 10 Yankees etc. That by any means is bravado bordering on ignorance and such. but Bravado doesn't win wars. Men Equipment Provisions Supply and a myrid of other things do win battles not self indulged idealistic beliefs of ones own capabilities etc.

One could even say the difference in Southern Cavalry compared to Northern Cavalary was different as for example early in the war when Stuart used his Cavalary to encircle and capture Union supplies etc was a spectacular feat. But later the Union Cavalary soon learnt to adapt and became the equal of the Southern Cavalary if not more so later in the war. Once again Mkloby this is just my opinion as an outsider looking in. I am sorry Renrich but I have to call it as I see it historically speaking of course. But the benefit of being a neutral observer is this I can be devils advocate and equally score against both sides of the Civil War Scenerio in this debate. for example the North had the logistics they had the manufacturing they had the equipment and they definitely had the edge on man power. Yet the Army of the Potomac had a series of piss poor Commanders And unfortunately an army needs effective command just as much as they need everything else to make an effective army. Until Grant emerged and changed that to a greater degree Mkloby. I hope you see I am trying to be fair for the sake of the debate gentlemen

 

[mkloby]

I agree with just about everything that you said, Emac. The southern insurrection was doomed from the first shots at Fort Sumter. I'm guessing here that the Confederate gov't mentality was similar to that of the Japanese gov't in WWII (well some of the sane ones, such as Yamamoto). Namely, acknowledging a sharp inferiority in terms of US manpower and materiel, yet the strategy was to inflict such losses on Uncle Sam that the US gov't would sue for peace, settling for terms allowing them to maintain most, if not all, of the territory seized.

 

[syscom3]

MK, there were more than a few southerners who thought that one southern soldier could whip ten yankee's (and vice versa).

Emac, a bit of background for you on why the Northen generals in east were so bad and the ones in the west were so good.

In the prewar years, the best "fighting" generals that were sympathetic to the north were the ones who usually disdained politics and beuracracy. They ended up honing their war skills on the frontier where they settled prior to the outbreak hostilities. They were kept out there by command. The political ones ended up with commissions and remained near Washington and were more suited to fighting the political battles (or were well versed in engineering and logistics) rather than leading troops into battle.

End result was the fighting generals were in the west, and the political generals were in the east.

 

[mkloby]

MK, there were more than a few southerners who thought that one southern soldier could whip ten yankee's (and vice versa).

I'm a little unsure of where you are going with that one? Emac made a comment about reading items stating such. I think perhaps it was the southern way of life that made southerners more "natural" soldiers. I've noticed that to be true in my career. Activities such as shooting, land navigation, tracking, and general "outdoorsmanship" are often already familiar to them, whereas us guys from the northeast are getting our cherries popped with many of these same things.

Pride aside, I do not believe that any rational mind could think that the south had much of a fighting chance of securing it's independence. I really think the only chance of success was in the instance that I stated above, unless God answered their prayers and the British joined the fray.

 

[Emac44]

Or the Confedarcy was recognised Internationally in part as a new Nation Mk. Yes it may have been that very thing Mk that Southerners were more accustomed to the out door life then their Northern counterpart. And Sys I do recognised what you said but bare in mind quiet a few Southern Officers were in the same frontier regions as well as their Northern Officer bretheren. But I think Southern Officers had more of the common touch in commanding troops as well more accessable to the men they commanded which Northern Officers who had been in the west with their Southern Brother Officers had as well. Definitely different to the Political appointed officers who had all the personality traits of a dead fish who were more likely to think only of themselves their careers and who and which political hack to endorse etc. I would definitely say Sys those Officers who had served in the west either from the North or the South had a rapport with their men whom they commanded which in battle is very important. Build up of trust between the ranks. It works for Australian Military very much so even today Sys. You have Officers NCOs and Other Ranks etc, but a rapport between ranks exsists which makes Australian Soldiers unique in a way because we do not make it a class thing like the English use to do before WW1 and WW2

However that is getting of the point. those political appointed Officers were about as useful as a cold cup of tea and were more like British officers who had gained their Coloncey or generalship due to some one they knew or due to Family connections. Wellington had a whole series of those types of Officers. During Spainish Campaign he soon got rid of them. Some were good others you wouldn't put in charge of a latrine detail. they had no idea about soldiering as then wearing their uniform at some social gathering and that is the impression I have of those Northern Political Appointed Officers Sys and there were a whole cadre of them to select. But the South had its share of them too but they were side stepped not sure why possibley their ideas just didn't jell with other Southerners i suspect Sys who had some intelligence were it counted.

I remember reading about the Officer who was in charge of Northern Ordinance and Supply. At moment I can not recall his name who vetoed some brilliant ideas for weapons like the repeating rifle which he claimed wasted to much ammunition and the muskets the Army had were sufficient enough for the Army. But to be fair there were some really strange ideas put forward by some lunatic inventors at the time so any new invention was put in the same catergory by this Officer good bad or indifferent. North may have had good logistics at most times but North also had some real issues of war profiteering by individuals who dumped any piece of crap on the Army as well Sys that found its way onto the battle field. Any thing from uniforms to boots Sys poorly made and due to fall apart within a few days of issue and I remember reading some cast cannons had been poorly cast originally and were so badly made they were more dangerous to the gunners then the enemy. But the one Profiteer above all was General Butler who traded coffee and supplies for cotton and tobacco and other contraband with Southerners. A real financial trade exsisted with Butler and he wasn't above looting the odd home here and there earning the Nickname of Spoons Butler. Just because it was illegal didn't seem to deter Butler one bit Sys. Have to admit sys both sides had some real charactors come to the fore during your Civil War. Some were brilliant Officers and administrators had cofidence and the ability to command others on the other hand well lets say kindly of them you would not put them in charge of pigs let alone command in battle

 

[Emac44]

And I forgot one thing early in the Civil War about the Southern /Yankee whipping thing. Some Southerns decided to bring their personal body slave with them to serve in the Army etc. Sort of like the idea that some British Officers did similar thing during earlier Wars in European Wars bringing their man servant with them. Kind of laid the myth of Southern Superiority to the ridiculous extreme. Fortunately those who brought those slaves with them into Southern Encampments appeared to have disappeared. It makes for bizzare reading to imagine a Slave standing picket whilst the Master was having a snooze in the tent. But I suppose that is one of the bizzare elements of the slave debate at the time. But the one thing I have to mention was the Negro Regiments raised in the North. One in particular the 54th Negro Regiment performed well and was near wiped out attacking Fort Wagner near Charleston. Not only was the 54th had the added problem if captured men would be returned to slavery but White Officers would be hanged by the Southern Govt under Insurrection Laws pertaining to Negro Uprisings in the South. But the Men of the 54th had to endure racial prejudices from officialdon in the Union Army as well which in itself caused problems for the Men of the 54th. But here is the strange part the South tried to raise similar Negro Forces or had Negroes preparing fortifications for the Confedarate Army. some how I can't imagine that would have worked considering if the South had won by some miracle or the War came to a draw when either sided sued for peace that the Negroes in the South would have been totally infused about the idea of a Southern Victory or a Negoiated Peace if it meant they were to remain slaves even after Lincoln's Procolamtion on Slavery was announced. I am sorry if I have mentioned the issue of Slavery but it was part of your Civil War in certain aspects. Trouble was the North prided itself on in parts of being Anti Slave but in other parts it was just as rotten to the core with its own prejudices as the South was in parts. Yet many a Southerner never even considered owning a slave or thought Slavery was doomed eventually any way. One of those qualities of both sides in the Civil War I find intriguing and very much interesting

 

[timshatz]

The South tended to name their battles after the town closest to the fight, the North named them after the water course closest.

As for the one southerner can whip 10 yankees thing, that one deserves space in the "the japanese can't fly because they were carried on their mother's backs as babies" or "the French will slaugther the Pumpernickels cause the Germans can't do anything but brew beer and wear leather pants" or "the Australians are uncouth drunks who will never be organized into a fighting force".

Those didn't pan out either.

 

[mkloby]

Emac - I think that even if they were recognized internationally as an independent state, it still wouldn't have done them any good initially. Union warships blockaded southern ports and prevented free trade. It would have been a political boon, but that in and of itself would not have prevented Billy Yank from overrunning the south. The whole of the mississippi was in federal hands by 1863, and the southern campaign in the west in general was a complete failure. The only area they ever acheived much success in was the eastern against the Army of the Potomac.

Southern pride and bravado was just not enough.

 

[renrich]

Actually the men in the 54th were practically all free men from up north. Almost none were ex-slaves contrary to the movie, "Glory" which otherwise was an excellent and seemingly authentic movie. E-mac an earlier poster stated the the South tended to name battles after the closest town whereas the North named them after the closest sizable watercourse unless there was not one and then they used the name of the closest town as in Chancellorsville. Actually at Gettysburg Lee asked Longstreet to attack the second day as soon as practicable but Longstreet dallied until late in the day. Hood particularly wanted to swing around to the right and take Meade in the flank. Hood had sent two Texans to scout around the Union left flank and found that to the right of Big Round Top the union flank was open. Longstreet did not want to attack at all but rather to take the whole army, disengage and place it athwart the Union army's route back to Washington and force them to attack where the Confederates had chosen the ground. Longstreet told Hood that Lee had ordered the attack up the Emmitsburg Road (which he mistakenly thought would carry around the Union left flank) and furthermore it was too late to try to get around Big Round Top.

 

[renrich]

Unfortunately for the South, because of the late start for the attack, just as Hood was smashing Sickle's left flank and overrunning the Devil's Den, General Warren, the Army of the Potomac's chief engineer found the Little Round Top with only a signal unit present and he ordered two V Corps brigades and a battery onto it's summit. They got there just before Hood's men did. Actually Hood went down early in the attack. A shell fragment struck his left arm and shattered it from bicep to wrist so his division was leaderless the rest of the day.

 

[Emac44]

Actually the men in the 54th were practically all free men from up north. Almost none were ex-slaves contrary to the movie, "Glory" which otherwise was an excellent and seemingly authentic movie. E-mac an earlier poster stated the the South tended to name battles after the closest town whereas the North named them after the closest sizable watercourse unless there was not one and then they used the name of the closest town as in Chancellorsville. Actually at Gettysburg Lee asked Longstreet to attack the second day as soon as practicable but Longstreet dallied until late in the day. Hood particularly wanted to swing around to the right and take Meade in the flank. Hood had sent two Texans to scout around the Union left flank and found that to the right of Big Round Top the union flank was open. Longstreet did not want to attack at all but rather to take the whole army, disengage and place it athwart the Union army's route back to Washington and force them to attack where the Confederates had chosen the ground. Longstreet told Hood that Lee had ordered the attack up the Emmitsburg Road (which he mistakenly thought would carry around the Union left flank) and furthermore it was too late to try to get around Big Round Top.

I do realise that Renrich about Men of the 54th being mostly free born but not all were. However laws in the South came out that kind of put all Negroes Free or Former Slave were to be treated the same if captured under arms and the Officers were to be hanged etc. The significance for me came about with the South trying inducted Negroes as ancilliary units into the Southern Army which I find a bit strange to say the very least but that is getting off the point of Gettysburg

 

[Emac44]

Unfortunately for the South, because of the late start for the attack, just as Hood was smashing Sickle's left flank and overrunning the Devil's Den, General Warren, the Army of the Potomac's chief engineer found the Little Round Top with only a signal unit present and he ordered two V Corps brigades and a battery onto it's summit. They got there just before Hood's men did. Actually Hood went down early in the attack. A shell fragment struck his left arm and shattered it from bicep to wrist so his division was leaderless the rest of the day.

However Longstreet as you claim failed to set any men onto Little Round Top and Hood unfortunately was too late . Which ever way you cut it Renrich was a fundaemental error that costs men their lives that could be ill afforded to be lost by the Confedearcy and Picket's charge was sheer lunacy against a well defended postion. But some how I feel Lee in all of this was like a dog with a bone. He could not tear himself away from the battle at Gettysburg and wanted to savour more success but with each passing moment it aluded him. He alone has to bare resonsibilty for such a failure Renrich which I feel it haunted him until the end of the war. Much like Picket who lost his divisions charging the Union Positions it effected Picket dramatically and emotionally and I dare say Lee had similar effects upon his personality. Meade on the other hand who was by far inferior to Lee had at least been given an opportunity presented to him by Lee. Either by Lee under estimating the situation or failure in communication of command at the worse possible time or by chance Meade had at least some commanding officers who siezed this opportunity at Gettysburg. But Lee for all intents and purposes out of character made mistakes Renrich by virtue of allowing the enemy to choose the ground and giving the enemy time to fortify such ground. Little Round Top being a classical error on Lee's part and failure to see it as such. Lee and his commanders though Renrich didn't make errors that greatly at other battles but they did at Gettysburg. I believe Gettysburg just proved one thing Renrich. Lee was human after all and not the Marble Man nickname he got at West Point. However I think Meade after Gettysburg may have been more aggressive as Lincoln wanted him to be in harassing Lee's Army after the battle. But I suppose in Meade's defence Army of the Potomac was in no better shape to pursue Lee after the battle then Lee's Army

 

[timshatz]

I think it might be a bit of a distraction to consider this attack or that hill when dealing with the American Civil War. While an arguement can be made that such and such a hill being taken would've won the battle for the South/North, it misses the point that the war was a conflict of the Industrial Age fought with Napoleonic tactics. As noted, very few (if any, maybe Vicksburg, Fort Donelson or Nashville later in the war) battles resulted in one side or the other being wiped out. Beaten yes, but rarely destroyed.

As long as the Industrial/Economic base of either side was intact, the war would go on. Only when there weren't enough bodies to put in the units, when the railroads (on either side) could no longer supply the armies and when the factories were destroyed would the war end. That is what happened when Sherman Marched to Atlanta.

The war started as one of fluid action and tactics and ended up being a war of attrition. In that, it was a foretaste of the First World War.

 

[syscom3]

Part of this "what if" scenario is what would have happened in the day or two after a hypothetical canfederate assault on any one of three different Union positions.

Just because the Confederates took a position didn't mean they could hold it or exploit the situation.

The superior Union logistics was going to be felt and a withdrawal of Union forces to other defensible positions was a certeinty, and Lee had to have the forces and firepower to dislodge them.

 

[renrich]

Off of the Gettysburg subject but even Nathan Bedford Forrest at Fort Pillow offered the Union commander the opportunity to surrender before the fort was taken by storm with the surety that all of the Union troops including the black troops of which about half the garrison was comprised, would be given full rights as POWs. However the Confederate government did take the position that any runaway slaves that were captured in a blue uniform would be returned to their "owners." Quite a number of the South's officers were in sympathy with the plight of the slaves, including Lee and Jackson. And obviously very few of the EM in the South's armies owned slaves since only about 10 per cent of the South's families were slave owners.

 

[Emac44]

Off of the Gettysburg subject but even Nathan Bedford Forrest at Fort Pillow offered the Union commander the opportunity to surrender before the fort was taken by storm with the surety that all of the Union troops including the black troops of which about half the garrison was comprised, would be given full rights as POWs. However the Confederate government did take the position that any runaway slaves that were captured in a blue uniform would be returned to their "owners." Quite a number of the South's officers were in sympathy with the plight of the slaves, including Lee and Jackson. And obviously very few of the EM in the South's armies owned slaves since only about 10 per cent of the South's families were slave owners.

I can agree to that Renrich but the laws exsisted in the South about so called Runaway Slaves etc. Would all have had sympathy towards Negroes caught in Union Blue as Bedford had shown at Ft Pillow? Or taken the time to find out which Negro was free born or former slave who was in Union Blue?. Because I have read Renrich that War Crimes against Negro Soldiers did occur during your Civil War committed by Southerners. I know about the riots in New York due to the Draft and Negroes were hanged by rioters etc. I am sure with Sherman's Bummers War Crimes were committed by them too on Civilians. Don't worry I consider that a Crime too Renrich. you may observe at times Renrich I try and be fair or condemn either side as a devil's advocate in this debate.

 

[plan_D]

This is all very interesting and it's been a pleasure to read.

I have to say though that I am surprised you have all missed the most important aspects of war at that time, politics.

After driving the Army of the Potomac back from Richmond in the Seven Days Battles (June 25 - July 1), Lee found confidence to drive into the Union at Cedar Mountain (August 9), Second Manassas (August 29 - 30), and Chantilly (September 1). These losses sent a shiver down the Congress spine and Democrats were calling on Lincoln to seek an armistice and peace negociations.

These Confederate victories in North Virginia were replicated in Tennessee, as the eastern half of the state was recaptured, Kentucky was taken and the capital Frankfort was captured. As the Northern morale began to collapse peace talks seemed more and more favourable. Lee saw this and invaded Maryland with his exhausted army.

What was more important here was the politics across the Atlantic. If the Confederates had won at Gettysburg; Great Britain and France would have stepped in. Some British polticians already wanted to recognise the CSA as a new nation, only the Prime Minister Palmerston and Foreign Minister Lord Russell advised caution. Even so, both Palmerston and Lord Russell accepted that another Confederate victory would lead Great Britain and France to propose a mediation on the basis of Confederate independance. If the Union refused Palmerston and Napoleon III were ready to recognise the CSA and defend its independace against the Union.
The reason for this is simple; cotton. The Union blockade, as poor as it was stopping British blockade runners (18% in total), lowered the cotton trade to an unacceptable level for Europe. The French and British were all ready for stopping this and all they needed was one more Confederate victory.

If Gettysburg was won by the Confederates; the Royal Navy would have smashed the blockade to pieces. European supplies would have poured into the Southern States; the old railway of the South would have been improved; and thousands upon thousands of well-trained soldiers would have moved in. On top of that, all European supply of arms to the Union would have been halted. The U.S.A would have been split in two.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Test...

 

[syscom3]

PLan_D, the Emancipation Proclimation in 1862 made it impossible for the English to intervene. As long as the war was politically defined as a war against slavery, then the UK was going to stay on the sidelines. Maybe the French, but thats expected from a country of no morals.

As for smashing the blockade? Not in 1863 with the increasing number of monitors being able to sink wooden hulled merchant ships at will.

I dont see any scenario where Gen Lee could have exploited a victory at Gettysburg. One way or another it was going to be a bloodbath for both sides, and Lee simply didnt have the logistics or manpower to exploit a potential victory.

If there was one change in the Army of the Potomac in 1863 as opposed to 1862, it was now an army that was going to fight. If things were going to go bad at Gettysburg, Meade would have moved his forces around to new defensive positions. And as is true for any army of any nation ...."desperate times bring soldiers to fight in desperation". The Union forces were simply going to extract a lot of blood and material from Lee.

And then again, Gen Grant was completely unstoppable in the West. A Union loss at Gettysburg would just mean Grant would have been given command sooner than later.