- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: July 3, 1863 - "In the center they will break..."
Posted on 7/3/26 at 6:22 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 7/3/26 at 6:22 pm to RollTide1987
I believe a defensive strategy to bleed the north out while empowering raids and guerrilla tactics behind union lines was the only viable path for the South.
There’s nothing to admire about Lees strategy in the Gettysburg campaign and it’s kind of unforgivable unless you think he saw Vicksburg about to fall and just wanted to take one final swing for the fences regardless of the odds.
He intentionally decentralized his army while having virtually no intel on the enemy and managed to put his troops in the worst possible position at nearly every turn.
Lee was brilliant, but this campaign was either an overconfident or desperate gambit.
There’s nothing to admire about Lees strategy in the Gettysburg campaign and it’s kind of unforgivable unless you think he saw Vicksburg about to fall and just wanted to take one final swing for the fences regardless of the odds.
He intentionally decentralized his army while having virtually no intel on the enemy and managed to put his troops in the worst possible position at nearly every turn.
Lee was brilliant, but this campaign was either an overconfident or desperate gambit.
0
Posted on 7/3/26 at 6:29 pm to Penrod
You mean they didn’t have slavery in the north at the time? I seem to remember differently. Even after the emancipation proclamation they had slavery in the north.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 6:30 pm to RollTide1987
You are speaking from a perspective and stand point that Gen Lee had complete mastery and knowledge of the situation before him.
I don't know why we should assume that. Lee had already demonstrated every day for the last week that the situation had evolved to a point in which he no longer had any control over the outcome.
Day 1: Lee hesitant and cautious. No decisive result possible.
Day 2: All attacks totally uncoordinated. Lee admitted this. Attack on Culp's Hill, an impregnable defensive position, totally uncoordinated with Longstreet. Complete failure.
Day 3: In the morning, yet another vigorous FRONTAL attack on Culp's Hill, an impregnable defensive position. Complete failure again. In the Afternoon, what's left? Just throw 15.000 against the Union center, a position totaling about 50,000 enemy troops waiting and using interior lines, well supported by artillery.
It's enough to make us wonder: Was Lee in control of the situation at all during the whole Gettysburg Campaign, and, if so, exactly WHEN?
I don't know why we should assume that. Lee had already demonstrated every day for the last week that the situation had evolved to a point in which he no longer had any control over the outcome.
Day 1: Lee hesitant and cautious. No decisive result possible.
Day 2: All attacks totally uncoordinated. Lee admitted this. Attack on Culp's Hill, an impregnable defensive position, totally uncoordinated with Longstreet. Complete failure.
Day 3: In the morning, yet another vigorous FRONTAL attack on Culp's Hill, an impregnable defensive position. Complete failure again. In the Afternoon, what's left? Just throw 15.000 against the Union center, a position totaling about 50,000 enemy troops waiting and using interior lines, well supported by artillery.
It's enough to make us wonder: Was Lee in control of the situation at all during the whole Gettysburg Campaign, and, if so, exactly WHEN?
Posted on 7/3/26 at 6:32 pm to Salviati
If you switched Lee and Grant the war would have been over in less than a year. The fact that it took the north 4 years to defeat the south is because of Lee. If Lee had the same number of men, supplies, he would have moped the floor with Grant.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 6:47 pm to RobertFootball
quote:
You mean they didn’t have slavery in the north at the time? I seem to remember differently. Even after the emancipation proclamation they had slavery in the north.
I didn’t mean that, but slavery had been virtually abolished in the north. New Jersey was the one exception with a handful of slaves remaining.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 6:54 pm to RobertFootball
quote:Hmmm . . . interesting take.
If you switched Lee and Grant the war would have been over in less than a year.
Lee had three years to win the Civil War. He failed.
On March 9, 1864, Grant was put in charge.
On April 9, 1865, about one year later, Lee surrendered to Grant.
Lee only had to worry about the ANV. Grant was responsible for orchestrating a nationwide strategy in Tennessee, Georgia, the Carolinas, the Shenandoah Valley, Mississippi, and the Gulf Coast.
You want to try that again?
Posted on 7/3/26 at 6:59 pm to Salviati
Nope because I’m right. It’s easy to win a war when your army is 3-1 larger and you have endless supplies and factories that aren’t blockaded and or destroyed from war. Grant was given command when the war was all but going downhill for the South, Lee had a shell of an army compared to what he started with and even then it was outnumbered. Grant wouldn’t walk in Lees boots on his best day.
Posted on 7/3/26 at 7:13 pm to RobertFootball
quote:At the beginning of the Overland Campaign, Lee had 75,000 and Meade had 120,000. That's not 3:1; that's not even 2:1. And Lee got to play defense. Grant had to attack.
It’s easy to win a war when your army is 3-1 larger
quote:Why didn't Lee's genius help here? Why didn't Lee plan to prevent this from happening? Did Grant have anything to do with hampering the rebel war effort?
you have endless supplies and factories that aren’t blockaded and or destroyed from war
quote:On March 9, 1864, the war was all but going downhill for the South because Grant kicked arse in the west (Vicksburg), and Lee lost his arse in the east (Gettysburg). Grant >>> Lee
Grant was given command when the war was all but going downhill for the South
quote:And yet he could not win the war even when he was at full strength.
Lee had a shell of an army compared to what he started with and even then it was outnumbered.
quote:On Grant's best day, he was very gracious in letting Lee keep his boots and his dignity when Lee surrendered to Grant.
Grant wouldn’t walk in Lees boots on his best day.
This post was edited on 7/3/26 at 7:18 pm
Posted on 7/4/26 at 11:37 am to Salviati
Anniversary of the end of the Battle/Siege of Vicksburg.
Split the South in two and gave the Union full control of the Mississippi.
Grant was the best general in the Civil War.
Split the South in two and gave the Union full control of the Mississippi.
Grant was the best general in the Civil War.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News