- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: We are now 162 years removed from the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg...
Posted on 7/1/25 at 5:57 pm to Missouri Waltz
Posted on 7/1/25 at 5:57 pm to Missouri Waltz
quote:
Have you ever read Lee's orders to Stuart verbatim? They were ambiguous and vague. So, was Stuart joy riding and seeking glory or did he follow those orders to a T? It is a fielder's choice.
I am aware of the fact that Lee's orders to Stuart were inadequate, and Lee is at fault for that.
0
Posted on 7/1/25 at 5:57 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Damn, that's good writing.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 6:00 pm to RollTide1987
Lee himself is at fault on this Stuart issue. His orders to Stuart were inadequate and seem to excuse Stuart from any responsibility to screen the main body or do recon for the main body.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 6:01 pm to RollTide1987
What was the purpose of this invasion? Looting? Scavenging? Raiding? Forcing the Union army to engage them?
Lee’s army was scattered. His cavalry was off and Lee didn’t know what they were doing. The Union reacted faster than Lee thought they would. He didn’t know, but it was his job to know.
It all seems like a poorly thought out venture. I realize the need for a big Southern win on Northern soil was great, but this venture similar to Antietam was a hot mess.
Lee’s army was scattered. His cavalry was off and Lee didn’t know what they were doing. The Union reacted faster than Lee thought they would. He didn’t know, but it was his job to know.
It all seems like a poorly thought out venture. I realize the need for a big Southern win on Northern soil was great, but this venture similar to Antietam was a hot mess.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 6:05 pm to doubleb
Losing Jackson was huge before Gettysburg.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 6:19 pm to doubleb
quote:
What was the purpose of this invasion? Looting? Scavenging? Raiding? Forcing the Union army to engage them?
It's been a while since I've read up on it, but I believe they were trying to take the battle to the north and relieve the land in the south while scavenging in the north for food. At least part of the reason.
This post was edited on 7/1/25 at 7:39 pm
Posted on 7/1/25 at 6:38 pm to doubleb
quote:
What was the purpose of this invasion? Looting? Scavenging? Raiding? Forcing the Union army to engage them?
Lee invaded the North for four main reasons:
1. He was trying to give the people of Virginia a break. Two years of war had turned the region of northern Virginia into a desolate wasteland. Farmers needed time to replant crops so they could have a healthy harvest.
2. The Army of Northern Virginia was starving and running low on supplies. Pennsylvania was lush in bounty and therefore a prime target for Lee and his Confederate army to refill their supplies of food, shoes, clothing, and other accoutrements of war.
3. Lee was trying to turn the northern public against the war effort. He read Northern newspapers and he sensed a growing dissatisfaction with the Lincoln administration and the public at large. If he were to invade the North and stay there a while, perhaps even occupy a state capital like Harrisburg in Pennsylvania or a major city like Baltimore in Maryland, he could give the peace faction in the Union the momentum it needed to force Lincoln to the negotiating table.
4. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Lee needed a victory on Union soil to really drive home point number three. If he could occupy a state capital, while also inflicting a decisive defeat on the Army of the Potomac, that might be enough to get Lincoln to finally allow the South to go and become its own independent nation.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 6:59 pm to RollTide1987
Yes, but how could he do all of that at one time and succeed?
Posted on 7/1/25 at 7:02 pm to doubleb
quote:
Yes, but how could he do all of that at one time and succeed?
Well as history bore out, he couldn't.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 7:10 pm to RollTide1987
So many what ifs.
What if Ewell had attacked?
What if JEB Stewart had not gone on a grand ride?
What if the shell fuses had not burned too slow and actually damaged the primary defense lines before Pickett's Charge?
What if Ewell had attacked?
What if JEB Stewart had not gone on a grand ride?
What if the shell fuses had not burned too slow and actually damaged the primary defense lines before Pickett's Charge?
Posted on 7/1/25 at 7:18 pm to shagnasty 2
quote:
Lee had bad diarrhea as well due to drinking tainted water.
Cholera and dysentery were rampant inside camps for both sides. Believe many more died from disease than were killed on the battlefield. Can you imagine? You make it through a gruesome battle like Shiloh unscathed just to slowly and painfully shite yourself to death in camp. Just a different breed of men back then to face that with the courage they did.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 7:19 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Well as history bore out, he couldn't.
But it seems to me given the circumstances and the various goals Lee was trying to do the impossible.
His biggest mistake was going into the North and trying to do too much.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 7:59 pm to doubleb
quote:
But it seems to me given the circumstances and the various goals Lee was trying to do the impossible.
His biggest mistake was going into the North and trying to do too much.
A lot of historians agree with you as well as some of his contemporaries. Longstreet and Secretary of War Seddon were initially both against an incursion into the North. They saw the Mississippi River, particularly lifting the seige against Vicksburg, as the #1 strategic goal of the Confederacy in the summer of 1863. However, Lee was insistent and somehow brought them both to his way of thinking. Longstreet claimed that it was Lee's promise to him that once battle had commenced in Pennsylvania, they would fight on the defensive. However, I'm skeptical of such a promise and Lee denied that he ever made one in one of his post-war letters.
Either way...the smarter move would have been to play defense in Virginia while focusing their efforts on saving the Mississippi River from total conquest.
This post was edited on 7/1/25 at 8:00 pm
Posted on 7/1/25 at 8:20 pm to RollTide1987
Our Louisiana Tigers were right there. Right flipping there. Ready to take the W. But the call was to hurry up and wait.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 8:35 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Either way...the smarter move would have been to play defense in Virginia while focusing their efforts on saving the Mississippi River from total conquest.
He vould have played D and used cavalry to raid and harass the north looting where he could.
I doubt the South could have held Va. and the Mississippi River do invading the North and winning a big battle might have done the trick. But Lee needed a better overall plan of where he was going and more important what the Yankees were doing.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 9:29 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Longstreet claimed that it was Lee's promise to him that once battle had commenced in Pennsylvania, they would fight on the defensive. However, I'm skeptical of such a promise and Lee denied that he ever made one in one of his post-war letters.
Coddington's book The Gettysburg Campaign says that the greater weight of the evidence indicates that there was no "promise" from Lee to fight a defensive campaign. There's no evidence that Longstreet asked Lee for any kind of promise like that in 1863.
Posted on 7/1/25 at 10:32 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Either way...the smarter move would have been to play defense in Virginia while focusing their efforts on saving the Mississippi River from total conquest.
I've been thinking about the 1863 campaign a lot lately and you certainly have a point. But, I do think that it was possible for Lee's vision for a decisive Eastern Campaign to be realized in 1863. A great victory in the East in 1863 might have caused the USA to sue for peace.
I do believe that it would have been possible for the Army of Northern Virginia to invade towards South Pennsylvania while bringing a force of militia and a few regular brigades to Fredericksburg or maybe even Manassas Junction. The Fredericksburg force would operate to compel the Union to garrison the Wash DC Fortress with more troops to the detriment of the Army of the Potomac.
Then, with an optimally-executed invasion towards South Penn, Lee is fully and promptly informed of Union movements and is able to concentrate the Army of Northern Virginia against one Corps of the Army of the Potomac and destroy it before the whole Union Army can intervene.
Lee almost accomplished this on July 1st, 1863, even without Stuart or any knowledge of the whereabouts of the Union Army. So, I think it could have been done.
The alternative strategy of taking the Army of Northern Virginia directly to attack Wash DC probably could not succeed while the Union Army of the Potomac was still out there in the field ready to lift any Siege that Lee might inflict on Fortress Wash DC. Washington DC was a strongly garrisoned fortress, and there was no way that Lee's Army could storm it and take it while the Union Army was out there in full force.
Focusing on the West and saving Vicksburg is a legit alternate strategy. I haven't thought much about that. I'm not sure how a Confederate repulse of Grant in the West would have resounded among the US citizens and politicians back East. Probably not much. On the other hand, if Lee could have whipped Meade and destroyed a good chunk of Meade's army, the USA's powers-that-be in the East might accept a peace settlement.
This post was edited on 7/1/25 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 7/1/25 at 11:45 pm to Purplehaze
quote:
Lee had Calvary with him….
But not Stuart, who was his most trusted Calvary Commander. It’s the primary reason he warned his subordinates to avoid a general engagement as troops began to mass on site, which we now know was only some dismounted Union Calvary that would have offered little to no resistance to Ewell if he could have gotten his troops on line quickly.
He had no idea what was in front of him.
This post was edited on 7/1/25 at 11:53 pm
Posted on 7/1/25 at 11:52 pm to RollTide1987
Even if Lee wins Gettysburg, doesn't solve his worst problem. Logistics. I joked about Rhett but it's true. Much more men and supplies to throw against South.
Just like Rome did to Hannibal
Just like Rome did to Hannibal
Posted on 7/1/25 at 11:56 pm to Champagne
quote:
Longstreet…
For me personally, as I’ve read more on Longstreet, I’ve come to believe that either he was a man to embellish the facts, or he simply couldn’t accurately recall much of what happened during the war.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News