Did Lee deliberately lose at Gettysburg?

[Alferd_Packer]

In honor of the sesquicentennial of the seminal strife of the Civil War, I present this theory.

Anyone who has ever stood at the Copse of Trees and looked down across the long sweep of the wheat fields to the distant tree line knows the utter futility of Pickets Charge.

How could anyone think that the the attackers would be able to march across that open ground, uphill, in the July heat and have the strength to fight a well entrenched defender?

Did Lee really forget the brutal lessons taught to the union army at Fredricksburg?

Or was he simply old and weary of war and looking for that last grand gesture?

 

[Spindrift]

In honor of the sesquicentennial of the seminal strife of the Civil War, I present this theory.

Anyone who has ever stood at the Copse of Trees and looked down across the long sweep of the wheat fields to the distant tree line knows the utter futility of Pickets Charge.

How could anyone think that the the attackers would be able to march across that open ground, uphill, in the July heat and have the strength to fight a well entrenched defender?

Did Lee really forget the brutal lessons taught to the union army at Fredricksburg?

Or was he simply old and weary of war and looking for that last grand gesture?

Some say it might have worked if everything went to plan. Lee's plan was to attack everywhere at once so the Union couldn't concentrate its superior numbers in one place. Didn't quite work out that way. Lee wanted Picket to start in the morning but he didn't get going until the afternoon. Some blame Longstreet more than Lee for the failure. Longstreet disagrees with that.

 

[R.A.F.]

In honor of the sesquicentennial of the seminal strife of the Civil War, I present this theory.

Is there evidence for this "theory"?


I ask because as presented this is little more than a rather typical "if I ran the railroad" type of "theory".

 

[Dcdrac]

Like most things like this Lee's plan failed simple as that

 

[Piscivore]

I have a hard time reconciling the man I have read about, a man even his enemies prasied for his honour and intelligence, with the kind of Zap Brannigan cartoon supervillain who sends hundreds of men to their deaths for nothing more than a "grand gesture".

 

[Craig4]

The South didn't lose Gettysburg, it was never their fight to win. The South got out fought by a more capable enemy.

 

[Horatius]

I have a hard time reconciling the man I have read about, a man even his enemies prasied for his honour and intelligence, with the kind of Zap Brannigan cartoon supervillain who sends hundreds of men to their deaths for nothing more than a "grand gesture".

So you're saying you're slavishly devoted to the "Official Story" (written by the winners, no less!)? Watch this youtube video, you sheeple, and then tell me this doesn't make any sense!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ShpKBNuZ2Q

 

[theprestige]

The South didn't lose Gettysburg, it was never their fight to win. The South got out fought by a more capable enemy.

I would say, "a more lucky enemy". The junior commanders first on the scene from the Union side made a good assessment and positioned their troops effectively early on, before the senior commander could arrive to chump it up.

Meade was certainly not more capable than Lee, but the Union position was strong, and the Confederate force was disorganized.

My guess is that Lee knew that if he tested the Union army strongly, it was likely to fail that test. If it failed, the war would be won, as Lee would have a clear road to Washington in front of him, and no Union army at his heels.

Given the stakes, I think he chose to accept the disorganized and piecemeal nature of his offensive, and risk all to win all. In the event, the gamble did not pay off, more to Union luck than Union martial skill, and he was forced to withdraw.

Notably, Meade failed to make a strong pursuit, and allowed Lee to escape. Had the Union pressed hard at the fording of the Potomac, it would have been their turn to try to win the war.

But they did not. Compare Meade's half-hearted attempt to capitalize on the Union success at Gettysburg with Grant's stubborn unwillingness to accept repeated defeats by Lee in a series of running battles that finally pinned down the Army of Northern Virginia in the Confederate capital. Lee would not leave that place again until his retreat to surrender at Appomattox.

No, the South did not get out fought by a more capable enemy at Gettysburg.

 

[plague311]

Well, I'm certainly glad it worked out the way it did. Luck or not, the result was the best one.

I agree with the previous statements though, I don't think any General would send thousands of men to their death just to make it look like he's giving 100% on the last battle.

 

[kookbreaker]

Some say it might have worked if everything went to plan. Lee's plan was to attack everywhere at once so the Union couldn't concentrate its superior numbers in one place. Didn't quite work out that way. Lee wanted Picket to start in the morning but he didn't get going until the afternoon. Some blame Longstreet more than Lee for the failure. Longstreet disagrees with that.

A lot of folks try to blame Longstreet because they cannot accept that their deity, Lee, made a mistake.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Some say it might have worked if everything went to plan. Lee's plan was to attack everywhere at once so the Union couldn't concentrate its superior numbers in one place. Didn't quite work out that way. Lee wanted Picket to start in the morning but he didn't get going until the afternoon. Some blame Longstreet more than Lee for the failure. Longstreet disagrees with that.

And not to forget about the artillery barrage* that probably did not as much damage as it should have.


* Still the largest one in the western hemisphere, or so I've learned from various documentaries.

 

[geni]

I would say, "a more lucky enemy". The junior commanders first on the scene from the Union side made a good assessment and positioned their troops effectively early on, before the senior commander could arrive to chump it up.

Having good junior commanders has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with creating a system that generates them.

Meade was certainly not more capable than Lee, but the Union position was strong, and the Confederate force was disorganized.

Having a strong position and an organised force is pretty good evidence of being capable.

My guess is that Lee knew that if he tested the Union army strongly, it was likely to fail that test. If it failed, the war would be won, as Lee would have a clear road to Washington in front of him, and no Union army at his heels.

Err that would require him to be an idiot. By the time the American civil war came around competent commanders were aware that even apparently weak and demoralised forces tended to do an irritatingly good job if given an acceptable defensive position and told to hold it no matter what.

Notably, Meade failed to make a strong pursuit, and allowed Lee to escape. Had the Union pressed hard at the fording of the Potomac, it would have been their turn to try to win the war.

It might but given the wider strategic situation there was little value in taking that risk. The north's logistics advantages were such that it didn't so much have to win as avoid losing.

No, the South did not get out fought by a more capable enemy at Gettysburg.

I would seriously question your definition of capable.

 

[geni]

I agree with the previous statements though, I don't think any General would send thousands of men to their death just to make it look like he's giving 100% on the last battle.

The actions of US officers in the lasts days of WW1 (they all rushed to the front and tried to get their men involved in combat to help their future promotion chances) suggest otherwise. Thousands isn't too great a figure in the context of war.

 

[tsig]

In honor of the sesquicentennial of the seminal strife of the Civil War, I present this theory.

Anyone who has ever stood at the Copse of Trees and looked down across the long sweep of the wheat fields to the distant tree line knows the utter futility of Pickets Charge.

How could anyone think that the the attackers would be able to march across that open ground, uphill, in the July heat and have the strength to fight a well entrenched defender?

Did Lee really forget the brutal lessons taught to the union army at Fredricksburg?

Or was he simply old and weary of war and looking for that last grand gesture?

No, Lee was simply a butcher. From his first day in command till his last when left to his own devices he went straight up the middle.

Longstreet wanted to place the army between Washington and the union army forcing Mead to attack and , given the superiority of the defense, to waste his army.

 

[theprestige]

Having good junior commanders has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with creating a system that generates them.



Having a strong position and an organised force is pretty good evidence of being capable.



Err that would require him to be an idiot. By the time the American civil war came around competent commanders were aware that even apparently weak and demoralised forces tended to do an irritatingly good job if given an acceptable defensive position and told to hold it no matter what.



It might but given the wider strategic situation there was little value in taking that risk. The north's logistics advantages were such that it didn't so much have to win as avoid losing.




I would seriously question your definition of capable.

Thanks. I've made some study of the Civil War. Based on the results of my research, I will continue to reject your interpretation in favor of my own.

 

[Spindrift]

Thanks. I've made some study of the Civil War. Based on the results of my research, I will continue to reject your interpretation in favor of my own.

But you won't refute them?

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Cracked.com told me it all came down to a fence. Were they wrong? Is the fence gone now?

 

[theprestige]

But you won't refute them?

With what? It's basically my opinion, my interpretation. I don't have my sources handy, and I'm not really interested in digging them up to provide proper citations and a lengthy analysis. I am, at this point, content to have considered geni's interpretation, and to have found that I still prefer my own.

I might come back later and put my own interpretations alongside the points he's raised, but at the moment I don't feel very strongly motivated to do so. Sorry.

 

[arayder]

Cracked.com told me it all came down to a fence. Were they wrong? Is the fence gone now?

By most accounts the rebs should have used artillery to blow up a fence that hindered them during Pickett’s charge.

I try not to should on Bobby Lee.

When the troops limped back from Pickett’s Charge they meet General Lee who wept as he shouted to them “It was all my fault, boys”.

 

[NightStar76]

Robert Lee was consistently let down by his commanders on the ground and his own stubbornness. The historians tend to agree that Longstreet's plan was more practical, but that's hindsight, and without his cavalry, Lee's choices were either fight and win, or fall back. Lee was fighting blind in a battle he didn't want, but couldn't afford to surrender.

Also, he did such a good job losing the battle that Meade felt his forces were too mauled to pursue.



Also. Lee also considered McClellan the greatest strategist on the union side. So maybe he wasn't as intelligent as all that? Or maybe he, like everyone else, is human, and capable of making mistakes?