8. Around this time was Lee's campaign to march north, which would lead to the eventual battle at Gettysburg. Would it have been much effective for the Rebels to take Maryland, making sure they fall to the Rebels rather than to go that far north?
How would you propose to 'take' Maryland? Reocognize of course that the Potomac and the Chesapeake Bay are two natural obstacles that would protect Maryland, while also making resupply difficult or impossible. Add to that the presence of Washington DC and taking Maryland would be exceedingly difficult.
Lee's plan was to divert attention away from Virginia to allow for the farmers to harvest their crops and to strike at the 'soft' underbelly of the North and directly at the numerous industries of Pennsylvania that would be available were he to march north.
I thought he also intended to attack Washington DC.
On the Pickett's Charge Question, this is off topic, but I read an interesting book that posited that J.E.B. Sturat's Calvary was to sweep around the Union Lines and attack the center of the Union lines from the Rear in coordination with Pickett's Charge. In fact, Stuart fired a cannon before Pickett's charge to signal that he was in position. If it had worked the Union line might have buckled. The author cited to some after mission reports where Stuart's failure to complete the mission was discussed. Unfortunately for Stuart, Custer's calvary was in his way and stopped his charge. The author states that Lee never mentioned Stuart's failure because Stuart was dead and he did not want to disparage him. Just an interesting theory.
Pa made more sense as he got to eat off their land, get their shoes and other useful things all without pissing off a border/sympathetic state like Maryland.
Beats me, but I was mainly going by the description of that campaign in the film. After reading your response it makes more sense to me what the whole point of Lee's army going into PA.