Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

150 years ago today -- the Gettysburg campaign begins
http://www.foxnews.com ^ | june 10, 2013 | Rod Gragg

Posted on 06/10/2013 3:07:23 PM PDT by lowbridge

On June 10, 1863, the lead troops of General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia left the army’s staging area near Culpeper Court House, Virginia and began a march northward.

Their destination: Pennsylvania – where Lee hoped to win a major battle on Northern soil and end the Civil War with a Southern victory.

Soon his army would be trailed by his main Northern adversary, the Federal Army of the Potomac. Ahead of both armies, across the Potomac River and in the heartland of southern Pennsylvania, lay the quiet crossroads town of Gettysburg, which would become the site of the largest battle ever fought in North America.

It would also prove to be decisive battle of the American Civil War.

The war would continue for almost two more years until it claimed 620,000 American lives, but by many measures the battle of Gettysburg was its turning point.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/06/10/150-years-ago-today-gettysburg-campaign-begins/#ixzz2Vr01YXli

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History; Military/Veterans; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: abrahamlincoln; anniversary; dixie; georgegordonmeade; georgemeade; gettysburg; godsgravesglyphs; greatestpresident; leesfiasco; longstreetwasright; militaryhistory; pennsylvania; pickettscharge; thecivilwar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last
To: Tallguy

The south had won defensive battles in the east, but lost in the west. Tennessee was lost, along with the south’s major source of pork (protein). Vicksburg chopped off Texas (beef), Arkansas, and took most of Mississippi. After defeat at Vicksburg, US forces would turn east toward Chattanooga and Atlanta’s capture would assure the reelection of Lincoln.

The south was losing the war, but just losing more slowly in the east due to the decision to suck more rebel units from the west to the east.

And as the south slowly lost in the east, US Naval supremacy on the high seas took increasing effect.


21 posted on 06/10/2013 10:56:27 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Meade pushed out forces to north and south of Pickett’s line of advance, so the southern forces waltzed into a cross fire. Yet the men of North Carolina got all the way to the Union lines. Amistead and Hancock, good friends in California before the war, were severely wounded within yards of each other. Hancock survived.

The 20th Maine on the south side of the US Army lines was cited in Army manual FM 100-5 on Operations.


22 posted on 06/10/2013 11:03:57 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: central_va
And after the heaviest Artillery duel of the war, (and said to have been heavier than the cannonade at Balaklava) and lasting about one hour and ten minutes, we silenced all their guns. They report that we killed and disabled nearly all their cannoneers, and they were compelled to get detachments from their Infantry to man their pieces.

This is no doubt what Graham believed, but it is quite incorrect.

The Federal artillery was not "silenced" by enemy action. For the most part they were intentionally shut down to give that impression, sucking the enemy into a disastrous charge.

A lot of the southern artillery fire was high, going over the ridge and into the rear areas of the Army of the Potomac. Caused some havoc there, but wasn't very effective against the actual Union positions.

Gen'l Lee's plan was excellent, but some one made a botch of it indeed. Had we carried those Heights, that Army would have been ruined. There were only two avenues of escape, and Ewell had one, and Longstreet the other. So that they must have surrendered or been cut to pieces, and entirely ruined.

Very large "had." Lee disagreed with Graham.

Couple months later he formally offered his resignation to Davis, accepting full responsibility for the defeat at Gettysburg.

23 posted on 06/11/2013 2:06:13 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Had we carried those Heights, that Army would have been ruined. There were only two avenues of escape, and Ewell had one, and Longstreet the other. So that they must have surrendered or been cut to pieces, and entirely ruined.

The great delusion of the War. The Napoleonic decisive victory that would "destroy" the enemy army and win the war at a single thrust.

Such may have been possible in theory, but nobody ever pulled it off in WBTS.

It is more likely that given the size of armies and the balance between offense and defense, it just wasn't possible short of extreme stupidity or treason by a commander.

In fact, I don't know of a single decisive victory of the Napoleonic type between Waterloo and WWII, when blitzkrieg made it again possible. Involving modern armies, of course, not modern armies vs. guys with spears. Tannenburg perhaps came closest, but even it did not knock Russia out of the war immediately.

24 posted on 06/11/2013 2:15:10 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

It did take awhile for the incompetent union to kill of the republic. It should have been over in a month or two if you compare the two sides militarily/industrially.


25 posted on 06/11/2013 3:47:37 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan; StayAt HomeMother; Ernest_at_the_Beach; decimon; 1010RD; 21twelve; 24Karet; ...

 GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach
Thanks lowbridge.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list.


26 posted on 06/11/2013 4:17:20 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (McCain or Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: lowbridge
Their destination: Pennsylvania – where Lee hoped to win a major battle on Northern soil and end the Civil War with a Southern victory.

Lee's goals were two fold and more fundamental. He wanted to move his army into Union territory to let it live off their land for a while, drawing his supplies from Northern farmers instead of Southern ones while at the same time building up a reserve of supplies he could take home to supply him during the leaner months. And he wanted to get his army away from Jeff Davis, who had been discussing sending parts of it west to save Vicksburg. He wasn't out to hunt down and fight the Union army.

27 posted on 06/11/2013 4:29:39 AM PDT by 0.E.O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
Yup. They missed their opportunity to take the high ground early on.

The strategic reason for moving into the North....

Vicksburg was taking a beating with the siege and so the thought was to counter the Vicksburg move with an “invasion” of the North. It was intended to strike fear into the Northerners.

The turning point was Picket's charge. The commanders lost their nerve and fell back to an old failed strategy of moving their troops in a massive formation towards an objective. I think it is referred to as Napoleonic tactics. Technology had made it obsolete. Besides, Lee was best suited for gorilla tactics versus direct face to face attacks.

28 posted on 06/11/2013 6:29:18 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I don’t see how you get a month or two before invention of the internal combustion engine and airplane.

Also consider that Buchanan’s sec of War (Floyd) moved large numbers of weapons to southern forts where they could be stolen easily. That act of treason gave the south a running start.

Then figure that southern militias were initally better trained, being assigned routinely to slave catcher patrols, and with a need to be ready to put down a slave insurrection. In the north the militia was starting at a very low level, particularly in the northeast where there was no threat from Indians.

It took a while to train, equip, men, and still longer to train and equip generals and their staffs. Longstreet in particular is known for having the best staff in either army.


29 posted on 06/11/2013 9:52:29 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Napoleon never pulled it off either. He won many victories, but the army he destroyed would be replaced by a new army a few years later.

It takes time to train an army, but longer to train generals and their staffs. Austerlitz destroyed the fighting men but the staff survived to raise another army and fight again.


30 posted on 06/11/2013 9:56:28 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

A biographer said that he rose above victory by giving credit for Chancellorsville to Jackson, and he rose above defeat by accepting blame for Gettysburg.

No matter what, they won’t let anthing bad stick to Lee.


31 posted on 06/11/2013 9:59:35 AM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Napoleon, a number of times, defeated and dispersed the enemy army, in essence destroying it as an armed force. This was never done during the WBTS. Armies were defeated, but not destroyed.

However, in my opinion if Grant had been in command at either Antietam or Gettyburg, Lee would have had a very difficult time indeed getting away across the Potomac. Both McClellan and Meade arguably allowed him to escape. I don’t think Grant would have done so.

He was almost the only counterpuncher in the Union Army, as was seen at Shiloh. Which was arguably almost as bad a defeat day one as Chancellorsville was for Hooker. But Grant didn’t whine or retreat, he regrouped and counterattacked.


32 posted on 06/11/2013 2:57:01 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Napoleon, a number of times, defeated and dispersed the enemy army, in essence destroying it as an armed force. This was never done during the WBTS. Armies were defeated, but not destroyed.

In the east, maybe. But in the west?

Wasn't Hood's army effectively destroyed in his Tennessee campaign?

33 posted on 06/11/2013 3:09:16 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: x

Good point. But Hood was able to retreat with his basic army structure intact. It fell apart during the retreat due to straggling and desertion, but I suggest that’s a good bit different from what happened to the losing armies at Austerlitz, Jena or Waterloo.


34 posted on 06/11/2013 6:56:33 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: lowbridge

ever stop and think that the war didnt go or turn out like anyone, especially the south, thought or anticipated?

i guess war is like that. people start them for reasons that rarely, if ever, work out.


35 posted on 06/11/2013 7:10:13 PM PDT by beebuster2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I submit that Grant surrounded, defeated and dispersed the army defending Vicksburg. They were given paroles, and scattered themselves to their homes, destroying that army.

My limited understanding is he was nearly as successful at Henry and Donalson, though some small forces were able to break out, to include Forrest and Floyd (the latter wanted for treason for his acts as Buchanan’s secretary of war).

Similarly, Grant did the same to Lee’s army at Appromatox Court house, and Sherman did the same to Johnston’s army in NC.

I hold that Thomas did a similar job at Franklin.


36 posted on 06/11/2013 7:57:39 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

No doubt you have seen the famous map of Napoleon’s army in Russia.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=napoleon%27s+army+in+russia&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=5395EB83F4CB1D8531EDC6A9E01944EE02227931&selectedIndex=20

That passes for destroying an Army too. I would like to see a similar map of Lee’s army retreating from Richmond.


37 posted on 06/11/2013 8:01:17 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

No doubt you have seen the famous map of Napoleon’s army in Russia.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=napoleon%27s+army+in+russia&FORM=HDRSC2#view=detail&id=5395EB83F4CB1D8531EDC6A9E01944EE02227931&selectedIndex=20

That passes for destroying an Army too. I would like to see a similar map of Lee’s army retreating from Richmond.

http://www.thirdwave-websites.com/blog/minard-napoleon-Google-Protovis.jpg
May be a better image.

Note the degrees were per Reamur, different from Farenheit or Celsius. The problem was it was unseasonably warm, and the rivers hadn’t frozen, so crossings were more difficult than expected.

Also, on the way out Nappy took his time, waiting for the surrender he was sure would come after each battle. On the way back he rushed, and fighting fewer battles, lost much to desertion (and repopulated the households whose husbands and fathers had been killed in battle on the way out.)


38 posted on 06/11/2013 8:05:44 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Hood went in to the Nashville campaign with 38,000 men, not counting Forrest. He lost about 20,000 of those men, in killed, wounded, captured, or deserted. 52.6% losses (not counting Forrest)

At Austerlitz, Napoleon’s opponents had 85,000 men, of which 27,000 were killed, wounded or captured. 31.7% losses

Thomas compares favorably in the percent of casualties inflicted on his enemy. He almost compares to Blenheim.

At the battle of Blenheim, Duke of Marlborough, his opponents began with 56,000 men and lost 20,000 killed wounded or drowned. with another 14190 captured. 61% losses.


39 posted on 06/11/2013 8:26:40 PM PDT by donmeaker (Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Ahh, but a successful siege is not the same thing as an open-field battle in which the enemy army is destroyed, as an army, on the field.

In fact, at the time it was a truism that once an army allowed itself to be pinned down in a siege it would inevitably have to capitulate eventually, unless a relieving force was successful.

At ACH Lee’s army was not destroyed, it surrendered because being surrounded, out of ammo, etc. its defeat was inevitable. Same for Johnson, although his army was not in as immediately bad shape as Lee’s. There just wasn’t any more point in continuing to fight once Lee surrendered. In both cases, these armies were defeated and dispersed as the result of a successful campaign, not a single decisive battle.

You have a point about Franklin, but Thomas wasn’t there. He was the theater commander, but not on the battlefield. Also it was Hood destroyed the army. :)

I guess I should concede Nashville as a decisive battle. As its result the CSA western army more or less fell apart. But it was not the result of two more or less equal armies meeting in battle and one destroying the other. Hood’s army had already been more or less destroyed as a result of his inept campaign. He was just too stubborn and/or stupid to admit it.

Possibly it’s a nit, but I think there is a real difference between a single decisive battle and a campaign or war that results in an enemy’s eventually being work down and defeated. IOW, Cannae and Austerlitz were very different from WWI. Or the Battle of France and the conquest of Germany in WWII.


40 posted on 06/12/2013 4:05:31 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson