The Battle of Gettysburg

[GregoryHouse]

I guess that this is one of the most talk about battles of the War Between The States.  Some call it the "high-water-mark-" of the Confederate Nation.  There are a lot of books out there about this one battle and many have to do with "--un-coordinated attacks by Gen Lee and his Corp Commanders"  There has been a lot written about Lt. General James Longstreet's suggestion to General Lee "to not attack the Union Army where it was located on the high ground", but to pull back and get in between the Union Army under Major General George Meade and Washington City, as it was called back then.  Lt. General Longstreet wanted to fight what he called an "defensive/offensive battle" where the Confederate Army would gain the high ground to their liking and force the Union Army to attack them since they were always out-numbered and had lesser quality armament (cannons) to fight back with.  Many a student of this time period agrees with Lt. General Longstreet and believe that if General Lee would have listened to this one suggestion and did as Lt Gen Longstreet suggested - the Southern Army would have crushed the advance of the Union Army in "wave after wave"?  Since this did not happen and Gen Lee stated "firmly that those people are up there and that is where we will fight them"!  Many people think that Lt. Gen Longstreet pouted about this decision that was made by the Commanding General (Lee) and was slow to get his troops into battle lines as what were the directions of General Lee for this battle as so much depended on coordination between fellow Corps attacking as directed on each side of their lines - be it in the middle or on both flanks.

My personal thought on this and this has taken me a lot of reading and studying for the last twenty years or so, I think I do see where Lt. General Longstreet may have been correct in his thinking and if the plan would have been adopted by General Lee and the Confederate Army would have gotten on high ground in between the Union Army and Washington City and forced Major General Meade to attack this strong position, they would have broken the Union Army like they did at the Battle of Fredricksburg, VA. 

This action might have forced the Union Govt into some kind of "Peace Accord" as the main Union Army (Potomac) would have been badly beaten and Washington City invested by the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia as it was so called.  I also think that if this would have happened and the South had won her independence that the South and North would have reunited by the time the Spanish/American War broke out in 1898 as there was just too much common good for both sides to stay together and both sides needed the other to continue to grow and prosper.

What say you?

Would that have delayed the end of slavery?

 

[FeatheredCock]

Years later Great great grand mom received around 4.00 month from the government for granddaddy service in the Civil war.  Another thing most who fought and lost there lives did not own slaves. They where called to arms to fight for the south independents. War was not fought just for slavery. 

 

[Senior Rooster]

Would that have delayed the end of slavery?

That would have delayed it - Yes. I believe it would be not for long as the British and others had begun to ban slavery. The public sentiment was against it. I think the North would have finally won out anyway. I am glad they did, though a SC born and raised. I just do not like the attempt to stain the honor of the individual confederate soldier.  That soldier was by far a poor share cropper / tenant farmer who never dreamed of owning a slave. The powers of the State called him to arms and he came.

 

[dreammachine]

Would that have delayed the end of slavery?

If the South would have won their independence at the end of the War Between The States, I firmly believe from having been a student of that time period for many a year that the South and North would have come back together for a massive - variety - of - reasons - but the most being that the invention of mechanical machinery would have greatly decreased the need for manual labor in the fields.  As another poster stated that "Not All Southerners Owned Slaves" which is a correct statement as only 6% of the soldiers that fought for the South actually owned slaves.  That meant that 94% of the Southern Soldiers fought for their Independence from the Oppressive Northern Dominated Government at the time.  What is sadly forgotten in the quick claim to "paint all Southern Soldiers as slave owning war mongers" is the FACT THAT NO SLAVE SHIP EVER SAILED WITH A CONFEDERATE FLAG OVER IT'S MASK.  There are still to this day - many New England Wealthy Families that can trace their financial fortunes back to the days of the slave trade and "yet nothing is ever said about this"  Abraham Lincoln - the "so-called abolitionist" - had a wife whose family owned slaves and several of Mary Lincoln's brothers fought for the South  General U.S. Grant even owned a slave and ask "why he had not freed the man after the War Between The States Had Ended - General Grant stated that good help was hard to find"  General Grant - Abe Lincoln - William T. Sherman also did not think that the black man was the white man's equal before the war and after the war had ended.  They simply fought to preserve what they thought was the preservation of the Union - and not to allow the South to legally succeed from the Union - the same thing that the New England States voted for and approve during the War of 1812 - except General Andrew Jackson happen to win a battle at New Orleans and by the time it reached New England, they quickly decided to change their minds.   I say all of this to state this;  "If succession was illegal - then why was Jefferson Davis - Robert E. Lee - James Breckenridge (Former Vice-President of the USA) - Alexander Stephens & many others were never brought to trial and had charges brought against them?  The reason why it was not brought to trial was because the Constitution of USA did not say it was illegal to succeed from the Union.  The original 13 colonies signed separate  peace treaties with Great Britain and all freely joined the confederacy of states to form the United States of America - a place where the power was retained within each state and not the federal government  They freely joined and felt as they could just as easily succeed when they wanted too.  Sadly the nation almost split apart in 1850 and if it had done it then, the South would have most likely won it's independence from the North - as the North had not yet made the great leap forward in the industrial revolution that it made from 1850 to 1860.   Was slavery an issue at the time of the War Between The States, yes it was, but there was also a lot more at stake than this.  The GNP of the USA in 1860 was mostly made in the South due to it's more agriculturally lifestyle and President Lincoln and his important cabinet members could not easily allow the South to go in peace and give up that much money!!!    Slavery after first being tried in the North to see if it was a profitable venture for the Northern Farmers prove to be a bust due to the cold climate and the smaller farms.  Once Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin to separate the seed from the cotton ball, then it became a lucrative venture to have larger plantation and the Northern Flesh Dealers with their Slave Ships were more than eager to supply the Southern Ports with all the slaves that they could capture (along with help from their African Brothers) to bring to South America and America to turn a huge profit.  It is also lost in the "Northern History Books" that over 93,000 Black soldiers fought for the South in many capacities.  Some were cooks, some were teamsters, but many put rifle in hand to protect their homeland and fellow Southern White Brother.  You will never find this in any history book that has been written in the South since before 1930.  It's the gospel truth, but the victor (North) always has a way to spin or write their version of the truth to justify why they went to war.   The South lost the war due to the industrial might and numerical numbers of the North - as they had immigrants getting off ships everyday to join the Union Army and gain instant citizenship if they went and fought for the North.  All the Southern Ports were closed due to the Union Blockade and the South had to make due with it's smaller population and still came very close winning it's independence.  MIGHT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE NATION IS RIGHT - IT ONLY MEANS THAT THIS NATION HAS MORE RESOURCES!!!

When "Honest Abe" issued his Emancipation Proclamation" - which he had no legal rights in the Confederate States of America as they were a free and independent nation and then "Ole Honest Abe" only freed the slaves in East Tenn, and the Southern States that were still in the state of rebellion per his mindset.  Honest Abe did not free the slaves in the states of Mo, Southern Indiana, Maryland, Kentucky, Delftware, and of all places Washington, D.C.  Ole Honest Abe did not want to piss off any loyal voters in these states that still owned slaves (which included several of his high ranking Yankee Generals)

My last statement on this would be this question:  "If The South Was So Wrong For Having Slaves - Then Why Did Slavery Exist Under The United States Flag For Over 80 plus years - before the War Between The States broke out"  The Southern Confederacy Was Only In Existence For 4 Years?

 

[Spur's Addiction]

Would that have delayed the end of slavery?

I would say almost certainly.

 

[Cockyandproud]

I didn't read through all of these posts, because I don't have time at the moment, but I will later.  

I will say that I took my son to Gettysburg last year, and it was a sobering place.  As I stood on the battlefield where Pickett's charge took place, I almost wept as I looked at the distance the Confederate soldiers traversed, mostly in wide, open conditions, for 2 miles, knowing they were most likely headed to their deaths, but they had the courage, and testicular fortitude to do it anyway, and I was humbled, and marveled at them.  That kind of bravery is extremely rare these days, if even existent at all.  I also was amazed standing at Little Round Top, and imagining the horrible suffering that happened there.

 

[CockyCody]

Dreammachine, I am impressed, sir.  History should be cherished and sacrifices honored...so well played.

This goes for me too, Dream!!!!

 

[dreammachine]

I didn't read through all of these posts, because I don't have time at the moment, but I will later.  

I will say that I took my son to Gettysburg last year, and it was a sobering place.  As I stood on the battlefield where Pickett's charge took place, I almost wept as I looked at the distance the Confederate soldiers traversed, mostly in wide, open conditions, for 2 miles, knowing they were most likely headed to their deaths, but they had the courage, and testicular fortitude to do it anyway, and I was humbled, and marveled at them.  That kind of bravery is extremely rare these days, if even existent at all.  I also was amazed standing at Little Round Top, and imagining the horrible suffering that happened there.

As much as General Robert E. Lee is "Revered and Placed On The Top Of The Mantel In Most Southern Homes - Including Mine" - this is one time he should have listened to his "Old Warhorse Lt. Gen James Longstreet".  There was a lot of pressure on Gen Lee to relieve the siege at Vicksburg, MS and he thought a great victory on Union soil would speedily bring about such a  reverse out in the West (which is where the South really lost the war) and make the Union Armies send more troops back east.  Sadly, this battle was fought as badly as a battle could be fought - per the general orders of General Lee.  Breakdowns in communications, misinterpretation and as bad as I hate to say - I think Lt. General Longstreet pouted with General Lee due to their concepts of how the battle should have been fought and was very slow in putting his troops in battle formations.  I still think that this is one of the few times that Lt. Gen Longstreet was right, but GOD only knows why General Lee would not change his mind.  After the battle - General Lee took all the blame, which even after the battle - the outcome  was still so close that Union Major General George Meade would not leave his high ground and attack the Confederates after three days of punishing them hard in their ranks.  I think that this was because the Confederate Army put almost as good a licking' on the Union Army as they got themselves.  HIGH WATER MARK OF THE CONFEDERACY!

 

[Longhaul]

Longstreet defensive tactics were ahead of their time.  

 

[dreammachine]

Longstreet defensive tactics were ahead of their time.  

Yes he was most definitely a "hard hitter" once he committed his troops for battle.  He was a superb planner and always tried to make sure that his men would not be sacrificed without a justifiable meaning.  I think this is what upset him a lot at the Battle of Gettysburg as he thought that General Lee was of the same mindset as he was and for whatever reasons - General Lee would not move or budge from his original battle plan.

I also think that Lt. Gen Longstreet was also at his best as a Corp Commander versus independent command.  The few times he was placed in independent command things did not turn out as Lt. Gen Longstreet had hoped for.  I think this was due to his always being short on enough troops to bring on the desired result required by the Confederate Govt back in Richmond.  Being out-numbered was a thing that every Commanding Confederate Army General had to face and endure and the Confederate Govt did not want to hear excuses about not having enough men to fight when they had no more reserves to give to any of their main armies.

I think that the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia - led by General Robert E. Lee was at it's best when it had Lt. General James Longstreet in command of the 1st Corp - Lt. General Thomas (Stonewall) Jackson in command of the 2nd Corp.  These two great generals complemented each others style very well and I think that there was a tad bit of competition between them - albeit a very friendly one as these two men had great respect for each other.

 

[kingofnerf]

The Gettysburg Electric Map is the best military history lesson ever.  A total of 51,000 men from both sides died in three days and yet the nation survived it and must never sweep it under the rug.  Our freedom ain't ever been free.  Thousands of families on both sides had to figure out how to survive with out their sons and fathers long after the war was over and miraculously triumphed.  Never forget the lessons learned from the American Civil War.

 

[kingofnerf]

 

[kingofnerf]

 

[TKE226]

I have read three books on Gettysburg. One by Stephen Sears, one by Noah Trudeau and have started Day Two by Pfanz. I've also been to the park more times than I can count and have taken numerous tours, battlefield walks. The enormity of the battle is overwhelming to me. I actually have stopped trying to understand it to some degree. If anything I have focused more on Antietam than any other battle. 

However, if you want good reads about units, pick up and read "Covered in Glory" by Rod Gragg about the 26th NC. They were decimated at Gettysburg on Day One and Three. 

Also Youtube channel StuffWriter has videos of battlefield walks at Gettysburg that can be entertaining. 

 

[dreammachine]

I have read three books on Gettysburg. One by Stephen Sears, one by Noah Trudeau and have started Day Two by Pfanz. I've also been to the park more times than I can count and have taken numerous tours, battlefield walks. The enormity of the battle is overwhelming to me. I actually have stopped trying to understand it to some degree. If anything I have focused more on Antietam than any other battle. 

However, if you want good reads about units, pick up and read "Covered in Glory" by Rod Gragg about the 26th NC. They were decimated at Gettysburg on Day One and Three. 

Also Youtube channel StuffWriter has videos of battlefield walks at Gettysburg that can be entertaining. 

I can truly understand what you are saying about trying to understand the Battle of Gettysburg as it can be overwhelming to such a large degree.  Although I have never been to the battlefield (plan on going one day), I have read it over and over again from many different angles and it just seems to be such an enormous feat to try to manage/command a battle that was this large and also "hung in the balance for both sides at so many different times during the actual fighting".  There has been plenty of blame to go around for the Southern Generals for a few of them not performing up to what was expected from them, but without being there it would be almost impossible to lay blame on anyone who was in command for not attacking at "key moments - sending in more reinforcements - etc".  I think it is best put at this statement by a Confederate General many years after the battle when someone was trying to put the blame on a certain Confederate Corp Commander - this Confederate General when ask "just what was the real reason the Confederates were defeated at the Battle of Gettysburg, this General just replied that - He Thought That The Union Army Had A Lot To Do With It"!!!  I think that answer pretty much sums it for the defeat.  Better fortified position and more troops and a shorter line to reinforce their weak spots at anytime.

The Battle of Sharpsburg (Antietam as the Union Army Called it) is also a great battle to study.  The difference in this battle was that the Union Army Commander - McClellan knew of General Lee's every move (had copies of General Lee's battle orders) and also how the Confederate Commander had split his forces and where his exact locations would pretty much be.  When you have more troops, know your enemy's weak spots and movements, it's pretty hard not to win.  That being said, the Confederate Army fought greatly out-numbered and after giving the Union Army as good or better than it got - waited in a battle position for the Union Army to come at them again and Union General McClellan choose to remain in place and then with their backs to the large river behind them and ammunition running low, the Confederate Commander decided to withdraw and cross the river back into Virginia.

I am amazed at how the Confederate Army held out as they did and not knowing at the time why and how the Union Army was being so aggressive as this was not the style of Union General George McClellan up till this battle.  What would have been the odds of a Confederate Victory if General Lee had known the exact location and intentions of Union General McClellan before the Union Army moved the first man?

 

[TKE226]

Because of the enormity of Gettysburg, when I read about it I get so confused by all the troop movements and involvement trying to keep them straight my head starts spinning. 

Both are worth visiting but the first time I was at Antietam I fell in love. The surrounding area is very rural and the battlefield is usually quiet and as peaceful. Many times you may not see another person other than park staff. Much of it is the same landscape so it’s easy to envision the fighting. 

 

[dreammachine]

Because of the enormity of Gettysburg, when I read about it I get so confused by all the troop movements and involvement trying to keep them straight my head starts spinning. 

Both are worth visiting but the first time I was at Antietam I fell in love. The surrounding area is very rural and the battlefield is usually quiet and as peaceful. Many times you may not see another person other than park staff. Much of it is the same landscape so it’s easy to envision the fighting. 

It is on my "Bucket List" the next time I visit up through the Shenandoah Valley.  It seems as though I read several years back that "commercial developers" were trying to move in on some of the original battlefield?  Have you heard this or is it just another rumor?

I can easily understand how you can "imagine the movement and strategy of the troops involved.  I find myself sometimes pouring over the maps that many authors put into their books or what I can gleam from other sources.  I honestly wish that today's schools would teach the "truth" about the War Between The States/Civil War to the students without a bias for either side and just tell what these brave men fought for on both sides of the issue.  Many of these brave men were just simply farmers/merchants and only knew what their limited educational background or sectional part of the nation was prescribing at the time.  Today's history lessons are far too politically correct and have lost all creditably with the truth.  These brave men on both sides deserve the truth to be told.  It's funny for a long time after the War Between The States ended and they would have "Reunions From Both Sides - Both Union/Confederate" these brave survivors would meet and gladly talk and share their undying devotion to the men who fought and died on both sides without any animosity.  Wonder why we can't do that same type of thing today without the "PC Police" trying to get involved and make their opinions and beliefs the only side of the argument and if you don't fall in line with their belief you are some type of racist or hater?  You can't go back and "re-write history".  All you can do is hopefully understand and learn from it. 

 

[TKE226]

Antietam is not at all commercially developed. In fact the Civil War Trust, renamed now American Battlefield Trust or something like that has purchased a bunch of land that prevents building on. Though parts of the battlefield are actively farmed today, as they were during the battle. Definitely worth it if you can make it. I am fortunate that I live an hour to Gettysburg and 2 to Antietam. 

I certainly don't know what is taught in school these days regarding the Civil War. I do however think that any way it is taught probably gives a sided approach. Given its human nature to formulate an opinion and side one way or another, i think any way its taught will leave people on one side or the other. Calling it the War Between the states is a decidedly southern spin as well. Maybe teach it from both sides. I don't know the answer. it's true the majority of the Confederate privates did not own slaves or very few and were not rich plantation owners. Probably joined out of pride, maybe for a sense of adventure, because their buddies did, the Union invaded the South. But they were ultimately fighting to uphold a way of life and economy based on the enslavement of a race. It's made very clear in the SC declaration of succession slavery was the primary reason, maybe not the only, but its there. 

But if you are looking for human interest stories, beyond the one you mentioned there are many many recorded stories of immediately following guys shooting at each other, they would come out and converse with each other as if nothing happened. 

 

[dreammachine]

Glad to hear that "developers are not trying to take parts of this great battlefield".  I had a cousin that is now past on and he had a son that lived in Virginia and I think his son had told him about encroachment on a few battlefields and I thought that Sharpsburg was one of them that they had spoken about.  He and his son did a lot of sight seeing of many battlefields in Virginia for several years before my cousin's health started to worsen for him.  Maybe it was Cold Harbor that they had stated as I have lost some of the emails that he use to send me of all of his travels.  He really got into the War Between The States when he retired and had time to do so as many people do with whatever their main interests or hobbies are.  You are very fortunate to be living in an area that is so full of history and also be that close to so many battlefields.  I was in the Shenandoah Valley a few years ago and stayed over three days and I still could not find enough time to go to every site I wanted to visit.  I did get to Winchester and spent a lot of time in Lexington and at VMI and Washington & Lee College.  Both of these colleges have strong historical ties to our beloved South-land and nation.  I got to sit in the exact spot in the Chapel where General Robert E. Lee sat each morning and prayed before he started his day.  A beautiful city and it is just bursting alive with history.  I also got to visit the grave of Lt. General Stonewall Jackson.  That was also a moving experience for me.

What is taught in school these days in a whole lot different than what was taught in my day and even back then it was a "watered down version of the truth" as I was lucky enough to be able to find some books in our county library that still told the truth as much as it could be written back then.  That was one thing that President Jefferson Davis worried about to the end of his days and that was "the truth concerning the Confederate Soldier and why he fought for his nation and it's independence".  Back in the late 1990's I was invited to come and speak at a local Elementary School and I was able to get a friend who was a Confederate Re-enactor to come with me.  I gave the class the gospel truth on the causes and reasons for the War Between The States and even though the teacher really appreciated our coming and talking to the kids, we were never ask back nor was anyone else since that time?  This is why our world has become so "PC" and the truth cannot be told nor will it be tolerated.  You are absolutely right in stating that the "truth or the way it is taught is usually written or enforced by the victors".  I would take that another step in saying that the "P.C. Crowd" most likely dictate the way things are taught in order to not offend anyone with anything.  You can't teach history without telling the gospel truth, but this is the world we live in today.

Yes, my calling the Civil War - The War Between The States" is truly a Southern Thing.  Any true Southerner who knows his history (there are fewer and fewer of us each year) would never call it the Civil War.  In the 1920's - Congress pass a resolution to officially call it the "War Between The States".  Somehow over the years it has been changed by so called historians always referring to it as the Civil War.  The last time I looked at war - a civil war was -  a war between the people of one nation - fighting it out to see who would gain control.  This happened in Spain and in Russia, where they had an internal civil war.  The Civil War or War Between The States was fought by two separate nations - The United States of America and The Confederate States of America.  Just because one side lost (due to many reasons) does not mean that the other side was right, it just means that the other side had more men and weapons to wage war more effectively than their opponent did.

94% of all Confederate Soldiers never owned slaves.  No slave ship that ever brought slaves to the American coastlines ever flew a Confederate Flag over it.  Slavery was first tried in the North and if the climate would have allowed it, there is no doubt that our northern brothers would have become very wealthy slave holders/owners.  Since the climate would not accommodate slave labor in the mass scale that a Southern climate would, Yankee ingenuity once again reigned supreme in their efforts to buy slaves from stronger tribes in Africa, who actually caught and enslaved their own black skinned brothers/sisters and sold them to the highest bidders.  There are still a lot of rich New England Families that can trace their wealth back to their "slave-selling-ancestors-that owned the large slave ships that visited the many Southern Ports to unload their cargo and make a huge profit from it".  Also, at the outbreak of the War Between The States, there was over 10,000 "Free Men Of Color That Owned Slaves Throughout The South"  That's right, free black men owned other black slaves and worked them to make themselves a profit.  Yes, it is clearly in the Articles of Secession of SC - concerning slavery, but the vast, vast, majority of Confederate Soldiers did not own slaves and many worked along side black men on small farms in the South land just to make a living (Share Croppers).  There was also many "Slave-Owning Yankees" in the so-called border states, such as MO, Maryland, Kentucky, Washington City, (D.C), Southern Indiana, Southern Illinois, although you won't read or hear much about that now.  Honest Abe Lincoln's own wife came from a slave owning family.  General U.S. Grant owned a slave and was ask after the war "why it took him so long to give the man his freedom - Grant replied that good help was hard to come by"  The Great Emancipation Proclamation is really a joke if you consider what Honest Abe wrote.  He wrote that "slaves that lived in the states that were in rebellion were now free men"?  He did not free slaves in the states of Kentucky, Missouri  or Maryland and Washington City  Abe Lincoln did not have the executive power to free slaves in any state that was a Confederate State and was pretty much avoided in all the other places where slavery was allowed in order to not offend many of Abe Lincoln's slave owning friends  Stuff like this is never told or spoken in public schools these days and everyone is taught to think that Abe Lincoln freed all the slaves?

Was slavery an issue, yes it was and I think even if the South had won the war and with the coming of the mechanical revolution that was already sweeping across the North, that slavery due to the increase of productive machinery and the high cost of keeping slave labor around and healthy, the slavery question would have come to an end by the end of the 1870's - if not sooner?  Slavery was an awful thing and throughout history - this evil institution has been forced on many weaker nations in our world.  For people to think and believe that slavery is just a Southern Thing is the biggest lie since the case of "Original Sin" as both the North and South were equally involved in this ugly institution and should equally share the blame, along with the black tribes that enslaved their own people and sold them to the slave traders in Africa.

I had over 20 Confederate Ancestors that fought for the Confederate States of America and not the first one of these brave men owned any slaves, but fought for the reason that the Union Army had cross over into the Confederate States of America and they all felt that they had to go and do their duty to help fight what they truly believed was the 2nd American Revolution.  It's sad to know that it is so hard these days to speak and talk about the War Between The States - albeit from a Northern or Southern point of view without the whole issue turning into "the slavery thing".  Many people also do not know that a "Three Man Peace Committee" went to Washington, City to speak with newly elected President Lincoln of the USA and tried to broker a peace accord before the war actually started, but Lincoln could not understand where the North would replace over 3/4 of the G.N.P. at the time if the South withdrew from the Union.  Just think what might have happened if cooler heads would have prevailed in that meeting

 

[TKE226]

Why did SC and the other states secede? 

The war would not have occurred if states did not secede, creating two "nations." So is it as easy as asking the question why did states secede to find the answer as to causes? I think its called a Civil War because prior to secession, it was one nation. 

Yes the North had slaves, agreed. That is not a hidden fact. But it was dying in the North and supported the economy in the South. Maybe Joe Ancestor Enlistee did not own slaves, but the war was going on by that point, it wasn't going to stop. Why the war started and why enlisted men fought are often two very different things - on both sides.