'Reasonably' Objective Comparison

[James_Longstreet]

As my Living History (forgive me - Col. Gamble) involvement demands - I continuously re-read FMTA and other Pete-related books and articles. It begins to dawn on me just how similar him and Sam Grant were in their thinking ways of carrying the war. I guess the difference here is that Sam gets more luckier than Pete (due to many various reasons) in 'getting his way'.

Gettysburg notwithstanding - I wonder how would things turned out if only ONE of many proposals Pete put forth was implemented when it was proposed...

Any thoughts?
_________________
I Remain
Your Ob't Servant
Allan
Time sets all things right. Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal.
A Great Civilization is not Conquered from Without until It has Destroyed Itself from Within

[Karl]

General Longstreet

I have a couple thoughts on that.
After reading Murfins Gleam of Bayonets, I was struck by the parallel between the Maryland and Penn, Campaign's.
In both instances, ole Pete wanted to do things that were far different from what Lee ended up doing and I can't help thinking that maybe the former campaign may have influenced the latter.
By that I mean, that maybe Lee felt that after fighting to the incredible draw he did at Antietam, and then the subsequent victories at Chancellorsville and Fredricksburg that Lee felt that he had all the answers.
Sometimes, when you begin to ponder a question, the initial response, as simplistic as it may seeem at first, winds up in the end being the one that makes the most sense.
By that I mean this.
When I first got involved with delving into Gettysburg and Antietam, the folks who I talked with that had an interest, namely my brother in law, said that the reason that Lee went ahead with the PPT Charge was because the ANV felt they were invinceable.
I had read a bit of Coddington by that time and felt that was too simplistic an answer.
Now, I am not so sure!
It seems that Lee should have listened to Pete back in the Maryland Campaign and again in Penn.
Was their string of successes the reason for Lee's refusla to take a chance on Pete's line of thinking?
Maybe!
I think Gettysburg more than the former would have been the place to get a little creative and I think Longstreet had, at the least, the right mindset.
Maybe that confidence that served Lee so well at Antietam was what made Shelby Foote make that famous quote that caused a few comments elsewhere.

"Gettysburg, was the price the South paid for Robert E. Lee."

I think ole Pete would have, and probably could have made a big difference!

Regards,

Karl

[James_Longstreet]

[fifer]

Allan

Your thoughts about Lee not taking advantage of Pete's proposals or line of thinking made we wonder what his motives were for not considering them over his own dieas? Did he recognize the validity of them to Pete and did he consider implimenting them in any way? Or was there no second thought given to what Pete had to offer? I don't exactlyknow how to say this .. but do you think it might have been his pride not being able to see the merits of General Longstreets suggestions?

Karl said something ... " It seems that Lee should have listened to Pete back in the Maryland Campaign and again in Penn. Was their string of successes the reason for Lee's refusla to take a chance on Pete's line of thinking? " that caught my attention. Could that relate to what I asked above?

Ahhh .. you know... my dad used to tell me the same thing about Sam and Pete ... he saw that a long time ago. But when you think about it, they served together and surely, Lee knew whom he was dealing with and his abilities...????

Mindy
_________________
There is nothing so kingly as kindness; there is nothing so royal as truth.

[James_Longstreet]

Mindy, I honestly don't think that Marse Rob'ts pride was in any way 'instrumential' in him not listening to Pete - I think to an extend, he had his own idea as to what he wanted to do and he was simply following the course.
Those on this board that were fortunate enough to attend Spring 2002 Muster in Chansellorsville learned something that could have contributed to REL's way of thinking. The Mustrer was called with a definite purpose of finding as many 'similarities' if you will between these 2 battles, or to put it another way - to find the influences that C-ville had on G-burg (and, boy, did we FIND them!)
Like it or not - it seems that Lee is very much on the agressive at C-ville and gets away with an unbelievable Victory. He has beaten the army that was close to 3 size of his own, split his meager forces 2 times (technically 3, when he rushed back to Salem Church) in face of the enemy and delivered a punch that probably knocked Mr FJ on his head long before the beam did. Objectively speaking, why wouldn't he continue the same course of action once into PA?)

But couple of things merit stepping back and taking a good look -

* Stonewall is not there anymore - I have my doubts in regards to Old Jack's 'military geniousness' but unquestionably his presence at Gettysburg would have channel that battle into a different through
* 2 Brand New Corps Commander and a good number of Officers beneath them - a substantial number of Senior Officers completely untested in the positions they are now occupying - not a good time to carry on with the usual hands off approach
* Fighting on Yankee territory - Ah done tol an tol agin - if the Virginia boys fight like Devils protecting their soil, why wouldn't we expect the same from the PA boys? (a side thing to ponder for all the 'Union proponents' here - if the North so strongly believes in the Sanctity of this Union and, for all intents and purposes - it is still 'one United States' - how come they are NOT fighting on their soil when in VA, but DO, when in PA?

It is almost impossible to guess why Lee did what he did - he must've had his reasons. Back to Sam Grant, I can think of the echange between him and Little Phil (I think I just heard Eric's ears perk up :drunken: ), to wit - "If the thing is pressed...." and "Let the thing be pressed" (actually wired by Abe). Well, maybe Marse Rob't had the same inkling - let the thing be pressed....

Once more, I sincerely lament that SO MANY of Pete's proposals simply went unnoticed. To many modern people - he is a very excellent soldier, understanding the Art of it and not afraid to try new things and look for answers to the problems in places where no one else even dreams of looking. I am quite Honored that I came to know him, especially the way I did (and still do)....

I do believe that if the coin was flipped, and Sam Grant wus on da raht sahd of da Lawd - he would do exactly the same thing as Pete did
_________________
I Remain
Your Ob't Servant
Allan
Time sets all things right. Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal.
A Great Civilization is not Conquered from Without until It has Destroyed Itself from Within

[RebelLady]

General, you bring up an interesting point here, sir. I believe that there are similarities between the two men; there are bound to be, considering how close they were both before and after the war.

Personally, I believe that the problem at Gettysburg was not Lee's pride, but, rather, his sense of loss. I sincerely believe that he had not yet gotten over the loss of General Jackson, who, up until that point, he had come to rely upon very heavily. Add to that the fact that Jackson's Corps has been divided between two men who had not proven themselves in corps command (and who, in my humble opinion, never did prove themselves worthy of the position). I feel that the shadow of Jackson hung heavily over the entire battle...Lee thinking how much he needed Jackson, and Ewell and Hill trying to fill Jackson's shoes.

I also believe that the victory at Chancelorsville had given the entire ANV a sense of invincibility, which only exacerbated the problem at the command level.
_________________
*Lynne*

~~~Duty, then is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less.~~~ Robert E. Lee

[James_Longstreet]

Well, I'm definitely not going to argue these points. It would be hard to recover from the loss of Jackson, although, as I have stated before - I think his Legend of being a Military Genious is somewhat overrated. The same goes for this 'We are Invincible' business - once it gets into one's head, it is probably hard to shake it off. But thus it is THAT MUCH MORE Important not to 'get comfy' (a nice joke somewhat to this issue is at the end of the post). Seems Lee did. Like it or not - Longstreet, for all his shortcomings and misgivings, comes away from Gettysburg Campaign as (perhaps the ONLY) man who clearly saw 'into the Future' and was willing to play it to that effect.

And now, for your Entertainment

A Column of Confederates is making it's way through the country. Whole of a sudden, there is a voice from behind one of the nearby ridges:
Two Yankees can whip 10 Rebs!
The CS Colonel in charge is understandably outraged and orders 10 of his Soldiers to go and take care of the Insolent Bragger
They run over the crest to the other side and there is a horrible ruckus (musket fire, screams - what have you) and then it is quiet.....
Until the same voice pines again:
Two Yankees can whip 20 Rebs!
The Colonel naturally gets even more pissed off and prompty orders another charge (yes, with 20)
Just as the first time, there is a horrible ruckus and then STILLNESS (almost like at Appomattox)
Until....
Two Yankees can whip 30 Rebs!
And just as the Colonel, who by now seethes like a raving lunatic is about to send forward the rest of the column (numbers be DAMNED!), here comes across the ridge crest from the other side one very bloody and shot up Reb, who yells -
Don't Do it! It's a TRAP!!! There's THREE of them!

:blackeye:
_________________
I Remain
Your Ob't Servant
Allan
Time sets all things right. Error lives but a day. Truth is eternal.
A Great Civilization is not Conquered from Without until It has Destroyed Itself from Within

[Billy]

[grognard]

Longstreet was not very offensive minded, and Grant was, so i don't see the connection between their weays of waging war.

Long at Pete's ideas for the invasion campaigns vs. Grant's for Donaldson, Vicksburg, 1864. etc. etc.

Grant moved fast and kept his opponents off balance. Pete, with the possible exception of Chickamauga, didn't seem to have fast in his vocabulary.

[ptrostle]

[Karl]

First off......the politics of war IS politics!

It's all about money.

Secondly, I made that statement almost 4 years ago and although at the time I felt it was a draw, I did say to you Saturday night that by virtue of the ANV leaving the field, it is considered a loss.
That is typical measure of who wins the battle.
If you used that same logic after 2 days at Gettysburg the ANV would have had fewer casualities there as well but because they left, it became a loss for them.

From the standpoint of whether or not this WAS the turning point I would agree. A lot of folks think Gettysburg or Vicksburg was the turning point but Antietam Had to be for the reason you just cited.

But I don't know how much the actual E.P. had to do with changing the focus.
From a political standpoint, France and England were tettering on the edge of recognizing the Confederacy as it's own entity and the E.P. killed Any chance of that happening.
From THAT point of view it was THE turning point!

Lee and Davis still held out hope that Europe would still recognoze them as far forward as the Pennsylvania Campaign.
I think they were way off base with that perception because of the EP.

So, you would have to say that Antietam was the turning point and yes, by virtue of them leaving the field, the ANV lost at Antietam.

JMHO

Regards,

Karl

[historypiper]

Hi all,
A oft discussed and debated topic. As always, the viewpoints shared are those of the other and do not reflect the position of management...
That place in Md. (still too tired and too much of a high to get into the Antietam/Sharpsburg fight): I think those who try to say the CAMPAIGN was a draw are just reaching and being unrealistic. It's much easier to make a case for G'burg as a strategic draw for the Campaign than Antietam. Tactically the battle itself was a draw, and an unbelievable achievement by the ANV to salvage that from the battle. Turning point of the war? Ah, here's where it gets fun!

Without question Antietam is A turning point, and the most important (IMHO) of several in the first 2 yrs. It allows Lincoln to re-fill the ranks by changing the direction from preservation of the Union to abolition. (Sorry, you ain't gonna drag me any further into THAT one right now!)

But many will argue, and admittedly I've done so myself, THE turning point of the War is the fall of Atlanta. Lincoln himself is predicting in private as recently as a week before Atlanta falls that he's a one-term president. Granted, McClellan would have been a "war Democrat", but would he have been able to resist and win against the Democrat controlled Congress that almost certainly would have been elected? Doubtful at best. But of course we can only speculate because Atlanta DID fall, Lincoln IS re-elected, and the War continues to a (for the north) successful conclusion.

But then there's the argument that things had gone too far south for the South. (Never could resist that one) Short of the Democrats saying you win, see ya, hope we can get back to doing business together regardless of the military situation by the time they and McClellan would officially take office, the outcome of the War would have been the same either way. So, which is the true turning point? Antietam? Atlanta? July 4, 1863? Or something else? Speak up, CWDG!
Regards,
Keith

[Phil]

Phil,
I have always considered Sharpsburg a tactical draw and a strategic defeat for the Confederates.

Keith
I think that the fall of 1862 was a turning point in the war. All the Confederate advances were turned back. Never again did the South coordinate so many advances into Northern territory.


Just my two cents

Phil

[Billy]

OK, first time poster on anything substanial beyond books but...

First comment, thank you Mr. Rhea for reinvigorating my interest in the Civil War! Now to go back and read Catton's Army of the Potomac series.

Ladies & Gentlemen, please be nice as I'm almost a neophyte

OK, at both Antietam/Sharpsburg and Gettysburg, Lee attempted a northern invasion to give the South the strategical advantage insofar as international recognition for the South and, incidentally, the domestic advantage.

In both cases he lost.

At Antietam/Sharpsburg it was only by extreme bravery by his troops and even more extreme incompetence by McClelland that Lee's army survived the battle (note: even as a Southerner, I prefer to say Antietam.) The fact that the Army of North Virginia survived, when it should not have, makes the battle technically a draw. As other posters stated, the Emancipation Proclamation took advantage of this; so in the political realm it was a victory for the Union. Plus, militarily, it bloodied Lee's nose and gave the AoP some confidence-which was later squandered.

Gettysburg....pure and simple we lost...errr, Lee lost. The little I have read about the battle implies that there were just a few things, nothing major, that Lee could have done and the situation may have been different. I'll let you know after I read Kauntz, Coddington and, Lord help me, Freeman.

And if anyone is wondering about the "we" statement above; well I had relatives from: North Carolinia who fought for the Confederacy, Tennesseans who fought for the Union, Tennesseans who fought for the Confederacy, Iowans who fought for the Union and Missourians and Kentuckians who fought for the Confederacy. And there were deaths on both sides, which is a darned shame.

Is there any wonder I am confused about the war, especially since my vote for "Greatest American" is Abraham Lincoln. Arrrrrgggghhhh!

Be good,

Billy

P.S. Even as someone who was raised in the South, I feel that Lee's aggressiveness was, in some cases, too much. I reckon I won't be invited to many parties with that attitude, ehh?

[grognard]

Lee's agressiveness was not too much. The south wasn't winning many major battles if Lee wasn't in charge.

The same aggressiveness that beat Mcclellan and Pope led to Anteitam, and the same aggressiveness that won chancellorsville led to Gettyburg and the flank attacks at the Wilderness.

The south could not have won the 7 Days without aggressiveness, no matter who was in charge. About the only defensive battle the south won was Fredericksburg, and no major union seige ever failed, not Ft. Donaldson, nor Vicksburg, nor Petersburg, etc. etc.

So if aggressiveness is bad, what's the alternative?