If Robert E. Lee was such a great general how did he come up with a stratagem like Pickett's Charge?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

[mcar]

1. Yep

[larwdem]

2. you are so right

he marched 12 thousand men over an open field with no cover.

[madaboutharry]

3. He could have chosen to serve in the Union Army.

He was more loyal to Virginia and the Confederate cause than he was to the United States. He was a traitor.

[sweetapogee]

13. Abe Lincoln

offered him the top command position.

[MFM008]

29. He was a slave owner

Wanted to keep those 'valuable assets'.
Seizing his land for a cemetary was a great idea.

[RHMerriman]

4. The same reason Haig and Joffre ordered their armies over the top in 1914-16;

The same reason Haig and Joffre ordered their armies over the top in 1914-16;

They weren't good generals.

The thing about Lee is Pickett's Charge wasn't even the first time he'd ordered a corps-sized force into prepared US positions in daylight; a year before, he was in command and the rebs did essentially the exact same thing at Malvern Hill and lost almost 6,000 dead and wounded.

Pickett lost 5,000 dead and wounded and more than 3,000 POWs.

George Thomas, also a southerner, also a West Pointer, and also a prewar regular, remained loyal to the US (as did Scott, Farragut, and hundreds of others) and should be honored, as opposed to Lee and his equivalents.

Lee's army also kidnapped and enslaved civilians during the invasion of Pennsylvania in 1863, so - not exactly very fine people.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Confederate General Longstreet knew it was folly at the time.

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2019, 08:56 AM - Edit history (1)

He also became a Republican and a champion of the freedman after the war.

[Botany]

35. Yup!

I still have a hard time w/Trump praising Robert E Lee .... forget the myth and remember he
fought for 2 things:

1) The right to keep people as slaves.

2) The end of the United States of America.

[RHMerriman]

44. True; Longstreet is a lot more human than Lee

True; Longstreet is a lot more human than Lee.

Speer was more human than Himmler, as well; it didn't spare Speer from 20 years in Spandau after the Nuremberg trials.

That being said, Longstreet's troops were among those who kidnapped civilians in Pennsylvania and Maryland in the 1863 campaign and dragged them back to rebel territory to be enslaved; again, not exactly "very fine people" on both sides.

[link:https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/we-have-received-provocation-enough/61276/|]

Longstreet's postwar actions notwithstanding, enslaving civilian men, women, and children who were free on northern soil and dragging them back to Virginia makes the point of the slaveholders' rebellion quite clear.

[CanonRay]

19. Grant did the same thing at Cold Harbor

[Wounded Bear]

20. And that was a year later...

[uponit7771]

30. Grant didn't realize how dug in confederates were, I can see his mistake being of the head

[RHMerriman]

41. Meade was army commander at Cold Harbor; Grant was (essentially) the theater commander

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2019, 05:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Meade was army commander at Cold Harbor; Grant was (essentially) the theater/army group commander.

Different level of command responsibility. Grant regretted the assault, but give the tactical situation at the time (the rebs had been retreating since the US offensive had begun (Grant's Overland Campaign) had begun, it was much less of a poor decision than Lee at Malvern Hill or the Pickett's Charge attack at Gettysburg.

[sweetapogee]

49. pick your CW general

find a full frontal infantry charge.

Pope did it at Second Bull Run, Little Mac did it at Antietam, Burnside did it at Fredricksburg, Hooker did it at Chancellorsville. Probably the worse battlefield disaster in the CW was Confederate General Hood at Franklin Tenn., I think he lost 6 Generals killed outright, 8 more wounded or captured. Most people don't know anything about this battle but the result was the end of a complete field army.

[Blue_true]

57. About 100,000 White men fought for the Union.

I remember first reading about Admiral Farragut during middleschool reading hour (we got an hour each day at the school library and we could read any book in the library).

[RHMerriman]

60. I think you mean 100,000 "white" southerners, don't you?

Last edited Mon Apr 29, 2019, 09:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Total US mobilization during the war was in the neighborhood of 2.3 million, including ~190,000 men of (identifiably) African ancestry who served in the USCT or similar units and ~100,000 "white" men who served in volunteer units raised in the "rebel" states (there were "white" US Volunteer units raised in every rebel state but South Carolina, and either federal or state "colored" units raised in every rebel state including South Carolina (along with those raised in the loyal states, of course).

[Blue_true]

70. Yes. A lot more White northerners fought. nt

[Blue_true]

71. We know about the Black Masachusetts 54th and their exploits.

But there was also the 5th Alabama Calvary of white men that fought for General Sherman and was said to be his best Calvary unit. If we are going to celebrate southerners that fought in that war, then they should only be the ones that were patriots to the Union.

[RHMerriman]

72. Agree...

Agree...

[gladium et scutum]

62. Actually

2,490,000 white men served in the Union Army during the Civil War. Also, 179,000 African Americans and 3500 Native American fought for the Union. Seldom mentioned in these discussions, 85,000 men served in the U.S. Navy during the war, about 10,000 were African American.

[RHMerriman]

73. True, I was ballparking it...

True, I was ballparking it...

Union forever!

[CatWoman]

5. fun fact

it was Robert E. Lee who arrested John Brown at Harper's Ferry

[KG]

6. I lulz'd

he was pretty good at the 7 Days, Chancellorsville, a few other fights. BTW, he was never captured, arrested or punished. I read a bunch of books.

[sweetapogee]

14. He was stripped

of his US citizenship. His home was taken from him and turned into a grave yard. The tombs of the unknown soldiers are in his former front yard.

[KG]

16. thanks for the 'splainin' but I've read a large stack of books, and grew up in Arlington Va.

[sweetapogee]

21. same here

a very large stack of books.

[former9thward]

42. His citizenship was restored by Congress in 1975.

[unblock]

8. Obvious it didn't work out well, but I don't think it was completely off-base

First, they tried to take out the union artillery. The charge would have gone a whole lot better had that succeeded, but it didn't.

Second, just because a tactic knowingly incurs many casualties doesn't make it stupid militarily. It's merely makes it expensive. If the prize is worth it, it could be a good tactic. D-day obviously was sure to incur many casualties, but establishing a beachhead in France was worth an enormous amount to the allied effort. Pickett's charge was no d-day, but had they succeeded in taking the hill the union armies would have been in a very bad place.

Finally, Lee's main claim to military skills really came from prior to the war, but during the war he did do a fairly skillful job of avoiding larger union armies and picking battles against smaller ones.

Until Gettysburg, of course....

In the end, I think the south was doomed as long as the union was determined to win no matter how long and bloody it was. I think lee probably was effective in making it last four years. A lesser general probably couldn't have done that.

Not that that was a good thing....

[jberryhill]

28. a short history of human wave attacks

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack

[RHMerriman]

43. The Allied amphibious assaults in Normandy in 1944 were

The Allied amphibious assaults in Normandy in 1944 put six assault infantry divisions ashore almost simultaneously, with three airborne divisions on the flanks, and with both Allied air and maritime supremacy. The defending German forces on the beaches were equivalent to - maybe - three of the Allied divisions, and German air and sea power was negligible.

Standard ratio for a successful ground attack at the focal point is roughly 3-1, attackers vs. defenders. Terrain makes a difference, of course, but a 3-1 correlation of forces is a pretty standard ratio historically.

On the Normandy beaches, it was - generally - about 4 to 1 or greater. Not surprisingly, the Allies prevailed on all five of the assault beaches; the only one that posed any real difficulty was OMAHA, largely because there were bluffs directly behind the beaches. Even with that the historical reality is the assault troops of the US Army's 1st and 29th infantry divisions were through the German beach defenses and well-established inland by the afternoon of June 6.

The success of OVERLORD's beach assaults was about the closest one can get to sure thing one can get in terms of the correlation of forces imaginable. The riskier phase of the campaign was not the assault phase, but the build-up before the breakout into France and the mobile warfare that would result.

Even then, given the Allied air and sea supremacy and the topography of northern France and southern Belgium, once the Allies built up enough troops for the mobile warfare phase, the only option the Germans had was to retreat to defending the river lines and more rugged country in northeastern France and southeastern Belgium and wait for winter, which is exactly what they did.

The Allies, especially the Americans from George C. Marshall on down, were masters of planning and command in for such a campaign, which is why it took all of six months to get from the Channel to the prewar Franco-German border, and another five months to cross the Rhine, encircle and conquer the Ruhr industrial region, and conquer Germany itself.

As far as Lee goes, his strategy of invading the north in 1862 and again in 1863 was incredibly bad; both operations resulted in significant losses the rebs could never make up and a strengthening of the US strategic position. Lee was an excellent combat commander on the strategic defensive on his own ground; on the strategic offensive, as was demonstrated in 1862 in Maryland and 1863 in Pennsylvania, and even in 1861 in West Virginia, he was poor to fair, at best.

[sweetapogee]

50. good points

Had the ANV found success at Gettysburg it might have allowed some European countries to help them out. Gettysburg closed that door for good. From there on the southern armies were simply trying to wear the north down, get them to quit the war.

Lincoln was in dire straights for the election of 1864. Had not Sherman taken Atlanta, Lincoln may have lost the election. Lincoln's opponent in the election was obviously a Democrat, and none other than Major General George McClellan, who was both commander of the Army of the Potomac (7 Days battles and Antietam) and also General-in-Chief of the Union Army. McClellan ran for president on ending the war by a peace settlement. Slavery would have probably been left intact in at least some southern states had McClellan won.

[LastDemocratInSC]

9. Earlier today I read that when Lee was President at Washington College

that he became disillusioned with the military lifestyle to the extent that when the students marched in unison, he deliberately marched out of step with them. I can't find the citation now, I'll keep looking.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

10. I happen to agree that anyone who fought for the Confederacy,

especially any commissioned officer, was a traitor and should NEVER be rehabilitated. I don't care how nice a guy he seemed to be. He owned slaves. He turned his back on his country.

I wish that immediately after the end of the civil war a law had been enacted making any display of any version of the Confederate flag a crime.

[Ponietz]

15. Yes, the Confederacy was never fully deconstructed

Lee and a dozen or so others should have hanged.

[misanthrope]

24. I'm not so sure that would have done the trick

The problem of the post-Civil War South has lingered on through to the contemporary era. Most of it is cultural in nature and extends far beyond the Gilded Age mythology applied to the Old South.

The Deep South's cultural roots are so deeply enmeshed in European feudal ideals and the brutal slave-based systems of the Caribbean that it would be exceedingly difficult, maybe impossible, to untangle them. As Colin Woodard aptly described it in his book "American Nations": "The goal of Deep Southern oligarchy has been consistent for centuries: to control and maintain a one-party state with a colonial-style economy based on … a compliant, poorly educated, low-wage workforce.”

I've lived in Alabama for more than a half-century. I grew up in Birmingham, a New South industrial town. I've lived my life since my 20s in Mobile, an Old South town shaped by cotton and drowning in antebellum mythology. Both are wracked by intractable racial issues, severe classist structures and the strong denial that keeps it all in place.

I don't know how the U.S. could have surmounted the forces that kept "old times not forgotten." It would have taken wizardry of some sort.

[Sgent]

52. As a son of MS and LA

I agree completely.

If the KKK and similar organizations had been put down in 1870's - 1920's, if CT or DE would have voted Republican in 1876... In general, if the federal occupation had continued and if Grant had done a better job of it in MS, AL, and TN.

[brush]

56. Traitors are usually hung. The post-war era, reconstruction etc. would've been...

different if the traitors weren't freed to go back and become cultural heroes. Where has that happened after any other war?

They were traitors and losers and should have been treated accordingly. There would never have been any monuments and hero worship if they were jailed and/or hung.

[DeltaLitProf]

61. Martyrs aren't worshipped?

If anything there would have been a more intense idolatry of hanged Confederate leaders. And hanging them would have brought on even more violent attempted reprisals, more John Wilkes Booths.

[brush]

68. You say tomahtoes, I say tomatoes. Your say martyrs, I say traitors...

and losers and white supremacists and slave holders who wanted to keep other humans enslaved.

Get a grip. They should've been jailed or hung and all that confederate paraphenalia outlawed as Nazi crap was in Germany after WWll. There's no out in the open Nazi/Hitler worship in German because they can be jailed.

Traitors, white supremacits and losers are not worthy of worship I don't care what sympathizers contend.

[misanthrope]

74. There's also other differences between the postbellum American South and post-WWII Germany

The American South is larger than Germany, more than twice as big even if you exclude Texas. The population was more spread out, harder to control.

Germany lost about triple the number of residents during WWII than the South lost in the Civil War. The bombing and obliteration of infrastructure, economy, what have you was far more devastating for Germany as well. Part of that is because their civilization prior to WWII was far more technologically and culturally advanced than what was found in the antebellum South. Berlin was considered one of the great artistic and cultural capitals of the European continent before the Nazis ascended to power. The closest the South had to that was New Orleans.

Germany was also divvied up after the war, with part of it becoming part of the Soviet bloc.

In light of all that, it's not surprising the population was more willing to adhere to prohibitive measures regarding Nazism.

Then there's the matter of Southern sociological culture and why so much of it made Reconstruction so impossible. The depth and intricacy of its feudalism, racism/white supremacy, xenophobia, religious fervor, worship of tradition and paranoia made the path that followed nearly unavoidable. The harder the federal government pushed, the more intractable the South would have become.

The only way to avoid it would have been to dismantle Southern culture altogether. That means creating a diaspora of Southern residents, casting them far and wide with no return allowed and that is not only logistically impossible but too cruel to advocate. America has committed enough barbarism without adding that to the list.

[sweetapogee]

18. the 15th president of the

United States was a Democrat (James Buchanan). His Vice President was John Breckinridge who was one of, if not the youngest VP in our history. The election of 1860 was a 3 way race with Brenckinridge on the Democratic ticket. Not sure but I think he won 2 states, 12 ECs.

Breckinridge was given a field command in the confederate army, saw action in numerous battles and was commander on the field at the Battle of New Market VA., where he put very young boys, cadets from VMI on the battlefield. By the end of the war he was confederate secretary of war.

[UniteFightBack]

11. Don Lemon also mentioned that Lee prick was captured. So fuck up rump. nt

[Ponietz]

12. The worst General in feeding and supplying his troops, and blundered all 3 days at Gettysburg

Day 1, Lee allowed the Union army an orderly retreat and occupation of the Cemetery Ridge heights. He did not choose the ground to fight on and forced the Confederate army to fight uphill the rest of the battle.

Day 2, Longstreet, Lee’s 2nd in command, urges a flanking movement, but Lee orders Hood to take his entire division and frontally assault a steep, rocky hill known as the Devil’s Den. Union sharpshooters and cannon pour down on Hood’s division. Decimated, and without Lee’s permission, they veer to right in a flanking movement, anyway, to avoid the slaughter. That was the battle at Little Round Top.

Day 3, Pickett’s charge. Longstreet was aghast and before the battle pointedly told Lee that no troops can take the Union center in a frontal attack.


[link:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/05/19/the-truth-about-confederate-gen-robert-e-lee-he-wasnt-very-good-at-his-job/|
[link:https://defendingthetruth.com/threads/lee-at-gettysburg-four-fatal-mistakes.20236/|

[yellowcanine]

17. The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

Very good article. Tells of how Lee's troops kidnapped free blacks in Pennsylvania and enslaved them. Also of the massacre of captured black Union soldiers at the Battle of the Crater by soldiers under Lee's command. Lee allowed these atrocities and others. Today his actions against captured black Union soldiers would be considered war crimes.

[dalton99a]

27. +1. Pain is good for black people:

I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.

[Hassler]

22. Treason makes a person do stupid stuff, just look at the Traitor-in-Chief

[aikoaiko]

23. One can't win them all.

[Xolodno]

25. In a morbid sense, thankfully Lee chose the Confederacy instead of the Union...he was ill...

At Gettysburg he describes symptoms of a heart attack;

http://www.civilwarmed.org/surgeons-call/lee/

And he didn't live the most healthy of life styles, and given his age....I'm surprised he didn't die during the war.

As for those calling him a traitor, that is a grey area. Loyalty to state vs. country wasn't clearly defined yet, troops were often brought up on the State Governments, like during the Revolution, not Federal. So...how do you define loyalty? There wasn't much of an official National Army as of yet....you could say the Mexican-American War created the idea of a National Army, the Civil War solidified it.

Robert Lee was a good General, just past his "prime" due to health reasons...whereas Grant, despite being an Alcoholic, was in much better shape. I wouldn't doubt Lee told Lincoln when he refused the commission to lead the Union Army, that he already knew his side lost, but the loyalty of country vs. state wasn't defined yet.

Hence why Lincoln refused to put the leaders, generals, etc. on trial. Succession wasn't in the Constitution, so it was the Union's interpretation vs. the Confederacy. Meanwhile, the US Supreme Court never weighed into this decision and nor have they now. The right of Succession has been defined by Executive Order and by preponderance Congressional condemnation. Legally? Not so much. Hence why you see these crazy Alaska, California, etc. Succession movements.

Anyway, I'm rambling again. Lee was a good General in his day, but he was already outmatched, out-resourced and out-health-ed. The Civil War lasted as long as it did, sadly, because of the good Generals in the Confederacy and inept Generals in the Union. It was a backwoods, ignored General named Grant who was given control that took advantage of the Unions resources and brought them to bear.

[uponit7771]

32. Grant was the opposite of an alchohloic IINM, he didn't drink much at all but when he did ....

... he could never hold too good ... cause he didn't drink frequently enough.

[brush]

55. Try to rationalize it all you want. Lee and the rest of the confederates were traitors.

He was, of course, also a white supremacist (reseacrh his vile views on AAs). And he frequently put his views into action by capturing free blacks his army encountered and pressed them into slavery.

Not a good man.

[Xolodno]

58. No rationalization, just calling a spade a spade. This was a different time...

...where our moral standards are very different from theirs. Lincoln wanted to deport all the slaves to Africa where they originated from, hardly the "absolute moral" standard we hold today. And many Presidents since Lincoln were white supremacists, some even viewed the Ku Klux Klan as hero's. No such thing as good man when you apply today's moral standards to the past.

None of this was right, but so was the Spanish Inquisition. Hero's of our past had many flaws, but its their ideals that has allowed us to advance, despite their failings.

As for Lee being a traitor, Lincoln could have had his ass arrested right there and then when he made Virginia's decision a condition if he accepted the commission as Union General. He didn't because at that time, this wasn't exactly treason. The states were viewed as individual nations under the umbrella of a common agent/treaty known as the Federal Government....and there weren't that many nations under that experiment...most of the world was still coming out of feudalism.

The power of the Federal Government was in no way near today. Add to that, the main reason slavery was Constitutionally outlawed was because the State's in Rebellion were not part of the Union government, by choice. Slavery could have continued for quite some time afterwards if they did not rebel, fight and essentially boycott the Federal Government in the Union's eyes. So in another morbid thought, the Civil War brought a quicker end to slavery.

Now if you insist on viewing the nation in terms of today vs. then, well, that's your prerogative. But in a historical perspective, it doesn't change jack. History is unique in that way. When I was in Paris, I wasn't exactly thrilled to see a street named after Joseph Stalin and I have Russian blood. But, I understood it, from a history perspective.

[brush]

69. It's still rationalization. Jefferson himself knew slavery was evil but didn't have the...

courage to advocate against it. And this is documented, way before the Civil War so the "times were different" argument doesn't work. It's just more justification for an evil, greedy system.

[Are_grits_groceries]

26. Stonewall Jackson was the true tactician in the CSA.

He used speed, secrecy and daring to keep the Union tied up in the Shenandoah Valley. That kept those forces from aiding other Union efforts.
He was also a bit of a loon. However, his men were deved to him.

[sarabelle]

31. I thought Trump didn't like losers? He seems to align himself with most of the losers in history.

[DeminPennswoods]

33. And, what if Joshua Camberlain had been unable to hold

the commanding position on Little Round Top?

[gladium et scutum]

36. Not Much

Neither Lee, Longstreet, or Meade saw Little Round Top as a significant feature of the battlefield. Neither Meade or Longstreet even mention the Little Round Top fight in their memoires. In Lee's Gettysburg Campaign report to Davis, he refers to the fight for Little Round Top as a "distraction" from his main assault on Meade's left flank. Only Chamberlain's writings detail the action on that hill.

[Persondem]

39. I disagree. If LRT had fallen the entire left flank of the Union line would have collapsed.

LRT was clear on top which would allow cannon to fire down the Union line. That's why Chamberlain held it at all costs.

[gladium et scutum]

40. Number 1 Chamberlain didnt hold at all cost

Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2019, 05:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Strong Vincent's Brigade held at all cost. 20 ME face one regiment of AL infantry directly. The remainder of Vincent's brigade held off repeated attacks by 2 regiments of Texas infantry. After the battle was over, it took Hunt 12 hours to get a battery of guns on LRT. This was due to the heavily wooded and steep rocky terrain of LRT. Had the Confederates won and managed to get a battery on the crest of LRT, Hunt would have assigned a couple batteries, of his 100 gun reserve, to counter battery the Confederates. Unlike Confederate case shot, Union case shot worked as designed and would have made mince meat out of the rebel gunners and horses.

[Persondem]

45. I'll get more info tomorrow, but I am not sure how you came by your info

Strong was the brigade commander. Chamberlain was a regimental commander under Strong. Not sure why you are making it sound like it had to be one or the other ... besides Strong was killed very early in the action. The 20 ME was on the far left of the line. They were the flank of the Union line; they screw up and the line gets rolled up.

[gladium et scutum]

46. Vincent was wounded late in the fight

and died 5 day later.

[Persondem]

47. Correct. But that does not diminish Chamberlain's role. nt

[gladium et scutum]

48. Not in any way.

But most only know of Chamberlain and the 20th ME. They do not know that there were 3 other regiments on that hill with the 20th. All of those men were fighting some of the best infantry in Confederate Army, not just Chamberlain and the 20th ME.

[sweetapogee]

63. the ground at

Little Round Top is shaped like a V. The top of the V is the Union line. The confederates had a small gap to file in at the bottom of the V but they had good cover up to the time they started their final charge. In other words, the 3rd Brigade, 1st Division of the 5th Corps had had a fairly large front to defend.

If anyone were to spend an afternoon on the battlefield looking over the area the (Union) Brigade had to defend and the confederate approaches to LRT you can get a much better picture of the amount of space the 20th Maine had to defend as there are markers showing the placement of the 20th Maine right, center and left flank. Keep in mind that the 20th Maine was down (on paper) to about 300 men and that they had just marched about 35 miles from Maryland, arriving on the battlefield shortly before the confederates started their attack. Hoods men were closer to the battlefield and were better rested and organized although poorly supplied.

You are correct that the entire (Union) Brigade had a lot of space to defend and a good argument could be made that Chamberlain was no more heroic than anyone else in the Brigade. However, victory or defeat on the field is determined by results and at the end of the day the 20th Maine held the Union left flank which prevented a Union disaster. Again, examine the ground to the left of the 20th Maine left flank, it rolls down a fairly steep slope but beyond that it is fairly flat. The 5th corps had wagon trains galore parked in that space, had Hoods men captured them it would have been a repeat of 2nd Bull Run but on northern soil. Had the confederates rolled up the Union left on July 2, 1863, our country would look a lot different today as a result.

[gladium et scutum]

64. If LRT was so important to the outcome of Gettysberg, why is it only

According to Chamberlain. He and a couple of generations of arm chair generals have made that claim. Meade did not,
Longstreet did not, Lee did not. Even Warren only makes a passing remark about it in his paper. I do not in any way negate the valiant efforts of the Union troops on LRT. But way to much emphasis is placed on it's importance to the outcome of the battle Gettysburg. George Green's defense of the East slope of Culp's hill was more important to the Union position at Gettysburg, than LRT. Green's New York Brigade was the only unit that Meade had not stripped from that part of Culp's Hill to reinforce his left flank. Green's brigade faced Johnson's entire Division of Ewell's corp. He held them off just as convincingly as Vincent's brigade held off Hood's brigade that attacked them.

As far as it would have been a repeat of 2nd Bull Run or our country would look a lot different today. Pure speculation.

[sweetapogee]

65. I get it

you don't like Chamberlain which is of course your right but the fact of the matter is his regiment held the Union left intact and had it been routed the 5th and 3rd corps would have been overrun. The only question is would the 6th corps under the capable John Sedgwick been able to stop the bleeding? Not likely because he was busy trying to extract Sickles from the meat grinder.

The 1st and 11th corps was beat to death on July 1 so if Ewell's corps could have keep up the pressure on the Union right (Rock Creek/Culps Hill) it would have been all over for Meade. And Meade having just assumed command of the Army of the Potomac didn't even know exactly where all of his troops were or even who below the division level was leading. Still, Meade did a fantastic job at Gettysburg. But..confederate canon on LRT would have been able to blast half way to Meade's HQ leaving the 3rd, 5th and possibly the 5th corps in the valley with no cover. BTW I'm happy it turned out the way it did but the facts are the facts.

[gladium et scutum]

66. I like Chamberlain

He was an excellent officer. His handling of his tactical situation at LRT was faultless. My opinion is, that if he had not written about LRT in his memoires "The Passing of Armies", almost no one except the most devoted historians of Gettysburg would have mentioned it. No Senior Officer of either army seemed to consider it a big deal.
"Confederate canon on LRT would have been able to blast half way to Meade's HQ", One hundred Confederate cannon were insufficient to do enough damage to the Union forces on Cemetery Ridge, the next day, how would two or three 4 gun batteries blast half way to Meade's HQ. Confederate cannoneer's, life span on LRT would have been short. Hunt would have had guns in counterbattery. Unlike Confederate ammunition, Hunt's case shot worked as designed. The Confederate gunners on LRT would have been showered with case they were all dead or wounded.

[Kaleva]

34. If Ike was such a great general, why did he dimiss intel that the Germans were massing for an attack

The only generals that never make mistakes are those bound to an armchair.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. Longstreet was a better general, saw the error of his ways, and joined the good guys after the war.

[Persondem]

38. Why? He knew that the Confederacy needed a win, a big win.

The South could not afford a war of attrition, not in men or material.

So he rolled the dice ....

[brewens]

51. If anyone respects Robert E. Lee, respect his feelings on monuments.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments

There were no southern swastika's or confederate uniforms at his funeral either.

[demosincebirth]

53. He should have been hung for Treason. Graduate of

West Point - took the Oath to defend the United States

[doc03]

54. Could it be Lee wasn't that great, just McClellan was that bad? nt

[Blue_true]

59. Someone pointed out yesterday in the long thread that Union appointments

to lead armies were influenced by politics and patronage. The Potomac/Virginia theatre was considered the prime landing spot to get appointed to lead an army. The confederates sent decent generals there, the north seemed more hit and miss and even moved good leaders like George Thomas out of that region fairly quickly. It seems to me though that the Union Generals Hooker and Meade were better that history accounts them as being. But still, the two best Union Generals (IMO), George Henry Thomas and Phillip Sheridan did most of their fighting in the western and southern regions.

[NewJeffCT]

67. That was my thought

Lee was decent, but looked better in comparison to the piss poor Union generals at the start of the war.