General Lee at Gettysburg

[JChambers]

Now that I see how many different opinions all of us here on treasurenet have to offer, I have a topic for us all to discuss. What is everyone's standpoint on General Lee at Gettysburg? Genius? Failure? Do you think that the disaster could have been prevented, and could Pickett's charge have actually worked? I'm full of opinons on this subject, I for one love the General and believe that he was the greatest officer of the entire war, arguably in the history of more recent wars. So let's hear what anyone else has to say.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Diving for Pleasure and Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[MichaelB]

A quick read......

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[BamaBill]

Good Book, I read it years ago.

 

[8ball]

LEE was sick at that time some think he had a heart acct or stroke or deep dep & lee did not use opuim & cocain like you know lincoin did

 

[joecoin]

Great topic with a number of opinions.
Here's mine.

Lee's biggest mistake in Pennsylvania was not keeping J.E.B. Stuart closer to the main army. Cavalry could have taken the high ground early on, thus changing the outcome. But the war was a lost cause anyway.

It is impossible for me to understand how the war was NOT about slavery. Look at it this way, if slavery had not existed , would the war have been fought?

Yes, Lee was an honorable man, and a man of his times. But he did commit treason against his country. I know he was torn between country and family/home (Virginia). I have read the quote along the lines of "I will not fight against Virginia". After the war he did good service for both.

I don't think he fully understood the overall "big picture" as well as Sherman did. Sherman seemed to always know what to do, how to do it and when to do it. He knew how to kick butt.

P.S. 8ball, you should change your name to goofball. Abraham Lincoln was the greatest statesman this world has ever known.

 

[8ball]

ok thank you thats what makes this country great we can say what we want to but as to the great statesman i have a letter from a maid that work at the white house were she said she is allways going to the store to get opium & cocain so you tell me look at the photos a picuture say alot i guess you think he did not eat or had some med cond yea right

 

[transplant]

joecoin, the war was about state rights the issue was slavery. the slave trade had been stop and the south excepted this but the issues was if the new state joining the union could have slaves.the feds said no much like today, Calif want tighter emission laws , the feds said no. so the question still remain is this a state thing or federal thing. the Constitution limits the power of the federal govt, and put it in the hands of the people, who live in the states.the govt is to respond to the will of the people not the people to the will of the govt

 

[joecoin]

joecoin, the war was about state rights the issue was slavery. the slave trade had been stop and the south excepted this but the issues was if the new state joining the union could have slaves.the feds said no much like today, Calif want tighter emission laws , the feds said no. so the question still remain is this a state thing or federal thing. the Constitution limits the power of the federal govt, and put it in the hands of the people, who live in the states.the govt is to respond to the will of the people not the people to the will of the govt

From Wikipedia:

"The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north except within the boundaries of the proposed state of Missouri. The provisions of the Missouri Compromise forbidding slavery in the former Louisiana Territory north of the parallel 36°30' north were effectively repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. Provisions relating to forbidding slavery in territories were made unconstitutional in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case in 1857. The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 created the territories of Kansas and Nebraska, opened new lands for settlement, repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and allowed the settlers to decide whether or not to have slavery within those territories. The act was designed by Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. The act established that settlers could decide for themselves whether to allow slavery, in the name of "popular sovereignty" or rule of the people. Opponents denounced the law as a concession to the Slave Power of the South. The act and the subsequent civil war in Bleeding Kansas was a major step on the way to the American Civil War."

So, here you see that the Federal government allowed the Territories to organize as free or slave, and to apply for admission to the Union as free or slave. States Rights, both existing and future, seem to have been kept intact. Agree? Disagree?

 

[Pimp Lenin]

I remember reading some time ago that General Lee was pushing to have General Beauregard consolidate his forces and move up from South Carolina into Virginia in conjuction with the ANV's move into Pennsylvania. General Lee was hoping that General Beauregard's forces would continue the Confederate threat to Washington while he was up north, possibly forcing a split of the Army of the Potomac. It sounded like an interesting strategy to me.

However, President Davis and his cabinet did not approve of the idea, and it never materialized. I think the outcome of the battle, and probably the war, would have been very different. The civillian population of the North was on the edge; an invasion of the North in conjuction with an attack somewhere on the outskirts of Washington may have turned them over.

 

[Monty]

I agree that the war wouldn't have lasted nearly as long as it did if not for Lee. Let's face it, the South was not prepared for a war the least little bit. A lot of what they did have was taken from the North early on in the war or captured later on during the war. In spite of this , the South could have won the war if it had not been for such poor leadership other than Lee. Time after time, subordinate generals failed to follow orders. If they were told to move forward at say 0800, they would stall around until noon and by then the effect of their participation was nullified. When they won a battle in spite of orders and the opportunity to pursue and capture the opposing armies, they failed to do so. Time and time again I have read of these problems in my reading on the war. The North suffered much from the same malady along with a lack of aggressiveness by Union generals until later in the war when Grant and Sherman came to power. Lee's leadership was not what lost the war. In the end it was simply that they were outmanned and outgunned with no means of parity.
Pickett's charge? It was doomed to failure from the start and was foolhardy at best. Monty