Stuarts fault at Gettysburg?

sean_harris · #1 01-30-2003, 08:06 PM

Without getting into particulars (wife cooking supper) I was wondering why people tend to blame Stuart for Gettysburg. Though his unit was a seasoned,compact,well-trained unit they were not the only cavalry in the AoNV.

Lee in fact had roughly 8000 under his direct command at that time minus Stuart. Several cavalry units did report Union Corps locations 5 days before Gettysburg. Lee relied heavily on Stuart however, Lee was the commanding general and did have screeners and recon available. Could it be Lee was so caught up in relying on his favorite son he forgot the rest of the Cavalry he commanded and could have used. He could not find Stuart however, he new the locations of his other forces.

Whats your ideas?

jac · #2 01-31-2003, 04:18 PM

Well, people blame Stuart, they blame Longstreet, they blame Ewell, etc.
I think a lot of that is they can't bring themselves to blame Lee.
I am reminded, too, that, after the war, George Pickett was asked what caused the loss at Gettysburg. His reply was, 'I thought the Yankees had something to do with it.'

mobile_96 · #3 02-01-2003, 12:21 AM

I agree Jack, I think Lee made a lot of very poor command decisions at Gettysburg, and also his method of command left a lot to be desired.

unionblue · #4 02-01-2003, 12:29 AM

Wasn't Lee suffering a bit from some medical concerns during Gettysburg? Could this have been some of the reason for some of his bad desecions? Wasn't it at one point that Longstreet said Lee's "blood was up" meaning something other than just excited or anxious to attack?

Just curious,
Unionblue

mobile_96 · #5 02-01-2003, 01:12 AM

I'm under the impression Lee's blood being up meant he was going to fight no matter what.
As to being sick, thats true, and probably did have some effect on his decisions. However, I think there were too many major faults in his 'planning' during the battle. Look at day 2. Has a recon early morning, finally gets a attack plan in place and the attack starts late afternoon, with no further efforts at a new recon. Did Lee really think that Meade was going to sit and let Lee attack anywhere he pleased, then start moving his forces around? I think not. Lee relied too much on the 'history' of the AoP having the slows. Lee knew that he who moves first and hardest would have the advantage, so why not strike quickly.
Day 3, he had hit both flanks, and done some damage, but now he decides that Meade would have to be weak in the center. Why would this Have to be true. Didn't he consider that Meade might think the same thing, which in fact, happened. At the war council held on the evening of day 2, he predicted Lee would attack at the center, if he did attack. Having the interior lines was a huge benefit to Meade, he could, and did, shift forces very quickly that afternoon, and mostly during the cannonade and after, up to the end of the attack.
There is also some evidence of Lee wanting a 2nd line, in place and ready to go, If a breakthru was achieved, to finish breaking the line. Well, this is one place where Lee's command method failed him. Some effort was made to decided who would be in the 2nd line, but those troops commanders were not informed, IIRC. After Lee had decided the 1st line he stepped back to let Longstreet to do his job, and never checked to see how things were. If he had, then no 2nd line being formed would have been discovered. Also the issue of cannon following held on the evening of day 2, he predicted Lee would attack at the center, if he did attack. Having the interior lines was a huge benefit to Meade, he could, and did, shift forces very quickly that afternoon, and mostly during the cannonade and after, up to the end of the attack.
There is also some evidence of Lee wanting a 2nd line, in place and ready to go, If a breakthru was achieved, to finish breaking the line. Well, this is one place where Lee's command method failed him. Some effort was made to decided who would be in the 2nd line, but those troops commanders were not informed, IIRC. After Lee had decided the 1st line he stepped back to let Longstreet to do his job, and never checked to see how things were. If he had, then no 2nd line being formed would have been discovered. Also the issue of Cannon following the 1 line to assist in the attack. If his chief of Art. had been informed of the use of these batteries, then he would not have moved them off, with no one, not even his boss, knowing where they were.
Chuck in Il.

jac · #6 02-03-2003, 03:00 PM

I just reread this whole thread....
Gettysburg discussions have always been framed as 'How could Lee lose?' ..
Maybe it should be, 'What did Meade do to win'. The AOP was fighting on home ground, with interior lines- big advantage.
And, if you look at some of the subordinate commanders on both sides, often the Union officers performed better than the CSA officers. Buford, Reynolds, Hancock, Vincent, Chamberlain, O'Rourke, George Sears Greene, and a bunch more that I can't recall.
How did Lee lose at Gettysburg? Because the AOP outfought him and beat him, that's how.
Now, let the flames begin!

brian_swartz · #7 02-03-2003, 08:01 PM

Lee who manly consider a 1st rate general was arrogant at Gettysburg.The result he was defeated by a 2nd rate General.
I don't know if it is true but I read somewhere long time ago Lee was having heart problems prior to Gettysburg.
Stuart did not help matters when he reported to Lee what he done and not why he did not do what he was supposed to of been doing,being the eyes and ears.
Brian

rallyround · #8 02-03-2003, 08:07 PM

No flames! I just wanted to agree with some of the people that have contributed to this thread that, many times, people just cannot bring themselves to blame Lee. I believe in what Jac posted. The AOP had Lee beat at Gettysburg, and perhaps it was not all his fault, but it wasn't all Stuart's fault either. The Confederacy's lose was a team effort.

9thvacav · #9 02-03-2003, 09:02 PM

Jack is right Brian, Lee lost to better generalship. He did make bad military decisions but I wouldn't necessarily call Lee arrogant. He WAS a first rate general but even first rate generals can make mistakes and have bad days.

Stuart did what he was ordered to do (march to meet Ewell near York and capture supplies for the ANV). An understanding of the terrain in the march from Virginia, the valley of the Shenandoah to the fords and rivers on the way to Gettysburg will help in understanding why Stuart chose the route he did to follow his orders.

There WAS cavalry present at Gettysburg prior to any action (Jenkins), two other brigades of cavalry were AVAILABLE if needed to scout and screen (Jones and Robertson) and who were ordered to screen the march by Stuart after the cavalry battles fought at Aldie, Middleburg and Upperville.

Sometimes armies just run out of luck. Loyal staff officers feel the need to protect their generals by passing on the responsibility for the failure to others. Thus the "blame" continues unabated depending on what expert opinion you read.

Linneus Ahearn
www.9thvirginia.com

unionblue · #10 02-04-2003, 12:12 AM

Mr. Ahearn, I tend to agree with you and feel that Lee was never arrogant, but he did have a bad couple of days at Gettysburg. I feel, IMHO, that Meade doesn't get enough credit for winning that one. He was thrust into command just a short while before the battle and had to contend with AOP morale and other factors before crossing swords with one of the best generals in the world at that time.

Some days the bear just turns around and eats you. Lee just had a number of things and situations rise up and bite him. Just like Grant at Cold Harbor, Petersburg, etc.

Until next time,
Unionblue