Why do historians focus on certain battles?

[whitworth]

"Gettysburg is studied ad infinitum more than others because it is the last possible turning point, politically. Had Lee won at Gettysburg without destroying himself in the process, a march on Washington DC would have commenced, thus nullifying the greater military defeat of Vicksburg."

This is one of the great myths of the war. Lee did not have enough supplies to go from Gettysburg and attack Washington. Lee, in earlier correspondence with Jefferson Davis, said he would never have the ability to lay siege to Washington. Confederate armies never had the supplies to commit to siege warfare.
On July 3rd, the Army of Northern Virginia ran out of long-range artillery ammunition. Lee lost any ability to continue an attack of the Army of the Potomac's defensive line. For that, Lee started his retreat directly to Virginia.

[cw1865]

I agree, no siege, but I'm thinking more along the lines of Bladensburg if the Army of the Potomac stumbles back out of Washington DC; ie. no need for a siege, the war would be effectively over. Lee would approach and Lincoln would essentially offer armistice terms on the basis of Southern independence. (IMHO)

[M E Wolf]

Dear Whitworth and CW1865,

I would have to disagree with the 'myth' of General Lee's planned attack on the defenses of Washington City (Wash. DC).

As there are records showing that General Early and his forces did reach the limits of Washington City and attacked Fort Stephens; to which President Lincoln set a presidence on being the first sitting President to be at the battle and or battle front.

The reason why General Early's attack failed was more from being indisposed. The troops got so drunk they couldn't attack until the following morning. By that time, the defense was in place.

I am sure, that The Battle of Bladensburg during prior encroachments by the enemy, the commanders of both Armies understood the best route--which the British had taken not that many years prior.
Although, it was a delaying route, as American Citizens changed road signs as a tactic, e.g. Walnut Street, NW was then changed to Tunlaw Road, NW. [Remaining Tunlaw as to remember what took place there, in the City of Washington.]

Where the forces of General Early had approached from was Silver Springs, Maryland and camped at the Blair Estate and got liquored up and thus delayed the planned assault.

Secondly, "IF" Lee was to be successful at Gettysburg, he would have taken the railroad in and 'live off the land' as he went. Maryland, Pennsylvania wasn't scarred from war. Maryland was half pro Confederate and half con Confederate. They may have been targeting areas where they had sympathy for support and guidence.

I am of the personal belief, that if General Lee had been successful, he would have done the same tactic in which General Sherman's 'March to the Sea' causing the speed and not hampered by wagons, supplies and such. Perhaps this was realized by General Grant when he sent off Sherman and maintained a heavy presence in Virginia and moved to Petersburg and cut off the supplies. Might have used Lee's plan against him, as Maryland and Pennsylvania was the bread basket of the North.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[milhistbuff1]

How about the cavalry?

Surely a successful ANV would be able to send the cavalry south post-haste to escort supplies north.(Glenn Tucker, Bevin Alexander) This would give Lee the time necessary to deal with prisoners, foraging for non-ammo supplies and other matters of attention. The only possible problem is the weather causing the Potomac to flood before the cavalry can cross.

The vast majority of Northern industry was in a belt between New England and Baltimore. Cut the rail lines West from the coast,through the mountains, Grant and any other union force west has no supplies.

Why didn't Davis adopt Lee's suggestion of pulling together troops such as Ransom's division and the two brigades of Pickett's division needlessly defending Richmond? That could have created a fourth corp which could have caused enough panic in Washington DC to force the holdback of troops from the AOP.

[J_Man0507]

IMHO, it depends on who was involved, how many men died, and its significance to the outcome of the war that makes the battle more studied than others. For example, Vicksburg and Gettysburg and studied ad nauseum due to the fact that one opened the Mississippi River and the other turned back Lee's invasion of the North. Both produced significant casualties and both were important to the war. However, there are battles that aren't given a great amount of focus that were equally important to the outcome, produced a good deal of casualties, and had a personality or two. Sure, they have a book or two, but they aren't like Gettysburg, which has gotten down to studying minutiae of the battle.

I give an example. The Fort Henry and Donelson campaign is one of the most significant of the early war. It chased A.S. Johnston out of Tennessee and dealt a severe blow to the Confederacy in the West. However, how many books have been published about it in the last 50 years? I have found a couple, but they are far fewer than the large battles. The twobig personalities involved were Grant and Forrest, whose stars were just beginning to rise, and the casualties produced were light compared to battles to come. A significant campaign, much less coverage than Gettysburg, Shiloh, etc. The most recent book to come out is Men of Fire, which is a good look at the battle, but I have only been able to find a couple other recent (last 30 years or so) books on the campaign.

There are good books out there, on almost all of the campaigns, just some are harder to find than others, and fewer than others. Seek, and ye shall find.

[whitworth]

"if the Army of the Potomac stumbles back out of Washington DC;"

Washington, D.C. was the best defended city in the world. It had interlocking forts with much artillery.
Attacking Washington would have made Pickett's Charge look like a weekend picnic.

Plus from several sources, including Lieut.-Col Fremantle, the British observer at Gettysburg, the Confederates had run out of long range artillery ammunition, making any move toward Washington impossible.