James Longstreet and July 2nd 1863

[johan_steele]

It's important to realize that quite a few mistakes were made by almost every CS officer @ Gettysburg. From Lee on down no CS General seemed to be at the peak of their performance. Lee's perforance is understandable if he did in fact have a mild heart attack. I think there was a lot more in that the II Corps had recently been restructured. Lee couldn't compensate for the loss of Jackson.

Also for the first time in a long time Lee was facing an Army of the Potomac that was competently lead. Reynolds & Hancock were first rate and both gave excellent service. Meade was steady and neither arrogant or a fool.

[bill_torrens]

Dawna,

For a recent, highly critical analysis of Longstreet on 2nd July I can recommend Robert K. Krick's essay James Longstreet and the Second Day at Gettysburg. It forms Chapter Three of Krick's book The Smoothbore Volley That Doomed The Confederacy.

It is highly readable and concludes with a quote from Richard Taylor's memoirs, Destruction and Reconstruction:

A recent article in the public press, signed by General Longstreet, ascribes the failure at Gettysburg to Lee's mistakes, which he [Longstreet] in vain pointed out and remonstrated against. That any subject involving the possession and exercise of intellect should be clear to Longstreet and concealed from Lee, is a startling proposition to those having knowledge of the two men.

Bill

[dawna]

Bill:

Thank you for the recommendation and I shall look forward to reading Krick's essay on Longstreet. Shane, it does appear to me that General Lee made a horrendous mistake at Gettysburg and as you pointed out, the Confederates were beaten by a superior army that had several brilliant leaders at the time.

Most of the literature that I've been reading lately has indicated that Longstreet was entirely to blame for the loss at Gettysburg and that his lack of action and behaviour towards General Lee was highly insubordinate. This seems totally out of character for a man who Lee always referred to as his "Old War Horse."


Dawna

[bokscar]

The main reason for the delayed vilification of Longstreet, was so the defeat at Gettysburg (seen by some as the turning point of the war)was not laid at Lee's doorstep.
After Lee's death, there was a concerted effort by Southern writers and historians to build up Lee as the Southern 'beau ideal' of the southern soldier and gentleman.
If you study their efforts, it turns out that Lee was a genius 'par excellance', and any failure of Southern Arms was the result of the failings of lesser mortals (in the case of Gettysburg, that would be Longstreet or Ewell or Hill or Early and if all else fails, maybe even the Union Army).
All Southern victories are attributable to the singular genius of Lee and perhaps (sometimes)Jackson. All failures were someone elses' doing.
Longstreet was an easy target, he didn't want to fight at Gettysburg, Lee did. They fought and were defeated, it obviously could not be Lee's fault, it must have that apostate,turncoat, black republican, Longstreet.
All reputations were available to be sacrificed at the alter of the "Marble Man".

[wt_jimbos]

Has anyone read "Lee the soldier" a collection of essays on R. E. Lee, its a very interesting book, and it includes some interviews with LEE, I don't have a copy but i have read my friends copy.

One of views in the book which I think was a good point was that LEE was unable to get an attack in concert with all corps, instead each corp had it's own attacks on the union in detail, or combine fragments of corps managed to attack in concert, but never a combine operation of all corps in concert, which some believe LEE was struggling to co-ordinate.

I feel if Jackson was there he would have backed Longstreet's argument of a flanking manoeuvre, and the two combine would have changed LEE's mind.

[dawna]

After Pickett's charge, didn't General Lee admit to some of his men that he had made a terrible mistake?

Dawna

[ben_ross]

Dawna, Be aware that Krick is said to be Highly critical of Longstreet and many dismiss what he writes as just trying to promote Jackson (who he is a big fan of). It was his essay that prompted me to write this essay, but being aware of what people thought of him, I decided not to use him as a primary source of info, and did a little more research. I find his essays worth reading, and they seem to fit with what I have read in other places. Regardless of what people say, he cites his sources so you can always look those up.... Just goes to show that he isn’t making things up. I myself requested a letter of his to J. Johnston in October of 62'. In this Letter he assures Johnston that the troops love him more than lee and that he (Longstreet) wished Johnston was in command instead of Lee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to Gettysburg... People talk about Lee's plans being crap...well let's look at it closely.

Lets remember that coming of his victory on the first, Lee held the initiative, something that he rarely gave up. Thinks of the Seven Day's, 2nd Manassas, and Chancellorsville. Lee always felt that initiative was the key. Always mystify and mislead the enemy, as Stonewall use to say. So let's keep it in mind that Lee was just being true to his character continuing the attack.

On July Second, Lee's plan was to find the federal left and smash it in and keep them on the run. Pictures of Chancellorsville were no doubt in his head. Lee found something that worked and used it over and over again...why mess with success, right? Think about it. Seven Day's, Jackson around the Left. 2nd Manassas, Jackson around the Left, Chancellorsville, Jackson around the Left. Now, there’s a pattern. Yet one piece of the pattern was missing at Gettysburg...Jackson. Jackson was the Aggressive Corp commander (Longstreet could be, but he liked Defense better). Jackson was no doubt Lee's go to man when it came to aggressive moves. So in the end, Lee was just trying to reuse his tactics again.

Truly, hitting the federal flank was a good call.

Sickles units, mostly, never even touched the ridge. Pfanz writes alot about Sickle's deployment... Wards men were out in the WheatField/ Devils Den area by 12, Pfanz writes," Thus, Wards brigade hasd a single line, without supportsm that extended from Devil's Den norherly along the Crest of the ridge, through the east end of the Rose's, and upto the south border of the Wheatfield, a distance of four hundred yards." (128)

De Trobriand's Brigade was positioned in front of the Wheatfield with portions of his troops facing seminary ridge and portions facing south west.

These two brigades were in these positions by about 12ish

Grahams Brigade Pfanz writes "occupied the peach Orchard behind the third maine and held the Emmitsburg Road as far north as the Trostle farm lane....The infantry of Graham's brigade advanced uphill from their position southwest of the trostle farmyard early in the afternoon, perhaps at 1:00 pm, and formed a line east of the Emmitsburg Road b/w the Trostle Land and the and Maj. John A Dank's 63 PA regiment at the Peach Orchard." (130..131)

All of this troops, as early as 12 and as late as 1, were b/w 1/4 and 1/2 a mile from the Ridge.

Humphrey's division was starting to move out towards the Emmitsburg road by 1pm

As you can see, Meade's Flank was very very insecure, and very vulnerable. Any attack by Longstreet around one to two would have been devastating. Note: Meade did not find out and decide to support Sickles until close to 3:30.

July third is highly misunderstood. The attack most people know is two divisions making a pointless frontal assault. Nah. Anyone ever hear of the second wave that was supposed to closely follow the first wave and break up the union center? Well that’s for another Topic.

I would rather not get into the whole lost cause stuff that came after the war. It gets rather messy...

[ben_ross]

I think if Jackson was there, there would have been no battle of Gettysburg. Lee would have been in Harrisburg.

Dawna, I have heard that Lee said "its all my fault" and I have heard that its a hoax as well.

But Lee did say, "I never saw troops behave more magnificently thatn Pickett's Division of Virginians did to-day in that grand charge upon the enemy. And if they had been supported as they were to have been -but, for some reason not yet fully explained to me, were not- we would have held the position and the day would have been ours."

Lee clearly states that his plan was not followed, yet he took the blame anyway. Thats the way he was. The movie "Gettysburg" does a poor job portraying the real Pickett's charge (thats my opinon)

[dawna]

Ben:

Thank you for taking the time to offer me such in-depth information. Lee's actions at Gettysburg shouldn't have been such a surprise since he was only repeating a successful pattern. Do you think that Lee would have attempted a northern invasion without the brilliant success that he and Jackson had at Chancellorsville?

Dawna

[wt_jimbos]

Ben, u'll have to explain this "Lee would have been in Harrisburg" I haven't come across the theory.