Why did Gettysburg happen...??

[soldier1861]

Is it true that gettysburg was a fight over a nice pair of brogans for confederate soldiers???

Ashley,

It's true, but also Lee was not aware of the position of the Union army because of the absence of Stuart's cavalry.

Ray

[mobile_96]

Actually, neither army knew where the other was. With Gettysburg a major Crossroads, it made sense to move to that area, in order to react quickly to any sighting or/by the other. But neither expected a fight at Gettysburg. But at this point each General was feeling his way around, and not decided where or how to meet their foe.
As for the shoes. Heth said he ordered Pettigrew to take his brigade to Gettysburg to search for supplies, especially shoes, and return the same day. Seems that Heth should have know that Early had swept the town 4 days earlier and there was little likely hood to find much of anything, including shoes. As Coddington says, "Heath's objectives hardly justified using so many men on a long, tiring march, especially as without a cavalry escort he took the added risk of sending them on a trap".
So when Pettigrew finds Federals there he returns to camp, but tells Hill what he found. Hill informs Lee that there are Union troops in
Getty and he'll send a force in the am to investigate, to which Lee seemed not to care.
Anyway, According to Heth the first group WAS sent to find supplies, including shoes. But why so many men to look for shoes in the first place,and
in a small town. There was no know shoe factory there, so any shoes would only been enough to fill the needs of the local residents.
A researcher, in a very interesting article in Gettysburg Magazine, put forth the idea that Heth was spoiling for a fight, even if only a small skirmish. Hence sending so many at one time. If true, he sure got his wish.
The shoe claim came sometime after the battle, so maybe its only a case of CYB.
Anyone else have any ideas??
Chuck in Il.

[connyankee]

You know, I've always wondered about "those shoes" myself. As mentioned, one would think that Jubal Early would have wiped the town clean of such items a few days earlier. Am I mistaken or did not many of the male townfolk make off in advance of the arrival of the Confederate army with personal items of worth or any such items that would be of value to the enemy?

I've felt all along that Lee was merely concentrating his army in the area because of sketchy reports that the Federals were on the move. Gettysburg happened, in my opinion, becasue the roads simply led there from all directions. I believe that Meade intended to hold the Pipe Creek Line, staying between Lee's army and Washington. Both sides literally marched to the sound of the guns at Gettysburg.

Another thing to consider is how difficult it was in those days to move armies, once they were committed, with supply and ammunition trains miles and miles long. I'm certain this factor weighed heavily in the subsequent decision-making of both commanders.

Respectfully,
CY

[soldier1861]

Also, people claim that the civil war started after a long dispute over slavery, land, and states rights. I'm sick and tired of hearing people claim that the war strictly started over SLAVERY. Which is true???

[blackirish]

Also, people claim that the civil war started after a long dispute over slavery, land, and states rights.

I think the most accurate answer would probably be both, any, and all of the above. The state's right that the southerners were concerned with happened to be the right to own slaves. They were not concerned with the northern states rights to outlaw slavery in thier respective states and in fact, insisted the the northern states had no right to make such judgements when a slave was carried from a slave state into a free state. They also claimed that the federal government had the duty to insist that northern state laws had no right to interfere with their right to reclaim escaped slaves. Clearly, an insistence that the federal government should go into northern states and disallow the state laws in these considerations does not align itself very well with a mantle of "state's rights." Another point that southern states insisted upon was that the federal government be responsible for keeping the citizens from northern states from petitioning against the institution of slavery; hardly a strict "state's right" viewpoint.
The dispute over land that I assume you are referring to was the settlement of the new territories gainded during the Mexican War. The only point of contention about this settlement and the debate that ignited Congress for the 12 years preceeding the actual break was again over the same issue; slavery. The southern states insisted that they should have the right to carry their property (slaves) into the new territories.
In both cases, states rights and the new territories the actual point of contention was the institution of slavery.
While it is innacurate to claim that the war was strictly over slavery, it is also impossible to separate any of the issues surrounding the conflict from the institution of slavery.

[mobile_96]

Rick, excellent posting. You beat me to it, while looking for a site that Ashley might want to visit for some great insights into the causes. I visit it frequently to see if any new updates.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
The site intro says...."This site was founded with the intent of collecting copies of or links to as many primary documents from the period of the secession crisis as is reasonably possible, with the goal of shedding light on the causes of secession, hence of the war".
One of the links here is "The Secession Commissioners" which I found extremely interesting and revealing, a must read when trying to understand some of the causes of the conflict.

[felinelady]

I agree with you Rick. It has long been my opinion that all factors lead to the war as they built upon each other to create a rift that seems to have had only one solution. Though we all disagree at times on the causes the underlining cause can always be traced back to the threat against a way of life. Just my opinion.

[aggie80]

I read someplace, and I doubt I could find it easily, that one of the generals had read an advertisement for shoes in a Gettyburg newspaper, and that was how the idea that there were shoes there came to mind.

[soldier1861]

So, let me summarize.

1. Gettysburg happened as a mixture of a lack of intelligence, need for shoes, and the want to fight.

2. The Civil War had no one cause, it was a stream of bad events that all happened at once and caused the fledgling nation to rebel and create a whole new one.

am I correct???