Confederates at Gettysburg

[whitworth]

Anyone believe that certain facts and mistakes, concerning Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, were ignored, or even covered over, by many historians?

To what extent did Confederates make serious errors, that saw little, if any, focus by historians?

I seem to come up short, whenever I search for any historian, who ever questioned, why the Confederates even started the war?

Do you think any historian ever thought of leaving some negative on the Confederates, out of his book, so they could avoid "piling on", a football term, since the Confederates did lose the war?

[ole]

Whitworth:
I've neither seen nor heard of any genuine historian deliberately ignoring or hiding facts. Some interpretations of the facts may be a bit flawed occasionally. Some very credible studies were written before the internet and discoveries of misplaced documents revealed new facts to interpret correctly or whatever. (I'll take that back now. Eric Wittenberg [Plenty of Blame to go Around] flayed Carhart's Lost Triumph on another forum recently citing, among other things, misrepresentations and bolstering interpretations by ignoring known facts.)

Can't imagine why you've come up short in your search for a historian who wuestioned why the CSA even started the war? There are a gazillion books out there exploring the why -- I must be misunderstanding your statement.

Leaving out some negatives. I'm certain that it has been done. Whether it was done out of charity is another matter. Sometimes writers will avoid the "piling on" because it makes their work look biased. Better to leave out a few things that don't add to the point of the book, than to put them in and risk having your book rejected as overly critical. Leaving things out to spare feelings, however, is something I don't believe.
Ole

[larry_cockerham]

"any genuine historian" ......... I wonder if such really exists. Even Shelby Foote had a bit of a Southern accent.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by whitworth

Anyone believe that certain facts and mistakes, concerning Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania, were ignored, or even covered over, by many historians?

To what extent did Confederates make serious errors, that saw little, if any, focus by historians?

I seem to come up short, whenever I search for any historian, who ever questioned, why the Confederates even started the war?

Do you think any historian ever thought of leaving some negative on the Confederates, out of his book, so they could avoid "piling on", a football term, since the Confederates did lose the war?

To your 3rd sentence, there lots of folks who would not agree on that premise.

Anyway, you are keeping me busy with my Alexander book. As to Gettysburg, E.P. writes (concerning the aftermath of day 1:

"Now when it is remembered that we stayed for three days longer on that very ground, two of them days of desperate battle, ending in ... a bloody repulse, & then successfully withdrew ... & foraged succesfully for over a week ... until we could build a bridge, it does not seem inprobable that we could have faced Meade safely on the 2nd at Gettysburg without assaulting him in his wonderfully strong position. We had the prestige of victory with us, having chased him off the field & through the town. We had a fine defensive possition on Seminary Ridge ready at our hand to occupy. ... As Gen. Jackson once said, "We did sometimes fail to drive them out of position, but they always have failed to drive us.""
"I cannot believe the military critics will find any real difficulties in our abstaining from further assault on the following day."

[Rad2duhbone53]

Something really bothers me about Longstreet been made the scapegoat of Gettysburg.I put these questions to others here on this forum:

1. on July 2nd Lee instructed both Longstreet and Ewell to attack both flanks at the same time. Longstreet launched his 1st Corp at around 4pm. But Ewell did not launch his attack until hours later. Who was at fault? hmmmmm??

2. Col. Alexander threw just about everything they had on the early afternoon of July 3rd. But his opponent was Gen. Hunt...... his instructor at West Point.Don't you think Hunt would have figured out what his pupil was doing? (by slowing down the federal rebuttal causing his pupil to come to the conclusion the Reb artillery did its job)

[ole]

Rad:

Who was at fault? hmmmmm??

Including Lee? There were a whole bunch of failures on that day. Staff work -- Longstreet's countermarch; lack of coordination between the corps; foggy orders. Personalities -- Longstreets's petulant insistence in following orders in spite of the radical change in the situation. It goes on and on. It was a decent, workable plan that just didn't come together.

Don't you think Hunt would have figured out what his pupil was doing?

Excellent, what if, Rad. What makes it interesting is that it could be true. I've seen no other speculation on that possibility -- that's what makes it fascinating: "the teacher finesses the student." Something to think about.

Thanks. Ole

[samgrant]

Fort Sumter


Anderson was a 1825 graduate of West Point. From 1837 – 1838, he
served as an artillery instructor at West Point. One of his favorite students was a Creole
from Louisiana by the name of Pierre GT Beauregard, a member of the 1838 class at
West Point

[Rad2duhbone53]

Always that military "click" that seems to get in the way. I find this concept fascinating .

[ole]

Rad:
Are you talking about the "click" usually preceding the light coming on? Or are you referring to the "clique" that frequently protected its own or, as frequently, tore a brother to pieces?
Ole

[whitworth]

But how many as direct as Margaret Mitchell in her novel, 'Gone with the Wind', who indicated the lack of industry in the south as a significant factor, in the beginning sequence of her book.

The Confederacy started losing the war in 1863 as a direct result of supply deficiences, as much a reason in surrendering in 1865.
The Confederate army went on its invasion of Pennsylvania with a serious shortage of forage, a limited supply of ammunition, and a serious lack of horseshoes and nails. Kill your horses and you kill the army. A army cannot well survive without the mules and horses to pull wagons and artillery. After the battle Lee recognized that his horses and mules were cut by half. That is a tremendous loss.

The Confederates not only had run out of forage in Virginia in mid-1863, the serious deficiences in their railroad network, reduced shipment of any supplies from the further southern states below Virginia.

Once Lee left Petersburg and Richmond in 1865, the war was over. There were no more supply depots of ammunition or forage left to supply an army of any size.
Once Sherman had destroyed Atlanta as a supply base and cut Virginia from receiving gun powder from Augusta, the war's end was in sight.
Even early in the war, the Confederate army, logistically, could hardly protect Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, western Virginia, Maryland and its claim on U.S. Territories.

Incrementally, the war had ended long before Appomattox Courthouse.

One can read the "battle history books" and wonder how the Confederacy even lost the war. And there is probably " a gazzilion" of those books.