Bevin Alexander and Gettysburg

[timewalker]

I have been listen to the book on tape of Bevin Alexander's Robert E. Lee's Civil War. I disagree with him on a number of points - I have never worshiped at the Shrine of Jackson as he apparently does.

Two things he said about Gettysburg especially bothered me and I wanted to get the board's take on them.

He said that if T. J. Jackson had been at Gettysburg he could have talked Lee out of attacking the Union troops on the second and third days and convinced Lee to slip away or go around the Union flank. But this is exactly what Longstreet proposed and Lee rejected his suggestion. So would Jackson really have been any more successful? Perhaps the combination of Longstreet and Jackson together arguing for a flanking maneuver?

The second was his assertion that Lee's mistake was in concentrating his forces at or near Cashtown (actually Gettysburg as it turned out) at the first sign of a Union threat. Alexander claims that Lee should have continued on to Harrisburg, crossed the river, and taken Philadelphia. This strikes me as a much riskier move, if not a foolhardy one. Wouldn't Lee's army be trapped with no possibility of resupply? It's not as if the Confederate Navy could bring him supplies at Philadelphia. Could Lee really have taken Philadelphia? For that matter, could he even have taken the bridges and taken Harrisburg?

[ole]

Generally agree, timewalker. What makes Alexander think that Jackson would have tried to talk Lee out of a confrontation? Jackson was about as aggressive as they come (when he wasn't napping). He might have had some suggestions as to how to smash Meade's men, but finesse was not exactly his strong point.

The second point: Lee had three Corps fairly well scattered around the countryside. Where else was he going concentrate? One east of Gettysburg, one east of South Mountain and one west of there. Seems like the best place would be to pull one back and pull another forward. The center? Cashtown. And he was trying to move a lot of men on a single road. He knew how long it takes to move that many men, with wagons, that far.

Much has been discussed about Lee's intentions in being in Pennsylvania in the first place, but move to Philadelphia? How was he going to do that? Even if Meade hadn't shown up where he wasn't expected, aiming for Philadelphia would have been an intolerable risk.

As I see it, the best Lee could hope for was to throw a big scare and get the heck out -- likely changing some Federal convictions. Burn a bridge, tear up some track, but his line of communication was tenuous, at best. Pushing it too hard flirts with disaster.

It's been said that Lee placed a high value on his troops, and that's one reason he took the chance. I figure he also placed too low a value on the AotP, and was quite surprised when he found much of it interfering with his plans.

Naaaaa. Jackson would have made little difference if he were there and Ewell wasn't.

ole

[M E Wolf]

Dear Timewalker,

My personal opinion when it comes to General "Stonewall" Jackson 'if alive' would affect the Gettysburg Campaign would be --if Jackson was alive, he would just be happy to attack where Lee pointed him. But, I think Jackson would side with Lee; leaving Longstreet where he was as history has shown--not comfortable with Lee's plans but, obedient. I really do not know if Jackson would have been able to lead 'the verson of Pickett's Charge or not--it really is a great 'what if.' Yet, I think it would have served Longstreet well, if he was ommitted from the disaster of Gettysburg; keeping up his sound reputation.

Another thought in addition, it is well documented that Jackson had one of his Corps commanders arrested and had to march behind his Corps, as for a disciplinary reason. (Gen. A.P. Hill), had General Lorring arrested also!-- And, I think Jackson wouldn't be happy about breaking an oath of Virginia's not to invade another state's territory (so to me a more defensive campaign on VA soil).

I would also have to think about the 'amputated' Jackson. It may have had an affect on Jackson's leadership or not-- he might be still in the healing process even if he survived and not present to command his Corps. Which would have resulted in what happened at Gettysburg without him.

Jackson's Corps Commander B. General Garnett, was under court martial charges when Jackson died. If Jackson lived, Garnett may have been elsewhere punished by court martial (if Jackson had his way) or transferred elsewhere but, it might have been different--as he still had a situation where he would have charged the Union's clump of trees. Garnett's fate might not have changed.


I am also wondering if Jackson would have been there, what affect there would have been with JEB Stuart--I am sure he would have had a fit, with JEB Stuart under his command 'joy riding' per se and not giving reports. Might have slapped JEB Stuart with court martial action also.

Lee's decision on to whom would lead the charge--I think when he picked Longstreet over AP Hill's commanding the operation, it might have changed if Jackson was there to command it. But, regardless of Lee's tactical plan and who he had--I am not sure the success would have been Lee's. Too much open space to go to the wall. Much like Marye Heights at Fredericksburg.

For me though, psycholigically--fighting on enemy soil as well as not having the food, the horses and clothing supplies restored by seizing them from the land--they were in a pinch. Now, according to the movie Gettysburg -the introduction, it was Lee's mission to swing around and press Washington City from the north--and submit a letter for surrender to President Lincoln once the combat was concluded in smashing the Union Military. And, if the mindset was on Hooker's battle style--it was possible to defeat Hooker. Meade's "Modus Operandi" was unknown--he being in command 3 days--not really good intelligence or 'testing' Meade either--it was ill planned based on extreme confidence in Lee's men.

I think General Lee was 'cheated' by his own men though--Ewell failing to take the hill, other mistakes --failing to listen to General Hood's advice, via Longstreet, who also argued in support of Hood's plans--I think this is about the area where the wheel was coming off the wagon axle.

Just some thoughts.
M. E. Wolf

[samgrant]

I will only add, as has been suggested above, that Jackson would have been more agressive and a better tactical commander than Ewell under the circumstances.

But then this maybe belongs in the "What If" forum.


---

[5fish]

Originally Posted by samgrant

I will only add, as has been suggested above, that Jackson would have been more agressive and a better tactical commander than Ewell under the circumstances.

But then this maybe belongs in the "What If" forum.


---

I defer for the original question was not a "what if" but what do we think of the arthur's conclusion.

I would argue for now that Jackson would taking "the high ground" along with Culp's hill so there would have been no need for any moves to the right. Lee's army would have control the high ground and the Meade's army would have had to either stay and fight and be the aggressor or retire.

[whitworth]

"if T. J. Jackson had been at Gettysburg"

A number of generals were dead by July 2, 1863. Historians should get over it.


..."could have talked Lee out of attacking the Union troops on the second and third days"

Lee clearly said in his OR report, why he had to attack at Gettysburg and not entrench. If entrenching was a possiblility, Lee would have done so and await an attack. Too many "Monday morning quarterback" historians, who never read Robert E. Lee's Gettysburg report.

"Alexander claims that Lee should have continued on to Harrisburg, crossed the river, and taken Philadelphia."

Alexander doesn't seem to know there was too much water in the Susquehanna River at the time, from the rains. The militia was guarding the bridges. The Confederacy had no pontoon boats or the ability to cross artillery at fords. None of the "historians" seem to have studied water.
If the crossing of the Susquehanna River was easy, why did Lee keep two corps in Chambersburg, PA and not move them up to the Susquehanna River, as he did with Ewell's Corps near Harrisburg and Wrightsville, PA?

Oh, most historians seem to forget that Lee had a difficult time crossing the high rising Potomac River on his retreat. No high water in the area!!!!


"JEB Stuart under his command 'joy riding' per se"

If JEB Stuart had been on a 'joy ride", why wasn't he replaced by R.E. Lee after Gettysburg. Why wouldn't Lee replace a general, some feel was a dereliction of duty on Stuart's part.

Actually Stuart was blocked by Hancock's Corps, which seriously delayed the departure of Stuart from Virginia. General Lee had seriously underestimated the time the AoP would cross the Potomac River. Of course, few historians would study this episode and not have to lay blame at the feet of one General Robert E. Lee. So they ignore this episode.