TDMD
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2010
- Location
- Norridge, IL
It is difficult to describe the results of Longstreet's attack on III Corps, as a tactical success(seredipitous or not). The result was a tactical defeat for Lee's plan for Day 2.(as was the result of Longstreet's attack on Day 3)
I was, in fact, referring to the attack on Culp's Hill and Longstreet's on Sickle's(the attack was intended to be upon Cemetary Ridge, had not Sickle's movement effectively aborted it).
In the CW large scale night attacks were to be avoided almost at any cost, as was proved on Day 2, when local success could not be ffectively exploited, as at the end of Day 1. Longstreet and Ewell both were following by rote, orders from Lee, long out of date because of the passage of time and events.
Was Longstreet(or Ewell) under orders to get into position and await further orders to attack? Because that seems to have been exactly the attitude of Longstreet.
P.S. Lee's laxness and Longstreet's reluctance are not moot points, they cannot be separated from results of the Battle of Gettysburg, on Day 2(and Day 3, also)
Attacking with 1:2 odds and suffering 2,000 fewer casualties indicates a tactical success to me. Day 3 is different, of course. Regarding what Sickles aborted - he needlessly aborted the lives of better than 8,000 Union troops from his corps as well as the Fifth and Second Corps.
Regarding large scale night attacks, yes, ideally one would want to avoid them because of the attendant confusion and loss of command and control. They were still executed, though.
Lee's orders to Ewell on the late afternoon of July 1 would seem contradictory when he wanted Ewell to attack, but not bring on a general engagement. It would give the impression that the latter proviso was still in effect. I would refrain from calling that laxity, though - just poorly written orders.
You are attributing to Longstreet something that you cannot prove. That is not a good way of looking at things, unless you state that your opinion is mere conjecture. We both know that is not what Longstreet did (await further orders).
Finally, I completely disagree that Lee's laxity and Longstreet's reluctance are major contributing factors to the Confederate loss at Gettysburg. It appears that will have to agree to disagree on the matter.