Shelby Foote Quote on Lee and Gettysburg

[USS ALASKA]

Lee's men needed shoes for starter.

Myth 1: The Battle of Gettysburg was fought over shoes.
There was no mention of shoes having anything to do with the Battle of Gettysburg until 14 years after it happened. In 1877, Confederate General Henry Heth wrote, "Hearing that a supply of shoes was to be obtained in Gettysburg, eight miles distant from Cashtown, and greatly needing shoes for my men, I directed General Pettigrew to go to Gettysburg and get these supplies." Problem is, there were no shoe factories anywhere near Gettysburg in 1863. Rather, roads took the armies to Gettysburg. It was difficult to travel through south-central Pennsylvania without passing through Gettysburg.

7 Gettysburg Myths and Misconceptions

With so much written about the Battle of Gettysburg, it's not surprising that the war's bloodiest battle has become surrounded by delusions and misinformation. Here are seven myths about the Battle of Gettysburg, debunked. Seven myths and misconceptions about the Battle of Gettysburg.

www.battlefields.org

Shoes at Gettysburg
One of the most persistent legends surrounding the Battle of Gettysburg (1863), which took place during the American Civil War (1861–1865), is that it was fought over shoes. Ten weeks after the battle, Confederate general Henry Heth, a Virginian whose troops were the first to engage on July 1, filed a now-famous report in which he explained why he had sent a portion of his division into the small Pennsylvania town. "On the morning of June 30," Heth wrote, "I ordered Brigadier General [Johnston] Pettigrew to take his brigade to Gettysburg, search the town for army supplies (shoes especially), and return the same day." That parenthetical phrase "shoes especially" has taken on a life of its own over the years. A 1997 newsletter of the American Podiatric Medical Association is typical—it claimed, perhaps due to its interest in foot health, that footwear was the battle's causa belli, adding, "There was a warehouse full of boots and shoes in the town."

Shoes at Gettysburg - Encyclopedia Virginia

So what are the real reasons for the battle? There is no question that the Union and Confederate armies collided unexpectedly at Gettysburg (in what, in military terms, is called a “meeting engagement”). It is also true that Heth’s men—indeed, much of the Army of Northern Virginia—were short on...

encyclopediavirginia.org

Shoes, Myth or Fact at Gettysburg | Gettysburg

Have heard various versions about whether or not the Confeds (Heth...) went to Gettyburg to get some shoes, Or Not, for their shoe deficient troops, thereby ancidentialy precipitating this crucial battle. Some simply state this, others say it is an absured myth. Let's settle this! Was...

civilwartalk.com

The CSA would have had a better chance aquiring shoes in York - given the much higher population being the largest Northern city captured by the CSA. They had no greater chance getting shoes in G-burg than anywhere else they went.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

 

[genbeau]

Probably time for a new thread. Perhaps on the secesh forum? You seem to think everyone is either pro union or pro confederate. I'm betting that a lot of ppl on this thread are neither, but rather pro history including the OP.

Sure, what ever works.

 

[cheesydn]

Agreed, new thread.

 

[damYankee]

If Lee would have turned Stonewall loose on Washington and the north we could have put Lincoln in jail with the rest of those Yankees, then negotiations could have gone through. But If that would have happened we could have been the victors, *EDITED* and start tearing down their monuments, destroying their graves. Digging up their cousins. Talk about separating family members.. How much hate must you have to dig somebody up and move them from their family members? Makes me sick

No insult intended here, but I always find it strange when someone is speaking about the participants of a war fought over 150 years ago, and identifying with one or the other side so intimately as to considered themselves a participant.
So when you wrote that "we could have put Lincoln in jail" just what do you see your role as being in that event?

 

[DanSBHawk]

That might work at a small scale, especially when one of the combatants has a supply line over an ocean long. Of course you realize the revolution was not one of continuous daily battles over eight years? However, with the civil war, we are talking millions of people fighting constantly and all at once. Additionally, the US federal govt clearly had the ability to raise up a million man plus army quickly, so yes they were a leading global economic and military power. Coping is a good description for the pro union side, as well, no?

It doesn't matter how much you try to draw arbitrary distinctions. There is nothing that special about holding on for four years.

 

[genbeau]

No insult intended here, but I always find it strange when someone is speaking about the participants of a war fought over 150 years ago, and identifying with one or the other side so intimately as to considered themselves a participant.
So when you wrote that "we could have put Lincoln in jail" just what do you see your role as being in that even

It doesn't matter how much you try to draw arbitrary distinctions. There is nothing that special about holding on for four years.

It's going out of memory now, but for 120 years that was the crux of matter of southern pride, like it or not. If you can't debate that, then I guess you can't.

 

[DanSBHawk]

It's going out of memory now, but for 120 years that was the crux of matter of southern pride, like it or not. If you can't debate that, then I guess you can't.

There's nothing to debate. But yes, the public memory of the war has been changing for quite a while now, and the Lost Cause is rightfully dying.

 

[Belfoured]

No insult intended here, but I always find it strange when someone is speaking about the participants of a war fought over 150 years ago, and identifying with one or the other side so intimately as to considered themselves a participant.
So when you wrote that "we could have put Lincoln in jail" just what do you see your role as being in that event?

I had an ancestor serve in the war for three years. I would tell myself to take a big step back if I found myself fighting his battles from 160 years ago. And if he were around he'd likely give me the same advice.

 

[genbeau]

There's nothing to debate. But yes, the public memory of the war has been changing for quite a while now, and the Lost Cause is rightfully dying.

Please spell out a few of the principles of the lost cause. Some seem quite absurd but some can be fairly debated. For example, was the cause of the civil war slavery or secession? Did the confederacy lose because it was outmanned?

 

[damYankee]

Myth 1: The Battle of Gettysburg was fought over shoes.
There was no mention of shoes having anything to do with the Battle of Gettysburg until 14 years after it happened. In 1877, Confederate General Henry Heth wrote, "Hearing that a supply of shoes was to be obtained in Gettysburg, eight miles distant from Cashtown, and greatly needing shoes for my men, I directed General Pettigrew to go to Gettysburg and get these supplies." Problem is, there were no shoe factories anywhere near Gettysburg in 1863. Rather, roads took the armies to Gettysburg. It was difficult to travel through south-central Pennsylvania without passing through Gettysburg.

7 Gettysburg Myths and Misconceptions

With so much written about the Battle of Gettysburg, it's not surprising that the war's bloodiest battle has become surrounded by delusions and misinformation. Here are seven myths about the Battle of Gettysburg, debunked. Seven myths and misconceptions about the Battle of Gettysburg.

www.battlefields.org

Shoes at Gettysburg
One of the most persistent legends surrounding the Battle of Gettysburg (1863), which took place during the American Civil War (1861–1865), is that it was fought over shoes. Ten weeks after the battle, Confederate general Henry Heth, a Virginian whose troops were the first to engage on July 1, filed a now-famous report in which he explained why he had sent a portion of his division into the small Pennsylvania town. "On the morning of June 30," Heth wrote, "I ordered Brigadier General [Johnston] Pettigrew to take his brigade to Gettysburg, search the town for army supplies (shoes especially), and return the same day." That parenthetical phrase "shoes especially" has taken on a life of its own over the years. A 1997 newsletter of the American Podiatric Medical Association is typical—it claimed, perhaps due to its interest in foot health, that footwear was the battle's causa belli, adding, "There was a warehouse full of boots and shoes in the town."

Shoes at Gettysburg - Encyclopedia Virginia

So what are the real reasons for the battle? There is no question that the Union and Confederate armies collided unexpectedly at Gettysburg (in what, in military terms, is called a “meeting engagement”). It is also true that Heth’s men—indeed, much of the Army of Northern Virginia—were short on...

encyclopediavirginia.org

Shoes, Myth or Fact at Gettysburg | Gettysburg

Have heard various versions about whether or not the Confeds (Heth...) went to Gettyburg to get some shoes, Or Not, for their shoe deficient troops, thereby ancidentialy precipitating this crucial battle. Some simply state this, others say it is an absured myth. Let's settle this! Was...

civilwartalk.com

The CSA would have had a better chance aquiring shoes in York - given the much higher population being the largest Northern city captured by the CSA. They had no greater chance getting shoes in G-burg than anywhere else they went.

Cheers,
USS ALASKA

Myth 2.
The Union didn't try to stop or impede Lee's retreat.
The Battle of Monterey Pass, The Battle of Williamsport, Hagerstown and Falling Waters never happened?

 

[damYankee]

It's going out of memory now, but for 120 years that was the crux of matter of southern pride, like it or not. If you can't debate that, then I guess you can't.

Nobody alive today is qualified to take credit for the sacrifice of the Americans who fought that war.
And that includes both armies.
It is not for us to claim their victories or suppose their defeats are ours.
It is right that we respect them for the sacrifice and acknowledge the conclusion, but to imagine that "WE" had anything to do with it, or the "WE" could change the outcome is best left to the writers of science fiction.
I had ancestors on both sides, and some of them left behind widows and orphaned children who had no say in the matter, nobody ever wants to identify with the widows or the orphans.

 

[genbeau]

Nobody alive today is qualified to take credit for the sacrifice of the Americans who fought that war.
And that includes both armies.
It is not for us to claim their victories of suppose their defeats are ours.
It is right that we respect them for the sacrifice and acknowledge the out conclusion, but to imagine that "WE" had anything to do with it, or the "WE" could change the outcome is best left to the writers of science fiction.
I had ancestors of both sides, and some of them were widows, who had no say in the matter, nobody ever wants to identify with the widows or the orphans.

I think we are just debating historical events. Those populations of people don't exist anymore.

 

[SSVilla]

I would have thought Jeff Davis would have more to do with the western theater as a practical matter. He was a west point grade and really wanted a miltary assignment, not the presidency.

I meant to reply but I wanted to first find where I read Foote's "article" that I referenced otherwise we'd be going in circles. It turned out my memory was fuzzy and it wasn't an article he wrote but an interview he gave for this magazine:

North and South Magazine Issues 1 thru 92 : North & South Magazine, Inc. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The complete archives of the American Civil War magazine issues 1 thru 92. great magazine for Civil War buffs!

archive.org

There's a rather sideways-going chat in this thread about it:

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/dr...by-invading-pennsylvania.210725/#post-2779127 which I honestly should have titled better.

I have since learned quite a bit more about the dilemma Grant created for the confederacy during the Vicksburg campaign and the confederacy's options. Lee was in consultation with Davis during the period, as was Longstreet and others. Lee famously advised against reinforcing Johnston to try to lift the siege and instead gambled on invading Pennsylvania.

Whether Foote was referring to this dilemma or to the attrition in the Southern armies as a result of Gettysburg we can't know, but I think it helps to show Foote's thinking.

 

[G Low]

No insult intended here, but I always find it strange when someone is speaking about the participants of a war fought over 150 years ago, and identifying with one or the other side so intimately as to considered themselves a participant.
So when you wrote that "we could have put Lincoln in jail" just what do you see your role as being in that event?

No insult taken I'm simply referring to my kinfolk who never made it home and the ones who fought so hard for southern independence, I feel myself somehow connected, after all it is MY heritage that's being destroyed, what role should I have if not to be on the side of all my relatives??

 

[G Low]

Secession was made illegal when the union won the war. Had the confederacy been able to push the union into a peace settlement and the result was two countries, then secession would have been legal. That's what established secession as illegal, the confederate defeat and not some flimsy judicial activism by Chief Justice Chase in Texas v White in 1869. That was just phony window dressing.

Was it made illegal before or after West Virginia seceded from Virginia?

 

[SSVilla]

This is the quote… I am not saying this is history tbh. This is just what Foote said about Lee and the Western theater. I have some questions about this.

 

[DanSBHawk]

This is the quote… I am not saying this is history tbh. This is just what Foote said about Lee and the Western theater. I have some questions about this.

View attachment 555110

That's interesting, and something I had not heard before. I wonder where Foote was getting all that.

 

[genbeau]

Was it made illegal before or after West Virginia seceded from Virginia?

It was made illegal at the final surrender in 1865.
I don't think West Virginia seceded, but thats an interesting way to put it.
Under what constitution would they have seceded, federal or confederate?

 

[genbeau]

It was made illegal at the final surrender in 1865.
I don't think West Virginia seceded, but thats an interesting way to put it.
Under what constitution would they have seceded, federal or confederate?

 

[BCS1973]

It was made illegal at the final surrender in 1865.
I don't think West Virginia seceded, but thats an interesting way to put it.
Under what constitution would they have seceded, federal or confederate?

They seceded from Virginia, because, as you should know, secession was not explicitly outlawed in Virginia's constitution.