Pickett I have read many times that Pickett never forgave Lee for Gettysburg....

Joshua Horn

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Location
Wake Forest, NC
There is some debate whether Pickett was ever actually relieved. From Wikipedia

There has been a historical controversy about whether, after the Battle of Sayler's Creek on April 6, 1865, Pickett was relieved of command.[23] Lt. Col. Walter H. Taylor, Lee's chief of staff, wrote after the war that he issued orders for Lee relieving Pickett, along with Maj. Gens. Richard H. Anderson and Bushrod R. Johnson. No copies of these orders remain. Lee's biographer, Douglas Southall Freeman, wrote:
At the same time that Lee relieved Anderson of command, he took the same action regarding Pickett and Bushrod Johnson, but the order regarding Pickett apparently never reached him. As late as April 11 he signed himself, "Maj. Genl. Comdg." Lee thought the order had been given Pickett, and when he saw him later he is said to have remarked, "I thought that man was no longer with the army."[24]
In his 1870 book Pickett's Men, Walter Harrison reprinted an order from Lt. Col. Taylor to Pickett dated April 10, 1865, in which he addresses Pickett as "Maj Gen G E Picket [sic], General Commanding." The order was a request for an account of the movements and actions of Pickett's Division from the time of the Battle of Five Forks to Appomattox. Pickett's official report to Taylor later that same day was signed "G.E. Pickett, Major-Gen., Commd'g."[25] Taylor later explained to Fitzhugh Lee that it was addressed in this way because Pickett was relieved of his division command, not dismissed from the Army, and the report covered a time in which he was in command.[26]
Historian William Marvel suggests that since both Anderson and Johnson acknowledged their own reliefs, "There is therefore no reason to suspect an order would not have been issued relieving Pickett, both because his division had been shattered beyond repair and because of his allegedly poor performance at Five Forks. ... That leaves only the question of whether Pickett received the order." Marvel does not answer this question conclusively, although he considers it to be a "charitable interpretation" of Pickett's report that he did not receive it.[27]
Pickett continued to command his division (a division that had been reduced in strength to below that of a brigade), reporting to Longstreet, but Longstreet makes no mention of Pickett's division in his final report.[28]
 

diane

Retired User
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Location
State of Jefferson
I have heard that he told everyone around him who's fault it was as well.......

That's one of the things I admire about Lee and that makes him a great commander. Hood blamed his men, Bragg blamed his officers, McClellan blamed Lincoln, Hooker blamed McClellan and Lincoln, and on it went! But Lee didn't do that - he told Davis he lost the battle that lost the war and would step down, sit on his porch in his rocking chair and let some young pup have at it!
 

rhettbutler1865

Colonel, CSA Cavalry
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
I would never have forgiven Lee for Pickett's Charge, especially if one of my family members was sacrificed in that utterly foolish and hopeless battle.
My recent trip to Gettysburg and long talks for 4 days with my guide--it is controversial to say the least--just relaying--the guide told me Lee HAD to attack with Pickett's men. Please don't shoot the messenger!
 

peteanddelmar

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Location
Missouri
My recent trip to Gettysburg and long talks for 4 days with my guide--it is controversial to say the least--just relaying--the guide told me Lee HAD to attack with Pickett's men. Please don't shoot the messenger!

Have you ever ate shad? Yuck! I would have at least wanted a fish fry of some good catfish to neglect my duty! Bleah!
 

hrobalabama

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Location
Andalusia, AL
I remember reading somewhere that after the war, Pickett saw Lee in Richmond and told his friend, "there goes the old man that killed my troops."
 

hanna260

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 1, 2015
Location
Just Around the Riverbend
My recent trip to Gettysburg and long talks for 4 days with my guide--it is controversial to say the least--just relaying--the guide told me Lee HAD to attack with Pickett's men. Please don't shoot the messenger!

It actually was not quite as dumb a plan as it first appears. Edit: Misremembered. Wrong explanation.
 
Last edited:

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
It actually was not quite as dumb a plan as it first appears. Lee had wanted men that I believe were intercepted by Custer- to make a flanking maneuver that would pierce the Union army on one side while Pickett made the charge on the other. But yeah- frontal assualts against superior ground and weaponry were tragically common in the Civil War.

Actually, there's no evidence that Stuart's cavalry attack was part of the attack plan. In fact, if Stuart was part of the plan, his actions made no sense whatsoever. They only make sense if he was supposed to protect the confederate left flank.

People can stand at the Virginia Memorial and look across to Cemetery Ridge and ask themselves what was Lee thinking, but what they need to do is move about 500 yards to their right where the Virginia troops were formed in a depression where they couldn't be seen by the Union troops on Cemetery Ridge and then it becomes clearer.

While it wasn't the most brilliant plan Lee ever made, it was also a reasonable plan given what Lee knew at the time.
 

hanna260

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 1, 2015
Location
Just Around the Riverbend
Actually, there's no evidence that Stuart's cavalry attack was part of the attack plan. In fact, if Stuart was part of the plan, his actions made no sense whatsoever. They only make sense if he was supposed to protect the confederate left flank.

People can stand at the Virginia Memorial and look across to Cemetery Ridge and ask themselves what was Lee thinking, but what they need to do is move about 500 yards to their right where the Virginia troops were formed in a depression where they couldn't be seen by the Union troops on Cemetery Ridge and then it becomes clearer.

While it wasn't the most brilliant plan Lee ever made, it was also a reasonable plan given what Lee knew at the time.

Cool. Thanks for the clarification. I remembered that there were elements of the plan that made it look not quite so dumb, but clearly Stuart and his men weren't part of that.
 

rhettbutler1865

Colonel, CSA Cavalry
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Actually, there's no evidence that Stuart's cavalry attack was part of the attack plan. In fact, if Stuart was part of the plan, his actions made no sense whatsoever. They only make sense if he was supposed to protect the confederate left flank.

People can stand at the Virginia Memorial and look across to Cemetery Ridge and ask themselves what was Lee thinking, but what they need to do is move about 500 yards to their right where the Virginia troops were formed in a depression where they couldn't be seen by the Union troops on Cemetery Ridge and then it becomes clearer.

While it wasn't the most brilliant plan Lee ever made, it was also a reasonable plan given what Lee knew at the time.
And THAT's what the guide told me--I've often wondered about this subject. Thanks!
 

Allie

Captain
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
So, my question: how common was it for several generals to leave and enjoy a meal elsewhere in this sort of situation? Obviously in this case it turned out badly, but if this were a civil suit over negligence, negligence isn't determined by results, it's determined by whether or not the person at fault followed accepted practices. That two other generals were also at the fish fry suggests no one thought there was anything irresponsible about it until something had happened.
 
Top