Longstreet's plan to hit the Left

For me understanding why Longstreet did or did not do certain things, what he believed or held dear and other aspects of his personality gives us a bit of a window to his mind and decision making process. This can help us to understand why he kept proposing that he be allowed to move to the left, despite it being a move fraught with unknowns.


Well said . Agreed !
 
So we're hinting that all this was somehow some subliminal treasonous act?

I wouldn't go that far .

I will say that James Longstreet should have been honored by the south for all his great battlefield feats but it was his fate to become an object of scorn and ridicule in the post war era .

Eventhough Lee accepts the blame for the loss at Gettysburg , Longstreet gets thrown under the bus .
 
Longstreet wasn't inclined to a direct assault -- especially on a fortified position -- hence his desire to try to outflank opposition.

We know what he didn't: there was a host of Federals there trying to get organized. Could he have driven them into further confusion? Or could he have cut Meade's supply lines?

Maybe we out to hear from someone who has studied the roads around BRT?
 
Agreed, that would be bad form. But you can be sure there's more to the story than recorded dates.

Certainly. Dates alone do not give many answers.

Wert equating this action or inaction to whether a man is an "honorable man and officer" just sounds like sour grapes to me, his opinion and nothing more. Unbiased writing would have just reported the proven facts and let the reader come to their own conclusion. Who is this guy Wert anyway? What is his story?

You know, normally I like the idea of "let the reader come to their own conclusion" as a philosophy, but I think applying it here is inappropriate. Wert is writing about Longstreet's just deserts. Stating his conclusion that Longstreet does not deserve blame for losing Gettysburg is no more "just the proven facts" than this, and yet we approve of him pointing out that's where the facts lead.

I think an author investigating something has a right to point out how the facts appear to assemble in a given pattern, whether that pattern is flattering to their subject or not. And if we're getting into whether or not something is honorable being all opinion, well, I don't know what to say there that would be relevant to the topic and polite.
 
I am looking for a detailed map of the area at the time to see what roads or trails were available then. If I find one, can you post an image here?

Most of the battlefield maps don't extend south of Round Top very far. I've attached a couple from the Gettysburg - Codex 99 site. The first is an Adams County road map from 1858, the second a Day 3 Battlefield map from 1876.
http://www.codex99.com/cartography/images/gettysburg/hopkins_1858_lg.jpg
http://www.codex99.com/cartography/images/gettysburg/bachelder_day3_lg.jpg

This last link ties to an early park map from 1904.
http://www.codex99.com/cartography/images/gettysburg/cope_1904_lg.jpg
 
This essay is very well done. It draws significantly from the previously-mentioned Bowden and Ward study, Last Chance for Victory, that I had cited earlier in this thread.
 
Last edited:
WOW .

Excellent essay indeed .

Thanks for posting that .


I'll be adding it to my research library .
 
I just realized the authors of this essay are the same guys that were responsible for " Lee's Handling of Cavalry at Gettysburg " essay that got posted on this forum back in July .
 
Not one of the finest articles ever written on Gettysburg, which makes me uncertain of their work on the subject of Longstreet's idea of moving to the left.

Obviously it doesn't mean that the other is necessarily bad - but "written by that guy" is something of a "Oh. Not sure how much weight to give his presentation of things."
 
Not at all . I found both articles insightful . My post was more of an after thought after reading the rest of their papers . " Guys" was not meant to be a slight .
 
Back
Top