Lee What was Lee's perfect scenario for the Gettysburg Campaign?

But would that get them anywhere near 100k? I'm sure some of the deep in the weeds numbers folks can dig into this if they like. I doubt anywhere near 100k is possible
That's a valid point. The Union Army would utlize approximately 104k troops vs approximately 71k to 75k Confedrate troops. Therefore even 100k troops hardly guarantees Confederate sucess. It's not that the Confederacy didn't have spies so they should have a reasonably good idea how many men the Union had in the AoP plus assorted Pennsylvania milita units which have more of a nussiance value for the Union then hard core fighting.
So how did Lee think he could decisively defeat the AoP with at best even odds?
Maybe @Rhea Cole would know?
Leftyhunter
 
I literally didn't know that, fascinating.
Still that would at best only give the AnV a one to one manpower ratio which is far from ideal for an offensive. Ideally an army in a conventional offensive should have a three to one manpower superiority ratio although two to one has a good certainly not guaranteed chance of success.
Not to argue a three to one manpower superiority ratio guarentes sucess but all things being equal it should suffice in Nineteenth Century Warfare.
Leftyhunter
 
That's a valid point. The Union Army would utlize approximately 104k troops vs approximately 71k to 75k Confedrate troops. Therefore even 100k troops hardly guarantees Confederate sucess. It's not that the Confederacy didn't have spies so they should have a reasonably good idea how many men the Union had in the AoP plus assorted Pennsylvania milita units which have more of a nussiance value for the Union then hard core fighting.
So how did Lee think he could decisively defeat the AoP with at best even odds?
Maybe @Rhea Cole would know?
Leftyhunter

That's another interesting topic, do you know much about those PA militia units?
 
That's another interesting topic, do you know much about those PA militia units?
From what I gathered from Sears book about Gettysburg they were not bad at picking of forgaging units. We had a few threads on milita and their efficacy. Possibly in conjunction with regular troops they might be ok for defensive fighting .
Overall milita is better off being used for counterinsurgency but even then there are issues.
Leftyhunter
 
100,000? Where were they going to get those numbers?
That is an interesting question. Lee, of course was very familiar with the strength of Confederate forces along the eastern seaboard. His contention was that troops all along the Carolina coast should be concentrated at Culpepper in order to deliver a fatal blow to the AoP.
His argument was very explicit. Due to chronic desertion & attrition, the Confederate army only had enough manpower for one great blow. Concentrating against the AoP was the only chance for scoring a victory that would force the Union to accept Confederate peace terms. Lee was correct. While the troops in the Carolinas twiddled their thumbs, Lee was defeated in Pennsylvania, Knoxville, Chattanooga, & Vicksburg fell into Union hands.
 
No idea that is the first i have heard of that number or plan. My understanding was that Lee wanted Beauregard to be placed at Hanover Junction with a force sufficient enough to cover Richmond. That would free up the rest of Pickett's division that was left behind at Hanover Junction when Lee went north.
All you have to do is read Lee’s letter. I figure he knew what he was talking about.
 
That's a valid point. The Union Army would utlize approximately 104k troops vs approximately 71k to 75k Confedrate troops. Therefore even 100k troops hardly guarantees Confederate sucess. It's not that the Confederacy didn't have spies so they should have a reasonably good idea how many men the Union had in the AoP plus assorted Pennsylvania milita units which have more of a nussiance value for the Union then hard core fighting.
So how did Lee think he could decisively defeat the AoP with at best even odds?
Maybe @Rhea Cole would know?
Leftyhunter
All I can say is that Lee was very explicit in his letter to Davis. Davis never acted on Lee’s request for a concentration against Washington, so we will never know if Lee was correct.
 
All I can say is that Lee was very explicit in his letter to Davis. Davis never acted on Lee’s request for a concentration against Washington, so we will never know if Lee was correct.
True but Davis faced a dillemma that with Union forces in New Berne and very close to Charleston Davis really couldn't strip that many troops from the Carolina's to march north to reinforce the AnV in their offensive in Pennsylvania. It's a tough dillemma for Davis at best.
Leftyhunter
 
True but Davis faced a dillemma that with Union forces in New Berne and very close to Charleston Davis really couldn't strip that many troops from the Carolina's to march north to reinforce the AnV in their offensive in Pennsylvania. It's a tough dillemma for Davis at best.
Leftyhunter
What you have described Davis’ challenge & his great failure. Lee’s proposal could have lead to a Confederate victory. At that point, any territory lost due to the concentration would be reclaimed. What could not be reclaimed would have been the self-liberating slaves. Davis couldn’t abandon an area in order to concentrate forces for a strategic purpose because of the howling protests of slave-holders. That was what drove the fatal hold everything everywhere strategy.
 
What you have described Davis’ challenge & his great failure. Lee’s proposal could have lead to a Confederate victory. At that point, any territory lost due to the concentration would be reclaimed. What could not be reclaimed would have been the self-liberating slaves. Davis couldn’t abandon an area in order to concentrate forces for a strategic purpose because of the howling protests of slave-holders. That was what drove the fatal hold everything everywhere strategy.
That's quite a challenge that Davis faced. Obviously we can't know for sure if Lee had 100k men his plan to defeat the AoP would of worked . We can't know if the Carolina's was stripped of most of it's Confedrate troops would Union forces in New Berne and Charleston launch successful offensives.
The whole reason for the war was to preserve and expand slavery and the Confederacy can't afford to loose any territory for the American South is not Russia. There is no strategic depth. Lost territory means more localy recruited troops for the Union.
Basically starting with Ft. Sumter Davis by bombarding Ft .Sumter Davis placed the Confederacy in an untenable situation but if he didn't bombarded Ft. Sumter then there would be no viable Confederacy.
It's a conundrum.
Leftyhunter
 
Lees best case scenario was, of course, his origiinal plan of forming a new army to free up all of the ANV from protecting Richmond and at the same time supplement Lees expected decisive defeat of the AoP and with luck, perhaps dictate the surrender of the AoP on Northern soil. and/or threaten or capture Washington or Baltimore..

In the event, Lees best case wasoverruled by Davis and his next best was to invade Pa. with only the ANV as support. In that case the best case scenrio would be to invade quickly through the Cumberland Valley, threaten a strategic taarget, Harrisburg in this case, and draw the AoPNorth as quickly as possible, with the advance being carefully tracked by confederate cavalry. with luck the AoP could be drawn into advancing clumsily, or incautiously into separating its forces to advance more quickly, and allowing Lee to deeat the separate AoP in detail. Might have worked if Lee hadnt lost Stuart.


P.S. Davis had to mildly question Lees memory of the actual events that led to Lees original plan for a separate Army, and why it was denied, when Lee mentioned it in his Report after the battle of Gettysburg.
 
It would be nice if we could plan strategy on the basis of "Let's create another army!" :wink: but the Confederates did correctly anticipate the Union response to Lee's northern incursion - hurrying the AofP northward and exposing it to the defeat in detail that @OpnCoronet (and myself) have hypothesized.

Were they confident that the Federals would not take advantage of Lee's absence and thrust for Richmond? Or were they willing to accept the risk?
 
But would that get them anywhere near 100k? I'm sure some of the deep in the weeds numbers folks can dig into this if they like. I doubt anywhere near 100k is possible
Preposterous. Not even close. Seems the last time these guys brought this up it was 50,000. Regardless, unimaginable figments of the imagination. I addressed their incorrectness of it at that time.

Lee did want to collect a few brigades from the Atlantic coast garrisons and put Beauregard in command of them just for the weight of his name. Lee even referred to it as an army in effigy. But these fanciful figures would have been nowhere to be found in the South.

It should be recalled that Johnston had already taken 10,000 men from these coastal areas for the Vicksburg relief force. The War Department had stripped much of the South east of the Mississippi to cobble together this relief force. The well was dry.

The loss of one or more of Charleston, Wilmington, Savannah, and even Richmond/Petersburg would have been the stakes. Not to mention the time it would have taken to select and collect the troops, their transportation and their command structure.

Jeff Davis had no idea of this scheme by Lee until Lee was already at the Potomac.
 
Were they confident that the Federals would not take advantage of Lee's absence and thrust for Richmond? Or were they willing to accept the risk?



Lee was fairly confident from his previous experience, that the Lincoln and the war dept were very sensitive to any threats to Washington, no matter how slight.

Hooker suggested moving on Richmond, but, as Lee expected, as the ANV approached saving Washington overrode taking Richmond.
 
Back
Top