cash
Brev. Brig. Gen'l
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Location
- Right here.
You mean there should not be a comparison between field operations? Come on, That's all it is.
The thread is about Lee fighting at Gettysburg. Grant has nothing to do with that.
You mean there should not be a comparison between field operations? Come on, That's all it is.
After many years of reading and researching the Napoleonic wars, the wars of ancient Greece I have now began reading the American civil war and would like not only to have my views and questions answered but to listen and learn from others.
I had to re-open this discussion. I just joined and I have been reading through the forums and really enjoying the insight of all the members. I have a lot to learn, but we all have to start somewhere.
I live 1 hour north of Gettysburg and have always wondered why General Lee chose to engage the troops here. Of course, this is all 20/20 hindsight, but had he marched on Harrisburg and on to Philadelphia, the mood in the North would have changed dramatically against the war. We know now that Hooker and later Meade were tasked only to stay between Lee and Washington.
So my questions are…
- Could Lee have supported his army logistically on a march to Philadelphia? Seems to me he could have, but would the Union army to the south have disrupted supply lines?
- I have read many of your posts suggesting that Lee was trying to take pressure off of Virginia with his incursion. Did he fear that not engaging union troops would free them to harass the Virginia he was trying to relieve?
- I generally agree that Lee was overconfident at this point and for good reason, but why did he feel a military victory was so much more important than the political one that would have been won with such a march around Pennsylvania?
There is a similarity ... Both were looking at "One more time and this all can be over."Neither Grant nor Cold Harbor were at Gettysburg, so I fail to see the relevance.