Gettysburg, the Extended Edition
- Thread starter Eoraptor1
- Start date
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
TeaSea,
No doubt that Longstreet was openly called a turncoat by many Southerners after the war because his friendship with Grant resumed in earnest after the war, and as you said, he became a Republican.
I have within the last eight years become somewhat of a Longstreet champion because I think he had the tactical brilliance to fight what he termed a defensive war of maneuver. The man exercised many examples of battlefield genius with perhaps his greatest achievement being his deployment of six brigades of forces in a series of independent skirmish units employed in depth in the Wilderness. Longstreet's units were on the verge of a very significant victory when, just as happened to Thomas Jackson, Longstreet was severely wounded by his own men and the tide lost its momentum.
His opposing Union general, Winfield Scott Hancock, said succinctly of the maneuvers, "He rolled us up like a wet blanket!" What Longstreet did was take the better part of an entire corps of troops and deployed them in large numbers of independently maneuvering skirmish units. It was a perfect ad hoc tactical decision that leveraged the tangle of woods within the Wilderness and used the few narrow roads to their maximum benefit. General Michah Jenkins was killed in the same friendly fire event that seriously wounded Longstreet. That took two of the best field generals of the campaign out of the battle and gave Hancock's forces a brief enough reprieve to avoid being forced into retreat across the Rapidan River.
The thing is that Longstreet, far more than any other corps general in the Confederate Army, understood that the south could only have prevailed fighting what is today called defensive maneuver warfare. It was finally done to a degree in the Petersburg campaign, but by then the Confederates lacked the forces and material to even fill and equip its own trench lines! Take those divisions destroyed at Gettysburg and I think it might have been a whole different outcome for Grant.
As it is, I believe the two best corps level (and higher) commanders in the war were Longstreet and Grant. Grant never lost a strategic campaign during the war. I also think Grant's autobiography remains among the best written after the war. A lot like Longstreet's book, it emphasizes facts over emotion, and serves as a must read work. I certainly rank Jackson favorably also, but he died not halfway through the war.
I have often wondered what would have been had Longstreet replaced Lee and used his strategy against Grant.
Ken
No doubt that Longstreet was openly called a turncoat by many Southerners after the war because his friendship with Grant resumed in earnest after the war, and as you said, he became a Republican.
I have within the last eight years become somewhat of a Longstreet champion because I think he had the tactical brilliance to fight what he termed a defensive war of maneuver. The man exercised many examples of battlefield genius with perhaps his greatest achievement being his deployment of six brigades of forces in a series of independent skirmish units employed in depth in the Wilderness. Longstreet's units were on the verge of a very significant victory when, just as happened to Thomas Jackson, Longstreet was severely wounded by his own men and the tide lost its momentum.
His opposing Union general, Winfield Scott Hancock, said succinctly of the maneuvers, "He rolled us up like a wet blanket!" What Longstreet did was take the better part of an entire corps of troops and deployed them in large numbers of independently maneuvering skirmish units. It was a perfect ad hoc tactical decision that leveraged the tangle of woods within the Wilderness and used the few narrow roads to their maximum benefit. General Michah Jenkins was killed in the same friendly fire event that seriously wounded Longstreet. That took two of the best field generals of the campaign out of the battle and gave Hancock's forces a brief enough reprieve to avoid being forced into retreat across the Rapidan River.
The thing is that Longstreet, far more than any other corps general in the Confederate Army, understood that the south could only have prevailed fighting what is today called defensive maneuver warfare. It was finally done to a degree in the Petersburg campaign, but by then the Confederates lacked the forces and material to even fill and equip its own trench lines! Take those divisions destroyed at Gettysburg and I think it might have been a whole different outcome for Grant.
As it is, I believe the two best corps level (and higher) commanders in the war were Longstreet and Grant. Grant never lost a strategic campaign during the war. I also think Grant's autobiography remains among the best written after the war. A lot like Longstreet's book, it emphasizes facts over emotion, and serves as a must read work. I certainly rank Jackson favorably also, but he died not halfway through the war.
I have often wondered what would have been had Longstreet replaced Lee and used his strategy against Grant.
Ken
If I have him right, Longstreet "got it" earlier than the majority of general officers. The advent of the mineball had switched the tactical advantage heavily toward whoever entrenched first on "good" ground. Note at the beginning of the war, when both sides thought the conflict would last 90 days and assumed their side would win, this was not the prevalent opinion. W.T. Sherman said it would take 200,000 troops to win the war in the West and was thought certifiable. In his book None Died in Vain, Robert Leckie quotes Longstreet as having predicted, at the war's outset, mind you, that hostilities would last "four to six years. If it goes past four, look for a Dictator." I can definitely see Longstreet being reticent about Pickett's Charge, because it was his corps at Fredricksburg that had butchered the Yankee attack under very similar circumstances. I can also see Lee's frustration with Longstreet. From Longstreet's POV, he's trying to set up the engagement to preserve the army. From Lee's perspective, you offset Yankee material superiority by quick decisive adjustments, and Longstreet has a chronic case of "the slows" when carrying out his directives. After the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg, you see the Virginia press immediately begin to look for scapegoats, and Longstreet was conveniently not a Virginian. This really goes into high gear after the war, when a group of Virginian officers, led by Jubal Early, begin to throw in behind the cultic worship of Robert E. Lee, something General Lee, to his credit, never did himself. This view portrays Lee as the epitome of Christian virtue, basically infallible on a battlefield, and his defeats, such as they were, to be the product of overwhelming Yankee manpower and material strength, and the failure of subordinates to carry out his orders. As has already been mentioned, by this time, Longstreet was already being viewed in the South as a turncoat.
I highly recommend Grant's memoirs. I have Gore Vidal on tape calling Grant America's finest prose writer, surpassing even Mark Twain, who was instrumental in getting Grant's publishing deal. Grant had been swindled out of his money by a financial scam, and was dying of throat cancer (probably from all those cigars) when he wrote his book. Near the end, he couldn't take solid food. The prose is very clear and spare, which I connect to the need to relay orders clearly. IMO, "easy to read" is a good thing. Some interesting things Grant says: 1) The Mexican War was a naked land grab; a big nation beating up a smaller one, but "[Grant] considered my first duty to be to my flag." 2) The South should not have been immediately readmitted into the Union as states, but as a Territory pending a probationary period. 3) Union victory was NOT a foregone conclusion, even when Grant started his 1864 campaign against Lee. Grant explains why in some detail. 4) Grant only admits to having done one thing wrong in the field, the last charge at Cold Harbor. It goes on. I thought the entire read very interesting, as Grant clearly did not subscribe to a lot of Civil War mythology. It was very successful when published, and saved the Grant family fortunes.
JAMES
I highly recommend Grant's memoirs. I have Gore Vidal on tape calling Grant America's finest prose writer, surpassing even Mark Twain, who was instrumental in getting Grant's publishing deal. Grant had been swindled out of his money by a financial scam, and was dying of throat cancer (probably from all those cigars) when he wrote his book. Near the end, he couldn't take solid food. The prose is very clear and spare, which I connect to the need to relay orders clearly. IMO, "easy to read" is a good thing. Some interesting things Grant says: 1) The Mexican War was a naked land grab; a big nation beating up a smaller one, but "[Grant] considered my first duty to be to my flag." 2) The South should not have been immediately readmitted into the Union as states, but as a Territory pending a probationary period. 3) Union victory was NOT a foregone conclusion, even when Grant started his 1864 campaign against Lee. Grant explains why in some detail. 4) Grant only admits to having done one thing wrong in the field, the last charge at Cold Harbor. It goes on. I thought the entire read very interesting, as Grant clearly did not subscribe to a lot of Civil War mythology. It was very successful when published, and saved the Grant family fortunes.
JAMES
This has been a very interesting and informative thread. I'd like to thank Ken and TeaSea for taking the time to write out their insights (you too James). I've read a little about the war, but nothing beyond a few dry history books. It's refreshing to hear some more knowledgable folks exchange views in a calm and rational conversation. I'm a member of a couple other boards where this would have devolved into a Yankee-vs-Rebel slapfest almost immediately, with polite discourse being the first casualty.
Reply...
Vin,
Sorry I haven't responded, my wife and daughter have been ill with e-coli poisoning, and I spent about thirty=six hours with them at the hospital, making sure both of them were okay. (They're home now) I agree about the revised history, but each generation always looks at history differently than the generation before it. Where I believe a lot of this stems from is this two-decade emphasis on "political correctness." It has spoiled American classrooms and reinforced certain people's ideas that they are "owed" something by society, rather than believing that all citizens need to pay their dues and perform their civic duty. I also agree that you have to be VERY careful passing modern ethics standards on previous generations, where society was totally different. In the context of their times, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and even Theodore Roosevelt would have not been considered racist.
I have really taken some of your suggestions to heart, and I strongly believe in civic duty and teaching responsibility. I make sure that is emphasized and integrated into my curriculum.
Vin,
Sorry I haven't responded, my wife and daughter have been ill with e-coli poisoning, and I spent about thirty=six hours with them at the hospital, making sure both of them were okay. (They're home now) I agree about the revised history, but each generation always looks at history differently than the generation before it. Where I believe a lot of this stems from is this two-decade emphasis on "political correctness." It has spoiled American classrooms and reinforced certain people's ideas that they are "owed" something by society, rather than believing that all citizens need to pay their dues and perform their civic duty. I also agree that you have to be VERY careful passing modern ethics standards on previous generations, where society was totally different. In the context of their times, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and even Theodore Roosevelt would have not been considered racist.
I have really taken some of your suggestions to heart, and I strongly believe in civic duty and teaching responsibility. I make sure that is emphasized and integrated into my curriculum.
Reply...
Ken,
Thank you, I completely agree and will take this suggestion to heart. I will also emphasize that the government can, if left unchecked, use any "crisis" to expand the scope of its power. That's why we're now in this mess with incognito spying on American citizens without warrants.
Ken,
Thank you, I completely agree and will take this suggestion to heart. I will also emphasize that the government can, if left unchecked, use any "crisis" to expand the scope of its power. That's why we're now in this mess with incognito spying on American citizens without warrants.
Reply...
TeaSea,
I couldn't agree more. I am always posing that question to my students. "Why?" If you were Lee, would you make the decision...or something like that. I want them thinking. I want them discussing and debating. I want them engaged. I figure the less they have to listen to me talk as a teacher, the better off the classroom is!
Thanks again for the direct feedback.
TeaSea,
I couldn't agree more. I am always posing that question to my students. "Why?" If you were Lee, would you make the decision...or something like that. I want them thinking. I want them discussing and debating. I want them engaged. I figure the less they have to listen to me talk as a teacher, the better off the classroom is!
Thanks again for the direct feedback.
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
As long as you never, ever, ever say in class....
"the civil war was fought to end slavery"
That's the only thing that would send me through the roof, and one of my kids teachers stood in a classroom and actually said this. No doubt there are quite a few folks out there that actually think this is true.
Pretty much everything else is fair game.
Glad everyone's feeling better.
"the civil war was fought to end slavery"
That's the only thing that would send me through the roof, and one of my kids teachers stood in a classroom and actually said this. No doubt there are quite a few folks out there that actually think this is true.
Pretty much everything else is fair game.
Glad everyone's feeling better.
Reply...
TeaSea,
God, no! Slavery was barely a "blip" on the screen when the Civil War began. It was originally (from a Yankee perspective) a war to suppress insurrection and recover the Union as a whole. I still contend that the decision to end slavery was primarily for economic reasons...they wanted to make sure the economic "engine" of the South could no longer function.
I get in trouble for taking that perspective, but I have always seen Lincoln as a pragmatist, not the true "hero emancipator" that the textbooks now claim of him.
TeaSea,
God, no! Slavery was barely a "blip" on the screen when the Civil War began. It was originally (from a Yankee perspective) a war to suppress insurrection and recover the Union as a whole. I still contend that the decision to end slavery was primarily for economic reasons...they wanted to make sure the economic "engine" of the South could no longer function.
I get in trouble for taking that perspective, but I have always seen Lincoln as a pragmatist, not the true "hero emancipator" that the textbooks now claim of him.
We still, more than a hundred years later, cannot, somehow, come to grips with the fact that the war was primary about slavery. I think current political "PC-ness" is responsible for this. Yes, it was about economics, and the economics at issue was the economics of slavery. If the economy of the south suddenly had to start paying the "farm workers", it would represent a huge and devastating impact to the economy of the south. The north, in general, wanted slavery repealed. The south, realizing what that would mean, economically, resisted. So yes, it was about economics, the economics of slavery. And yes, it was about freedom. The "freedom", of the southern governments, to continue slavery. We ought to be able to face that now, in 2013. Every issue upon which the north and south disagreed, came down, in the end, to slavery. The founding fathers knew the issue, left unresolved in the 1700s, would inevitably result in big problems. They were right.
Watching it now. I would also suggest this book, by William Freehling. It's very good:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Disu...75569181&sr=8-1&keywords=the+road+to+disunion
It's a fascinating study of the cultural and econimoc differences between the north and south in the hundred years leading up to the epic disaster that was the Civil War.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Disu...75569181&sr=8-1&keywords=the+road+to+disunion
It's a fascinating study of the cultural and econimoc differences between the north and south in the hundred years leading up to the epic disaster that was the Civil War.
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
I agree. The war was entirely about slavery. There is really no denying this in my view because all of the other reasons offered are still centered in preservation of slavery. The entire root cause was a fear among rich slave owners in the south believing that if future states were admitted to the Union as so-called "free" states, then the power of the vote would eventually wither away the political environment which the south enjoyed to perpetuate the slave industry. If there is truly an angle where slavery was not at least initially a cornerstone of the war, it was in the philosophy of Abraham Lincoln whereby he would have ended the war if the south agreed to discontinue hostilities with the agreement slavery would not be ended -- a somewhat generous political offer that was of course withdrawn once the Emancipation Proclamation was formally issued.
Ultimately, the shots fired on Fort Sumter were entirely about states wanting to separate from the union to ensure that future outcomes under the Constitution would not threaten their slavery institution. There are only two state for whom I have much sympathy and those are Virginia and North Carolina. Virginia voted to leave the union only after Lincoln advised them to raise troops to put down the rebellion. It was a tight vote witnessed by the split of West Virginia during the war. North Carolina was the last to vote to leave and they had no choice being surrounded by states that had already voted to secede.
The situation that North Carolina faced was illustrated in two interesting ways. First, the western part of North Carolina combined with eastern Tennessee to form a sort of underground movement sympathetic with the union. Second, having allowed his troops "liberal foraging" in South Carolina, Sherman ordered his troops to show North Carolina extreme courtesy reminding his troops how reluctantly North Carolina joined the CSA. Of course, it is unfair and dishonest to pass along euphemisms without context. As such, "liberal foraging" was truly a case of ordained and pre-meditated confiscation of civilian property, theft of private food stocks, and wanton destruction of civilian centers in a manner that today would be called war crimes. That doesn't even mention the outright murders of civilians carried out by union troops on a scale seldom mentioned in post-war history and wholly kept from the public's knowledge during the war. These murders were not undertaken during hostilities, but rather were carried out long after confederate forces had retreated from the area. So, it's all the more sinister and frankly a moral low point for American military forces truth be told.
Ken
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
I am sorry my friend, but on this one we must disagree. In my review I cannot find any substantive narrative in the history justifying southern secession except for the presumption of continuing slavery. Tragically, it is my view that in another two decades slavery would have withered away due to the advent of agricultural automation. But, whenever I say that a part of me cringes as I am forced to say it's rather weak and easy for me to presume that a group of people should have had to spend another generation in bondage simply to avoid a war.
My prime ammunition to assert all this is that the south missed two golden opportunities presented to them in very real terms, unmistakable offers, that would have won them the war on the condition of freeing their slaves. First, Great Britain would have allied itself with the CSA and with their navy likely broken the union blockade. Second, on the urgings of many confederate officers, including Lee himself, the south could have freed their slaves and recruited the manpower for military duty. It was a huge manpower reserve and would have given the south near equality with the union.
Overall, freeing the slaves would have denied the union near all moral high ground and likely undermined the resolve of the union to withstand the initial setbacks they suffered on the battlefield.
All of this was made plainly known to the CSA government and yet slavery was retained until the bitter end and not until it was far too late was the idea of even enlisting a handful of former slaves into the army adopted. This confirms for me not only the objective facts but moreover the ideals and goals of those in power.
Ken
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
Lincoln's actual Republican platform during the election was that all future states would be admitted as free states, meaning within their boundaries slavery would be illegal. The prime concern among southern power brokers is that with this likely to happen with Lincoln's election, in short time the increasing number of free states would add electoral college votes, plus House and Senate members, pre-disposed to vote out slavery across the nation.
Lincoln made many efforts to appeal to southern concerns leading up to the war, and immediately after his election, that he would not pursue an emancipation agenda, and was perfectly content to allow slavery to continue in the current slave states. This is why leading abolitionists initially condemned Lincoln, especially as he resisted their urgings to immediately make the war about ending slavery nationwide. To Lincoln, the first duty was to end the war and preserve the union. But, when the war had continued past the first year, and the bloodshed had hardened views on both sides, Lincoln came to realize that the die had been cast.
His final act on this issue was to make it known to states in rebellion (the war was actually called in the north the "War of the Rebellion"), that past the deadline announced in the Emancipation Proclamation that all states still in rebellion would have slavery ended by force of law. Lincoln was also perfectly willing to allow slavery to continue in the so-called border states such as Kentucky, Maryland, and Delaware. Only states in rebellion would have the end of slavery forced on them. So, you see, even at this point, Lincoln used the Emancipation Proclamation as a final hammer to try to compel an end to the war. But, it did not work, and frankly Lincoln anticipated it would not. It is very interesting to study the political environment of the era and realize how controversial the Emancipation Proclamation truly was among states that fought for the union. The recent movie "Lincoln" produced by Steven Spielberg is a fascinating and highly accurate account of these momentous events.
Ken
Skyhawk_310R
Charter Member
I am very humbled by your comments.
You may remember the so-called 3/5th of a person concept which has to be the single most repugnant and morally objectionable aspect of the early American government. Here is how that worked to the unfair advantage of slave holders in the south. Say the state of Virginia has a population of 500,000 people, but some of that population count was really a 3/5 tally of slaves who of course had no voting rights whatsoever.
That would have meant that in terms of men with voting rights (because remember in all the southern states women were denied voting rights also), the south had a higher percentage of electoral college votes, and higher number of representatives in the US House than they would have if slaves were not tallied in the census for the purpose of apportioning electoral college votes and US Representatives.
This compromise was a result of northern states wanting male slaves to not be counted at all for electoral representation, and southern states wanting them to be counted 100% as was the custom for women and children. What the 3/5 rule did was empower southern US Representatives with a higher voting influence than their northern counterparts. Not only did the southern representatives vote on behalf of all the male voting citizens of their states and all women and children, but also on behalf of many male slaves who had no votes to cast at all!
In my view, the near 80 year advantage this represented seeped in to southern power philosophy. They relied upon it and as a result welded a sizable political influence above and beyond their true representation of actual voting citizens in America. This expectation did a couple of things in my view. It birthed a certain degree of arrogance on the part of southern power brokers that they could and should shape society to suit their narrow aims and the rest of the nation and their states would simply follow heel. Second, it meant that with the certain expansion of nothing but free states, that future elections would go against them.
This is why the war was started.
Ken
As Gary Sinise says in CSI: NY, "everything connects". In 1861 Abraham Lincoln, explicitly states he's fighting the war for the preservation of the Union. He did not run as an Abolitionist, only on limiting the expansion of slavery into the Territories, but this was noxious enough to the South that he didn't appear on the ballot in many soon to be Confederate states. Lincoln constantly referred to Andrew Jackson, who was very much pro-slavery, but uncompromisingly anti-secession, denying its legality under the Constitution. Remember, Lincoln is a lawyer. Americans elect a lot of lawyers and ex-generals to high office. If I understand him correctly, this is what TeaSea means when he says the war was not fought to end slavery. What I always recommend to people studying the Civil War is that they read The Declarations of Causes for Secession. This is the Confederate leadership's stated rationale for leaving the Union, and people don't read it. I know people who can tell you in what peach orchard their great-great-grandfather fought in 1863, but haven't read the Confederacy's foundation documents. It's an eye-opener for a lot of people. The reason I mention this is because when Lincoln emancipates the slaves (in territory NOT occupied by Federal troops, and as a war measure) the narrative undergoes an Orwellian change, in the North and South. The Union is now fighting for "A New Birth of Freedom". People forget that Emancipation was nearly as unpopular in the North as the South. There were desertions in the Federal army amongst disaffected troops who did not wish to risk their lives to free slaves, and a major draft riot in New York City right after Gettysburg. I very much agree with Skyhawk about the denial of the role of slavery in American life continuing to the present day. When the newly 2010 Congress read the Constitution aloud, they omitted the 3/5ths clause, without which John Adams wins a second term in 1800 and there is no contentious electoral tie between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson. Virginians do not dominate the White House term after term. All of this is conjectural however, as I consider it doubtful the Southern states would have entered the Union without the compromise.
I suggest people give John C. Calhoun a close reading. My mother's side of the family is from South Carolina, and he's still the bee's knees there to many people. Calhoun considered slavery so essential to the Southern way of life that to destroy it, would be to destroy the South culturally and economically. His universe has two poles on the subject: one is either Master or Slave. He considered the freedom of white Southerners to be contingent upon the institution of slavery, just as the Spartan utopia had been contingent upon the enslavement of the Messenians, and was also able to convince himself that slavery was best for the slaves as well. All of his "outrages" against Federalism involve the power of free states to restrict or eliminate slavery were he considers it necessary. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT; read him yourself. His logic would be immediately apparent to the Spartans or Romans, but the big difference is that in those civilizations, all men are NOT created equal, some are divinely imbued with superiority to others. They did not have our philosophical pretense.
I also recommend William T. Sherman's writings. I find the man a bundle of contradictions and I strongly suspect him of having been bipolar. I find him and his view of the 19th Century South very enlightening. He had lived in the antebellum South, and liked its people. He'd surveyed parts of Georgia before the war, a fact Georgians would come to regret. He hated black people, believed in their subjugation, did not believe they would make good soldiers, and was very alarmed at their induction into the Union army. (His friend US Grant believed differently.) BUT, as a practical matter, there was no greater abolitionist. He's still widely hated in the South. His view of war was that he was not fighting merely a hostile military, but a hostile social order, hostile economic system, hostile populace, and he made war on all of them. When you view what he and Phil Sheridan did to white people's homes, their treatment of Indians should come as no surprise.
JAMES
I suggest people give John C. Calhoun a close reading. My mother's side of the family is from South Carolina, and he's still the bee's knees there to many people. Calhoun considered slavery so essential to the Southern way of life that to destroy it, would be to destroy the South culturally and economically. His universe has two poles on the subject: one is either Master or Slave. He considered the freedom of white Southerners to be contingent upon the institution of slavery, just as the Spartan utopia had been contingent upon the enslavement of the Messenians, and was also able to convince himself that slavery was best for the slaves as well. All of his "outrages" against Federalism involve the power of free states to restrict or eliminate slavery were he considers it necessary. DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT; read him yourself. His logic would be immediately apparent to the Spartans or Romans, but the big difference is that in those civilizations, all men are NOT created equal, some are divinely imbued with superiority to others. They did not have our philosophical pretense.
I also recommend William T. Sherman's writings. I find the man a bundle of contradictions and I strongly suspect him of having been bipolar. I find him and his view of the 19th Century South very enlightening. He had lived in the antebellum South, and liked its people. He'd surveyed parts of Georgia before the war, a fact Georgians would come to regret. He hated black people, believed in their subjugation, did not believe they would make good soldiers, and was very alarmed at their induction into the Union army. (His friend US Grant believed differently.) BUT, as a practical matter, there was no greater abolitionist. He's still widely hated in the South. His view of war was that he was not fighting merely a hostile military, but a hostile social order, hostile economic system, hostile populace, and he made war on all of them. When you view what he and Phil Sheridan did to white people's homes, their treatment of Indians should come as no surprise.
JAMES