Military History: Gettysburg

BWhite · 2005-07-30 09:05:30

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/produc … 83155]This book argues that Robert E. Lee actually intended for 6000 cavalry troopers led by Jeb Stuart to crash into the rear of the Union lines at the exact moment Pickett's Charge was to strike the front of the Union lines.

http://americancivilwar.com/civil_war_m … g.jpg]Look at this map. (Zoom if you can) Note the cavalry action 3 miles to the east at Hanover. What the map does not show is the timing of this cavalry action, or its significance.

Had Stuart brushed aside the Union cavalry (something done easily and often in prior battles) Stuart had an open road to the Baltimore Pike and an open road to the artillery batteries that actually did decimate Pickett's division.

Earlier that afternoon, Stuart had disrupted the Union cavalry and opened a hole which would have allowed him to reach the Baltimore Pike, except for 400 relatively inexperienced Michigan cavalry.

When the Confederate cannon bombardment ceased, to signal the commencement of Pickett's Charge, Stuart knew he had less than an hour to breakthrough and reach the rear of the Union lines. Carhart explains that Stuart formed about 4000 troopers into a long column intended to fly down the roads and decend upon the Union artillery and the rear of the forces facing Pickett.

Presumably, these men were ordered to ignore the Union cavalry they had been fighting and gallop towards the exact point where Pickett was aiming.

But at that same moment, George Armstrong Custer rallied the 400 Michigan cavalry and charged head on into the front of Stuart's oncoming column.

It appears that historians agree that the two cavalry units met head on at a full gallop. 400 charging 4000.

As Stuart's men repulsed Custer's charge, their forward progress was temporarily halted allowing disorganized Union cavalry units on both sides to re-enter the battle.

Before long, the Confederates "won" but it took too long.

30 minutes later Stuart knew that Pickett's Charge was over (Win or Lose) and if Pickett had been repulsed, for Stuart to fling his cavalry into the Union lines an hour late would have been utterly futile, so he withdrew his men and Gettysburg was over.

This is http://www.mohicanpress.com/wwwboard1/m … /195.html] interesting:

Also as important to the South's defeat at Gettysburg was Joshua Champerlains defense of Little Roundtop. This was the high ground that gave the Yankees an advantage. Again, a stubborn southern leader gave the order to attack straight up Little Roundtop instead of attacking the flank; and also George Armstrong Custer's defeat, or at least a stalemate, of Jeb Stuart's calvary at Hanover, about five miles away from Gettysburg. Stuart was Lee's "eye," his information gatherer, and Custer stopped him cold from rejoining Lee and giving Lee calvary support and information.

Until Carhart's book, no one apparently saw exactly what support Lee had intended Stuart to provide.

Had Stuart descended on the rear of the Union lines 15 minutes before Pickett's men reached those same lines, Meade's army would have been cut in half and destroyed.

BWhite · 2005-07-30 09:12:08

William Faulkner on Pickett's Charge:

For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two oclock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is stll time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armstead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose and all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago....

For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two oclock on that July afternoon in 1863,

I am most definitely a Yankee, yet this is still moving to me.

Josh Cryer · 2005-07-30 09:12:31

That's beautiful. 10 men to 1. Custer knew something was up, which is why he went for it.

Palomar · 2005-07-30 09:22:18

For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two oclock on that July afternoon in 1863,
I am most definitely a Yankee, yet this is still moving to me.

*I'm a Yankee too and I'm glad the South lost. The end of slavery and etc.

The CW has never interested me. History is generally a topic I enjoy, but even high school courses on that particular was always something I felt "mucking through." Maybe that was in part due to all those trips to Texas in the 1970s, when Yankees were still reviled and hated for the most part (thanks...it all happened 100 years before I was born...whatev).

I certainly can't speak for Black Americans, but I'll bet they don't look back fondly and wistfully on "Dixie."

I'm glad the South LOST. And I suppose that's more than enough said already.

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-30 09:30:56

One nuance to Robert E. Lee's plan.

Pickett's Charge crossed a field visible to the entire Union army. Indeed, historians tell us nearly all the Federal soldiers were mezmerized by the sight of Pickett's division lining up to launch what appeared to be a suicide attack right into the barrels of the Union artillery.

What better way to distract attention from their rear and magnify the shock and terror had Stuart's men arrived in time.

BWhite · 2005-07-30 09:41:58

For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two oclock on that July afternoon in 1863,
I am most definitely a Yankee, yet this is still moving to me.
*I'm a Yankee too and I'm glad the South lost. The end of slavery and etc.
The CW has never interested me. History is generally a topic I enjoy, but even high school courses on that particular was always something I felt "mucking through." Maybe that was in part due to all those trips to Texas in the 1970s, when Yankees were still reviled and hated for the most part (thanks...it all happened 100 years before I was born...whatev).
I certainly can't speak for Black Americans, but I'll bet they don't look back fondly and wistfully on "Dixie."
I'm glad the South LOST. And I suppose that's more than enough said already.
--Cindy

Then be thankful for the audacity of George Armstrong Custer.

If Carhart is correct, that ONE MAN saved the Union from defeat in the Civil War.

Palomar · 2005-07-30 09:56:58

Then be thankful for the audacity of George Armstrong Custer.
If Carhart is correct, that ONE MAN saved the Union from defeat in the Civil War.

*On that particular count -- okay.

[But I cannot thank him for another "war" he engaged in (Little Big Horn), but don't want to go off topic...]

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-30 10:10:56

Then be thankful for the audacity of George Armstrong Custer.
If Carhart is correct, that ONE MAN saved the Union from defeat in the Civil War.
*On that particular count -- okay.
[But I cannot thank him for another "war" he engaged in (Little Big Horn), but don't want to go off topic...]
--Cindy

I agree. The world is infinitely nuanced, no?

clark · 2005-07-30 11:55:29

So why didn't Stuart detach a part of his troops to act as a screen while the main force contiued at all speed towards the artillery?

It seems from the theory presented here that Lee wished to distract the Union artillery while Stuart attacked from the rear.

Lee gambled with a precision attack, and lost.

What would be interesting is to find out what Custer "knew" when trying to rally the men for a hopeless charge.

BWhite · 2005-07-30 12:21:18

So why didn't Stuart detach a part of his troops to act as a screen while the main force contiued at all speed towards the artillery?
It seems from the theory presented here that Lee wished to distract the Union artillery while Stuart attacked from the rear.
Lee gambled with a precision attack, and lost.
What would be interesting is to find out what Custer "knew" when trying to rally the men for a hopeless charge.

If I am reading the book correctly, Custer hit the very front of Stuart's column, head on.

His 400 men were in the hole Stuart had opened and the expectation was that Stuart would bowl them over in short order. There was no going around Custer but had Custer not charged, but tried to defend, Stuarts men could have simply ridden through and between Custer's men and keep on going.

There were staggeringly few Union officers capable of doing what Custer did. General Gregg, Custer's superior, is totally trashed by Carhart and the author asserts that if Custer had followed Gregg's intentions, he would have evaded Stuart rather than charged him.

Lee and Stuart were "betting on" the legendary timidity of the Union officer corps.

The Union infantry and artillery never ever knew (even after the War was over) that Stuart had been out there at Hanover, other than as scouts or pickets. The author also believes Custer never really knew the true "big" picture and just fought by instinct.

General Meade dodged a bullet he never knew had been fired.

= = =

Why Stuart and Lee never discussed this in public after the battle is discussed by Carhart, persuasively, IMHO.

Stuart died soon thereafter and Stuart and Lee had been close for years and years. During eht war, to announce that Stuart had failed would have demoralized the CSA. After the war, Lee saw no benefit to trashing Stuart's reputation by discussing something that could not be changed.

clark · 2005-07-30 12:44:39

I don't understand, perhaps you could explain a bit...

After contending with Custer, why didn't Stuart pursue the objective? Even if he was half an hour late, would that not have made a difference?

Or would it be that the main thrust of the attack would have been decimated by that point?

BWhite · 2005-07-30 14:56:35

I don't understand, perhaps you could explain a bit...
After contending with Custer, why didn't Stuart pursue the objective? Even if he was half an hour late, would that not have made a difference?
Or would it be that the main thrust of the attack would have been decimated by that point?

Once Pickett was repulsed, Stuart could have killed a lot of Yankees and lost a lot of his own men but the line would have held. Stuart's cavalry was essential for making sure Lee could retreat safely back to Virginia. Had Pickett's division been destroyed and Stuart's men lost, Meade could have mopped up Lee's army as it retreated.

As far as I can tell, the author argues that the plan was for Stuart to link up with Pickett and distract/destroy the Union artillery before they slaughtered Pickett's men. Once the opportune moment passed, it didn't matter any more.

clark · 2005-07-30 15:39:57

Then how does he determine that the plan was nothing more than an opportunity seized upon by Stuart?

Is there evidence that Lee considered this plan in advance? The reason I ask is because, if this prong was so integral, and the timing had to be perfect, why didn't Lee wait for a signal from Stuart?

Gennaro · 2005-07-30 16:05:43

Wow, and I who thought the charge of Custer's Michigan Brigade only happened in a movie with Erroll Flynn!

No seriously, it's interesting, but combining the attacks of Pickett and Stuart in such a way and have the latter show up at precisely the right moment sounds like a fantastic gamble to me. Heck, we're talking huge distances here, anything could have went wrong with such a plan. Sorry, but therefore it actually sounds like a pretty lousy one to me. What if Stuart had run into the VI Corps (placed in reserve behind the Union line)? The position of Stuart must have been at least 10 kilometers away from Cemetery Ridge. I fail to see how his cavalry division could have made it in an hour, Custer or no Custer.

Actually, how did they coordinate it at all? I was of the impression that Lee had no contact with Stuart throughout the battle.

Anyway.

Usually according to me, the Confederates lost the victory the moment Ewell's II Corps failed to assault the Union right flank during the Afternoon of the first day. Since then the Federals occupied a very strong position along Cemetary Ridge with an army of what, 80 000 to Lee's 50 000?
Or should we say the decisive moment was Longstreet's attack on the round top on July 2, just to make it more interesting.

Gennaro · 2005-07-30 16:29:53

Ah, forgive me, how easily one forgets. Stuart arrived on the afternoon of the second day along the Harrisburg Road. Nonetheless, if the cavalry had strayed so far to the southeast during the third day, I seriously doubt whether Stuart could have known if and when Lee had decided for a frontal attack and been able to make his reappearence in a timely fashion to catch the Union rear as Pickett's charge went in.

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-01 07:31:55

This book argues that Robert E. Lee actually intended for 6000 cavalry troopers led by Jeb Stuart to crash into the rear of the Union lines at the exact moment Pickett's Charge was to strike the front of the Union lines.

This is really new? I have some prior recollection of this idea.

Is there evidence that Lee considered this plan in advance? The reason I ask is because, if this prong was so integral, and the timing had to be perfect, why didn't Lee wait for a signal from Stuart?

That is indeed the question. It would seem that a commander of Lee's caliber wouldn't assume everything in such a precise operation would fall into place when the stakes were so high.

I'm glad the South LOST. And I suppose that's more than enough said already.

One can argue that, from a legal perspective, the South was right. Whatever the case, the pre-war Union was most certainly destroyed. With Federal supremacy established by force we embarked on a path to become a very different country from that envisioned by our founders.

I certainly have no love for the Confederacy nor do I condone slavery, but I sometimes have to wonder if just maybe Johnny Reb was on to something.

BWhite · 2005-08-01 07:41:25

Ah, forgive me, how easily one forgets. Stuart arrived on the afternoon of the second day along the Harrisburg Road. Nonetheless, if the cavalry had strayed so far to the southeast during the third day, I seriously doubt whether Stuart could have known if and when Lee had decided for a frontal attack and been able to make his reappearence in a timely fashion to catch the Union rear as Pickett's charge went in.

Stuart and Lee met in Lee's tent the evening of July 2nd.

Elsewhere, others have commented that this strategy would seem to reprise what Lee coordinated with Stonewall Jackson at Chancellorsville less than 60 days earlier. Send a large detachment on a concealed march to attack from an unexpected direction.

Stuart arrived on July 2nd, late. Did Meade know Stuart was even there?

On Cobra's point:

That is indeed the question. It would seem that a commander of Lee's caliber wouldn't assume everything in such a precise operation would fall into place when the stakes were so high.

The cessation of the Confederate artillery bombardment that came before Pickett's Charge was a signal to Stuart that he had betwen 30 & 60 minutes to reach his target. Lee gave Stuart responsibility to coordinate the timing.

Carhart asserts that at this moment, Stuart formed his men into a large column and they were ordered to a gallup heading towards the road that lead to the Baltimore Pike. They also seemed intent on ignoring scattered Union cavalry on either side. (Carhart cites letters and diaries from eye-witnesses on this point.)

Until Custer charged the front of the column.

Is Carhart correct? That depends upon a painstaking examination of sources.

= = =

I have discovered that a former official Gettysburg historian held a similar belief. When the Union guns also fell silent after the Confederate barrage ended (to allow the barrels to cool for shooting at Pickett's men later) Lee believed Stuart had already started tearing up the Union artillery units.

Palomar · 2005-08-01 08:11:06

I'm glad the South LOST. And I suppose that's more than enough said already.
One can argue that, from a legal perspective, the South was right. Whatever the case, the pre-war Union was most certainly destroyed. With Federal supremacy established by force we embarked on a path to become a very different country from that envisioned by our founders.
I certainly have no love for the Confederacy nor do I condone slavery, but I sometimes have to wonder if just maybe Johnny Reb was on to something.

*Well, some good can always come out of most any sort of situation. Certainly the Fed/North would have been impacted and thereby changed as well. But do you care to elucidate further -- or would Bill not want the topic to go in that direction?

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-08-01 08:42:07

I have discovered that a former official Gettysburg historian held a similar belief.

Might be were I heard of it before then.

When the Union guns also fell silent after the Confederate barrage ended (to allow the barrels to cool for shooting at Pickett's men later) Lee believed Stuart had already started tearing up the Union artillery units.

Ah, this I had not considered. Perhaps.

*Well, some good can always come out of most any sort of situation. Certainly the Fed/North would have been impacted and thereby changed as well. But do you care to elucidate further -- or would Bill not want the topic to go in that direction?

For the moment I will defer to Bill and my own fatigue.

After lunch I might elucidate, topic direction be damned. :twisted:

BWhite · 2005-08-01 08:49:38

:shock:

I betcha Cobra colored outside the lines, in pre-school.

Grypd · 2005-08-01 08:55:32

I suspect from Cobracommanders view he believes it comes from the way that the nature of the political makeups that the different side expoused and there general causes that made the war happen in the first place.

Federal North or Confederate South. In this there is an actual clue.

A federation is a rigid group of entities dominated by its central goverment with these entities being very subserviant or even just names only.

A Confederation though is looser structure more like a political alliance and with a central goverment that has to gain a broad consensus to act.

There is also the causes of the war and as far as my investigation of it as a student went it appeared to have very little to do with slavery as there where actually states on the Northern side that where slave states. The basic premise though is that in the years leading up to the Civil war there was in actuality two countries in beliefs and opinions bound up as the USA with the industry to the north and the more agrarian south. And the south was as 19th century civilisations go a more socialist viewpoint than the north which seemed to be the pure capitalistic side.

clark · 2005-08-01 09:11:38

Wait a second here…

Lee would have known of the capabilities of the Union guns, so why would he assume that they were disabled? Again, his plan was predicated, supposedly, on Stuart being at a certain place at a certain time in order for his main thrust to succeed.

He was committing the bulk of his force on an assault that could spell its destruction unless Stuart was in position. I think it is a brilliant plan, but if he did pursue it without some type of signal from Stuart, then he was having an off day.

Why 30-60 minutes? Why not 2 hours? 4 hours? Why not send a runner when making the excursion?

Put another way, what would have been the result if Lee had waited for Stuart to reach the artillery first? And we seem to be mixing signals here- on the one hand it is being stated that the Confederate guns falling silent is the signal to Stuart to get a move on his attack. On the other, it is being said that the Union guns falling silent is a signal to Lee that Stuart has reached the artillery.

How does any of that make any sense?

BWhite · 2005-08-01 09:35:17

Put another way, what would have been the result if Lee had waited for Stuart to reach the artillery first? And we seem to be mixing signals here- on the one hand it is being stated that the Confederate guns falling silent is the signal to Stuart to get a move on his attack. On the other, it is being said that the Union guns falling silent is a signal to Lee that Stuart has reached the artillery.
How does any of that make any sense?

The Gettysburg historian who told people that Lee believed the Union guns falling silent was evidence that Stuart had arrived apparently was speculating from map positions of units. (This was raised to answer Cobra's point that many visitors to the Park at Gettysburg have been exposed to a somewhat related theory)

Carhart's theory arises from analysis of diaries, journals and letters written by eye-witnesses blended with analysis of unit positions. This delves quickly into the nuts and bolts mechanics of "doing history" and sifting evidence.

Carhart, I believe, would say the Gettysburg National Park historian was close, but wrong. Stuart's attack and Pickett's attack were to be synchronized, a difficult ballet timed by Stuart's assignment to arrive X minutes after the Rebel barrage ceased.

= = =

Messengers? That would take too long.

= = =

what would have been the result if Lee had waited for Stuart to reach the artillery first?

Pickett's Division was a huge distraction to the Union Army. This point is well accepted. With all eyes on Pickett, the arrival of Stuart would have caused terror and panic.

Like at Chancellorsville.

No charge from Pickett? Stuart's men attack while hopelessly outnumbered and fail. Coordinate the attacks? The few defeat the many.

That historian working at Gettysburg was close, but wrong.

clark · 2005-08-01 09:52:04

It would appear that Lee was close, but wrong.

It was too risky.

BWhite · 2005-08-01 10:40:30

Read the http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de … &v=glance] Amazon.com comments for a real flame war on this topic.

If Carhart is right, Lee rolled the dice and lost. That said, the North's industrial might meant Lee didn't really have a choice but to gamble.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-07-30 09:05:30

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#2 2005-07-30 09:12:08

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#3 2005-07-30 09:12:31

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#4 2005-07-30 09:22:18

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#5 2005-07-30 09:30:56

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#6 2005-07-30 09:41:58

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#7 2005-07-30 09:56:58

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#8 2005-07-30 10:10:56

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#9 2005-07-30 11:55:29

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#10 2005-07-30 12:21:18

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#11 2005-07-30 12:44:39

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#12 2005-07-30 14:56:35

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#13 2005-07-30 15:39:57

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#14 2005-07-30 16:05:43

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#15 2005-07-30 16:29:53

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#16 2005-08-01 07:31:55

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#17 2005-08-01 07:41:25

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#18 2005-08-01 08:11:06

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#19 2005-08-01 08:42:07

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#20 2005-08-01 08:49:38

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#21 2005-08-01 08:55:32

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#22 2005-08-01 09:11:38

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#23 2005-08-01 09:35:17

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#24 2005-08-01 09:52:04

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

#25 2005-08-01 10:40:30

Re: Military History: Gettysburg

Board footer