Gettysburg[W:176]

[JacksinPA]

btw- if anybody goes to Gettysburg - and it is highly recommended that you do - make sure you visit the new center where the Gettysburg Cyclorama is located.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Cyclorama

Its truly amazing.

The other thing is if you have three or more people, its almost the same price to hire your own tour guide and they drive your car for you and give you a longer private tour than the normal bus tour does. And you can ask questions to your hears content without competition from anybody else.

I've been there. Even in Winter Gettysburg is very crowded. Lot of out of state plates in the parking area at the Visitor Center (bookshop has every book on the battle).

Too few good restaurants. Town needs to enter the 21st century & get its donkey in gear as far as development is concerned. It already is a tourist magnet.

 

[calamity]

So I just finished a great book called " Killer angels" which was a great introduction to the US Civil War, I don't really know a ton about the civil war but I have the bug now and have another book on the way. I did finish" Killer angels" with a couple of questions and I was hoping someone on here might be able to
tackle them for me.

1. Why was ( and still is) Lee considered a great General? From what I read his tactics cost the confederates that battle and Pickett's charge was a calamity.

Politics. Lee's reputation as a really ****ty general was rewritten into a hero while Grant (a good general) was written to be a drunkard after the Reconstruction Era. May I recommend finding a good book on that subject too, once you finish the Civil War stuff.

2. If Lee had listen to Longstreet do you think the confederates could have won that battle?

3. If the confederates had won do you think that would have ended the war? If yes do you think the Union would have accepted the two state scenario or would they have eventually looked to retake the South?

IMO, the only way the C could have won would have been to play defense. Force the North to attack them--they would not have, btw--and the South would have remained an independent nation. But...well, you need to know Southerners to understand why they barked up the wrong tree on that.

 

[Rexedgar]

So I just finished a great book called " Killer angels" which was a great introduction to the US Civil War, I don't really know a ton about the civil war but I have the bug now and have another book on the way. I did finish" Killer angels" with a couple of questions and I was hoping someone on here might be able to
tackle them for me.

1. Why was ( and still is) Lee considered a great General? From what I read his tactics cost the confederates that battle and Pickett's charge was a calamity.

2. If Lee had listen to Longstreet do you think the confederates could have won that battle?

3. If the confederates had won do you think that would have ended the war? If yes do you think the Union would have accepted the two state scenario or would they have eventually looked to retake the South?

JEB Stewart was late to the party at Gettysburg; therefore Lee had incomplete information.

Lee needed a decisive victory to influence the British.

The British interest waned after Sharpsburg/Anteitam.

 

[danielpalos]

While I am nothing even close to an expert on this battle, I must confess that there were some massive boulders and rock formations at the end of that open field that formed the hills that the Union was fortified behind. I strongly suspect they were not moved there over the last century and a half and were there during the Battle in 1863. Any shelling of this area simply did not clear the area nor dislodge the Union troops using it for cover.

It literally was like shooting fish in the proverbial barrel.

Of the more than 12,000 Confederate troops that started across that nearly mile wide field, less than several hundred actually got to the stone wall for cover. I believe that is what the tour guide told us when we stood on Little Round Top and the surrounding elevated and covered area. I think Pickett himself said it best when he was asked why it failed...... "I've always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

Seems like an oversight; Confederate mobile artillery could have closed enough for bombardment ahead of the infantry advance.

 

[Higgins86]

Seems like an oversight; Confederate mobile artillery could have closed enough for bombardment ahead of the infantry advance.

Didn't the South have really bad artillery? I also believe they did hit them pretty hard before the advance.

 

[haymarket]

I've been there. Even in Winter Gettysburg is very crowded. Lot of out of state plates in the parking area at the Visitor Center (bookshop has every book on the battle).

Too few good restaurants. Town needs to enter the 21st century & get its donkey in gear as far as development is concerned. It already is a tourist magnet.

We were there in late July and it was not really too bad at all. We simply showed up and were still able to get a private guide to drive our car. And we did not even try to eat there - waited until we got a couple of hours away if I remember correctly.

Did they tell you about the family that took it upon themselves to clean up all the battle fields and basically were the wholesalers for all the little shops in town for the next hundred years? I found that fascinating how opportunity knocked and they answer the door for several generations to come.

 

[danielpalos]

Didn't the South have really bad artillery? I also believe they did hit them pretty hard before the advance.

There was a massed artillery bombardment and the movie claimed the artillery was supposed to advance with the infantry.

 

[Rexedgar]

So I just finished a great book called " Killer angels" which was a great introduction to the US Civil War, I don't really know a ton about the civil war but I have the bug now and have another book on the way. I did finish" Killer angels" with a couple of questions and I was hoping someone on here might be able to
tackle them for me.

1. Why was ( and still is) Lee considered a great General? From what I read his tactics cost the confederates that battle and Pickett's charge was a calamity.

2. If Lee had listen to Longstreet do you think the confederates could have won that battle?

3. If the confederates had won do you think that would have ended the war? If yes do you think the Union would have accepted the two state scenario or would they have eventually looked to retake the South?

We were there in late July and it was not really too bad at all. We simply showed up and were still able to get a private guide to drive our car. And we did not even try to eat there - waited until we got a couple of hours away if I remember correctly.

Did they tell you about the family that took it upon themselves to clean up all the battle fields and basically were the wholesalers for all the little shops in town for the next hundred years? I found that fascinating how opportunity knocked and they answer the door for several generations to come.

Many years ago we toured Gettysburg in early July. That is the time to walk the path of Gen. George Pickett's men. We were dressed for summer; shorts athletic shoes and t shirts. Not woolen uniforms and under fire.......hard to imagine....

 

[OrphanSlug]

So I just finished a great book called " Killer angels" which was a great introduction to the US Civil War, I don't really know a ton about the civil war but I have the bug now and have another book on the way. I did finish" Killer angels" with a couple of questions and I was hoping someone on here might be able to
tackle them for me.

1. Why was ( and still is) Lee considered a great General? From what I read his tactics cost the confederates that battle and Pickett's charge was a calamity.

2. If Lee had listen to Longstreet do you think the confederates could have won that battle?

3. If the confederates had won do you think that would have ended the war? If yes do you think the Union would have accepted the two state scenario or would they have eventually looked to retake the South?

Hindsight being 20/20 and all, the real issue ended up being how the war needed to be fought.

It was after the war that it came out Lee and Longstreet disagreed on a few things between Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, and it comes down to history on how contentious (or not) those disagreements were over those days they spoke about next steps.

Longstreet's writings suggested that he was concerned about manpower overall. He wanted to go with a defensive posture because he knew that even though Chancellorsville was arguably a success that the numbers needed to advance on Gettysburg would be overwhelming being a similar assault posture. Technically Longstreet was right, and "Pickett's Charge" did get through Union lines but it still failed because of that manpower issue. You would think 15K would be enough, and so did Lee, but in the end thousands of Confederate soldiers died and ultimately Lee was forced to withdraw. Over half of those sent into the assault died over Lee's assumptions of being able to take Union soldiers behind a wall in a dug in position.

You could argue that Lee's successes to the point of considering Gettysburg made him overconfident, perhaps arrogant, about what his men could accomplish. And that may have played out in those important meetings between Lee, Longstreet, and others in the days leading up to Gettysburg which the history books determined was Lee's failure to invade the North all that far.

In the end we are talking about a single battle where casualties were in the range of 23K Union Soldiers and 28K Confederate soldiers (give or take.) But even with those numbers the Union considered it a win with Lee so demoralized he offered a resignation that Davis did not accept.

To answer your questions:

1. Yes, Lee was still a great general winning plenty of battles before and after Gettysburg but his tactics at that battle (because of how Chancellorsville and others went) backfired causing enough dissension in the ranks. It becomes arguable how great of a general he was, arrogance notwithstanding he did plenty that could be considered military success.

2. Unsure that Lee could have won Gettysburg if fought a little differently. Longstreet was ultimately against not just a single assault but the idea of advancing into the North that way given the conditions of Union and Confederate strength at the time. And honestly Lee was wrong anyway at the end of that battle, the Union did not counter assault as he predicted and ultimately Lee's troops retreated under cover of night. The other thing to keep in mind is Longstreet is not without criticism, it has been argued that his issue with going into the Gettysburg campaign impacted him doing exactly what he was told and when perhaps assisting in the outcome of his tremendous losses from the assault he was charged with. In fact all of Lee's subordinate command ended up with some degree of military criticism for various actions during the Gettysburg campaign further suggesting Lee listening to Longstreet specifically would have been ultimately not very impacting to how things ended up.

3. No, even if the Union lost Gettysburg the numbers still suggested latter battles like Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta and the "Appomattox Campaign" would have occurred anyway. Lee lost too many at Gettysburg and even if only losing half of them in some victory it would not be enough to advance that much further north.

Ultimately there was no way Union command would have allowed enough to happen to end up at a two-state solution. Even with a few battles that might have gone differently if Confederate did something different it was unlikely the South could have done enough to wear down the North.

 

[haymarket]

Seems like an oversight; Confederate mobile artillery could have closed enough for bombardment ahead of the infantry advance.

I know they did shell the hillside - but I could not tell you about the overall strength of the artillery they had there. It obviously was not effective as when those Confederate troops started advancing they were cut down pretty good.

If the rebs had shelled the hillside, I wonder if the yankees simply moved their troops to the back of the hill or to the sides and let them expend their strength and then when the confederates started marching, they simply rushed them back into place? If I remember the topography correctly, that certainly would not have been impossible to do.

But that is just a guess from somebody who was there.

I cannot stress enough how it felt to stand on the other side of that open wide field where the Confederate soldiers started their advance knowing what was in store for them. Its at least 3/4 of a mile and I am sure some were more than a mile away. Even a decent runner would take ten minutes to cover that rough ground and I suspect the pace was not that of a runner but of a slow advance that took a good half hour or so to get across. The whole time Union soldiers are behind large rocks and trees and just shooting into a crowd.

Again, it was suicide.

 

[haymarket]

Hindsight being 20/20 and all, the real issue ended up being how the war needed to be fought.

It was after the war that it came out Lee and Longstreet disagreed on a few things between Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, and it comes down to history on how contentious (or not) those disagreements were over those days they spoke about next steps.

Longstreet's writings suggested that he was concerned about manpower overall. He wanted to go with a defensive posture because he knew that even though Chancellorsville was arguably a success that the numbers needed to advance on Gettysburg would be overwhelming being a similar assault posture. Technically Longstreet was right, and "Pickett's Charge" did get through Union lines but it still failed because of that manpower issue. You would think 15K would be enough, and so did Lee, but in the end thousands of Confederate soldiers died and ultimately Lee was forced to withdraw. Over half of those sent into the assault died over Lee's assumptions of being able to take Union soldiers behind a wall in a dug in position.

You could argue that Lee's successes to the point of considering Gettysburg made him overconfident, perhaps arrogant, about what his men could accomplish. And that may have played out in those important meetings between Lee, Longstreet, and others in the days leading up to Gettysburg which the history books determined was Lee's failure to invade the North all that far.

In the end we are talking about a single battle where casualties were in the range of 23K Union Soldiers and 28K Confederate soldiers (give or take.) But even with those numbers the Union considered it a win with Lee so demoralized he offered a resignation that Davis did not accept.

To answer your questions:

1. Yes, Lee was still a great general winning plenty of battles before and after Gettysburg but his tactics at that battle (because of how Chancellorsville and others went) backfired causing enough dissension in the ranks. It becomes arguable how great of a general he was, arrogance notwithstanding he did plenty that could be considered military success.

2. Unsure that Lee could have won Gettysburg if fought a little differently. Longstreet was ultimately against not just a single assault but the idea of advancing into the North that way given the conditions of Union and Confederate strength at the time. And honestly Lee was wrong anyway at the end of that battle, the Union did not counter assault as he predicted and ultimately Lee's troops retreated under cover of night. The other thing to keep in mind is Longstreet is not without criticism, it has been argued that his issue with going into the Gettysburg campaign impacted him doing exactly what he was told and when perhaps assisting in the outcome of his tremendous losses from the assault he was charged with. In fact all of Lee's subordinate command ended up with some degree of military criticism for various actions during the Gettysburg campaign further suggesting Lee listening to Longstreet specifically would have been ultimately not very impacting to how things ended up.

3. No, even if the Union lost Gettysburg the numbers still suggested latter battles like Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta and the "Appomattox Campaign" would have occurred anyway. Lee lost too many at Gettysburg and even if only losing half of them in some victory it would not be enough to advance that much further north.

Ultimately there was no way Union command would have allowed enough to happen to end up at a two-state solution. Even with a few battles that might have gone differently if Confederate did something different it was unlikely the South could have done enough to wear down the North.

I greatly enjoyed your post and your insights.

I remember asking the tour guide the big question... WHY? And he said something about the Confederacy had some military success in previous battles with maneuvers similar to what they attempted with Pickett's charge. So I guess they felt they could do it.

But its a hell of a long way just the same.

 

[Redress]

Seems like an oversight; Confederate mobile artillery could have closed enough for bombardment ahead of the infantry advance.

No. That particular piece of Napoleonic tactics had already been proven to not work during the civil war. Infantry was too accurate at too long a range to make bringing artillery in close viable.

 

[Redress]

Didn't the South have really bad artillery? I also believe they did hit them pretty hard before the advance.

The south spent a large portion of the war using mostly 6 pounders. Those consistently lost to Union 12 pound Napoleons, 10 pound ordnance rifles and 10 pound parrots. Later, they began to melt down the 6 pounders to make Napoleons. Artillery crews and tactics where largely comparable by the time Gettysburg happened.

 

[calamity]

Hindsight being 20/20 and all, the real issue ended up being how the war needed to be fought.

It was after the war that it came out Lee and Longstreet disagreed on a few things between Chancellorsville and Gettysburg, and it comes down to history on how contentious (or not) those disagreements were over those days they spoke about next steps.

Longstreet's writings suggested that he was concerned about manpower overall. He wanted to go with a defensive posture because he knew that even though Chancellorsville was arguably a success that the numbers needed to advance on Gettysburg would be overwhelming being a similar assault posture. Technically Longstreet was right, and "Pickett's Charge" did get through Union lines but it still failed because of that manpower issue. You would think 15K would be enough, and so did Lee, but in the end thousands of Confederate soldiers died and ultimately Lee was forced to withdraw. Over half of those sent into the assault died over Lee's assumptions of being able to take Union soldiers behind a wall in a dug in position.

You could argue that Lee's successes to the point of considering Gettysburg made him overconfident, perhaps arrogant, about what his men could accomplish. And that may have played out in those important meetings between Lee, Longstreet, and others in the days leading up to Gettysburg which the history books determined was Lee's failure to invade the North all that far.

In the end we are talking about a single battle where casualties were in the range of 23K Union Soldiers and 28K Confederate soldiers (give or take.) But even with those numbers the Union considered it a win with Lee so demoralized he offered a resignation that Davis did not accept.

To answer your questions:

1. Yes, Lee was still a great general winning plenty of battles before and after Gettysburg but his tactics at that battle (because of how Chancellorsville and others went) backfired causing enough dissension in the ranks. It becomes arguable how great of a general he was, arrogance notwithstanding he did plenty that could be considered military success.

2. Unsure that Lee could have won Gettysburg if fought a little differently. Longstreet was ultimately against not just a single assault but the idea of advancing into the North that way given the conditions of Union and Confederate strength at the time. And honestly Lee was wrong anyway at the end of that battle, the Union did not counter assault as he predicted and ultimately Lee's troops retreated under cover of night. The other thing to keep in mind is Longstreet is not without criticism, it has been argued that his issue with going into the Gettysburg campaign impacted him doing exactly what he was told and when perhaps assisting in the outcome of his tremendous losses from the assault he was charged with. In fact all of Lee's subordinate command ended up with some degree of military criticism for various actions during the Gettysburg campaign further suggesting Lee listening to Longstreet specifically would have been ultimately not very impacting to how things ended up.

3. No, even if the Union lost Gettysburg the numbers still suggested latter battles like Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta and the "Appomattox Campaign" would have occurred anyway. Lee lost too many at Gettysburg and even if only losing half of them in some victory it would not be enough to advance that much further north.

Ultimately there was no way Union command would have allowed enough to happen to end up at a two-state solution. Even with a few battles that might have gone differently if Confederate did something different it was unlikely the South could have done enough to wear down the North.

They would have won independence if they never attacked Union forces at Fort Sumter. Lincoln trolled the South, and they bit.

 

[Tim the plumber]

It was not that the US had particularly good shots, it was the advent of the minet ball making rifles the primary weapon, and more use of rifled artillery. The 10 pound ordnance rifle, and the 10 pound parrot where both superior to 12 pound Napoleons.

When you say that the US troops were not particularly good shots you have not thought much about European armies. Yours were all precision marksmen by those standards.

Not as good as the Boer but they were the best in the world by a long mark.

 

[Redress]

I know they did shell the hillside - but I could not tell you about the overall strength of the artillery they had there. It obviously was not effective as when those Confederate troops started advancing they were cut down pretty good.

If the rebs had shelled the hillside, I wonder if the yankees simply moved their troops to the back of the hill or to the sides and let them expend their strength and then when the confederates started marching, they simply rushed them back into place? If I remember the topography correctly, that certainly would not have been impossible to do.

But that is just a guess from somebody who was there.

I cannot stress enough how it felt to stand on the other side of that open wide field where the Confederate soldiers started their advance knowing what was in store for them. Its at least 3/4 of a mile and I am sure some were more than a mile away. Even a decent runner would take ten minutes to cover that rough ground and I suspect the pace was not that of a runner but of a slow advance that took a good half hour or so to get across. The whole time Union soldiers are behind large rocks and trees and just shooting into a crowd.

Again, it was suicide.

Now that I am home, I can include a link: everything you wanted to know about the artillery at Gettysburg.

 

[Redress]

When you say that the US troops were not particularly good shots you have not thought much about European armies. Yours were all precision marksmen by those standards.

Not as good as the Boer but they were the best in the world by a long mark.

I am not knocking the quality of their aim, but rather pointing out that technology had given them more of a chance to shine kinda thing. Napoleon and that era consisted of marching towards the enemy, firing off a volley of "leveled fire"(not aimed, just trying to get the guns pointed at the right height to have a chance of hitting something), then charging. It took awhile during the Civil War for generals to learn that this tactic was a failure against rifle armed foes, and not a worthwhile use of your own rifle armed soldiers. The minet ball allowed for easy to make, mas produce ammo for rifles, giving the guns longer range and greater accuracy than the smoothbore muskets of the Napoleonic era.

 

[danielpalos]

No. That particular piece of Napoleonic tactics had already been proven to not work during the civil war. Infantry was too accurate at too long a range to make bringing artillery in close viable.

Artillery fire should have been used for suppression along with counter fire, ideally.

 

[WillyPete]

So I just finished a great book called " Killer angels" which was a great introduction to the US Civil War, I don't really know a ton about the civil war but I have the bug now and have another book on the way. I did finish" Killer angels" with a couple of questions and I was hoping someone on here might be able to
tackle them for me.

1. Why was ( and still is) Lee considered a great General? From what I read his tactics cost the confederates that battle and Pickett's charge was a calamity.

2. If Lee had listen to Longstreet do you think the confederates could have won that battle?

3. If the confederates had won do you think that would have ended the war? If yes do you think the Union would have accepted the two state scenario or would they have eventually looked to retake the South?

1#:

The way I've heard it put is that Lee (like most of his contemporaries) never adapted to the tactic rules that had changed right before the war started, which was primarily a massive increase in the firepower of muskets thanks to rifling and the Minnie ball, which tripled the effective range of infantry and in large part nullified the shock effect of cavalry. The tactical rule became "Defend, then Attack" as as advance towards a solid defensive line was generally doomed to failure. This was impressed upon Lee several times, but he never truly adopted it.

2#:

Maybe, but I think they were too far gone for that by then. Also, it's not clear what Longstreet's actual input was, as much of this came out afterwards and became legend.

He should have handed command to Stonewall Jackson long before that, or at least did everything he said.

3#:

Nah, the union had plenty of resources to continue. The Confederacy had to win politically, by outlasting the will of the Union or impressing Europe into recognition. Only the Union could win militarily.

 

[Fledermaus]

So I just finished a great book called " Killer angels" which was a great introduction to the US Civil War, I don't really know a ton about the civil war but I have the bug now and have another book on the way. I did finish" Killer angels" with a couple of questions and I was hoping someone on here might be able to
tackle them for me.

1. Why was ( and still is) Lee considered a great General? From what I read his tactics cost the confederates that battle and Pickett's charge was a calamity.

2. If Lee had listen to Longstreet do you think the confederates could have won that battle?

3. If the confederates had won do you think that would have ended the war? If yes do you think the Union would have accepted the two state scenario or would they have eventually looked to retake the South?

1. He had beaten the Union bloody in battle after battle. Where other generals were failing left and right Lee succeeded. From 1862 he won most battles against superior forces. He completely unnerved McClellan and saved Richmond from doom early in the war. He then whipped Pope, Burnside, Hooker in turn.

Lee's actions, including Pickets charge, were common in those days. The Union had tried and failed I earlier actions to win the day with frontal assault. Lee's men had broken the Union lines before. He mistakenly believed they would do it again.

After Gettysburg his defense of Richmond extended the war nearly a year.

2. The battle was lost before Pickets charge IMO.

3. If Lee won he would have proved that the South could invade the North. There were already plenty of Northern folks looking for peace.

 

[Fledermaus]

1#:

The way I've heard it put is that Lee (like most of his contemporaries) never adapted to the tactic rules that had changed right before the war started, which was primarily a massive increase in the firepower of muskets thanks to rifling and the Minnie ball, which tripled the effective range of infantry and in large part nullified the shock effect of cavalry. The tactical rule became "Defend, then Attack" as as advance towards a solid defensive line was generally doomed to failure. This was impressed upon Lee several times, but he never truly adopted it.

2#:

Maybe, but I think they were too far gone for that by then. Also, it's not clear what Longstreet's actual input was, as much of this came out afterwards and became legend.

He should have handed command to Stonewall Jackson long before that, or at least did everything he said.

3#:

Nah, the union had plenty of resources to continue. The Confederacy had to win politically, by outlasting the will of the Union or impressing Europe into recognition. Only the Union could win militarily.

2. Longstreet. Jackson was long dead.

 

[Fledermaus]

Battle Cry of Freedom is the best book for the Civil War overall.

IMO

 

[OrphanSlug]

I greatly enjoyed your post and your insights.

I remember asking the tour guide the big question... WHY? And he said something about the Confederacy had some military success in previous battles with maneuvers similar to what they attempted with Pickett's charge. So I guess they felt they could do it.

But its a hell of a long way just the same.

They probably did have similar successes but it was not quite apples to apples.

Again the whole hindsight is 20/20 thing... it took the history of the Civil War to realize how much impact Lee's loss at Gettysburg ended up being. Pickett's Charge ended up being the end of the battle and campaign for Gettysburg, a moral victory for Meade, and marked the last invasion into the north Lee made.

All of the what if questions we have on Gettysburg are important to discuss, Longstreet ended up being right through a failure. What is so telling is Gettysburg was a loss from day one, just few knew it and Longstreet was only right about one part of the loss.

In no particular order...

Lee did not put enough emphasis on the various high ground and ridges which cost him potential flanking, long gun, and artillery positions. Allowing the union to go from north of Gettysburg to Cemetery Hill ended up being a real failure, even compressed the Union had position and roads to help the various units with supplies and communications.

Complete fiasco on Day 2 of the battle for Gettysburg, Lee's forces were close to where they wanted to be. Ewell was all the way to Benner's Hill, and was compressing Union forces into Cemetery Hill. Longstreet was facing Cemetery Ridge even though it was open field between him and one of the main roads next to Cemetery Hill (ultimately that is one of many reasons he thought an assault from his position was not wise) he had flanking help. Hill was flanking Longstreet to the north and should have had better intentions to seal things up south of Gettysburg. The lack of coordination made Lee reorganize things knowing how close he was on Day 2 to causing the Union to dig in or retreat (they ended up digging in.)

The above Picket's Charge was a blunder of epic proportions. Artillery was ineffective, Longstreet was facing Union soldiers with position and a wall to help them, and the assault carried thousands across an open field. It was written in several accounts that all the Confederate soldiers that did not retreat were either killed or captured (mostly wounded.) It was a blood bath and took about an hour to play out. Cemetery Hill and Round Top Hill ended up creating flanking Union artillery fire that decimated advancing Confederate soldiers who mostly were in line formation. I read somewhere that of the few Confederate men that got to the Union line all ended up there without any commanders of any rank. Literally, 'what do we do now' and they ended up retreating in yet another day of lack of coordination between commanders (and many were dead.)

"Jeb" Stuart. For days no one knew where he was, including Lee, and it removed an important cavalry effort from Lee's arsenal at a really bad time.

"Stonewall" Jackson not a factor at Gettysburg, he died a few days after Chancellorsville and it made Lee have to micromanage far more than he was used to doing. And really some would argue it put more onus on Longstreet, who was not entirely behind Lee's decisions.

The thing about Gettysburg, the better question is what would have happened if Ewell advanced from Benner's Hill to Cemetery Hill on Day 2? (Picket's Charge would have not been needed.)

 

[OrphanSlug]

They would have won independence if they never attacked Union forces at Fort Sumter. Lincoln trolled the South, and they bit.

Somewhat, but I get your point.

I've argued for years that the underline reason for the civil war was the aristocracy of the north wanted a social and economic model that allowed the industrial revolution to flourish, where the aristocracy of the south wanted a social and economic model they already developed and called "our way of life."

They were determined to not be on the same page, and that speaks to your point.

Ultimately Confederate forces bombarding Fort Sumter kicked things off, but the decision to do so predates that in what the South was facing. It is fairly easy to argue that compromise was almost extinguished by the time that happened, the South was having to face giving up seceding and eventually accept the end of slavery.

Lincoln knew what was happening in Congress, and in a way baited the south into doing something about Fort Sumter. They did, and the bloody mess was kicked off...

 

[marke]

So I just finished a great book called " Killer angels" which was a great introduction to the US Civil War, I don't really know a ton about the civil war but I have the bug now and have another book on the way. I did finish" Killer angels" with a couple of questions and I was hoping someone on here might be able to
tackle them for me.

1. Why was ( and still is) Lee considered a great General? From what I read his tactics cost the confederates that battle and Pickett's charge was a calamity.

2. If Lee had listen to Longstreet do you think the confederates could have won that battle?

3. If the confederates had won do you think that would have ended the war? If yes do you think the Union would have accepted the two state scenario or would they have eventually looked to retake the South?

No general has perfect judgment and certainly no ability to foresee the future. Lee was a brilliant man and hugely successful military officer. He graduated 2nd in his class at West Point, behind Charles Mason who still holds the distinction of graduating with the highest overall performance statistics in the history of the academy. Lee still holds the second highest scores in the history of the academy, and Douglas MacArthur holds the third highest.