| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > what Went wrong At Gettysburg |
| ||||
Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > what Went wrong At Gettysburg |
| Moderated by: javal1 | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|||||||||||||
| what Went wrong At Gettysburg | Rate Topic |
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 03:21 am |
|
61st Post |
|
44th VA INF Member
|
one line of yankees stood between us and washington
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 03:34 am |
|
62nd Post |
|
CleburneFan Member 
|
What do you mean by "one line"? One corps? One column of marchers? A division of cavalry? A defensive line of artillery batteries? One army--the Army of the Potomac?. Lee would never have been stalled by a single corps of infantry, especially because he had so much more himself. Last edited on Tue Sep 16th, 2008 03:36 am by CleburneFan |
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 03:37 am |
|
63rd Post |
|
susansweet Member 
|
First of all were you there? You say "One line of yankees stood between US and Washington." Second Gettysburg is a long way from Washington over roads. I think you need to do some more reading on Gettysburg. I am no expert on the subject. Haven't read enough yet. Susan
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 03:50 am |
|
64th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member
|
44th VA INF wrote: one line of yankees stood between us and washington Interesting use of the word us just as you used we in a previous post. Are you identifying yourself as an actual member of the Army of Northern Virginia? If you are, you must have some fascinating insights all of us here lack. It gives me the shivers. It is so Twilight Zone. 
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Sep 16th, 2008 10:43 pm |
|
65th Post |
|
44th VA INF Member
|
i got some heat about my last comment and i simply ment that all that stood bettwen Lee and victory was the one army he had bettean so many times before
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 12:56 am |
|
66th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member
|
But in saying that, you completely ignore the war in the West. At the same time Lee was repulsed at Gettysburg, Grant managed a crucial victory at Vicksburg. Your statement indicates that the entire war to win or lose was solely up to Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee and the ANV were not the only Confederate armies fighting for victory in the south. The Army of the Potomac was not the only Union army fighting for the north.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 01:27 am |
|
67th Post |
|
barrydancer Member 
|
I recall at a seminar for the Longstreet Society some years ago, Professor J. Holt Merchant of Washington and Lee University remarked that his students often ask him some variation of the "What If?" at Gettysburg question. To paraphrase his answer, "Nothing. The Confederates were low on food and about out of ammunition. Sooner or later they had to go back to Virginia."
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 02:06 am |
|
68th Post |
|
44th VA INF Member
|
i get what you say about that but if the AOTP was destroyed and washington in confedrate hands eroupe would reconize the confedracy and the north would have to surrender than
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 02:24 am |
|
69th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member
|
44th VA INF wrote: i get what you say about that but if the AOTP was destroyed and washington in confedrate hands eroupe would reconize the confedracy and the north would have to surrender than You have a lot of big IF'S there. Just one example---Europe might NOT have recognized the Confederacy even if they had defeated the Army of the Potomac because most countries in Europe that the Confederacy needed were opposed to slavery. It is just supposition that Europe was eagerly awaiting an opportunity to recognize the South. Maybe some would; maybe some wouldn't. You cannot be sure. The other really BIG IF, is that IF the Army of the Potomac had been destroyed, etc. Well, that's just it, isn't it. Lee was unable to destroy the AOTP. Plus you still have Union armies in the West. As I said before, Lee was not operating in a vacuum. Many important battles took place in the West and Deep South.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 07:07 am |
|
70th Post |
|
barrydancer Member
|
44th VA INF wrote: i get what you say about that but if the AOTP was destroyed and washington in confedrate hands eroupe would reconize the confedracy and the north would have to surrender than Even assuming that Lee could have pushed the Federals, by whatever means, off of Cemetery Ridge and forced them to abandon their positions at Gettysburg, the Army of the Potomac would have been a far cry from being destroyed. The Sixth Corps had been sitting behind those hills, not firing a shot during the battle, and would have likely formed the backbone of any rear-guard actions. Keep in mind as well that Meade had prepared for a possible withdrawal back into Maryland. Some twenty or so miles South of Gettysburg were the formidable Pipe Creek defenses, protecting the approaches to Baltimore and D.C., from which a weakened ANV would have had quite a difficult time dislodging Meade. The Washington defenses would have likely been an even tougher nut to crack. Plus, as CleburneFan is right in pointing out, events in the West are going swimmimgly for the Union.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 11:12 am |
|
71st Post |
|
gettysburgerrn Member 
|
Which Jackson....the jackson of the valley or the Jackson of the Seven days? :-) additional thoughts with the presence of Jackson the two corps structure would still have been in effect and Hill would not have had a corps to get butchered..so the whole thing would probably have played out differently...... now back to my beer.... ken
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 01:58 pm |
|
72nd Post |
|
HankC Member 
|
44th VA INF wrote: Well i wonder if everyone agrees this was a close battle It was close until 7pm on the 1st... HankC
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Southern Son. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Wed Sep 17th, 2008 03:33 pm |
|
74th Post |
|
Old Blu Member
|
Meade couldn't do anything against Lee on the 4th day because both armies lost 1/3rd. of their strength and a large part of their officers. Lee had set up a fine defense that would have hurt Meade more than lee. Meade made the right choice.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Sep 18th, 2008 12:47 am |
|
75th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member
|
Southern Son, you can ponder "ifs" from the start of Lee's advance from winter camp in Virginia to Gettysburg and for every minute of every day at Gettysburg and every minute of Lee's retreat afterward. The entire campaign is rife with "if", "what if" and "if only" possibilities and scenarios. For a book you might enjoy that does treat in detail an alternative history of the Battle of Gettysburg, read the novel Gettysburg by Newt Gingrich. It is available in paperback and imagines a scenario in which Lee is the victor. It is available in paperback. (I threw my copy in the trash.)
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 09:29 pm |
|
76th Post |
|
44th VA INF Member
|
i get what you all mean about if washington was in rebel hands there was still the western armies please tell me how theycould have been directed with out ledership form washington
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Sep 20th, 2008 10:33 pm |
|
77th Post |
|
ole Member 
|
i get what you all mean about if washington was in rebel hands there was still the western armies please tell me how theycould have been directed with out ledership form washington Washington is a conglomeration of buildings. Buildings don't direct or lead. The taking of Washington, or Richmond for that matter, would have been a psychoblow, but it would not necessarily have meant the end of the war. For that, you have to capture or kill all the leaders (much like taking out Bagdad's communications during Desert Storm). If the leadership becomes disconnected, then you have a problem. Just a thought. Just a second thought: Get hold of good map that shows all the roads between Gettysburg and Washington. Pick a road or two that doesn't have to pass through Meade's proposed Pipe Creek Line. If you find one, you will also notice that 1) you are exposing your flank to a whole bunch of really irritated Yanks, and 2) you have no supply line over which to get ammo. I don't know what word is in vogue today, but we used to call that "totally screwed." ole Last edited on Sat Sep 20th, 2008 10:46 pm by ole |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| You have chosen to ignore Bama46. click Here to view this post |
|---|
| Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 12:18 am |
|
79th Post |
|
44th VA INF Member
|
Bama i may be young but i do have a good understanding on 19th centrury warfare
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sun Sep 21st, 2008 12:32 am |
|
80th Post |
|
CleburneFan Member
|
ole wrote: i get what you all mean about if washington was in rebel hands there was still the western armies please tell me how theycould have been directed with out ledership form washington
The more current word would be totally "whacked."
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 03:23 am | Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Civil War Interactive Discussion Board > Civil War Talk > General Civil War Talk > what Went wrong At Gettysburg | Top |
