|View single post by Johnny Huma|
|Posted: Fri Dec 8th, 2006 02:17 am||
I will agree with you that the book seems to be pro Lee. When one wins a battle as Meade did at Gettysburg no one stood up and said "There he is the great General of the Army of the Potomic"...Instead the Union commanders all claimed that the deeds they themselves had done on the field won the Battle of Gettysburg leaving Meade to the dogs. Some of those Generals may have had stake to that claim as Hancock who was a great asset to Meade on those 3 bloody days. Meade didnt even get a "That a boy" from Washington..Instead he got thrown to the wolves for not pursuing Lee on his retreat and destroying his army...In fact some of the Corps Commanders at Gettysburg went as far as to say Meade wanted to make a retreating move on the morning of the 2nd.
On the other hand Lee lost the Battle of Gettysburg and solely admitted it was his fault without pointing fingers at any of his subordinate commanders. But also with this take into consideration none of these commanders came forward and said
"General Lee no it was my fault" and there was enough of that to go around...
So as history goes "Success has many friends but failure is a lonely bastard"
I think Lee needs some defending here and I think that is what the authors intent
to get across as to why Lee's 3 days of battle did not go his way...Some of those reasons lie within his own command and others lie with the Union Army...
Recently a rather large building was being constucted here where I live and three walls of the framework collapsed. It was not the intention of the owner of the construction company for this to happen but his foremen had overlooked some construction basics. Who do you think took the rap? The constuction plans were deemed solid as the owner of the Company researched it all. The fault was with his employees who did not execute the plans properly..None the less the owner took the responsibility for the haphazard construction. This was not the plan he laid out but something or someone down the line failed..!!
It is hard for one to believe that General Lee all of the sudden lost all of his abilites to command when he crossed the Mason Dixon. In fact his ability to read a battle in progress is what led him to many victories with inferior numbers and also the ability to read his opponent. Lee's Plans for Victory at Gettysburg were sound. He could change the battle plan as he did on the 2nd day seeing that a en echolon attack would harvest the best results...But the walls fell as they did above even though the plans were sound. Well then there must have been some employees that failed him somewhere....
And on the other hand I dont believe Meade gets enough credit for his stand at the Burg..Here is a rather unkown at the time of the battle who goes up against Bobby Lee and Wins the battle...He and his Corps commanders made all the right moves..
Well maybe excluding Sickles...But isnt that how this debate started...
Meade should have been crowned Prince of the Potomic because all the commanders before him with all their witt and charm with superior numbers could not whip Bobby
and on most accounts were embarresed by him...So lets all give an "At a boy to good Ol George".....And well deserved....
I have read the other works mentioned above and they are also great books..
Lets face it the Battle of Gettysburg had been fought a thousand times over and over
in books in movies and debates...And no matter how many times History may want to fight the battle The results are the same....The Union Wins again..and again over and over...
But it is a great thing that History is alive and well and all the people using this board and others like it still want to know and relive what was once a sad time in our country..It is all important for us to know and our kids to know..for if we do not know from where we came then how can we know where we are going...
Thanks for reading guys and gals