Battle Imminent in Pennsylvania

June 28, 2006 5:23 AM

On this day in 1863, George Meade replaced Joseph Hooker as commanding General of the 100,000 strong Army of the Potomac, confirming what Meade himself had complained as “the ridiculous appearance we present of changing our generals after each battle.” Earlier in the day, J.E.B. Stuart and 5000 Confederate cavalry crossed the Potomac entering Maryland at Rowser’s ford. Stuart's lengthy absence had made him desperate to execute the order given to him by General Robert E. Lee to “take position on General Ewell’s right, place yourself in communication with him, guard his flank, and keep him informed of the enemy’s movements.” Stuart, whose cavalry was the “eyes and ears” of the 80,000 strong Army of Northern Virginia (warning: awful music), had been out of touch for several days, leaving General Lee ignorant of the enemy’s movement and position. When Stuart finally caught up with his army at Gettysburg, he had missed the first day and most of the second of one of the greatest battles in American history. There are those who say that Stuart violated Lee's orders to him concerning his role for the proposed campaign. Others think that those orders gave him leave to operate as he did. In either case there can be little doubt that his absence from his accustomed place, screening the Army's movements, and scouting its routes, was keenly felt by Lee during the campaign, and played a major part in bringing on the meeting engagement at Gettysburg.
posted by three blind mice (66 comments total)

A captain in Stuart's command considered his raid a stunning success due to the amount of enemy supplies that he had captured. It all really boils down to the interpretation of the orders, narrow or wide. Jackson, on the other hand, was often given deliberately vague orders by Lee, and for the most part did exactly what Lee was hoping his lieutenant would do. Thats not to say that Jackson didn't screw up himself, either.
posted by Atreides at 6:52 AM on June 28, 2006

Lets remember Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine's performance on the second day of the battle.

Chamberlain is my home town's hero, and is honored both with a statue and an eponymous townie bar.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:06 AM on June 28, 2006

The real screw up at Gettysburg was Lee himself, simply by being there. When Lee invaded the north he gave up all the homefield advantages that were necessary for his previous successes. He lost the intelligence and support of a friendly civilian populace--Stewart's little foray would not have been nearly so serious in Virginia, were local farmers would have provided alternate intelligence to Lee. He gave up knowledge of the terrain on which he fought. He traded short supply lines for long ones, and blundered into Gettysburg looking for shoes for his men. And he left himself without good lines of retreat, though the Union commander Meade was a doofus and failed to run down Lee on his long retreat back to Virginia. Grant would have mowed down Lee's army right there and have ended the war.

Gettysburg was the second time that Lee invaded the north and was pounded for it, each time losing large and irreplaceable chunks of his army. He lost the war for the south by believing in the myths of his own invincibility. Why the treasonous buffoon is so admired today is beyond me.
posted by LarryC at 7:13 AM on June 28, 2006

Larry C is pretty much right on this, including the treason part. He broke an oath he had sworn.

Plus he lost. Certain losing generals get a myth around them for political reasons.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:21 AM on June 28, 2006

Perhaps, LarryC, but if Lee had won it might have crushed political support for the war in the North.

Nice post three blind mice. I will have to dig through the meat of these links later though. Thanks.
posted by caddis at 7:23 AM on June 28, 2006

Nice post, I'll dig into it at lunch.

Why the treasonous buffoon is so admired today is beyond me.
posted by LarryC at 10:13 AM EST on June 28

Seconded.
posted by marxchivist at 7:28 AM on June 28, 2006

Please remember Lee as College President as well as wartime general.
posted by Wolfdog at 8:04 AM on June 28, 2006

Lets remember Joshua Chamberlain...

This reminds me of the wonderful historical fiction series that starts with "Killer Angles." There are so many good books written that are historical in nature, this on put a different spin on it and the series is rather good.

This book won the Pulitzer Prize, after the author died his son took over and wrote/published the other 3 or 4 books in this series.
posted by fluffycreature at 8:07 AM on June 28, 2006

Please remember Lee as College President as well as wartime general.

Please remember Lee as a traitor who took up arms against his country, rather than as a College President or, for that matter, an engineer¹

Lee rose to the rank of Colonel in the US Army, and was quickly tapped by (Brevet) Lt. General Winfield Scott to command US Forces in the field, Scott being too old to do so himself, in the twilight of a fifty year carrer. Instead, Lee chose treason.

The right answer at Appattomax would have been, after the surrender, to haul Lee to the gallows. Instead, we let them walk and keep the fight going, now in politics, rather than war.

Instead, we wait for The South To Rise Again, and the Stars and Bars flies on the domes of the statehouse -- the battle flag of treason.

1) As a lieutenant of engineers, Lt. Lee supervised the remaking of the Upper Mississippi bargeway and the St. Louis Harbor. For this work, he was promoted to Captain in the US Army.
posted by eriko at 8:17 AM on June 28, 2006

Please remember Lee as College President as well as wartime general.

OK, but the emphasis on Lee's post-war career as college president is often used to obscure his more important post-war career as champion of continued white rule in the South. He led the charge to try and prevent blacks from voting in the Reconstruction era. From the R. E. Lee Wikipedia page:

Lee condemned proposals to grant equal civil rights and suffrage to freed black Southerners . . . "My own opinion is that, at this time, they cannot vote intelligently, and that giving them the [vote] would lead to a great deal of demagogism, and lead to embarassments in various ways."[19] Faced with the prospect of radically altered race relations in the old South, Lee endorsed a form of white separatism . . . Lee joined a group of thirty-two fellow ex-Confederates in a letter of endorsement for the Democratic Party's anti-Reconstruction campaign in the election of 1868, in which presidential candidate Horatio Seymour ran against the Republican Ulysses S. Grant, with the slogan "This Is a White Man's Country: Let White Men Rule."
posted by LarryC at 8:30 AM on June 28, 2006

Why the treasonous buffoon is so admired today is beyond me.

Chancellorsville. The Seven Days. Fredricksville.

As for Lee being "treasonous" his first loyalty was to the State of Virginia, not the Federal Government. When the Old Dominion succeeded from the Union, Lee resigned his commission from the U.S. Army remarking that "save in defense of my native state, I hope to never raise my sword again." The War of Northern Aggression forced his hand.
posted by three blind mice at 8:31 AM on June 28, 2006

Oops. Fredriksburg.
posted by three blind mice at 8:31 AM on June 28, 2006

The right answer at Appottomax would have been, after the surrender, to haul Lee to the gallows.

Hallelujah! Years ago I visited Appomattox courthouse National Historic Site. The place was packed with visiting uniformed cadets of all ages from various military academies, I don't know if this was a special day or if it is always like that. As I recall the historic interpretation at the courthouse was thematic by room, with the first 2-3 rooms focusing on causes of the war and the carnage of the war. The last room was labeled "The Pardon."

"Pardon? Pardon!!" I said loudly, "Grant should have hung the traitors!" All eyes were suddenly on me, you could have heard a pin drop. My companion grabbed my arm and hustled me out of there. It was really one of my best moments.
posted by LarryC at 8:37 AM on June 28, 2006

"This reminds me of the wonderful historical fiction series that starts with 'Killer Angles.'"

Acute story. A bit obtuse at times, but generally the right approach.

(Sorry.)

FYI, Killer Angels was actually book 1, but sits chronologically in the middle of the Shaara father / son trilogy: Gods and Generals, Killer Angels and The Last Full Measure. KA was also the basis for the movie "Gettysburg".

Most thinking historians think that Gettysburg was a Lee mistake from the outset. He actually harboured a belief that a decisive victory in the North might lead to (a) their suing for peace; and (b) cotton-starved Britain entering the war on the South's side. Neither was a likely possibility. Lee's belief that he could will a victory into being simply because his beloved Army of Northern Virginia had never before let him down also became the War's benchmark for "hubris".

But it has become _the_ Civil War battle and, in part, because it is so easily defined in terms of its events over precisely three days, its relatively compact field, and its vast storehouse of compelling anecdotes, culminating, of course, in Lincoln's famous address to dedicate the Gettysburg cemetary a few months later. It is a moving place to visit and best done under the guidance of a well-informed historian.
posted by Mike D at 8:47 AM on June 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

The right answer at Appottomax would have been, after the surrender, to haul Lee to the gallows.

While I tend to agree with this sentiment (you know, that silly little thing called treason), let's also remember Joshua Chamberlain for ordering military honors for the surrendering Southern troops at Appomattox. The image of Union troops honoring their opponents was told and re-told in the years following the war, and greatly helped the cause pf Reconstruction.
posted by frogan at 8:54 AM on June 28, 2006

It was really one of my best moments.

I love hysterical Yankees on Civil War tours. Its like they're still fighting that war.
posted by Pacheco at 8:57 AM on June 28, 2006

When Lee invaded the north he gave up all the homefield advantages that were necessary for his previous successes.

True, but Lee had planned all along to sever his communications with Virginia.

He gave up knowledge of the terrain on which he fought.

Lee had on his staff, Issac Trimble, who before the war was chief engineer for the railroads in the area and who knew the terrain well.

He traded short supply lines for long ones, and blundered into Gettysburg looking for shoes for his men.

Well that was Henry Heth who "blundered" into Gettysburg looking for shoes for his men. By the disposition of the forces, the battle would have taken place by design in either Gettysburg or Cashtown.

And he left himself without good lines of retreat,

Unusually heavy rains following the last day of the battle, engorged the Potomac and made fording impossible. Lee rallied his defeated army and made it across with all of his wounded leaving behind only 2 guns which became mired in the mud.

Grant would have mowed down Lee's army right there and have ended the war.

Yes, Meade did not engage in vigorous pursuit of Lee's army - despite repeated encouragement from Lincoln - because his men were tired, hungry... and Meade was cautious. He was reluctant to repeat the mistake of Joe Hooker who at Chancellorsville grabbed the bait of pursuing a "retreating" confederate army and paid dearly for it when Stonewall Jackson's cavalry attacked him from behind.

Lee thought his army invincible, but it was also a series of bad luck that lead to his defeat. As Shelby Foote said in his masterpiece of the same title, the "Stars in their Courses," conspired against him.
posted by three blind mice at 9:03 AM on June 28, 2006

The right answer at Appattomax would have been, after the surrender, to haul Lee to the gallows. Instead, we let them walk and keep the fight going, now in politics, rather than war.

All things considered, Lincoln did the right thing by not putting Lee to the sword. It was a statement that Lincoln wanted unity more than blood. He chose the path that Mandela and Tutu would later chose in South Africa, one that has allowed them to move on from apartheid. The path we ended up on only led to another 100 years of institutionalized inequality and injustice.

I tend to see the Confederate leaders as honorable men doing dishonorable things who were then mythologized into people they were not and into symbols of the dark age of the post-Reconstruction South.
posted by dw at 9:07 AM on June 28, 2006

LarryC -- As to why Grant and Lincoln didn't hang Lee on the spot, please read Jay Winik's most interesting "April 1865: The Month That Saved America."
He (and I'm sure others before him have also noted) makes the point There was no guarantee that the Civil War should have ended as decisively as it did.
The great threat at the time was that, after the surrender of the official forces in the field, the Confederates would simply take to the hills and wage guerilla war -- dragging the conflict on for years, if not generations (as has occured in many parts of the world). Lincoln's utterly counterintuitive call for mercy may have spared us a protracted murder fest, a la, Ireland.
As far as Lee and his failure to endorse black sufferage, even Lincoln himself only favored sufferage for "intellegent" blacks. There was probably good reason for this.
Most African-Americans that Lee, or many other Americans, were likely to meet were slaves, or ex-slaves, or were otherwise socially and educationally deprived or degraded. Imagine how crude these beings must have sounded, looked, and acted by the standards of the majority of Americans. It would take more imagination than most middle class people probably possessed to imagine that the mass of African-Americans might someday be aware enough to cast a responsible ballot.
(Mark Twain, on the other hand, unhappily estimated that Negroes would be running America by about 1986.)
What is amazing about reconstruction is not how bad it was, but how peaceful it was -- lynchings, the KKK, and all. Lincoln, for instance, always favored transportation (back to Africa) as a post-slavery policy. Not because he necessarily wanted the Africans out of America, but because he (like many Americans) thought that once the slaves were free, their former masters and their friends would simply hunt them down and kill them. Many men and women of good will could not believe that freedom for the slaves would not inspire mass murder on the part of those who had previously taken the field, and been willing to kill white men, or die themselves, to preserve the institution of slavery.
But it seems that southerners who had been willing to (and did) cold-bloodedly massacre their northern white bretheren to preserve slavery, were not willing to massacre blacks, once slavery was over.
In fact, by world standards of ethnic conflict -- both before and after the Civil War, and especially the 20th century -- black Americans got off pretty easily.
As we have seen in our own lifetime (Iraq, Bosnia, the Holcaust, Soviet Russia, China, Cambodia), internicine national quarrels with a strong ethnic component, usually result in dead bodies piled to the heavens.
Lynching resulted in thousands of deaths, but that is pretty small potatoes compared to the white-on-white massacres of Chancellorsville or Antietam. In isolated cases, white supremicists burned African-Americans alive; but in the Battle of the Wilderness, they burned hundreds of white men alive. We won't even go into the atrocities of the southern prison camps.
In short, Mr. LarryC, it would seem that while hanging the Southern traitors would seem to be a no brainer (I would have done it), NOT having hanged them resulted in the best outcome in this best of all possible worlds.
posted by Faze at 9:09 AM on June 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I will say that as someone who grew up in the mid-south I only made it to Gettysburg a few years ago. I know every schoolkid in the area rolls their eyes at the long bus ride and standing around on hot days listening to tour guides drone on, but as an adult I was struck with the massive amount of history. Grant stood RIGHT HERE. Longstreet took his men THROUGH HERE. The High Water Mark is ON THIS SPOT. Lincoln gave that speech we all memorized in school OVER THERE.

Maybe it's just from growing up in a city without history and living in a city that loves to bulldoze its history for more condos, but there's something haunting about Gettysburg, even behind the tourist trap nature of the place.
posted by dw at 9:16 AM on June 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

The right answer at Appottomax would have been, after the surrender, to haul Lee to the gallows.

Pshaw.
War is over. Time to move on. Time to reconcile differences and reunite as one union. The soldiers were able to do it, but the politicians embittered the South with the Reconstruction. That was a mistake for our nation.
posted by caddis at 9:42 AM on June 28, 2006

As for Lee being "treasonous" his first loyalty was to the State of Virginia, not the Federal Government

Exactly. This is treason. Lee, as a US Citizen and as a commissioned officer of the United States, took up arms against his commander-in-chief and against the legitimate government of the United States, which was his supreme government.

This is rank treason of the highest order.

I tend to see the Confederate leaders as honorable men doing dishonorable things who were then mythologized into people they were not and into symbols of the dark age of the post-Reconstruction South.

I tend to see them as men who committed high treason in order to mantain the ability to enslave human beings. Honorable? No. They're the very antithesis of honor -- because a truly honorable man neither takes dishonorable action, nor justifies it.

Lee should have hanged. Jefferson Davis should have hanged. Any man wearing a star, any member of the Conferderate Congress or Exectuive should have hanged.

Instead, Henry Wirz hung, and the rest went on to create the great lies of "Southern Honor" and "State's Rights."

Lincoln's wish of reconciliation was honorable, but misguided. The South's reaction to this honor shows just how dishonorable the southern cause was.
posted by eriko at 9:42 AM on June 28, 2006

As for Lee being "treasonous" his first loyalty was to the State of Virginia, not the Federal Government

Exactly. This is treason. Lee, as a US Citizen and as a commissioned officer of the United States, took up arms against his commander-in-chief and against the legitimate government of the United States, which was his supreme government.

This is rank treason of the highest order.

I tend to see the Confederate leaders as honorable men doing dishonorable things who were then mythologized into people they were not and into symbols of the dark age of the post-Reconstruction South.

I tend to see them as men who committed high treason in order to mantain the ability to enslave human beings. Honorable? No. They're the very antithesis of honor -- because a truly honorable man neither takes dishonorable action, nor justifies it.

Lee should have hanged. Jefferson Davis should have hanged. Any man wearing a star, any member of the Conferderate Congress or Exectuive should have hanged.

Instead, Henry Wirz hung, and the rest went on to create the great lies of "Southern Honor" and "State's Rights."

Lincoln's wish of reconciliation was honorable, but misguided. The South's reaction to this honor shows just how dishonorable the southern cause was.
posted by eriko at 9:42 AM on June 28, 2006

we heard you the first time
posted by caddis at 9:45 AM on June 28, 2006

his first loyalty was to the State of Virginia, not the Federal Government.

Isn't that treason by definition?
posted by scheptech at 9:47 AM on June 28, 2006

Folks, it doesn't matter whether it was treason. It probably was. The country needed to move on. It needed to forgive.
posted by caddis at 9:54 AM on June 28, 2006

"My own opinion is that, at this time, they cannot vote intelligently, and that giving them the [vote] would lead to a great deal of demagogism, and lead to embarassments in various ways."

This, from LarryC's comment, made me laugh a little bit as I thought of the present day American voter.
posted by psmealey at 9:55 AM on June 28, 2006

Steering away for a moment from the "Lee as Traitor" discussion.

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and his crew did a great thing on Little Round Top. But my favorite pivotal moment of Gettysburg was the charge of the 1st Minnesota Infantry on the second day. A total of 262 men of the Minnesota unit engaged a Confederate brigade numbering more than 1000 men. The Federal soldiers' goal was to plug a hole in the line and buy the yankees five minutes while they brought up more troops. The Minnesota regiment fought off the Confederates for 15 minutes, but paid for it with 82 percent of their original force killed or injured.
posted by marxchivist at 9:55 AM on June 28, 2006

Every person should go visit Gettysburg and at the least, stand at the High Water Mark. Its an incredible and eerie experience.

The failure of Lee at Gettysburg was not that he took the battle to the North, but that he thought his troops could achieve anything he asked of them. He had victory disease. We cannot say with any absolute assurance what would have happened if he had followed Longstreet's advice and attempted a flanking maneuver, but we do know that a headlong charge at the center simply didn't work. Pickett's men simply were not enough to succeed at the venture (a strategy that had really failed to work at all for either side throughout the war), and despite the fact that there was a momentary break in the Union lines, it quickly vanished for lack of men.

I believe his strategy of taking the war to the North was sound. First, to reduce the strain on Virginia, to allow harvests to be planted, grown through the summer and then harvested. Second, even after Gettysburg, there were elements of the Northern population who wanted to sue for peace and end things. It was not a military strategy, but a psychological one. He believed that he could encourage a settlement out of northern politicians if their states were at risk.

As for Sharpsburg, its a miracle his army wasn't annihilated in the first place given the circumstances. But thanks to his own skill at regrouping and McClellan's idiocy, the Army of Northern Virginia lived to fight another day.
posted by Atreides at 9:56 AM on June 28, 2006

his first loyalty was to the State of Virginia, not the Federal Government.

Isn't that treason by definition?

Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

It's the only defined crime in the Constitution, and a pretty clearly defined one, too.
posted by norm at 10:06 AM on June 28, 2006

Caddis: politicians embittered the South with the Reconstruction

Yes, the Radical Republicans embittered the white South by insisting on black rights. And in the end, the radicals lost, and blacks would not get full civil rights for another 100 years. The greatest tragedy in American history is not the Civil War, as horrific as that was. The great tragedy is Reconstruction, where all that was gained through those rivers of blood was squandered by the politicians.
posted by LarryC at 10:14 AM on June 28, 2006

But my favorite pivotal moment of Gettysburg was the charge of the 1st Minnesota Infantry on the second day. A total of 262 men of the Minnesota unit engaged a Confederate brigade numbering more than 1000 men.

Don't downplay it Marxchivist. From the link you provided:

Hancock galloped madly up to Colonel Colvill and demanded to be told the name of the latter's regiment; on being told it was the First Minnesota he immediately gave the order to 'Charge those lines' and at the same time pointed to the oncoming Confederates." (P1,p.71)

"Colvill, and every member of the First realized what they were being asked to do - sacrifice themselves to gain the few minutes Hancock and the Union army so desperately needed. Without hesitation, the Minnesotans responded quickly to Colvill's orders, and, in a moment, the regiment was moving down the gentle slope on the double. The eight companies of 262 men present formed a front of not much more than a hundred yards, as they headed towards the Confederate brigade of more than a thousand men."

I believe the order Hancock gave went like: "Do you see those colors?" and pointed to the Confederate battle standard.

"Yes"

"Then take them."
posted by three blind mice at 10:15 AM on June 28, 2006

Mike D: Those are good books - well, I enjoyed them, I can't speak for their true accuracy. But they gave a great feel for was like to be in that war (hint: not much fun). They also complement Vidal's "Lincoln", which gives a feel for what it was like to be in D.C. at that time and a lot of interesting high-level politics and history. The latter book also was the one to really make me understand two important points about the American Civil War that I never really got:

1) it was the first modern war
2) it was the most devastating war in human history

I guess those are obvious (and not unrelated) but I somehow always thought of it as just a hiccup in American history interesting for social and economic reasons more than anything. Vidal's book gave me a sense of the horrorified fascination the rest of the world looked on with, and what a turning point it really was on so many levels.

Kinda like Shakespeare was for me - pretty uninteresting as presented in school, mindblowing once you sink your own teeth into it. Thanks for the post.
posted by freebird at 10:18 AM on June 28, 2006

It's the only defined crime in the Constitution, and a pretty clearly defined one, too.

The U.S. Constitution became null and void in Virginia the moment the state government voted for succession.
posted by three blind mice at 10:19 AM on June 28, 2006

it was the most devastating war in human history

By what measure?
posted by psmealey at 10:23 AM on June 28, 2006

Well, that depends on who you asked, right 3bm? Isn't it close to a petitio principii fallacy to say it wasn't treason against the constitution since they'd decided the constitution didn't apply?
posted by freebird at 10:23 AM on June 28, 2006

Good question psmealey, I may be full of it - a lot of statistics seem to compare the total casualties in the war (nearly 1 million, 600K soldiers) to *American* casualties in other wars, which doesn't seem quite right.

Nonetheless, I think no previous war had so many and so horrific casualties, economic impact, and lasting effect. I could be wrong, though, in which case I'd love to see the real facts. I do think most scholars would agree it was the first "modern" war.
posted by freebird at 10:32 AM on June 28, 2006

I'm curious as to if it was still treason after Lee resigned from the U.S. Army. Did loyalty oaths extend beyond service? As if it were merely taking up arms against the United States, then every soldier was guilty of the crime.
posted by Atreides at 10:37 AM on June 28, 2006

The Civil War came along at the wrong juncture in human history -- our killing technology was progressing at a faster rate than battlefield medicine. The next time someone goes on about how much safer Iraq is vs. WWII or the Civil War, ask if the wounded at Normandy would have been on the operating table at Walter Reed within 8 hours of being shot.

50,000+ Americans died in the entire Vietnam conflict. 23,000 died at Antietam/Sharpsburg in one day.
posted by dw at 10:54 AM on June 28, 2006

I'm curious as to if it was still treason after Lee resigned from the U.S. Army.

Yes. Even if you were never a member of the armed forces, it is treason to take up arms against your own country.

Merely claiming that you are no longer a member of that country isn't enough.

As to Virgina, et. al., they never seceded. Those states were in armed rebellion against the government, not seperate countries.

They can say they seceded all they want. Such succession was never recognized by the US. Legally, they were citizens before they rebelled, and citizens afterwards. They lost many of their civil rights for the crimes they comitted, but at all times, from Bull Run to Appatomax, they were US Citizens in armed rebellion against the legal government.

I have plenty of opinions about Gettysburg, but only one counts. Go, and stand on Cemetary Ridge, look over at the Roundtops, and ask yourself if Lee's orders were orders made by a sane man.
posted by eriko at 10:55 AM on June 28, 2006

Secession. Sec. Ses. Sion.
posted by bardic at 11:05 AM on June 28, 2006

The breadth of knowledge displayed on this site astounds me.
posted by gottabefunky at 11:05 AM on June 28, 2006

(And while I appreciate the content of the FPP and the discussion, it's way too long. [More inside] is everybody's friend.)
posted by bardic at 11:07 AM on June 28, 2006

On the battle.

The first day of the battle cost the United States its best brigade -- the 1st brigade, 1st Division of the 1st Corps, better known as The Iron Bridage. They lost 61% of their men that day, the 24th Michigan lost 80%.

Until then, they'd always managed to rebuild, but they gave everything they had and more on July 1st, destroying the 26th North Carolina (who marched in with 900 men, and marched off with 200, by July 3rd, they mustered 60 men.)

The Iron Brigade couldn't stand, but they could fall back slow, and they did. By nightfall, they'd slowed Ewell's men enough that the US were able to establish a position on Cemetary Hill, extending along Cemetary Ridge.

This left the US in a very strong position, one not noted by most. The right flank was refused by the barb of the fishook shaped line, and anchored by Cemetary Hill. The left flank was anchored by the gaps between the ridge and the Roundtops -- nearly impassible terrain. When the Union secured Little Roundtop on the 2nd day, they had, for all intents, a bastion and moat protecting the left flank.

Finally, much must be said about Meade. He may not have had the fire that drove Grant to throw his troops into the maw, but he was a rare thing for the US -- an exceedingly competent General who understood how to use terrain and men. The fishhook shaped line with clear interior lines meant that he could shift units as needed to protect the lines, and every time the CSA came close to breaking them, a division would appear behind the breach to quickly seal it.

Henry Hunt, commanding US Artillery, also deserves much credit for recognizing the CSA artillery barrage for what it was, and ordered his batteries to conserve ammunition. His goal was to save the rounds for the attack he was sure was coming, and he was 100% correct. As a bonus, the CSA Arty thought they were knocking out US batteries, so they kept firing. When Lee ordered the attack on the third day, the men had to march over a mile, uphill, against the full might of the US artillery, then against well fortified men, with ample ammuntion and reserves.

The only surprising thing about the final day of Gettysburg is that more of Longstreet's men didn't die.

As to the Union counterattacking after the 4th -- the Union was mauled pretty badly in the first day, and hurt again in the second. Three corps were basically useless, and about the only corps the Union had that was whole was the XIIth, which spend much of the battle in reserve. The Union army had 3200 men killed, almost 15000 wounded, and 5500 missing, and also had to deal with the 3500 CSA dead and some 4000 captured. Supplies were low, the units scattered, and a large number of senior US officers were dead or wounded, leaving the command structure in tatters. Reynolds (I corps) was dead, Sickles (III Corp) and Hancock (II Corp) were
badly wounded (Sickle's carreer was over anyway, he would have been cashiered if he hadn't been invalidated). Indeed, II corps had a hell of time with commanders. Gibbons took command after Hancock's wound, was wounded twice, and was followed by Caldwell, who was supplanted by Hays after the 3rd division was flanked and routed. With the Army of the Potomac's best commanders out, and the huge duty of dealing with the dead and wounded, Meade's unwillingness to plunge in can be understood.

This is why he didn't follow his predecessors into retirement after the battle. Meade would command the Army of the Potomac until the end of the war. Of course, this was a hollow command -- Grant, given command of all US Army forces, quickly left Sherman in command of his Army of the Ohio, moved east, and became the de facto commander of the Army of the Potomac.
posted by eriko at 11:47 AM on June 28, 2006

Secession

Note to self: Don't post in anger from work when you're distracted and can't spell worth a damn anyway.

Tip o' the hat to bardic.
posted by eriko at 11:49 AM on June 28, 2006

(Honestly, I'm being far too pedantic today. No biggie.)

One of the great things about growing up in the DC area is the ability to see so many amazing battlefields. I'd rank Gettysburg as the crown jewel, if only because the geography around the town really allows you to see how the battle unfolded on all three days. Bull Run and Antietam and Fredericksburg are great as well, but walking around Gettysburg really gives you that sense of history that no other battlefield can with regards to the Civil War.

Shame they put up so many damn memorial statues, but still a must-visit place for anyone interested in a American history.
posted by bardic at 11:55 AM on June 28, 2006

But my favorite pivotal moment of Gettysburg was the charge of the 1st Minnesota Infantry on the second day.

Thank you for pointing this out. I had not heard that bit of history before. /me off to do more reading.
posted by frogan at 12:29 PM on June 28, 2006

Shame they put up so many damn memorial statues

Yeah, that was my feeling too when I visited, that the memorials (hundreds?) distracted one from imagining the battle. But then again, those memorials were mostly raised by survivors of the battle to honor their fallen comrades, so it seems petty to fault them.

I have always wanted to learn more about the battlefield reunions that took place at Gettysburg after the war.
posted by LarryC at 12:40 PM on June 28, 2006

Yeah, you can't blame the vets for wanting some form of remembrance, but man--go to the top of Little Round Top and you'll see some of the most godawfully grandiose monstrosities ever committed to stone. There's one in particular, I think it's a NY regiment, that's--literally--a small castle. You can walk in and on top of it.

It's a reification of everything I can't stand about the Victorian era.

Then again, you get some real interesting juxtapositions too--a MD Union regiment memorial next to a MD Confederate marker.

All told, you can't throw a stone without hitting one of these memorials, and I think it's a shame (and some of them are really well done, which makes is all the more aggravating. You get the impression that Maya Lin wouldn't have been all that popular in the late 19th century.).
posted by bardic at 1:50 PM on June 28, 2006

bardic -- The mere thought of Maya Lin in the context of Civil War regimental memorials makes me laugh. I still haven't made up my mind about the battlefield statuary and monuments. They're distracting, but historic in their own way, too.
posted by Faze at 1:59 PM on June 28, 2006

More historic than, say, an actual Civil War battlefield?
posted by bardic at 2:01 PM on June 28, 2006

Such succession was never recognized by the US.

Many in the north at the time argued that it should be. Massachusetts considered the option for itself once upon a time, and as the constitution nowhere forbade secession, we have the awkward question, by what right did Lincoln invade the south? (Leaving aside Fort Sumter, which for purposes of my question I consider moot. See here, however, for more on that)

I've seen it argued that the reason Lee and even Jefferson Davis were never tried was less the hope for healing wounds than the danger that they might be found innocent. Bit of a let down for the war party, if that happened, and quite a boot to later secession hopefuls.

What exactly did Lee's service oath to the US government state? Once he formally resigned, was he not a free agent, available for service to his country (for which read state) should it be attacked by its enemies? Or was it into perpetuity?

This is only partially rhetorical, I would be interested in answers.

Myself, I suspect that, absent the slave issue to justify matters after the fact and unto us in posterity, Lincoln might well be remembered as the power mad guy who got us into a bloody awful mess.

I write as the descendant of Union soldiers, for what it's worth.
posted by IndigoJones at 2:06 PM on June 28, 2006

(Which is to say that certainly, the memorials are a part of history, and in the context of the Victorian era they make perfect sense--people used to take and frame pictures of dead children as mementos as well back then. But it wouldn't bother me one bit if all of them were taken out of the earth and placed in a separate area for viewing.

Some of the markers are actually placed in the locations where a given regiment saw action and/or did something brave (the 20th Maine's stone is stunning in its simplicity--you can totally see the desperate position those men were in facing down the Alabamians and Texans, another good one is the statue of Strong Vincent), but many are just layed about fairly randomly.)
posted by bardic at 2:09 PM on June 28, 2006

For folks interested in the plethora of monuments at Gettysburg, and their meaning, check out Gettysburg: Memory, Market, and an American Shrine by Jim Weeks. I've read the book, apparently at one time there was a merry-go-round, miniature railroad, and shooting gallery at the foot of little Round Top. Visitors to the dedication of the ceremony (when Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address) in November 1863 complained of the tacky souvenier stands.

I'm pretty fascinated with the whole memory and myth deal of the American Civil War, Race and Reunion: the Civil War in American Memory is a good read.

If anyone wants more on the 1st Minnesota that I mentioned above, try The Last Full Measure: The Life and Death of the First Minnesota Volunteers by Richard Moe.
posted by marxchivist at 2:26 PM on June 28, 2006

There's an interesting back and forth position the Union had with the Confederacy. Half the time it referred and treated it as a seperate country and half the time it referred to it simply as rebellious states. Basically, any time the either position was the most beneficial.
posted by Atreides at 3:18 PM on June 28, 2006

He gave up knowledge of the terrain on which he fought. He traded short supply lines for long ones, and blundered into Gettysburg looking for shoes for his men.

I can try to find links if you like, but I thought one of the goals of Lee's second invasion of the North was to temporarily relieve some of the logistical pressure on Virginia by living off the fat of the Maryland and Pennsylvania land? Did he really "give up" knowledge of the terrain or simply lack it because Stuart's cavalry was failing to fulfill its reconnaisance and screening obligations? And this thing about the cache of shoes -- wasn't that just a rumor? And I'm hazy on this, but wasn't it skirmishers of Harry Heth's that collided with Buford's pickets at the beginning of the first day's combat and engaged them against Lee's standing orders?
posted by pax digita at 4:13 PM on June 28, 2006

As a Wisconite, the Iron Brigade amazed me. Most of the members were from Wisconsin, a relatively new state at that point, and pretty far from the South. I believe the state lost more men in the Civil War than any other war.

I have a found personal memory of Gettysburg, I was a big fan of "Killer Angels" in High School, and got to drive through Gettysburg at 6AM one morning as the battlefields were covered in mist.
posted by drezdn at 5:34 PM on June 28, 2006

geez that's a long FPP on a subject of interest only to USians.

[more inside, more inside]!
posted by wilful at 7:05 PM on June 28, 2006

on a subject of interest only to USians

And people who care at all about, you know, history. The American Civil War is of great importance to the history of the modern state, the modern war, and the modern world. Sorry.
posted by freebird at 7:20 PM on June 28, 2006

Pax digita--I also understand that the shoes story is just a legend (Jubal Early had been through Gettysburg with his Confederate division the week before and was still looking for shoes when he got to York, PA), and Heth did begin a general engagement against Lee's orders.

One thing that interests me about the battle is that so many people look for scapegoats--Longstreet, Stuart, Ewell among them--but so few blame Lee. But Lee was out-generaled by Meade, who played an active role on the battlefield. Lee, in contrast, sent vague orders to his subordinates and was relatively passive as a commander. At least this is the view I got from reading Stephen W. Sears' book about the battle.

One overlooked aspect of Gettysburg is the story of the civilians who were swept up in the battle. I particularly like the story of Elizabeth Thorn. Her husband was caretaker of Evergreen Cemetery--of Cemetery Hill fame--but he was off in the army. Elizabeth, six months pregnant at the time, oriented Union generals on the terrain, had to flee her home in the middle of the night, and, after the battle, buried 100 Union soldiers herself. I believe she named the daugher she was carrying at the time Rose Meade. Really quite amazing.
posted by Man-Thing at 7:42 PM on June 28, 2006

Most of the members were from Wisconsin, a relatively new state at that point, and pretty far from the South. I believe the state lost more men in the Civil War than any other war.

Yes. Wisconsin regiments were very popular, because of all the states, Wisconsin was the only state that had a regular policy of remanning regiments, rather than simply forming new ones. So, while other early regiments would gradually wither away from casualties, Wisconsin regiments tended to stay closer to regular strength.

By Gettysburg, most other states single-digit regiments had been disbanded for lack of men, the few survivors sent as cadre to new regiments. Ideally, a brigade would have four regiments, with 1000 men per, or 4000 overall. By 1863, many brigades had six to ten regiments, and still had trouble bringing 2000 men to the line. The Iron Brigade, with four regiments, brought 2000 to Mannasas, typical for the early war period. At Gettysburg, they'd added a fifth regiment (24th Michigan) and still managed to bring 1883 men to the line.

Gettysburg, however, finally broke them. Out of 1883 engaged, they lost 162 KIA, 724 WIA, 267 MIA, or 1153 casualties, or 61% of the force. By this time, Wisconsin wasn't sending many more men, and come 1864, the 2nd Wisconsin and 19th Indiana didn't reenlist, followed later by the 24th Michigan. With the 6th Wisconsin basically a ghost, the Iron Brigade of the West was no more.
posted by eriko at 7:46 PM on June 28, 2006

freebird, it's not really that important. Or interesting.

And it's a long front page psot.
posted by wilful at 8:08 PM on June 28, 2006

You're right about the post length, and 1 out of 3 ain't bad I guess.
posted by freebird at 8:21 PM on June 28, 2006

They can say they seceded all they want. Such succession was never recognized by the US. Legally, they were citizens before they rebelled, and citizens afterwards. They lost many of their civil rights for the crimes they comitted, but at all times, from Bull Run to Appatomax, they were US Citizens in armed rebellion against the legal government.

(A purely devil's advocate argument) The people in Guantanamo can call themselves holy warriors or freedom fighters all they want. The U.S. government says they're really "illegal combatants."
posted by bugmuncher at 9:17 PM on June 28, 2006

One overlooked aspect of Gettysburg is the story of the civilians who were swept up in the battle.

I love the story of the old crusty veteran who ran out to join the fight carrying his black powder musket. Here's an excerpt I found:

John Burns was an older civilian living in Gettysburg at the time of the battle. John Burns lived on the southeastern corner of the intersection of Chambersburg St. and High St. When the fighting broke out in the morning of July 1st, 1863, John Burns who had been a veteran of the war of 1812, grabbed his old musket, dressed in formal attire, and headed for the Union line at McPherson Ridge. There he joined the 150th PA and fought with the regiment. There are claims that John Burns also fought with the Iron Brigade on McPherson Ridge however that claim is doubted by some.

It is generally agreed upon and confirmed that John Burns fought on McPherson Ridge and that he was wounded three times before throwing aside his musket and burying his cartidges so he would not be executed as a civilian taking up arms. The first Confederate soldiers to come into contact with Burns seemed to have believed that he was a wounded civilian caught in the crossfire.
posted by Atreides at 4:42 AM on June 29, 2006

One thing that interests me about the battle is that so many people look for scapegoats--Longstreet, Stuart, Ewell among them--but so few blame Lee. But Lee was out-generaled by Meade, who played an active role on the battlefield. Lee, in contrast, sent vague orders to his subordinates and was relatively passive as a commander.

The result of the battle was entirely Lee's fault. I do think that this is the mainstream view of most Civil War historians these days.

As for his passive role, I was under the impression that he was sick through most of the battle and forced to lay on his stomach for comfort.
posted by Atreides at 4:45 AM on June 29, 2006