American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:01 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:14 pm 
To paraphrase Grant at the Wilderness, he basicly said, "Why are you worrying about what Bobbie Lee is going to do to you next? You act like he's going to do a backflip and end up in your rear at a moments notice! You need to start thinking about what you are going to do to him!!!!" That sounds to me like a General who is having to deal with an army that is mighty impressed with their opponent.....

Next, do not pretend that I ever said lee was blameless at Gettysburg, rnor did I ever elevate him to mythical status......I have simply said he was by far the best to come out of the civil war....I absolutely hated what he did at malvern hill for instance.....What a waste.....


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 3:06 pm
Posts: 1328
Location: USA
General Whitehead <salute>

The topic just won't let me be :wink:

"With it he loses the initiative. From now on Meade has control of the battle. He decides where it will be fought and when."

I will simply offer that General Meade didn't decide where and when the battle would be fought; he was caught up in the same situation General Lee was when the situation escalated into a major confrontation based on the actions of subordinates on both sides; Generals Hill and Reynolds. I don't believe either commander intended for the engagement to occur there, it just turned out that way.

A question in my mind, if we might change the subject slightly, is why was Johnson's Division directed to march around west of the mountains instead of accompanying the rest of II Corps? I suppose I could research this as to who possibly directed the route and why, but the first day of the battle would almost certainly have turned out much differently had the division been available to General Ewell from the onset. The high ground would almost certainly have fallen had the division been available and the scale of the Confederate victory possibly deceisive.

Highest regards,

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:55 pm 
KWhitehead wrote:
Ignorance of the enemy's positions is the worse possible thing that can happen to a commanding general.


I respectfully submit that ignorance of the position and status of one's own troops - in this case Stuart's cavalry - is even worse. But Lee cannot be faulted for that. To put oneself out of command control for several ( 4 ?) days while the army was in enemy territory as Stuart did was a serious breach of his duties and responsibility as a subordinate. But I don't think this let's Lee "off the hook" as it were, for the decisons and the dispositions of his forces that he made at Gettysburg on Day 2 and Day 3.
KWhitehead wrote:
From now on Meade has control of the battle. He decides where it will be fought and when.

hmm.. ?? Lee was the aggressor and Meade the defender. Lee did not have to attack on Day 2 and Day 3. Meade - like Lee - concentrated his army and merely took the blows Lee threw at him. I think Longstreet suggested a Chancellorsville-type flanking move from the south against Meade's left flank rather than frontal attacks.

Interesting discussion.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2012 9:20 am
Posts: 211
Location: Northern Gulf of Mexico
rjh57 wrote:
KWhitehead wrote:
Interesting discussion.


Gentlemen {salute}

A VERY interesting discussion that I hope continues. I would join in but you esteemed gentlemen are handling it so well I can simply set back and enjoy, and appreciate.

I appreciate this discussion very much!

Regards,

Col. Martin {salute}

_________________
Lt. General David Martin
First Brigade, First Division, First Corps, Army of the Potomac
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
Lee is ultimately responsible for the defeat but the defeat has many contributors. Stuart is at the head of the line. A commanding general is responsible but he can't work miracles either. With actions like what Stuart did blinding the army, Ewell failing to turn a local victory into a tactical victory, Hill failing to control his troops, Longstreet dragging his feet, it would take a miracle to bring victory from this path to defeat. Lee tried for a miracle with Pickett's charge and didn't get it. Lee's primary failing is not realizing he had been defeated sooner.

I refer to Meade having control of the battle in that he decided where it would be fought. He decided that he would be the defender. Lee could choose to attack at poor odds or retreat but he had lost control of the situation outside of those choices.

Which leads back to my premise, Stuart's ride was the most significant failing in a campaign of failures. It blinded Lee. And, worse Lee didn't know he was blind. Making every decision Lee made up until Longstreet's spy showed up based on incorrect information.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:45 am 
in a broader context, Lee's failure to win a Napoleonic-style decisive battle of annihalation over the AotP thus hoping to end the war, was NOT a disaster for his AoNV as was Franklin & Nashville for Hood's Army of Tennessee. Nor was Lee's repulse at Gettysburg as damaging to the CSA as the loss of Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Corinth in the West. I think the real turning point in the Eastern Theatre was NOT Gettysburg as some claim, but occurred later the following year on May 7, 1864 when Grant ordered the movement south to Spotsylvania CH after the horrific Battle of the Wilderness - unlike previous Union commanders in Virginia which had always withdrawn north behind the nearest river after fighting the AoNV - and the strategic initiative passed to Grant, never to be regained by Lee. I think most of the controversy, fault-finding and finger-pointing about Gettysburg occurred after the war. An interesting speculation is what the impact might have been if Lee - a Virginian to the core - could have been convinced to reinforce Vicksburg rather than invade Pennsylvania.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 8:48 am 
Deano wrote:
esteemed gentlemen


who walked in ? :mrgreen: lol... old joke....


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
rjh57 wrote:
in a broader context, Lee's failure to win a Napoleonic-style decisive battle of annihalation over the AotP thus hoping to end the war, was NOT a disaster for his AoNV as was Franklin & Nashville for Hood's Army of Tennessee. Nor was Lee's repulse at Gettysburg as damaging to the CSA as the loss of Vicksburg, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Corinth in the West. I think the real turning point in the Eastern Theatre was NOT Gettysburg as some claim, but occurred later the following year on May 7, 1864 when Grant ordered the movement south to Spotsylvania CH after the horrific Battle of the Wilderness - unlike previous Union commanders in Virginia which had always withdrawn north behind the nearest river after fighting the AoNV - and the strategic initiative passed to Grant, never to be regained by Lee. I think most of the controversy, fault-finding and finger-pointing about Gettysburg occurred after the war. An interesting speculation is what the impact might have been if Lee - a Virginian to the core - could have been convinced to reinforce Vicksburg rather than invade Pennsylvania.


I am not sure a Napoleonic style decisive battle was possible during the Civil War. CW armies lacked the type of cavalry required to exploit the routing of an army. It was also very difficult to actually route a CW army the way Napoleonic armies routed. Not sure of the reason for that. It took the extreme mishandling of an army to cause Hood's route. Early's route in the valley mostly reflected overwhelming odds.

I agree Gettysburg was not a decisive defeat for the South. It actually neutralized the Union in the Eastern theatre for almost a year. Vicksburg was a much more critical strategic defeat. Grant of course saw the underlying weakness of the South and was unrelenting in exploiting it.

I have seen a number of writings on whether Lee could have reversed things in the West. One of the most insightful pointed out at the time Davis called Lee to Richmond to see if troops could be detached from the ANV and sent to Vicksburg it was to late for them to reach Vicksburg before it surrendered. The South's rail system just couldn't move enough troops that far in a timely manner.

A more interesting question would be if Lee was sent West in early 63 so he could handle stopping Grant before he reached Vicksburg. Grant exposed his army to easy destruction if opposed by a compentent commander. The South had the troops just not the leader. But then there is the question of what would have happened in Virginia without Lee.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:41 pm 
KWhitehead wrote:
I am not sure a Napoleonic style decisive battle was possible during the Civil War.


I think the European monarchs - having less to lose - were much more willing to make peace {with Napoleon} than the CSA, which was fighting for it's very existence.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
rjh57 wrote:
KWhitehead wrote:
I am not sure a Napoleonic style decisive battle was possible during the Civil War.


I think the European monarchs - having less to lose - were much more willing to make peace {with Napoleon} than the CSA, which was fighting for it's very existence.


But the curious thing is you don't see anything like the aftermath of Waterloo. With the final attack collapsing and the whole army streaming toward the rear in route. With only a few organized formations even putting up a delaying action. I suspect some of its is that Napoleonic armies had large cavalry formations specifically armed for running down the enemy. But CW armies did have quite a bit of cavalry and pistols were quite effective so it isn't whole the explaination. The terrain made it easier for a retreating force to delay pursuit but not all of American was deep forest. In Napoleonic style a defeat like Pope's at Second Bull Run would have resulted in the defeated army being scattered.

Civil War battles always ended in indecisive victories for one side or the other until the forces got so small they virtually ceased to exist like Early in 64 or they were so badly mishandled they gave up like Hood's.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 2:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 3:06 pm
Posts: 1328
Location: USA
Gentlemen <salute>

I periodically search for comments/opinions/information on the Gettysburg campaign and ran across the following which made for interesting reading (some may have already come across this).

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/Jos ... sburg.html

Looking forward to any comments which might come from it.

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 3:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
Interesting article and I will have to come back to it for a more detail read since there is a lot in it.

I personally give Stuart credit for one of the worse mistakes in the Campaign. Lee shouldn't have given him an order so vaguely worded that Stuart could use it to run off with three of the army's best cavalry brigades but that was Lee's style of command. It worked well in the past. Lee is ultimately responsible for not recognizing that he had a failure in command at the highest levels of the ANV. But that doesn't mean Stuart didn't make a major error when he decided he still had the flexibility to choose to ride around the AoP when it was becoming obviously a bad choice. That choice created the conditions that would lead to Gettysburg with the ANV at a disadvantage further compounded my numerious command errors. Or as Ewell said, A lot of mistakes were made ... most of them were mine.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Wed Mar 13, 2013 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 3:06 pm
Posts: 1328
Location: USA
General Whitehead <salute>

Suh, my compliments!

It is certainly an interesting article and in many ways quite plausible. There may be a point or two that are stretches, not the least of them being that Stuart engaged Kilpatrick to prevent his observing and interfering with the II Corps march.

On a bigger scale, however, the argument certainly reflects a plan of operations one might expect of General Lee. I will never be convinced that he would believe the AotP was simply sitting south of the Potomac with II Corps ranging the Pennsylvania countryside and Stuart's cavalry moving north to the very same area between them and Washington. He would have been very naive to make this assumption, even given a lack of comminication from Stuart.

Johnson's march is still a mystery to me (at least), and I wonder if there might have been some miscommunication or misunderstanding between either Lee and Ewell or perhaps Ewell and Johnson. If he arrives with the rest of II Corps there is no way the AotP holds the heights beyond the town and the battle ends with I Corps and XI Corps ejected from the battlefield and badly damaged. This allows Longstreet's recommended movement around the left of the AotP; was this the operational plan from the beginning, thus his suggestion? It was his "understanding" that the campaign would be offensive strategically, but defensive in nature or something to that effect.

Highest regards,

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
I don't think Lee believe the AoP was idle but considering it was Stuart's primary job to inform him when it moved and Stuart was order to do some very specific things when this occurred, the lack of a message from Stuart probably left Lee baffled as to how to respond to the AoP. There is no way of knowing how the Campaign would have changed if Lee had been properly informed but it is a good assumption that it would have been handled better knowing what the enemy was doing than not knowing.

Johnson's march and a number of other division movements were a result of some specific decisions by Gen. Longstreet as to who and what had priority on the roads. Longstreet made one of the first of his many bad decisions in how he gave road use authority to the different formations. Those decisions were the primary cause of the late arrival of Johnson's and Anderson's divisions to the battlefield. I would have to go back and do some research to document the orders he made so this is mostly by memory.

_________________
General Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
AoT II/1/3 (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Forrest or Stonewall
PostPosted: Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 3:06 pm
Posts: 1328
Location: USA
General Whitehead <salute>

Suh, my compliments!

Stuart has been beat to death and the issue may never be resolved between those that blame him for the defeat and those who see him as a scapegoat. Each of our opinions on that matter seem clear.

Johnson's Division and the II Corps trains did advance ahead of McLaws as directed by Longstreet. I don't believe this addresses the question of why Johnson was there to begin with. If Cashtown or the vicinity was the intended area to assemble, why did Johnson march completely around the mountains and then tie up the only LOC available to the rest of the army to get to a place he could have easily reached in much less time?

If Johnson is with the rest of II Corps, game over. Major Confederate victory and the Yanks are on their heels to the Pipe Creek Line, or wherever. How did he end up where he was? Miscommunication, orders not arriving in time, what?

Highest regards,

_________________
General Neal Hebert
Edward C. Walthall Division (2nd aka "Gator Alley")
II Corps, Army of the West
CSA Cabinet Secretary


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 124 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group