|
Remember Stuart had captured a wagon train of supplies for the Northern Army and was escorting to Lee's Lines. Stuart did show up on the Second and Third days of the Battle and fought as dismounted Calvary (The US Tactics of the day and stayed the Tactic till Calvary was finally phased out in 1951, yes during the Korean War, through mounted unit were shipped out with horses during WWI, WWII or Korea, through the 26th Calvary did fight on horseback in the Philippines in early 1942 during the Japanese Invasion).
Back to Stuart. Lee needed those supplies more then he needed Stuart's "Eye". I like the comments Eisenhower and De Gaulle made when De Gaulle visited Eisenhower at Eisenhower's home in Gettysburg after both were NO longer President. They discussed the Battle and reviewed the mistakes of both Generals and would have REPLACED BOTH GENERALS. Lee should have continued Longstreet's flanking actions, instead Lee tried to outdo Napoleon at Auschwitz, by making a charge right up the middle (Picket's Charge). With the improvements in weaponry from the Napoleonic wars such a charge was foolish, the Percussion cap had eliminated most mis-fires so long range consistent fire was possible from ALL weapons on the Battlefield. Napoleon only had to worry about the last 100 yards as to Musket fire, Lee's troops came under effective Musket fire at 600 yards (I am referring to firing against a group of soldiers NOT individuals, that would come later with the invention of Smokeless powder).
Furthermore why was Lee in Pennsylvania? What was his goal? The Main Union army was still between him and Washington and he was in an area HOSTILE to his troops. One Corp did get to Harrisburg, which would have cut the Pennsylvania Railroad in half, but the New York Central was up and running as was the canal between Pittsburgh and Lake Erie, which meant transport would have been made difficult but not impossible. The Claim he went to Pennsylvania to get shoes for his men made sense, till you realized all the North has to do is leave with the workers, burn or bury the shoes and that reason falls apart.
The only mission that seems to make sense is the one advocated by Stonewall Jackson, terrorized the North, show them the cost of fighting and maybe the North would give up and leave the south leave the Union. This was undermined by Lee's Order NOT to loot (Through that Order could be viewed as one to protect Lee, himself, from accusations he was encouraging looting by NOT punishing it). Thus the reason Lee invaded Pennsylvania was to terrorized the North. The other reasons make no sense, terror does. Stuart's action to take the supply train supports that rationale, for it was more important for Lee to get those supplies then to know where the Northern Army was. Lee knew he would have to face it sooner or later, but the aim of such a fight was to destroy the Northern Army. Such a destruction in Pennsylvania would be a double blow to the North (At least in Southern Eyes), free hand to loot Pennsylvania and a huge death toll.
The problem is such a defeat has the habit of causing people demand for a renew effort. The South could NOT hold Pennsylvania so sooner or later the South would have to leave, and then the North would demand revenge. Look at how the South view Northern Occupation from 1865 to 1877. The North DID have the troops to occupy the South and could rely on a huge segment of the population to support its occupation of the South (I.e. the Former Slaves and the people in the Appalachian Mountains that supported the north during the Civil War, mostly do to local politics, but was a factor). Thus the ability to have a larger army in hostile territory AND the support of over 1/3 of the population (And in the Deep South over 50% of the Population and in many "Black belt Cotton districts 905 of the population) made the North's occupation of the South easier then any Southern Occupation of Pennsylvania would have been. Thus long term occupation was NOT an option for the South, and without the ability to hold Pennsylvania WHY attack to the North?
I like the one historian who said the reason to attack the North was to show the North who was boss is a reflection of the old Slave holding outlook, show the slaves who was boss at the slightest hint of rebellion. Hang some every so often to show other what will happen if they even talk about revolt (or even suspected of such thoughts let alone talk) and suppress any revolt with compete savagery (i.e. Kill any slave that was involved even if forced to become involved). This might makes right works as long as you have the upper hand, the problem is if you lose that upper hand, you lose everything. That is what happen to the Shah when he lost the ability to control Iran as while as various other right wing dictators in the third world (Thus how Castro came to rule Cuba, Batista was as savage as any slave holder to any group of his people who revolted).
Yes, a rant, but one for one point, Mention of Stuart at Gettysburg, lead to why the Question why was Lee in Gettysburg, to one of the use of Terror as a Military weapon (And a weapon of rule). Mot often these are viewed as separate issues, but as you can see they are interrelated.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
