Worst Failure At Gettysburg.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by hiker45

From what I know, that is a true statement.

However, if Lee had taken personal control of the attack, he might have changed his mind and called off the attack when he realized Alexander's artillery had not cleared the Federal guns from Cemetery Hill. Or he might have done the attack differently.

My point is this:

A LEADER SHOULD NOT DELEGATE A TASK TO A SUBORDINATE IF THE SUBORDINATE DOES NOT BELIEVE IN THE LEADER'S PLAN.

To me, this is the greatest lesson I have learned from studying the battle.

Lee was in control of the attack, Lee watched the bombarment just as Longstreet did. Lee was positioned to call off the attack whenever he wished. If he didn't like Longstreet's dispositions, he was free to order different ones. It isn't as though he told Longstreet to manage things and then went on vacation somewhere.

And if a leader shouldn't delegate a task to a subordinate who does not believe in the plan, then that is the leader's error, not the subordinate's fault.

The problem with the 3rd day assault on the center of the Union line wasn't the manner in which the attack was made, it was that the attack was made. It was a sadly unimaginative attempt to salvage a battle which had turned against the Confederates the day before.

It was a repeat of Lee's failure at Malvern Hill in 1862. Lee, feeling extremely frustrated that none of his plans for destroying McClellan before he could reach the safety of the James River had worked, became petulant and ordered a suicidal assault on an incredibly strong position...after the Army of the Potomac had already escaped his grasp. It was the same at Gettysburg. The assaults on the Union left and right flanks on the 2nd day had failed. The Union still retained the high ground, still retained interior lines for rapid reinforcement at critical points, and still contained more men then Lee had.

At that point Lee should have admitted defeat and called off the battle. Or he should have taken up a defensive posture and hoped that the Federals would would undertake what he had been doing the day before...attacking an entrenched enemy on high ground. Instead, Lee, perhaps just unable to admit defeat, did a very foolish thing and sent a portion of his army to take a position which could not be taken. The result was inflating his casualty list in exchange for no gain at all.

[NJGOAT]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Marching in column would have presented their own set of problems;

1. Column depth would be like giving the batteries on Cemetery Ridge opportunities for enfilading fire from the moment the confederates stepped out of the woods.

2. If the idea was to broaden the appearance of the front in hopes of stretching out the Union line by approaching abreast making periodic oblique movements towards the intended point of attack, I'm not at all sure how you would disguise the point of attack.

3. The time to move from an column formation to one abreast while under withering fire, smoke and confusion...

I'm still not feeling it.

PS-My apologies for dismissing the learned professor and historian.

I agree with everything you wrote, which is why I want to read the article to see what Geulzo was getting at. Certainly there was room for adjustment to the tactics used, I'm just not clear on what those were, or that the alternatives (other then simply not attacking) were going to have better results.

Also, don't feel bad on questioning Guelzo, I wouldn't know who he was if I hadn't read one of his books on Lincoln (assuming that article was written by the same Guelzo). With that said, despite his position at Gettysburg College, I don't really know how versed the man really is in 19th century warfare. Most of his work revolves around the political, economic, religious and social aspects of the war, not the nuts and bolts of operations on the battlefield.

[Grandstander]

Frontal Assaults which were successes during the Civil War(major battles..at least 10,000 on each side.))
1) Grant's counter attack, Day Two, Shiloh.
2) Confederate assault Gaines Mill, Day Three, Seven Days
3) Grant's assault Champion Hill, Vicksburg Campaign
4) Hill and Ewell's attacks on Union position NW of Gettysburg, Day One, Gettysburg
5) Bragg's assault at Chickamauga
6) Grants's assault on Missionary Ridge, Chattanooga battle.
7) Thomas' assault on Hood, Nashville Battle
8) Sheridan's assault on Picket's division, Five Forks, Petersburg Campaign

Frontal Assaults which failed:
1) Floyd's breakout attempt at Fort Donelson
2) Johnston's assault, Day One, Shiloh
3) Lee's assault on Beaver Dam Creek, Day Two, Seven Days Battle.
4) Lee's assault on Glendale, Day Five, Seven Days Battle
5) Lee's assault White Oak Swamp, Day Six, Seven Days Battle
6) Lee's assault on Malvern Hill, Day Seven, Seven Days Battle.
7) McClellan's assaults, Antietam
8) Price's assault on Iuka
9) Van Dorn's assault on Corinth
10) Bragg's assault at Perryville
11) Bragg's assault at Murfreesboro
12) Sherman's assualt Chickasaw Bluff, Vicksburg
13) Burnside's assaults, Fredericksburg
14) Lee's assaults on Federal left and right flanks, Day Two, Gettysburg
15) Lee's assault on Union Center, Day Three, Gettysburg
16) Longstreet's assault on Fort Sanders, Knoxville campaign
17) Grant's assaults in Wilderness Battle
18) Grant's assaults in Spotsylvania Battle
19) Grant's assault at Cold Harbor
20) Sherman's assault at Kennesaw Mountain, Atlanta campaign
21) Hood's assault at Peach Tree Creek, Atlanta campaign
22) Hood's assault at Ezra Church, Atlanta campaign
23) Grant's assault on Petersburg, Petersburg campaign
24) Grant's assault on The Crater, Petersburg campaign
25) Hood's assault at Franklin

I am not including what were primarily flank attacks such as the ones which won at Second Manassas and Chanselorsville, or the one's which failed such as the Union attack at 1st Manassas, Lyon's attack at Wilson's Creek or Hood's at Bald Hill in the Atlanta campaign.

I would say that the safe conclusion based on the above is....most straight forward assaults in the Civil War were failures. If you found yourself in a position in a battle where your fortunes rested on the success of a frontal assault, then you were not being an especially clever general.

[Dd714]

Ultimatly it was Lee's fault - it's called hubris.
But Lee lost his eyes - Jeb Stuart. He simply lacked information to make valid tactical decisions.

I see people discussing complex troops movements - switching from column to line, making oblique movements, flanking moves, etc. The problem with that is we are talking about a citizen army. They just were not capable of such complex operations. When they attempted them, as the Union Commanders often did, using tactics straignt from the textbook, they failed (although the CSA had some noteworthy successes, i.e. Chanchelorsville...but in Gettysburg their was no Jackson to influence this by force of will and personality). So in some cases the only viable option was a head-on attack.

[hiker45]

OK, you guys seem to really know your stuff, so here is another thing I have wondered about.

On the afternoon of July 1, what do you think of Doubleday's decision to make a defensive stand along Herr Ridge?

I know the Federals were successful in their fight at Herr Ridge in the morning when they defeated Archer's Brigade, and they hated to give up the ground where Reynolds was killed. However, there was a long pause in the fighting, and Doubleday would have seen he was outnumbered, and he would have seen that Pender's Division was coming around on his left.

Wouldn't a reasonable leader in his position have moved his artillery back to Seminary Ridge near the Seminary itself? To me, it looks like the artillery would have had a great field of fire from that position. It looks like a much better place to defend than Herr Ridge.

[amylewis]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

What could Lee have done that Longstreet didn't do? It was a straight forward frontal assault which Lee ordered. If Lee had personally commanded it, it still would have been a straight forward frontal assault. Why would the results have been different?

I have to agree with you here, Pickett's charge never should have happened, and was a suicide attack. Pickett himself was all in for it at the time, and afterward never forgave Lee for the result, telling friends throughout his life, "That old man had my regiment slaughtered!"

[Irishtom29]

Discussions like this make the dubious assumption that the rebels lost because of what they did wrong rather than what the Federals did right.

Some years after the rebellion, when the ex rebels were engaged in heated recriminations about their so called failures at Gettysburg, Pickett was asked which rebel leader was most to blame for their loss. He replied that he thought the Federals had a lot to do with it.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Discussions like this make the dubious assumption that the rebels lost because of what they did wrong rather than what the Federals did right.

Some years after the rebellion, when the ex rebels were engaged in heated recriminations about their so called failures at Gettysburg, Pickett was asked which rebel leader was most to blame for their loss. He replied that he thought the Federals had a lot to do with it.

But that's par for the course in Civil War discussions which always seem to give far more credit to Confederate generalship than to the Union. Without a doubt Chamberlain's defense of Round Top was brilliant especially the right wheel of his extended line. Hancock was particularly on top of his game for all three days of the battle as where his subordinates (Sickles excluded). Had Generals ALexander Webb, and Gibbon subordinates like Captain Andrew Cowan not kept their heads, Pickett's forces might have made a effective breach in the Union line. Of course the question then would be did Pickett still have the strength to exploit it. I also point to Stannard and the 8th Ohio right and left wheel that poured enfilade firing upon the flanks of Pickett's forces.