Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-01-2013, 04:57 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
471 posts, read 974,320 times
Reputation: 753

Advertisements

I always thought that one of the dumbest things ordered by someone in the Civil War who knew better was George Pickett's famous charge at Gettysburg. Why in the world did Lee think that sending massed troops across open ground and up a hill into the arms of a waiting, well equipped, and entrenched enemy would turn out well?! Longstreet had extremely strong reservations about ordering Pickett to do this, but his loyalty to Lee and his professionalism in following orders from his superior won out and the rest was history.

Lots of dumbness on the part of many others; McClellan, Sibley, Bragg, good ole Kirby Smith, what say ye????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-01-2013, 08:43 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,967,897 times
Reputation: 15038
Just to get the ball rolling before the heavy weights weigh in...

Quote:
Originally Posted by CountryCarr View Post
I always thought that one of the dumbest things ordered by someone in the Civil War who knew better was George Pickett's famous charge at Gettysburg. Why in the world did Lee think that sending massed troops across open ground and up a hill into the arms of a waiting, well equipped, and entrenched enemy would turn out well?!
Actually, Pickett had no such reservations so if he knew better, he sure didn't say. As for Lee, Pickett's charge wasn't all that absurd and actually might have worked (though I have my doubts) if Ewell had been successful in attacking the Union right along Culp's Hill and Pemberton's artillery barrage had been effective. The fact is, Pickett's forces actually did penetrate the Union line and might have broken it had it not been for some pretty bold acts of bravery and great leadership by Hancock and his subordinates.

Quote:
Longstreet had extremely strong reservations about ordering Pickett to do this, but his loyalty to Lee and his professionalism in following orders from his superior won out and the rest was history.
Of course Longstreet was right, but then Longstreet wasn't in much favor of anything that took place on the second or third day of the battle, preferring instead a continuous movement to Meades left, maneuvering into a more defensive position. But Longstreet was perhaps the best defensive general of the war and such a scenario was more to his liking.

Lots of dumbness on the part of many others; McClellan, Sibley, Bragg, good ole Kirby Smith, what say ye????[/quote]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-01-2013, 09:48 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,026,002 times
Reputation: 21237
The last chance for a Confederate victory was in the summer of 1864. Everything hinged on the ability of rebellion to sustain itself through the fall elections in the North. If the Republicans held onto power, they were firmly pledged to seeing the job through. If a Democrat won, a negotiated peace was possible.

To that end, all Confederate strategy should have been centered on the idea of delay. Draw the war out and send the message that the end is not yet in sight, and a war weary population might well turn President Lincoln and the GOP out of office.

The situation was favoring the Confederacy that summer. General Grant, at the astonishing cost of 60,000 casualties, had managed to initiate a siege of Lee's army around Richmond and Petersburg and a stalemate had resulted that promised to take the war into 1865. The same situation prevailed around Atlanta where General Johnston was holding off General Sherman. Johnston was not who you wanted when the situation called for aggressive offense, but he was the ablest defender among all of the South's field generals. He was exactly who the South needed in that situation, someone highly skilled at delay and survival.

President Davis gave into pressure from the press and public and decided that a more aggressive commander was needed. And he had one, the hard hitting John Hood. Admired as a Division leader, no one seemed to think Hood a good candidate to lead an army. When asked, General Lee wrote to Davis and expressed misgivings about Hood's fitness for the job.

Hood lived up to his reputation and delivered what was asked of him, an army wrecking series of attacks which reduced his force greatly at no gain, ultimately resulting in Hood having to evacuate Atlanta.

That victory changed everything. The end was now in sight and the people of the North were not going to give up after so much sacrifice when victory was at last in view. Lincoln's reelection would seal the Confederacy's extinction.

Losing your last chance to win independence due to a serious misjudgment of the situation... my idea of a world class blunder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Southeast, where else?
3,913 posts, read 5,214,203 times
Reputation: 5823
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Just to get the ball rolling before the heavy weights weigh in...



Actually, Pickett had no such reservations so if he knew better, he sure didn't say. As for Lee, Pickett's charge wasn't all that absurd and actually might have worked (though I have my doubts) if Ewell had been successful in attacking the Union right along Culp's Hill and Pemberton's artillery barrage had been effective. The fact is, Pickett's forces actually did penetrate the Union line and might have broken it had it not been for some pretty bold acts of bravery and great leadership by Hancock and his subordinates.



Of course Longstreet was right, but then Longstreet wasn't in much favor of anything that took place on the second or third day of the battle, preferring instead a continuous movement to Meades left, maneuvering into a more defensive position. But Longstreet was perhaps the best defensive general of the war and such a scenario was more to his liking.

Lots of dumbness on the part of many others; McClellan, Sibley, Bragg, good ole Kirby Smith, what say ye????
[/quote]


You probably know where I stand on this, ergo the name but, Longstreet was more than just right. Had he been permitted/directed by Lee to continue towards DC on Meade's Southern flank he would have in fact drawn Meade's forces out or diverted enough to allow the center to be weakened further?

Of course, that artillery barrage sailing over the Union middle prior to the attack didn't exactly make it easier for those in Pickett's charge, despite the fact that they did reach the wall, crooked though it may be...

so...there's.....that......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 04:01 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,967,897 times
Reputation: 15038
You probably know where I stand on this, ergo the name but, Longstreet was more than just right. Had he been permitted/directed by Lee to continue towards DC on Meade's Southern flank he would have in fact drawn Meade's forces out or diverted enough to allow the center to be weakened further?[/quote]

I've gamed that scenario a number of times and I don't see how Lee could have lost (maybe somewhere else) at Gettysburg had he saddled to the south.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 04:03 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,967,897 times
Reputation: 15038
Lincoln's repeated appointment of George McClellan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,026,002 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Lincoln's repeated appointment of George McClellan.
Among the failed leaders of the Federal forces in the east in the war's first two years, General McClellan strikes me as the least damaging. Neither Pope, nor Burnside nor Hooker was able to present the nation with anything less than complete disasters, oceans of blood for no gain of any sort.

McClellan managed to inflict 20,000 casualties on the rebel army during the Peninsula Campaign compared to 15,000 losses for the Army of the Potomac. The campaign failed, but Lee's army suffered greatly while winning it. That sort of attrition was certainly not going to win the war for the side with the smaller population.

Though McClellan could and should have accomplished a great deal more against Lee in Maryland, at least he did manage to bring about a premature end to Lee's attempt to invade and make mischief in the North. That is something, especially when contrasted with the nothing the other generals produced.

Based on results, the appointments of Pope, Burnside and Hooker were larger errors than the selection of McClellan, either time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 05:02 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,967,897 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Among the failed leaders of the Federal forces in the east in the war's first two years, General McClellan strikes me as the least damaging. Neither Pope, nor Burnside nor Hooker was able to present the nation with anything less than complete disasters, oceans of blood for no gain of any sort.
Well you are quite right, except for one thing, the thread is about big blunders by those who knew better! Lincoln had no way of knowing that Pope and especially Hooker would turn out to be such disasters. McClellan however was a totally known piece of work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2013, 06:11 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,026,002 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
. McClellan however was a totally known piece of work.
Which is precisely why he was tapped for a second time. After Pope had been trashed and hung out to dry by Lee at Second Bull Run, the Army of the Potomac was in a dismal, demoralized condition, scattered about the DC area in a disorganized manner. Lee was heading north into Maryland and the invasion of loyal land, this was an emergency. What was needed was someone with extraordinary organizational skills and the ability to inspire the men to whip themselves back into the form of an army in rapid order.

McClellan was exactly that man. And he accomplished exactly what was being asked. In an astonishingly whirl of hyper activity, he got the army back into fighting shape and on the road in pursuit of Lee in a little over 48 hours.

And if knowing better is the criteria, there is no excuse for the Burnside appointment since even Burnside insisted that he was not fit for the command.

Last edited by Grandstander; 05-02-2013 at 06:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 08:45 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,144 posts, read 13,175,884 times
Reputation: 10116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
The last chance for a Confederate victory was in the summer of 1864. Everything hinged on the ability of rebellion to sustain itself through the fall elections in the North. If the Republicans held onto power, they were firmly pledged to seeing the job through. If a Democrat won, a negotiated peace was possible.

To that end, all Confederate strategy should have been centered on the idea of delay. Draw the war out and send the message that the end is not yet in sight, and a war weary population might well turn President Lincoln and the GOP out of office.

The situation was favoring the Confederacy that summer. General Grant, at the astonishing cost of 60,000 casualties, had managed to initiate a siege of Lee's army around Richmond and Petersburg and a stalemate had resulted that promised to take the war into 1865. The same situation prevailed around Atlanta where General Johnston was holding off General Sherman. Johnston was not who you wanted when the situation called for aggressive offense, but he was the ablest defender among all of the South's field generals. He was exactly who the South needed in that situation, someone highly skilled at delay and survival.

President Davis gave into pressure from the press and public and decided that a more aggressive commander was needed. And he had one, the hard hitting John Hood. Admired as a Division leader, no one seemed to think Hood a good candidate to lead an army. When asked, General Lee wrote to Davis and expressed misgivings about Hood's fitness for the job.

Hood lived up to his reputation and delivered what was asked of him, an army wrecking series of attacks which reduced his force greatly at no gain, ultimately resulting in Hood having to evacuate Atlanta.

That victory changed everything. The end was now in sight and the people of the North were not going to give up after so much sacrifice when victory was at last in view. Lincoln's reelection would seal the Confederacy's extinction.

Losing your last chance to win independence due to a serious misjudgment of the situation... my idea of a world class blunder.
I totally agree with you but let me first say in defense of Davis, that he did not know if Johnston would stay to hold Atlanta (like Lee was doing at Richmond) or would continue to retreat to the Gulf of Mexico. The joke was that Johnston would continue retreating into he got his army onto boats so they could retreat to Cuba!

Having said that, I always thought that replacing an experienced army commander like Johnston during the middle of a campaign by a less experienced 33 year old severely handicapped general like Hood, who never lead anything larger than a corps (and even that for only a few months) was a very poor decision. Hood had a reputation as a highly aggressive division commander but he also had a high casualty rate. Jefferson Davis, more than anyone else should have known of the South's growing manpower shortage but he choose to place in command someone who would engage in costly assaults that the South could not afford. The result as we know was the fall of Atlanta and the near destruction of the Army of Tennessee by Hood during the Franklin-Nashville campaign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top