Scourge of War Boards

However, the AotP was losing many men to end of enlistments - and would soon be outnumbered by the ANV. It was only until the next year that Lincoln was able to reinforce the AotP to strenght again.

However, the AotP was losing many men to end of enlistments - and would soon be outnumbered by the ANV. It was only until the next year that Lincoln was able to reinforce the AotP to strenght again.

I am not sure if the ANV was going to outnumber the AofP, but the AotP had indeed lost its 2-year regiments and most of the 9 month regiments between Chancellorsville and Gettyburg. I think the only Pennsylvania 9 month regiments left in the Army were the 151st and 153rd. The Army of the Potomac's size decreased significantly between the battles, whereas the Army of Northern Virginia's size incresed somewhat, even without the units left guarding Richmond. If Lee was ever going to take the offensive, it was probably a good time.

Perhaps, however, the AotP actual was reinforced when it came into Pennsylvania, due to the fact that it was then covering Washington. So, Lee could have waited for a few months, then marched north to Manassas area, perhaps, or maybe even Shapsburg again (no way Washington would give the AotP reinforcements - during the Sharpsburg campaign Stanton was so worried that Lee would recross the Potomac and march on Washington).

In any event, waiting another month would have freed up the troops in NC and S. Virginia - who were already bottling up Burnside, but it wasn't clear at the time.

If I recall correctly, one of the biggest Longstreet detractors, and supporter of Lee, was Jubal Early, of Richard Ewell's division commander with most verbal assaults in post-war period. Have often wondered if Early was only trying to CYA (perhaps that should be CHA) regarding his undue influence upon Baldy Ewell. As you recall, Ewell failed to follow Lee's "suggestion" to assail the Federal forces that first afternoon after being persuaded to wait until the next morning by Jubal Early! If blame is to be laid at the foot of any one general, perhaps Early is a good candidate.

Also, if Lee had directly ordered Ewell to conduct the afternoon attack rather then issue his traditional discretionary orders, and the hill had been carried, there would not have been any Picket's Charge as the Confederates would have been looking down the Federal throat (presuming they carried the hill).

Gee, these "what-ifs" are great!

Jack Hanger
Fremont, NE

Interesting article in the current Military History Quarterly regarding the placing of the blame for the Confederate failure at GB.

Jack Hanger
Fremont, NE

I understand why people make Lee a demi-God and idolize him, but eventually it will become time to realize that Lee lost at Gettysburg. Yes, the case can be made that subordinates made mistakes and there are dozens of what-ifs, but Lee still lost, not Ewell, not Longstreet; it was Lee.

Take for instance the Battle of Chancellorsville from the Northern Perspective. Oliver Howard chose not to dig in, despite numerous reports of suspicious activity in the wilderness around his position. Hooker gets blamed for the defeat at Chancellorsville, even though he was knocked loopy but an artillery shell hitting the porch he was standing on, and yes, there's the What-If scenario if Howard had dug in. Would Jackson's flanking attack have worked? Maybe, maybe not, the point being the North still lost and Hooker still gets blamed no matter what his subordinates did or did not do.

Perfectly said Armchair!!

Ahhhhh, I believe that it was Harry Truman who said, "The buck stops here!" The same can be said for any topkick....Lee, Hooker, Grant, et.al.

Perhaps one could consider an old coaching addage I learned while coaching Division II football: "A head coach is only as good as his assistants!" The most difficult task in coaching is selecting assistants who are "on the same page." Perhaps, Hooker's, and Lee's, ad nauseum were not the "right" assistants.

Jack Hanger
Fremont, NE

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Ahhhhh, I believe that it was Harry Truman who said, "The buck stops here!" The same can be said for any topkick....Lee, Hooker, Grant, et.al.

Perhaps one could consider an old coaching addage I learned while coaching Division II football: "A head coach is only as good as his assistants!" The most difficult task in coaching is selecting assistants who are "on the same page." Perhaps, Hooker's, and Lee's, ad nauseum were not the "right" assistants.

Jack Hanger
Fremont, NE

But those 'assistants' were some of the best generals that the United States has ever seen...

...and some of the worse! You already mentioned Howard of the 11th Corps. How about Gideon Pillow, Benjamin Butler, George B. McClellan, John McClernand, Braxton Bragg, Ambrose Burnside, "Fighting" Joe Hooker, Old "Rosie", "Kilcavalry", Banks, John C. Fremont (Whoa! - Yes, namesake of the city in which I live!), Franz Sigel, John Bell Hood,....well, you get the idea.

But, you are correct in that there were certainly some of the best as well! Which list would be longer? LOL Not sure myself.

Again, like in football, some coaches play to win while others play not to lose. Jackson probably exemplifies the former as much as anyone and "Little Mac" probably the latter.

My original thesis is one that has been argued for decades: i.e. If Jackson had been in command of his Corps at GB, would he have taken the hill overlooking the ridge that afternoon per Lee's suggestions? One of the great "IF'S" of the war...without an answer.

And, I certainly agree, the fault lies with Lee!

Jack Hanger
Fremont, NE