a question for the experts

[redcoat]

gents,
i watched a documentary on gettysburg yesterday and it got to the part about picketts charge.
the documentary asserts that the reason it turned into such a bloodbath is that the union set a trap.

the union commander ordered the guns at that position to steadily fall silent,thus giving the false impression that they were out of ammunition.this then led pickett to press home the attack,beliving that he would meet no incming fire from the artillery.

im plainly no expert on the battle so i was wondering if that is in fact true?
if you watch the movie gettysburg,this shows the attack happening even though they know artillery is going to hit them from start to finish.
i suppose im hoping the movie is wrong and lee didnt send in pickett just to be destroyed for no reason.
i await any reply with interest! cheers

[RebBugler]

I've read a lot on this but in no way consider myself a ACW guru. From what I've read this was just a major blunder on Lee's part. Longstreet emphatically warned him that this attack would end in a costly failure. What was his quote to Lee? ...something like this:

"General Lee sir, there has never been, or ever will be, 15,000 brave men who can take those heights."

[Shirkon]

gents,
i watched a documentary on gettysburg yesterday and it got to the part about picketts charge.
the documentary asserts that the reason it turned into such a bloodbath is that the union set a trap.

the union commander ordered the guns at that position to steadily fall silent,thus giving the false impression that they were out of ammunition.this then led pickett to press home the attack,beliving that he would meet no incming fire from the artillery.

im plainly no expert on the battle so i was wondering if that is in fact true?
if you watch the movie gettysburg,this shows the attack happening even though they know artillery is going to hit them from start to finish.
i suppose im hoping the movie is wrong and lee didnt send in pickett just to be destroyed for no reason.
i await any reply with interest! cheers

It is both true and false. Meade and Hunt (Meade's Chief of Artillery) did order the guns in the center of the line to cease fire. This was during the artillery cannonade that Lee had ordered to precede the assault. It's main purpose was to conserve short range ammo in case of a charge. It wasn't a planned trap at all. In fact the guns at the point of attack were pretty much dismounted or destroyed. Some batteries actually were pulled from the line they were so chewed up. Meade ordered batteries from the Artillery Reserve to replace them. This pulling out of some batteries was used by Longstreet to order the charge to commence. To think that Lee purposely sacrificed the troops in what is called Picket's Charge is a bit of a stretch. Lee was know for giving general orders and then letting his subordinates handle the details. Lee simply ordered that the attack be made and he pointed to where he expected it to aim at and then put Longstreet in charge.

Longstreet is supposed to have protested that it was doomed, but Lee's faith in his men had convinced him that it would be successful. If anything Lee was overconfident in the ability of his men. He had attacked on both flanks on the previous day and he assumed that Meade had weakened his center to reinforce the flanks plus he assumed that the Union Army was hurt more then was actual fact. Pickett's Charge was aimed at that center. Unfortunately Lee was wrong on both the condition of the Union Army and the strength of the Union center.

Pickett's Charge was a gamble on Lee's part and like all gambles subject to failure. This time the odds weren't in Lee's favor.

[redcoat]

thanks for the anwers gents.
so would it be fair to say that if jeb stuarts cavalry were present and doing their job as the documentary says he patently wasnt,that lee would have had a better idea what was facing him and perhaps wouldnt have attacked there?
and could you point me towards a good book on the subject of gettysburg,i think its time i researched this properly! cheers

[Shirkon]

There are a number of books on Gettysburg. Some that you might look at:

The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study In Command by Edwin Coddington 1997
Gettysburg: The Pivotal Battle Of The Civil War by Robert Beechman 1994

I'm sure a search on the Barnes and Noble website or on Amazon will show many more.

[redcoat]

thanks shirkon.
i have also had recommended to me a trilogy of books by one shelbey foote.
is he someone i should look into? cheers

[Shirkon]

Foote's Trilogy is a must for any Civil War library. The Trilogy covers the entire war though so can't get into real detail on any single battle. It will give you the essentials on the why's and the wherefores though. I would recommend it just for the overall understanding of the entire war and the effects of battles on both sides.

[redcoat]

thanks again.im off to amazon now! cheers

[Saddletank]

Redcoat, I'm currently reading "Gettysburg" by Stephen W Sears. It's immensely readable and has won several awards, also recommended by several members of this forum.

[KG_Soldier]

Redcoat, I'm currently reading "Gettysburg" by Stephen W Sears. It's immensely readable and has won several awards, also recommended by several members of this forum.

Sears' "Gettysburg" is excellent. But then again so are his "On to Richmond" and "landscape Turned Red."