Could Lee have won at Gettysburg?

[napoleon526]

Inspired by my "Could Napoleon have won at Waterloo?" thread, I hereby pose the above question.

Some things to consider:

-- The first Confederate unit engaged was the division of Maj. Gen. Henry Heth. He had been sent to capture the town of Gettysburg to confiscate a supply of shoes stored there. When Heth saw that the town was protected by 2 small brigades of Union cavalry, he attacked with only part of his division and was pushed back. By the time he reorganized and attacked with his entire division, infantry of the US I Corps had arrived. If Heth had made a stronger initial attack, could he have captured the town and the high ground to the south? Conversely, if He had not attacked at all and waited for reinforcements, could the Confederates have made a more successful and organized attack against the Federal I and XI corps?

-- At the end of the first day's fighting, the Federal I and XI corps had been routed and pushed back through Gettysburg. Many officers in the Confederate army recognized that the high ground south of the town would make a good defensive position and urged the Confederate II corps commander, Lt. Gen. Richard Ewell, to occupy Cemetary hill, where the high ground began. Ewell refused, and the Union army rallied and took defensive positions on the hill. Could Ewell have taken Cemetary hill (his troops had been marching and fighting all day and were exhausted)? And if he did take the hill, could the Confederates have occupied the high ground and forced the Union army to attack them over the next two days?

-- Lee planned to attack the flanks of the Federal army on July 2. He planned to strike at the Union left with Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's I corps, and the Union right with Gen. Ewell's II Corps. However, only two of Longstreet's three divisions were availiable for the attack, and were not ready to move until the afternoon. This gave the Federals enough time to move Maj. Gen. George Sykes' V Corps into position south of Cemetary ridge and occupy Little Round Top. One of Longstreet's divisional commanders, John B. Hood, wanted to take his division and occupy Big Round Top, but Longstreet insisted he follow Lee's orders and engage the Federal left directly. If Longstreet had been able to attack earlier, or if Hood had occupied Big Round Top, could the Confederates have taken Little Round Top and flanked the Union army?

-- On July 3, Lee believed that Union commander George Meade had shifted his reserves to the flanks of his army, and thus that a frontal attack on the Union center could split the Union army in two and rout it. He decided to attack Cemetary ridge with his last fresh division, that of Maj. Gen. Pickett, and two other divisions that had been engaged the first day (Pender's and Heth's). The result has become known as "Pickett's Charge"; the attacking force was decimated and the Confederacy's hopes for a decisive victory in Union territory were dashed. Could some other option have produced victory for Lee? Gen. Longstreet wanted to withdraw and find defensive ground somewhere else where they could force the Union army to attack them. Lee decided against this, stating that abandoning the field of battle would damage the morale of the army. Could Longstreet's plan have worked?

-- Throughout the early years of the war, Lee's success on the battlefield was due to his excellent cavalry and it's flamboyant leader, J.E.B Stuart providing him with reliable information about enemy dispostions. However, throughout the Gettysburg campaign, Stuart was for the most part unavailable to Lee, as he had decided to conduct another headline-grabbing ride around the Union army. Unfortunately for Stuart, several rivers and Federal Cavalry patrols prevented him from staying in contact with Lee, and the bulk of his command did not arrive at Gettysburg until the evening of July 2. If Stuart had decided to remain closer to Lee, could his recconaisance have tipped the scales of the battle in favor of the Confederates?


If anyone else has any other possible variables which could have affected the outcome of the battle, then feel free to speak up.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

If, If and If on a battlefield.


I personnally think Meade had the sense and resources to not lose at Gettysburg against Lee who was on particularly bad form and had not chosen the battlefield but had become entangled there.


Like MacClellan at Antetium, Meade simply had to prevent his army being destroyed, the option was there at any time to disengage and not in any way jeopodise the North. To all intents and purposes Lees foray into the North simply provided a great opportunity to bag his army and to cause heavy casaulties and attrition.

The only way I see a Conferate victory would have been if the Union General was a man of particularly weak courage and that would have required the death of Meade in battle.

 

[onejayhawk]

The most important single decision of the war was when Meade chose to dig in and stand his ground after the disasters at the end of the first day. Had Ewell been willing to make the twilight attack you describe, it very well would not have mattered. If the confederates control the highground through the night, The next daty would have been an attack on a retreating army, and Longstreet arrives in excellent position to harrass the column.

The Roundtops are some of the most hostile terrain where anyone would even consider an assault, and successfully carrtying an atack off is dicey at best. From either hill the Confederates could rain down artillery fire on Federal line as it withdrew. However trying to force through in a flanking attack was ultimately futile with the forces in the field.

For all of these reasons the Confederates rued the loss of Gen Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. Had he led the attack instead of Harry Heth, he would very likely have set out parties to occupy the Roundtops and enveloped the first contact with the cavalry at McPherson's farm. Judgung from his success in similar situations in the Cumberland Valley, Jackson may well have cut off and destroyed the two tired cavalry brigades before the black hats of 1st Infantry arrived.

Then instead of being forced to approach the town from the north (!), the Confederates can slide under the town to the SW and occupy the Seminary ridge, much a they did later in the actual fighting, before the Fedrals were able to establish a strong position on Cemetary ridge. From that vantage the Jackson's veteran flankers could invest the rough ground further south with a blocking force, which would buy Longstreet the needed time. Under these assumptions, Lee may neer have had a battle to fight. By the time he arrives on the 2nd morning, it is a matter of closing the bag and rapping up the whole Army of the Potomac. Once that is done, the road to Baltimore lies open, nd the war goes very differently.

J

 

[Richard III]

I think he could have won if he'd fought somewhere else under different conditions; e.g. if his mid-campaign maneuvering hadn't put him on the lousy ground of Gettysburg fighting as the attacker instead of the tactical defender.

Lee was a genius at aggressive defence. If he'd been in a position to force the Army of the Potomac to dislodge him (instead of the other way around), we'd all be speakin' cajun right now and eatin' grits for breakfast.

R.III

 

[onejayhawk]

Excellent point RIII. Stratigic offense, but tactical defense.

Lee was trying to extract his army, when a couple of Union overextensions handed him a a possibility. without the intel JEB Stuart could have provided, Lee misjudged the strength of the enemy. Even then it was a near thing. If Lee had cosen to withdraw rather than make Pickett's charge, the outcome would have been quite close.

J

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
Stratigic offense, but tactical defense.

Any civil war buffs out there, remind me: was it Johnston who proposed as an alternative to Gettysburg an offensive into Ohio to occupy Cincinnati, tear up the rail net, and "wait for the Federals to come" ?

 

[TheStinger]

If he had air cover and a division of tanks the result may have been different

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by TheStinger
If he had air cover and a division of tanks the result may have been different

how very ermm.......................amusing of you

oin topic i think he could have won if the confederates had occupied Cemetary hill or Big round top thsi would have given the confederates a tactical advantage but i personally think Lee should never of fought at getesyburg.

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Ancient Grudge
oin topic i think he could have won if the confederates had occupied Cemetary hill or Big round top thsi would have given the confederates a tactical advantage but i personally think Lee should never of fought at getesyburg.

Lee did not want to fight at Gettysburg. He wanted to place his army between Meade and Washington, but the action was started without his knowledge. Due to Stuart's absense, Lee didn't even know if he was facing all or part of the Federal Army on the first day. If he had known he was only facing 2 corps, he might have attacked more vigorously.

 

[stalin006]

Originally posted by TheStinger
If he had air cover and a division of tanks the result may have been different

silly u, why would he want air cover since the only thing the union could put in the air would had been a hot air ballon

 

[RobertH2O]

-- Lee planned to attack the flanks of the Federal army on July 2. He planned to strike at the Union left with Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's I corps, and the Union right with Gen. Ewell's II Corps. However, only two of Longstreet's three divisions were availiable for the attack, and were not ready to move until the afternoon. This gave the Federals enough time to move Maj. Gen. George Sykes' V Corps into position south of Cemetary ridge and occupy Little Round Top. One of Longstreet's divisional commanders, John B. Hood, wanted to take his division and occupy Big Round Top, but Longstreet insisted he follow Lee's orders and engage the Federal left directly. If Longstreet had been able to attack earlier, or if Hood had occupied Big Round Top, could the Confederates have taken Little Round Top and flanked the Union army?

Actually, Gen. Sykes did not occupy Little Round Top. His force was in the rear at the time just getting to Gettysburg. It was Gen. Dan Sickles who occupied the left of the Union line, and his corp did not occupy the Little Round Top. He had decided to move farther out in front of where his lines were, which lay just above LRT. He didn't even consider occupying the hill, and neither did anyone else in the army. LRT marked the left of the Union lines. All that occupied the hill were a few signal corp officers. LRT wasn't occupied until it was found to be the possibly target of the Confederates. Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren, a member of Meade's staff and the chief of the Engineering Corps, had gone to the top to get a better view of the battle, and noticed Gen. Hood's division way off to the left forming up for a drive towards the hill. That is when the Union realized the importance of LRT, and made a move for it. Gen. Warren had to dash down and detach a brigade from the Reinforcements headed towards Gen. Sickles lines that were under heavy attack. The brigade that volunteered for the duty belonged to Colonel Strong Vincent. His brigade of five regiments were sent up immediately and occupied the hill. The regiment that occupied the southern portion of the hill, and consequently the extreme left of the entire Union line was the 20th Maine led by Lt. Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain.

While this was occuring, Confederate units under Gen. Hood were advancing towards the LRT and Big Round Top. It was Brig. Gen. Evander M. Law's brigade that reached BRT and scaled that height (about 300 ft tall). One of the regiments of this brigade was the 15th Alabama commanded by Col. William C. Oates. His regiment managed to get to the top of BRT, and while his men rested (its a fairly steep height), he looked through a gap in the trees and saw the entire Union lines. He was the one who believed BRT could be used, not Gen. Hood. However, BRT is not only fairly steep, making it tough to haul any guns to its summit (it was hard enough for Oates regiment to scale that hill), but it was lined with trees almost to the top, and there was no clear line of fire. Oates had sent word back to Gen. Law about the possible advantage, but Law told him to carry out his orders, which were to take LRT.

If the Confederates had a chance of winning that battle, it was at LRT. But Col. Vincent's brigade got there first, and had just finished setting up the line of battle when the Confederates first hit from right to left. Col. Oates and the 15th Alabama ran up against the Col. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine in what is an epic and one of the most famous fights of the Civil War. I highly suggest you read up on it if you haven't already. It is truly amazing. Both regiments fought hard and fought bravely. In the end it came down to timing and shear luck on the Union side. The Confederates were driven back, and the Union held the hill, suffering some fairly severe casualties, including the deaths of several officers, including Col. Vincent.

As for your talk of the third day's battle, I'm not sure Lee had a chance at all. Even if Pickett's division had managed to hold the Union lines in the center, there were not only batteries on LRT that could blast them, but a majority of the Army of the Potomac's fighting force wasn't even on the line. Only about half of the AotP's capability was actually employed in the battle, and it would have been impossible for the Confederates to hold the ridge because of the number of forces sitting behind the Union lines. They would have come up against a whole other army practically, and the odds of beating them as well are just nill.

I think had Longstreet been able to move his units up faster and attacked when Lee had wanted to start the attack, then there may have been a possibility of success on the second day. However, things never happen according to plan.

There was no way Lee could have won that battle by the third day.

 

[West German]

Remember, any battle is winnable, no matter the circumstances.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by West German
Remember, any battle is winnable, no matter the circumstances.

????

This makes no sense. Many occasions exist where smaller, underarmed forces defeated larger better armed ones. However to expand that to say that NO battle is unwinnable is silly. How would Hiroshima have won its battle?

J

 

[Remorseless]

Napoleon, excellent points!

I think Longstreet's intentions are understated somewhat, however. If I'm not mistaken, he wanted to take the entire right wing of the Confederate Army south around LRT and attack into the rear of the Union Army, both on July 2 and July 3, but was overruled by Lee.

It should also be noted that Lee NEVER won a battle where the burden of attack was on his army. R. da 3rd's point on stragetic offense, tactical defense is exactly right, and when Lee failed on either count, he lost.

Incidentally, had Meade been more aggressive and pursued vigorously after Pickett's charge or on July 4,the war might have ended within months, not two years later.

However, I must disagree, Richard -- even if Lee had won Gettysburg, the Confederacy was (thankfully) doomed. Grant's army had taken Vicksburg, thus cutting the Confederacy in two, and the North's advantage in industrial production and manpower made it inevitable. We must admire the gallantry of the Southern soldier and most of their generals, but they were fighting a losing war.

 

[West German]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
????

This makes no sense. Many occasions exist where smaller, underarmed forces defeated larger better armed ones. However to expand that to say that NO battle is unwinnable is silly. How would Hiroshima have won its battle?

J

Japanese AA-guns could have shot down the aircraft containing the A-bomb.

Plus, how was Hiroshima a battle. It was a massacre of innocent civilians by the USA.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

Okay, so you are both daft

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Remorseless
However, I must disagree, Richard -- even if Lee had won Gettysburg, the Confederacy was (thankfully) doomed. Grant's army had taken Vicksburg, thus cutting the Confederacy in two, and the North's advantage in industrial production and manpower made it inevitable. We must admire the gallantry of the Southern soldier and most of their generals, but they were fighting a losing war.

Remember the political dimension, though. Overall industrial might and numbers will win a wars of attrition, but battlefield performance can change the nature of the war from attrition to something more unstable.

If the Army of the Potomac had been defeated in the invasion and then the city of Washington had been raided or even captured by the rebs before retiring to Virginia, the political consequences would be severe: first, it would have bolstered the already strong antiwar sentiment in the north, and made conscription that much more difficult to enforce, and second, it would have made it much more likely that european powers might have compromised with the south in ways that would have aided the war effort (although I think outright recognition wouldn't have come until war's end). Imagine it as a sort of Battle of Saratoga, round II - which was, incidentally, exactly what Lee was hoping for.

Also, while the long term impact of the Vicksburg victory and the other Mississippi campaigns was critical, in the medium term (e.g. 1863-early 1864), the bulk of the Southern heartland was still intact and producing food, ammo and rebs at adequate levels until Sherman's march cut it in turn, in two. In other words, the military benefits of holding Vicksburg would have looked pretty weak to a Congress holding its meetings in Baltimore or Philadelphia.

Don't get me wrong: I wanted the South whipped from day one. But it wasn't as easy as it looked, obviously!

R.III

 

[napoleon526]

R III has some good points. If Meade had been defeated North of Washington, there's a good chance that congress could have forced Lincoln to make peace.

 

[Remorseless]

There was an equally good chance it would have aroused the Northern hawks and abolitionists to wage war in a more fierce manner. Lee had the same hopes in the campaigns in Virginia during 1864, where he hoped a defeat of Grant's armies -- or at least horrendous casaulties - would cause Lincoln to lose the presidential election. Grant took the casaulties (about 2,000 a day for the first 30-40 days) but Lincoln still won the election.

Still, I wouldn't disagree totally. It's one of those points that will only be open to debate, since none of it happened. And thank God it didn't. A divided US/CSA would have radically altered the shape of the 20th Century on a global scale.

 

[leefan]

This is an old thread but thought I would add my two cents. Gettysburg was completly pointless the first day was inevitable. However after Lee routed the union army he should have dis engadged he could have gotten between the northern army and washington. Or what I think he should have done was head toward Baltimore the most important city in the union the ground was good there they would have had to hit Lee on ground of his choosing and the south would have provaled.

back to the question could have the south won gettysburg. YES if ewell would have taken the high ground the first day victory would have been certain Like Lee said if Jackson was still alive he would have taken the hill. Also the second day after ewell GAVE the high ground to the union. Lee had no choice but to attack Longstreets idea to move around up big round top was not practical it makes good conversation but it wasnt practicle. They would have had to cut down trrees to put the artillery and that would have taken all day the union would simple move there guns and blow them off the hill before they were in action. As I said Lee should have dis ebgadged

Lees reasons.

Lee was affraid to get between the northern troops and washington and baltimore for the same reason then the union would be between him and virginia Lee new there army was much larger and they had alot more troops around Vicksburg and the deep south that could trap him there. The south could not win a war of attrition in the north. If you think about it like that it makes alot of sense. Meade could have called Lees bluff and not attacked him at all Lee wasnt set up for or even wanted to siege Washington. Lee was trying to end the war by not being defeated if that makes any sense.

anyways just my two cents!!!!!!!!