Robert E. Lee is without doubt one of the greatest generals these shores have ever seen - arguably the greatest of all. And so I've always been mystified why he ordered General George Pickett to lead 12,500 of the South's finest troops across nearly a mile of open ground against fortified Union lines, that July 3 afternoon so long ago.
The lesson of Fredricksburg from the previous year should have told him what to expect. General Longstreet had learned that lesson, and tried unsuccessfully to persuade his commander to call off the assault. Overcome with emotion - a premonition of slaughter, really - he couldn't even speak the final order to advance, but merely nodded assent to Pickett's request to charge. When the stragglers returned to their lines, General Lee (worried that the Yankees might charge to follow up their success) asked Pickett to rally his Division. Pickett replied, General Lee, I have no Division.
The War Between The States ("Civil War" to Yankees) was a brutal affair, where the weaponry had advanced faster than the tactics. It remains to this day the bloodiest conflict in the nation's history, with more casualties than any other war we've fought. When you consider how much the population has grown since the mid-nineteenth century, it was even worse.
The psychological scars of that war were to linger for a generation or more. The sense of loss - needless loss - is perhaps summed up by Pickett's Charge. William Faulkner captured this sense in Intruder In The Dust:
For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances ...Pickett never forgave Lee. Asked many years later why the charge failed, he replied that he thought that the Yankees had something to do with the outcome. He might have said that Lee had, too.
What is even more amazing is to stand on that spot at Gettysburg and look across that distance and imagine walking into that line of guns.
ReplyDeleteI've never understood that frontal assault either.
Nicely done BP...
ReplyDeleteOne correction, though...
It's more correctly called
"The War of Northern Aggression".
It was never civil.
TBG
I constantly wonder why Lee didn't listen to Johnston's recommendation from the day (or two days) before; leave the field, turn the army southeast and march on a relatively unprotected Washington DC. With Lee's ability to feint and maneuver combined with the Union hold all of the high ground, he probably could have gained at least a day's march on the Union troops.
ReplyDeleteHeh. You totally stole the thoughts from my head, Borepatch, and the timing was freaky, too.
ReplyDeleteSome time around noon thirty I was debating putting up a post, complete with the Faulkner quote, but decided to give it a miss because I had errands to do.
Thank you. :)
The Big Guy is correct. War of Northern Aggression is the correct term. Civil indeed. Ha!
ReplyDeleteI'd point again to that book I recommended a few posts ago; the Charge of the Light Brigade was a very similarly futile exercise.
ReplyDeleteJim
@The Big Guy, it certainly wasn't a civil war - the South's goal was succession, not subjugation of the North. Discussion of "War of Northern Aggression" will have to wait for another day. ;-)
ReplyDelete@Tam, happy to oblige. As you know, the problem isn't getting me to post; it's getting me to shut up.
ReplyDelete;-)
Borepatch,
ReplyDeleteMy ex used to refer to it as "When The North Invaded America". ;)
Nice post. Like TBG, I've stood at Gettysburg and looked across the field. Despite the slaughter it was a close thing. A few more yards, with more troops standing, and the Confederacy would have won the battle and likely the war.
ReplyDeleteBoth sides fought and died valiantly, which is all the more sad since almost all were Americans.
I hope we never end up settling our differences in such a manner again.
Generals almost always fight the last war. Up into WW I, generals were positive that bayonets would prevail over machine guns. Then there's the example of Balaclava ("Into the valley of death rode the 600")
ReplyDelete"It's more correctly called
"The War of Northern Aggression".
It was never civil."
I thought it was "the late unpleasantness".
"... the Confederacy would have won the battle and likely the war."
Not really. The North had industry, the means for making guns and cannon. The South was dependent on slave labor.
The outcome was determined the moment they fired on Ft. Sumter.
One reason it went on as long as it did was that Lincoln had to borrow the Union Army from Gen. McClellan, who didn't seem to be using it.
I've always thought that the reason Pickett's charge happened is that Jackson died at Chancellorsville. Stonewall had a better strategic sense than Lee.
ReplyDeleteIf Lee had turned SE, he would have had the main body of the Union Army to his rear, threatening his line of supply, and pushing against Washington would have put him between the garrisons there, and a freely moving (as much as any Union force outside of Sherman's forces was mobile) large Union army.
Stonewall probably would have recommended blocking the Union army with a part of the force - pinning it in place, and using the rest of the army to threaten the Union's rear.
Lee was following the same plan as the previous invasion - which was only defeated (barely) at Antietam because the Union had his plans.
Of course, Lee and Jackson nearly annihilated the Union in the Peninsula two years earlier. Like WWII - the fascination is that despite the productive advantages of the north/allies - the south/nazis almost pulled it off.
All of the best generals in the Civil War ordered attacks directly at dug-in opponents. Lee at Gettysburg; Burnside at Fredricksburg, as has been noted; Grant did it at Cold Harbor; Sherman did it at Kennesaw Mountain. Sometimes, I guess, you just had a feeling of victory and would throw the dice; when it's money, it doesn't hurt so much, but when it's an army, it hurts like hell.
ReplyDeleteLee had utter faith in The Army of Northern Virginia. His troops had never failed to do what ever he ordered ... what ever the cost. Outnumbered but never out fought they had won time and again for over 3 years, most of that time with Gen. Lee in command.
ReplyDeleteJackson's loss was never more deeply felt than on 3 July 1863 when Lee and his men went one battle too far.
Faulkner also said "The past is never dead. It's not even past." Never so true as in Virginia. Our phone book have listings for R.E. Lee IV and T.J. Jackson V. Friends have escorted ashes to The Angle to make sure they were scattered at The Confederacy's high water mark. Yes, it always is 2 o'clock on 3 July.
I grew up a scant 30 miles from Gettysburg, so a big part of my youth was spent walking the Battlefield, climbing the rocks at Devil's Den, and of course learning about the battle itself.
ReplyDeleteUp until Gettysburg, the war was Lee's. Whatever it was that caused his actions over those three days, be it arrogance, pride, the perceived invincibility of his army, or the notion that a new commander for the opposition would all but assure his victory, we'll never know.
Perhaps it was simply Karma. The land that the Confederate Army crossed was land owned by a freed slave
What we do know is that Battle changed the direction of the war. Had Lee taken the advice of his Subordinates, the end of the war probably would have been much, much different.
As someone who has also pondered why such a great General as Lee could give that order, I think it boils down to something as simple as the fact that he was "only human" ---and that his previous successes, plus the fantastic morale and elan of his soldiers ( whom he believed could 'do anything')coupled with the thought that to beat the Union Army troops in front of him, gave him the chance of ending that terrible war....so his judgement was impaired to the extent that his usual tactical skill was subdued by a sense of fatal "superiority".Many other Generals & indeed Armies of various countries have fallen prey to being victims of a similar mental attitude, that has contributed to them losing battles // fights // wars that -on paper- they should have won-my own country not being excluded.Respectfully..an Englishman.
ReplyDelete