Gettysburg Question

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Something that has bugging me lately. Why the heck with Hooker and Mead pursue Lee into the North rather than turn South and capture Richmond? Lee and the ANV's only job was to defend Richmond as the capital of the rebellion, and its most important base of supply. With Richmond gone Lee would have lost his base of supply, and would have been trapped on the wrong side of the rivers that made the United Sates advances so difficult. What am I missing here?

[J. Donaldson]

Re: Gettysburg Question

Federal policy was aimed at destroying the army in the field, after which the rebel capital would fall.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Gettysburg Question

It would have been easier to destroy without cannons, uniforms, shoes, gunpowder etc etc etc.

[J. Donaldson]

Re: Gettysburg Question

True, but it begins to enter the stage of making war upon a civilian population. If you look at Grimsley's interpretation of the evolution of Federal policy, '63 is at a grey area between waging hard war upon civilians as a means towards expediting the end of the war and the "kid glove" policies that predominated in '61 and '62. McClellan/Hooker/Meade are still operating within the European paradigm of battle field conquest as the means of winning a war. You can't take on a capital city with a major force still in the field. There's a new work due out very soon that deals with the Lieber convention and General Order 100 that might speak more to this issue.

[bAcK88]

Re: Gettysburg Question

The primary goal of the Army of the Potomac was to protect Washington from a Confederate advance. Anything else was a secondary objective.

A major Confederate field army in a North state unopposed would have been a political nightmare for the Lincoln administration.

[Jeremy Bevard]

Re: Gettysburg Question

Forgetting the other capital. To go after Richmond left Washington vulnerable to Lee.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Gettysburg Question

Washington was still heavily defended.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: Gettysburg Question

Well Lee left Richmond wide open, and a US army on the loose in VA would have a political nightmare to the rebel government as well. At this point is was a matter of swapping Queens! It still seems to me Hooker or Mead could have just as easily did what Sherman did with Hood in 64.

[Cumpston1862]

Re: Gettysburg Question

Lee's capture of Washington would have been a serious political blackeye for President Lincoln no question about it. The Confederate capture of Baltimore or even the Pennsylvania state capital of Harrisburg would have equally disasterous in my opinion. I believe this because after Chancellorsville the north was seriously doubting they could defeat Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. Had Lee captured these cities the war democrats and many republicans would have been all over Lincoln to sue for peace. Remember the draft was going to go into effect on July 1, 1863 too. The news of the victory at Gettysburg was not enough to prevent draft riots in New York and other major cities.

While Washington was heavily fortified with both forts and troops they were usually not veteran units. Also during both the Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns troops were stripped from the Washington defenses to help repulse Lee. General Early's raid in 1864 nearly captured Washington because once again many of the units were sent into the field to support Grant's overland campaign that spring.

The Army of the Potomac had to stay between the Army of Northern Virginia and Washington. President Lincoln wouldn't have supported any other method of operation. Meade had no choice but to follow Lee. The big mistake Meade made was the slow pursuit of Lee's Army after Gettysburg. Had he done that he would possibly have chased Lee all the way to Richmond and ended the war rather than shoo his army acorss the river like an old woman.:)

[Michael Comer]

Re: Gettysburg Question

I think it is understandable that Meade followed Lee at a slow pace. The guy had just been put in command of the army, fights a major 3 day battle and then is expected to vigourously pursue a retreating enemy when his army has been torn to pieces. It's a pretty hard thing to do and I personally think Meade doesn't get enough credit for his role. Most folks don't realize he stayed in command of the Army of the Potomac for the remainder of the war - they think it was Grant since he based himself with that army. So, while Meade drew and still draws heavy criticism, I really don't know what else he could have done with any outstanding results. Could he have pursued a bit more vigourously than he did - yes - but I can kind of understand why he didn't in light of everything that had just happened to him over the course of a couple of weeks.

As to letting Lee run in PA and moving on Richmond, it would not have been a bad idea in my opinion and would have probably resulted in Lee being ordered to get back South asap I think. A corps could have been left to bolster defenses because the resistance going into Virginia would have been light since the ANV was out of the state. But, Lincoln would have nothing like that and he was the C-in-C after all and that was the only thing that mattered.

[David Fox]

Re: Gettysburg Question

A simple answer: on 10 June, 1863 Hooker did propose to Washington a killing strike at Richmond. It was a bold proposal. Lincoln immediately vetoed the idea, indicating Lee's army was the correct target of the Army of the Potomac. This was something of a change of policy: up to and including the Chancellorsville Campaign, Federal thrusts were at Richmond and putting the ANV at the disadvantage of having to react. Lee's army, on 10 June, 1863, was strung out and marching north and west into the lower Shenandoah, and might very well have been ordered south by Jefferson Davis had Hooker been allowed to take a significant number of corps south while wrapping the rest around the western side of Washington. Hard to see how the Richmond-Petersburg complex wouldn't have fallen and put the ANV into dire straits. The Richmond strike force could then have occupied the Richmond defenses, fed on rations intended for Lee and brought up river from Fort Monroe, or faded back into the Union lines on the Peninsula. Lincoln would have none of it, though. He didn't remotely have the confidence in Hooker at this point that he would have in Grant a year later when Jubal Early threatened Washington.

[Mississippian]

Re: Gettysburg Question

The whole of Hill's Corps was still at Fredricksburg as late as June 14th. Plus, the two brigades of Pickett's division that were left behind (Jenkins and Corse) were also close at hand, so there were still near 30,000 Confederates between Hooker and Richmond as late as mid June. The last of Hill's men (Pender's Division) didn't leave Fredricksburg until late on June 15th. By then Milroy and his 8000 men had been smashed at Winchester and alarm bells were going off in Washington.

Don't forget that Hookers Army had been severely weakened by the enlistments of his two year and nine month men ending at the same time. That was on top of the losses of Chancellorsville.

Will MacDonald

[Jeremy Bevard]

Re: Gettysburg Question

Mike, agreed about Meade. Grant had lots of good things to say about him. I think it is sad that so often the history is portrayed or understood that Grant took command of the AoP. It's easy to say he should have pursued harder but the conditions of the army were not the best. Even those still standing had little rest or food in days.

[Cumpston1862]

Re: Gettysburg Question

Meade coming into the situation 3 days before one of the biggest battles of the war and winning it even in a defensive capacity is very commendable. Meade rightfully got everyone on board with staying to fight at Gettysburg and correctly warned that Lee would strike the Union center the night of July 2nd. Meade was no fool and did a lot of things right for sure. A lesser man would have cracked under the pressure and many before him did.

Lee moved his army north not committing his entire force until he felt the Army of the Potomac was not going to go for Richmond. If such a move had been made by either Meade or Lee in regards to the capitals one must quickly consider the capture of Lincoln or Davis ending the war too...but that is another post.

When Lee pulled his men back from Gettysburg and Pennsylvania his men were just as tired as Meades. Not to mention Lee was further hindered by a 20 mile plus wagon train of wounded soldiers and all the items they requistioned during the campaign. The arguement could be made that the Union 6th Corps despite the long march could have been committed as they were relatively unbloodied.