We need Vito for a crash course on supply logistics of the Confederate Army! I recall that railroads thru Virginia were part of the answer....but very hard to secure.

 

As to what thConfederate army is doing there, I always go back to the Foreword. Lee knows a letter of peace will be placed on Lincoln's desk the day he destroys the Union army. He is on a mission. He wants and needs to get it done fast. One big engagement. His side has the military minds. His side has the accumulated victories. His side has high morale.

This is why Stuart has failed them. If they knew of the location of the Northern army, they would have moved into Gettysburg earlier and taken the high ground.

 

Back to Longstreet for one last attempt at discussing the book by chapter before we just go for the free for all.

The talk with Armistead is poignant. It seems the true reason Lo ha sought out old Pete is to discuss "their last night together" before the war and his old friend Hancock. We have een told in the foreword that Hancock waits on a hill for Armistead. Now Lo is told by Longstreet tha he could just go see him under a flag of truce. Seems simple enough. Could he actually do it?

The debate over the reason for suscession briefly details the argument. The south didn't withdraw because of slavery, the dissolved the union because they didn't want to be told what they could or couldn't do by the federal government. Did thisargument hold together for you? To me, it was just a piece of lawyering. If he real reason for our actions sounds bad, find a reason for the real reason that sounds better. One can always argue "It isn't about the fact that I do X, it is about you trying to stop me from doing X." Pickett has is beloved analogy of a gentleman's club. Is the constitution the bylaws of a "gentleman's club." The union has been in place for over 80 years at this point and both north and south have a pretty good understanding of the federal govenment'sability to pass laws to govern things not spelled out in the constitution. If you remember the days of our founding fathers, slavery was already an issue. Southern states wanted the right to hold slaves and northern states did not. Some northern representatives wanted to abolish slavery even then. The point is, the right to own slaves is not protected by the constitution and the southern politicians know it.

Consider Longstreet's response to Pickett's analogy. Does he disagree? Does he just not care?

 

Actually, it was. Article 4, section 2, "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." deals with fugitive slaves. It was not unti the 13th ammendment was passed in 1865 that involuntary servitude was abolished.
It wasn't until 1 January 1863 that Lincoln signed teh Emancipation Proclamation which freed slaves ONLY " within the rebellious states ."

 

Your point is correct, but think on it a little further. Where does it say Congress shall pass no law abolishing slavery? Heck, there are even provisions of the constitution that provide the formula for the counting of slaves in order to determine representatives. But nothing says the whole institution can't be abolished. For example, in the early 1800s congress passed a law that prohibited the importation of slaves.

I will admit that many thought the institution ws protected in the constitution (even Lincoln), so my conclusory statement is probably too strong.

 

I don't believe congress had the ability to do this before the 13th amendment and had the emancipation proclamation not been directed at the states in rebellion, they would have had recourse to challenge this under the tenth ammendement, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Which brings us back to the states' rights thing.

 

Lee's "war horse," Longstreet, is promised a defensive campaign, their supply's are limited across the board. Longstreet agrees with Lee to concentrate the army using the roads/junctions heading in/out of Gettysburg, since the SPY indicated that the Union army was moving fast and within miles of them. They do not want to be caught "thin" if the Union Army shows up. Neither side is thinking of a major engagement at Gettysburg, yet. Lee is after the Union Army, wants to destroy it, but this has always been his strategy, nothing new (the Union generals were inept initially because they did not pick up on this until the likes of Grant). He is coming off two major victories. Fredericksburg (Dec 62), a defensive position for Lee's army. At Chancellorsville (May '63), two months before Gettysburg, he has the smaller force, but uses Stonewall Jackson to march at night, on a narrow road, reposition, to outflank and surprise Union forces.

Prior to Gettysburg, Lee has used the defense, and flanking maneuvers, to position his consistently smaller forces to achieve victories against greater numbers. He uses maneuver, and the ground, to the advantage of his smaller army.

Lee has to destroy the Union Army, but he does not have to destroy it this month. He just has to destroy it, weaken it. If he achieves either, with his forces on Northern soil, the people of the north/politicians, will lose their will to fight.

Why change strategy and tactics now, particularly if your intelligence is poor?

 

That is exactly what makes Lee the tragic hero of the book, and why it really didn't matter that Stuart was joyriding. Something happened to Lee to make him change his mind and abandon the tactics and strategy that have previously resulted in victory. Lee, for some reason or another, decided to engage the Union Army and to do it head on. Even Longstreet couldn't convince him to reconsider.

To me that is the jist of the book. That is the entire story. Lee, the much loved and admired brilliant general who starts out as the hero, makes his decision, a poor one, and ends up losing everything. In my opinion, everything else is just a sideshow (and interesting one, but still a sideshow). The book is all about Lee and his decision to attack.

 

1) Psychological Warfare. The Union Army was going to "lick" the south with one attack at the start of the war. Now they are in the third year of the war. The south has been victorious in all major battles to date. Threaten Washington, or break the Union Army for good, and the war is over. The pressure on Lincoln would be untenable.

2) Virginia and the south's resources are being drained. All of the fighting has taken place on southern soil. Much of it in Virginia. The south needs to get the fighting out of Virginia, to allow the crops to recover, etc. The Shenandoah is the bread-basket of the Confederacy.

3) Force a fight. Since the Union Army, reeling from the recent defeats at Fredericksburg and Chancellorsvile, will be forced to pusue Lee, it can be lured out of the south, and "destroyed".

I'm not sure Lee felt "rushed" to destroy the Union Army by a certain date. Certainly, the sooner the better. He knows the longer the war goes on, the less likely the south would be to win the war. But he's coming off a series of victories, so what is the rush?

 

Why would forcing the Union Army out of the south lead to a victory for Lee? I would think he'd have a far better chance by luring them deeper into the south and further away from their supplies of materiel.