Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2017 17:43:17 GMT
1. Purpose. Discuss the wheatfield area with respect to METT-T.
2. Background. I went to college in Philly, and the battle study tours of my advanced officer and Special Forces officer course were at Gettysburg. I have been there approximately 8 times. My great grandfather was wounded at Pickets' charge, due to unique circumstances I know within 25 meters of here this happened, and when.
But I had one trip on my own where I only looked at the second day. That is a confusing day if you read regimental, brigade, and division accounts. Also the whole Sickles thing, an incompetent general made incompetent decisions, with an incompetent staff, with incompetent subordinates, that led to a rout with maximum US casualties, and minimal impact on rebel forces.
3. Terrain matters. The wheat field peach orchard area is very complex. Maps do not do justice to the complexity of this area. I was there with a compass, and 1:50k military mapsheets. It was heard to stay orientated. And you can't spit in that area without being in sight of a marker or manmade terrain feature, so it is easier now, than then.
4. Enemy matters. This area so chaos in the command and control of both sides. This meant that corps and above plans were meaningless, here is where we can see regiment, brigade, and division leadership succeed or fail. Sickles disobeyed orders to move his corps to face enemy forces vicinity Seminary ridge. This put both his flanks in the air. In particular, it put Hood and McLaws BEHIND him.
5. When the enemy attacked 3 Corps disintegrated, Sickles and every general not named Humphreys panicked. Reinforcements were sent in small packets, and destroyed.
6. My visit for the second day taught me more about tactics than any battlefield visit I have ever done. And I have done about 200.
The problem is that units were sent in penny packets with out any central command and control. (LBH also saw very incompetent command and control).
SO the wheat field shows multiple examples. Units that arrived there had to decide if they were attacking the wall on the Hood side, or the thin woods on the Barksdale side. Whatever they decided, the other element would be shooting into them, not on their flank, but their rear.
This area is a good example of the importance of command and control. This are was fought out by regiment and brigade commanders, with no influence from division and above. In fact, the CSA division and Corps leaders were vastly superior to USA in this area, but CSA was broken on C2 this day.
7. The relevance to LBH is that I can see no evidence of regimental command and control at LBH. The regiment collapsed into 8 independent elements, with no brain guiding them. This is not just the gross incompetence of the regiment commander, but his staff, his orders, and the piss poor training of that unit 1866-1876. The 7th Cav was a bad unit, in the bottom three of all units to fight for the USA 1866-1917.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 22, 2017 2:21:29 GMT
It has been forever since I have visited Gettysburg. If I recall correctly the Wheat Field is about a half mile southeast of the Peach Orchard located mid way between the Peach Orchard and Little Round Top. Also as I recall this area was what became a portion of what became known as Sickles' Salient. I think the real fighting did not start until late in the day, say 4PM. I also think Sickles was driven from the Apple Orchard. Man I will need to grab/find Boatner's book.
If I remember right Sickles pleaded temporary insanity for killing Philip Key, Francis Scott Key's son for having an affair with Mrs. Sickles. He was a Senator at the time. He took his wife back. What a guy! I think he raised his own brigade and named himself Col., Lincoln nominated BG and the Senate rejected the nomination, Lincoln nominated him again and this time they approved. Abe's early choices for generals was weak, this clown had no military background whatsoever. Thank goodness Abe found the likes of Grant or we might be spending Confederate money.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 22, 2017 2:50:11 GMT
Just a quick note while in a motel room waiting to fly home tomorrow.
Barksdale's Brigade of Mississippi units, 13th, 17th, 18th and 21st made drove through Sickle's Corps. Salient on July 2nd and nearly severed the Union line with about 1,500 men.
I recommend many books but one I can think of now is Barksdale's Charge by Tucker. It is not a perfect tome but provides many views by the participants and explains his assault very well. If Pickett had been with them. Probably a good thing for our nation today. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 22, 2017 3:35:52 GMT
I am sure that I am in the minority of one, but I think Sickles did the very thing that needed to be done.
It was a hell of a mess, as Will describes. Command and control was largely non-existent on both sides. There was nothing tactically correct in the whole affair, but before we start jumping off of bridges to get at my hind parts, remember that Longstreet's two division attack was an echeloned attack, and had it hit the main line that Sickles was supposed to be occupying on Cemetery Ridge, the echelon aspects of that attack would have rolled Sickles up like a dirty old rug. Remember also that there was a fresh Union Corps coming up the Baltimore Pike behind Sickles when he went forward. The risk he took, and the casualties incurred were in my opinion worth his effort.
Sickles movement broke up that echelon aspect of Longstreet's assault, and I would remind by esteemed Mississippi friend that "NEARLY" does not cut the mustard. Only objective attained are the measure of success. You can IF in one hand, and crap in the other, but if you ain't ready to go with all you got, you might want to think about going, or you will end up with crap in both hands.
There are no second place prizes in battle. No trophy for well played.
If it makes anyone feel any better my son and I have argued this point for thirty years.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 24, 2017 23:33:04 GMT
QC The point of my comment regarding Barksdale's brigade was that had his 4 regiments been supported by Pickett's 3 brigades on July 2 then the Union line would have been severed and ultimately Meade would have been fighting in smaller segments just like Custer did at the Little Bighorn.
Longstreet did not wish to attack the Federals but rather flank them to the South and get behind their lines but Lee chose to make a frontal assault. Pickett's division was on hand late on the 2nd but Longstreet directed them to encamp and await till July 3rd. The famous charge by Pickett and Hill's divisions was ill fated before it began. Pickett's 3 fresh brigades were accompanied by Pettigrew's and Trimble's divisions which had been heavily involved in fighting on July 1st and were badly used. As you well know, A.P. Hill was ill during the campaign and did not participate in selecting the units from his Corps that were part of the assault. This attack at no time was a threat to Meade and his army where as Barkdale's assault came with in a whisker of severing the Union line.
Barksdale brigade destroyed Sickle's Corps and heavily damaged other units as well as taking several artillery batteries. As montrose mentioned this action in the Peach Orchard was controlled on the brigade and regimental level as demonstrated by Barksdale's commands and later when the 21st Mississippi regiment attacked southward under Colonel Benjamin Grubb Humphreys leadership. This assault drove nearly 1 mile into the Union lines and was only stopped by Willard's brigade of the II Corps. Barksdale failed to be supported as expected on his left flank from other Confederate units.
This is the basis for my belief this charge was the true "High Water Mark." Regards Dave
PS Sickles screwed the pooch in my view
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 25, 2017 3:33:56 GMT
I understood your point from the outset Dave. Understand my point. IF is the biggest word in the English Language.
I believe High Water Mark is more figurative than literal. Remember it is not the High Water Mark of Gettysburg, but rather the High Water Mark of the Confederacy. I seem to remember that it was former confederates that originally coined the term, meaning a shift in fortunes, ascendancy to decent. Don't think it has anything to do with tactics or operations, other than breaching that wall at that particular point, only to fall back and recede. Symbolism of that glorious lost cause that will forever sustain us in our pipe dreams.
If you wish to know the real High Water Mark, it was reached the moment the first shot was fired on Sumpter. As long as Abraham Lincoln was President of the United States the Confederacy had an implacable foe, who was determined by all means to defeat the rebellion and preserve the Union. Betting against Abe Lincoln is a game for losers.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 25, 2017 20:37:40 GMT
QC I agree with your belief about FT Sumpter being the beginning of the South losing the War. The mythical "Lost Cause" created by Early and Maury with the establishment of The Southern Historical Society focused so much on Virginia and her sons that many units, mostly from the Deep South, were neglected and forgotten. Barksdale's Brigade is a case in point being over shadowed by Pickett's fiasco. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 25, 2017 21:01:21 GMT
Dave: The mythical lost cause is exactly the same as what we see from some on both the brown and black boards, exactly the same.
In the case of the lost confederate cause, those people cannot come to rips with the idea that their society was dead, and that southern manhood was not superior to that of the north. They just cannot grasp the fact that an agrarian nation fighting equal up with an industrialized nation will always lose. They cannot bear the fact that the world had moved on and southern society and the norms of that society were two centuries behind. In their minds Ivanhoe was the match for the 4th Armored Division. They lived in a time and in a society of "ain't, so" they must find scapegoats and excuses for them not prevailing.
Same thing we see other places. Our boy was perfect, so it was drunkenness, cowardly conduct, deliberate delay, incompetence and hatred, that done him wrong and did him in. Same idea, same type who hold onto these ideas, different place.
George Pickett commanded only one division in a three division attack. All three divisions suffered to about the same extent. Pickett was an idiot. How he ever got a division is beyond me. Wait I know, he was in the Army of Northern Virginia, and in the Army of Northern Virginia, commanded by a Virginian, people from Virginia got first dibs. The only unit that really gained the fame in that Army that they richly deserved was the Texas Brigade. Be satisfied that Barksdale's Brigade held up the whole damned Union Army for better than a full day at Fredericksburg. There they were impressive.
|
|
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 25, 2017 21:25:47 GMT
Well... Pickett was in command of the attack with other ad hoc units thrown in. The other 'divisions' were torn to pieces already. Pickett was well liked by his men and generally did a decent job. That 'job' was not going to ever work out. Later at the crossroads before Petersburg he didn't do too well... but at that point it wasn't going to be long anyway.
I also disagree with your statement that only the Texas Brigade gained deserved fame... That is like saying the Iron Brigade was the only deserving Union unit. Would that be a fair statement? I guess it depends on what you describe as 'earned fame' and what meaning that implies.
There are 'lost causes' on a lot of subjects... not every southerner was made of the same cloth.
|
|
|
Post by Moderator1 on Jan 25, 2017 22:07:48 GMT
Can we have a little less "Lost Cause" discussion please. I understand that it is, depending on your frame of reference, a mentality or historic perspective that colors the whole history of the Civil War and continues to rear it's ugly head even today.
We need to be able to discuss Gettysburg without rancor, just as we discuss BLBH. It doesn't mean that there won't be disagreements of course. I just ask if you read something in this thread or any connected to Gettysburg/ACW that raises your hackles, blood pressure or ire, please take a few minutes, get a drink of water or whatever it takes to give yourself time to think before you post a reply. It is better to take some time and post a well reasoned reply than post in haste and say something you may regret. I also recommend the use of the edit and delete functions to remedy immediate poster's remorse.
If you wish to continue a discussion on the Lost Cause of the Confederacy then may I suggest taking it off board?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 25, 2017 23:36:14 GMT
Greg: The meaning of my statement concerning the Texas Brigade was that the Texas Brigade earned its fame in the Army of Northern Virginia, despite the fact that the unit was not from Virginia. It was in response to Dave's comment about Barksdale's Brigade being overshadowed by the Pickett affair.
With due respect I have no wish to carry on any conversation about the lost cause with anyone at any time, and my true wish is that it never existed, was never discussed, and the nation moved on.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 25, 2017 23:54:03 GMT
Moderator, This war was over, what 151 years ago. Please allow opinions to flow. I would have been a Unionist. My family owned slaves on the eastern shore of Maryland. The family released slaves in the 1830's. A released slave married a woman named Harriet, he was a philanderer, she left him and started the underground railroad. Please check out my name on Diane's board. The family fought for the north, some from southern MD went south. Lost cause is a fact and no amount of correctness can tell us it did not happen. You can Brown board me if you wish.
Regards, Thomas Scott Tubman Son of Richard who's great grandfather released those slaves, look it up. The family opened a school for freed slaves. Harriet's husband helped teach there.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 26, 2017 0:56:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 26, 2017 1:16:23 GMT
Well heck Beth... all I got to say is where is your Waterloo thread?
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 26, 2017 1:23:07 GMT
Beth I don't think anyone is proposing the "Lost Cause" to be brought back but just mentioning the part it played in the American story. I have Confederate ancestors and I am glad the South lost and my father shed his blood in service to the nation. I lived in the last days of "Jim Crow Laws" and I am glad they have been removed and are only a vague memory. I was one of the first classes to be integrated and that was a good thing.
There are a few Southerners who are members of this board who have discussed the War and all aspects of it and I don't see the heart ache discussing history. Their is no angst among members as a far as I know discussing this matter and sure would not propose making this discussion personal. Regards Dave
|
|