To Conquer a Peace? Lee's Goals in the Gettysburg Campaign (Was Lee looking for a final battle?)

Civil War Times Illustrated, March-April 2007 Issue, pages 26-33 | March-April 2007 | James M. McPherson

[OrioleFan]

This essay is an excerpt from James M. McPherson's upcoming book This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War, to be published by Oxford University Press, copyright 2007 by James M. McPherson.

I found this magazine in an out of the way book and magazines store yesterday. The article was a teriffic read. It outlined General Lee's goals for the Pennsylvania campaign. His primary goal was to influence the congressional elections in favor of Democrats who would force an early termination and recognition of Southern independence.

[mainepatsfan]

Northern public plunged to rock bottom in the early months of 1863 ...

Thank you Joe Hooker.

[theDentist]

Antiwar Democrats in the North – self-described as Peace Democrats but branded by Republicans as treasonable Copperheads...

Now we just call 'em Cut 'n Runners.

[BuffaloJack]

If you truly want to experience the history as it happened. There are many archives on line where you can read Civil war vintage news articles. What is especially interesting is reading about a battle or campaign and reading it as printed in a Rebel newpaper and then reading the same thing printed in a Yankee newspaper. It's amazing how different they are. It's also eye opening to read today's revisionist (PC) version. A good source (for those interested) is Civilweek.com. The site has excellent resources but appears not to have been updated in several years. If you want a particular week in the war you have to walk back from the last page to the first.

[dakine]

Yankees Win!!..Theeeeeeee Yankees win!

John Sterling...

[XRdsRev]

The morale problem in the Army of the Potomac in early 1863 didn't have a whole lot to do with Hooker. It was more a result of the disaster at Fredericksburg followed closely by the fiasco of the "Mud March".

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Democrats never seem to change. One of the things I most hold against the Democrats/Confederates of that day was that they were perfectly happy with the prospect of inducing foreign powers (England and France) to act against their fellow Americans for the furtherance of their rebellion.

Likewise, there is an element in today's Democratic party that shows more sympathy for the enemies of America just because those enemies are also enemies of GOP principles just as they were in 1863.

[mainepatsfan]

No doubt and Hooker did do a good job of rebuilding their spirits. Then came yet another defeat for the army.

[stainlessbanner]

Dixie Ping

[Jewels1091]

history is repeating itself with different players

[Irontank]

His primary goal was to influence the congressional elections in favor of Democrats who would force an early termination and recognition of Southern independence

Shame it didn't happen...a destroyed South, 600,000 dead Americans and 1 dead Constitution...all to force 11 southern states to submit to rule from Washington...real role model that Lincoln was...for other dictatorial consolidators of power and enemies of federalism...Bismarck...Lenin...and Hitler...that is why the MSM and the leftist public schools celebrate Lincoln

The individual states of the American Union could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. Certainly all the states in the world are moving toward a certain unification in their inner organization. And in this Germany will be no exception. Today it is an absurdity to speak of a ‘state sovereignty’ of individual provinces....In particular we cannot grant to any individual state within the nation and the state representing it state sovereignty and sovereignty in point of political power....National Socialism as a matter of principle, must lay claim to the right to force its principles on the whole German nation without consideration of previous federated state boundaries.
--Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

[mainepatsfan]

It's interesting how historians clearly see how the media was biased in the past and yet modern journalists claim they are completely objective.

[PzLdr]

I disagree. To me, Lee's purpose in going to Pennsylvania was to short circuit the operational concept bandied about in Richmond of sending Lee, and two Corps of the Army of Northern Virginia, to Tennessee to help Bragg [ a variation of which, after Gettysburg, saw Longstreet's Ist Corps go.]. Why else would a general with a newly reorganized army [three Infantry Corps instead of two, with two Corps commanders who had never commanded units of that size] be in such a hurry to move north?

If Lee was looking for a final battle, his operations in Pennsylvania certainly didn't show it. Lee was conducting a RAID, the purpose of which was to acquire provender and other supplies from Northern farmers and manufacturers, deprive the northern troops of those supplies, and take the pressure off northern Virginia's agricultural areas for the campaigning season. That's why his Army was stretched in an arc from Carlisle back to the Valley.They were not capable of immediate support. He had no idea where the Army of the Potomac was [and that wasn't all Stuart's fault. He left Lee with two brigades of cavalry].

When the battle started, Longstreet's Corps' rear elements were a day's march away. It took Ewell hours to get to the battlefield. Gettysburg was a meeting engagement that grew into something else. But it started with one division of one Corps, and but for Ewell's alacrity, would have ended very badly for Lee on Day 1.

[mainepatsfan]

I think Lee was taken by complete surprise how quickly the Army of the Potomac was on his heals.

[Gunslingr3]

One of the things I most hold against the Democrats/Confederates of that day was that they were perfectly happy with the prospect of inducing foreign powers (England and France) to act against their fellow Americans for the furtherance of their rebellion.

Do you hold it against the Founders that they induced France to act against their fellow Englishman for the furtherance of their rebellion?

The bid for Southern Independence was a bid for limited federal government. The last attempt to keep the consolidation of power from continuing in Washington, D.C. We have seen what that failure wrought - trillions in debt and the federal government recognizing no limit to its powers.

They tried to stop Leviathan before it grew too entrenched. They were crushed for their temerity, their homes and property torched to compel fealty to the politicians in Washington, D.C., and our liberties are the victim.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

It was the Slave Empire that destroyed the South to protect their degenerate human bondgage based society.

And what you call "submission to Washington" was a much better prospect than submission to Richmond and Slavery Inc.

"We can never live in a Southern Confederacy, and be made hewers of wood and drawers of water for a set of aristocrats"— William Brownlow, Knoxville Whig

[reg45]

Now we just call 'em Cut 'n Runners.

Perhaps we should change that to Neo-Copperheads.

[Colonel Kangaroo]

Before one credits the rebellion with an effort to stop leviathan, I think an examination of the behavior of the CSA in it's short history is helpful. If one faults the triumph of the North for what the federal government later became over 145 years, I think that one must acknowledge that the heavy-handed Richmond regime had even more oppressive potential had it only survived.

[stainlessbanner]

One comment on the raids, Lee never sought to occupy or conquer, I believe the intent was to gain recognition of soveriengty for the Southern states.

[mkjessup]

Here ya go, this fell off the front bumper of your pickup truck: