I think that striking at the center of the Union line was the only viable option left for Lee. He had struck on both flanks and came up with nothing.
But at the same time, it was not much of an option. He had to send his troops across an large open field where they’d be subject to artillery fire and then when closer, rifle fire.
The next question to ask is “What if Lee had made a clean and solid break in the Union line?” He didn’t have the troops to exploit that opening. Maybe he was counting (or hoping) that the Union army would not be able to mount a counter-attack due to the confusion.
Maybe Lee launched the attack because it would have been unfeasible for him to disengage and head back to Virginia. Maybe he trusted his troops too much. After all, they had rarely failed him in combat.
Who knows? But it’s all very interesting to consider the possibilities.
But they attacked anyway.
Kind of reminds me of the charges at Fredickburg by Union forces. I believe Joshua Chamberlain was in that battle too.
Lee was smart enough to knew that winning was a long shot against the North (who had more of everything) and that in order to succeed he had to take some long shots. This was a long shot, one that missed.
Recall also that the plan included a long cannonade of the Union line which was supposed to wreak havoc on the part of the line that Pickett was headed for.
The cannonade over shot the target and the plan fell apart.
It's also worth noting, however, that Lee knew what the outcome of troops moving over open field to attack an entrenched position was, not only from watching the results on the Union army at Fredericksburg, but also from his debacle at Malvern Hill, where his own Rebel infantry charged emplaced guns over an open field. Lunacy.
I should have qualified that by adding: "Except for a superior field Commanders at the begining of the war"