Lee was not feeling well physically. Stuart wasn't there on the first and second day to provide reconnaissance. The “expert” and back-stabber Longstreet deliberately tried to sabotage Lee's plans.
Also, Custer was where Lee didn't know he was - behind the Union Lines - and the attempt on the third day to break the Union Lines would have gone off like a charm had Stuart
not been delayed by Custer. Lee planned to have Pickett and his unit hit the front of the Union Lines at the same time and place that Stuart was supposed to hit them from the rear, then roll them up on the flanks. It was a good plan and would have probably worked had the luck of the draw not stopped it.
The fact is, Union generalship left a lot to be desired and Lee was a pretty crafty and able commander. The fact that it took so many years for a part of the Country with so many more men and so much more industry and total control of the seas to defeat the South indicates where the real military talents lay. And had Lee not decided to surrender at Gettysburg and save both the North and South and their civilian populations the cost of a long an uncertain guerrilla war, fighting may have gone until the 20th century.
And you can compare the way Lee treated northern civilians to the way that savage Sheridan and that other Savage Sherman treated the southern population to see who the real primitives were.
Sheridan and Sherman set the ground rules for the horrors of the Boer War, WW1, WW2 and all successive wars which involved attacks on civilian populations as a deliberate matter of policy.
By the way, I'm not a southerner.
Of course, I’ve heard many stories about Lee. By all accounts not only was a good general, he was a great man. The story that impressed me most, we heard at Appomatix Courthouse by the park ranger. When Lee rode down the road to the house to surrender to Grant, the union soldiers lined the road as a sign of respect.
The 15th Alabama fought very bravely, making uphill attacks against a well-ensconced enemy.
It was a very near thing and could easily have gone the other way.
Lee was not feeling well physically.
He was feeling worse at Chancellorsville and that didn't stop him.
Stuart wasn't there on the first and second day to provide reconnaissance.
Lee was his commander and Stuart's foibles were well-known to him.
The “expert” and back-stabber Longstreet deliberately tried to sabotage Lee's plans.
An unsubstantiated Lost Cause slander designed to make Lee appear the perfect and blameless hero and Longstreet the Judas goat.
Also, Custer was where Lee didn't know he was - behind the Union Lines - and the attempt on the third day to break the Union Lines would have gone off like a charm had Stuart not been delayed by Custer.
Custer was on the extreme Union right to the east of Culp's Hill and not behind Union lines southwest of Culp's Hill.
Stuart was not delayed by Custer, he was defeated by Custer. He was delayed by himself and his own vanity. Stuart had one job to do at Gettysburg after his belated arrival, and he failed utterly.
Lee planned to have Pickett and his unit hit the front of the Union Lines at the same time and place that Stuart was supposed to hit them from the rear, then roll them up on the flanks. It was a good plan and would have probably worked had the luck of the draw not stopped it.
It was not the luck of the draw. Lee made the assumption that Union cavalry would repeat the errors made by McClellan at Antietam (holding his cavalry completely in reserve) or Hooker at Chancellorsville (sending the bulk of his cavalry far behind enemy lines). Instead, Lee duplicated Hooker's Chancellorsville error - ensuring that he would not have adequate intelligence - and Meade intelligently used his cavalry on the Third Day to protect his flanks to avoid being rolled up.
The fact is, Union generalship left a lot to be desired and Lee was a pretty crafty and able commander.
But Lee was human and made mistakes - and his mistakes at Gettysburg cost him the battle. If he can take credit for Longstreet's masterly performance at Antietam and Stuart's brilliant performance at Chancellorsville, then he take blame for their failings at Gettysburg.
The fact that it took so many years for a part of the Country with so many more men and so much more industry and total control of the seas to defeat the South indicates where the real military talents lay.
The South had better generals from 1861-1864, no question.
And had Lee not decided to surrender at Gettysburg and save both the North and South and their civilian populations the cost of a long an uncertain guerrilla war, fighting may have gone until the 20th century.
Lee did not surrender at Gettysburg. Perhaps you are thinking of Appomattox Courthouse. There was a guerrilla war both before and after Lee surrendered. The guerrilla war was crushed handily.
And you can compare the way Lee treated northern civilians to the way that savage Sheridan and that other Savage Sherman treated the southern population to see who the real primitives were.
Popular myths, but Sherman and Sheridan did in GA and VA exactly what Early and Stuart did in MD and PA.
Sheridan and Sherman set the ground rules for the horrors of the Boer War, WW1, WW2 and all successive wars which involved attacks on civilian populations as a deliberate matter of policy.
More myths.
Attacks on civilians were never a matter of policy in the Boer War, WWI or WWII.
And Sherman and Sheridan did not attack civilians - they requisitioned what they needed from civilians and destroyed militarily significant rail links, storage facilities and buildings. They did not gather Southern civilians into camps as the British did with the Boers.
And if anyone was a precursor to the military doctrine of WWI it was Lee, with his thorough entrenchment of Petersburg.
By the way, I'm not a southerner.
Neither was Clement Vallandigham.
The fact is, so did confederate.
And had Lee not decided to surrender at Gettysburg and save both the North and South and their civilian populations the cost of a long an uncertain guerrilla war, fighting may have gone until the 20th century.
Hardly. Lee considered the idea and immediately dropped it because he knew that any guerilla war would hit the Southern population the hardest. As he explained to Porter Alexander, who had advocated such a plan, "We must consider its effect on the country as a whole. Already it is demoralized by the four years of war. If I took your advice, the men would be without rations and under no control of officers. They would be compelled to rob and steal in order to live. They would become mere bands of marauders, and the enemy's cavalry would pursue them and overrun many sections they may never have occasion to visit. We would bring on a state of affairs it would take the country years to recover from." Any such campaign would have been brief, destructive, and would have left the South even more devestated than it was. And Lee knew that.
And you can compare the way Lee treated northern civilians to the way that savage Sheridan and that other Savage Sherman treated the southern population to see who the real primitives were.
You might want to look into that. The confederate treatment of Union civilians during their campaigns in the North wasn't a whole lot different than what you complain about Northern soldiers doing. In fact, the treatment of Southern civilains by the confederate army wasn't a whole lot different than what you complain about Northern soldiers doing.