Gettysburg 160

HarrisburgDave

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2021
934
1,351
93


These guys are doing a great series on YouTube. If you have followed the PCN Gettysburg coverage you will recognize many of the people.

Interesting fact: Appomattox was closer in time to Pearl Harbor than the signing of the Japanese surrender on the battleship Missouri was to today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNit and s1uggo72

J.E.B

Well-known member
Oct 30, 2021
1,687
2,251
113
Unfortunately there never is. Most people know very little about one of the most significant moments in American history. It was all on the line. And to have fought over the July 1-3 dates with the Rebs in full retreat on 7/4 is not just ironic. Never got too caught up in military movements or strategy. The stories that I find most fascinating is pre and post… the threat on Harrisburg, Wrightsville, and what the poor town of Gettysburg had to endure during the cleanup.
 

HarrisburgDave

Well-known member
Oct 29, 2021
934
1,351
93
The stories that I find most fascinating is pre and post… the threat on Harrisburg, Wrightsville, and what the poor town of Gettysburg had to endure during the cleanup.
I once asked the great Scott Hartwig what he thought about the impact of the burning of the Wrightsville bridge. I was surprised he thought it was of no great impact.

I wonder what would have happened if the bridge was taken and Lee was able to cross his army to the east bank of the Susquehanna? From there Harrisburg and Philadelphia would have been Lees for the taking. War over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bohucon and J.E.B

J.E.B

Well-known member
Oct 30, 2021
1,687
2,251
113
Anything that happened on the West Bank of the Susquehanna was important because it delayed/prevented Lees forces from crossing.

Had they crossed and occupied HBG, for instance, the war may have ended because the northern voters would have been horrified of Lincoln’s failure to protect a major hub of commerce at that time.

The Union forces would have gone to Hbg as would have the Rebs because that was their objective to begin with. Gettysburg may never have happened!

The resistance in Camp Hill, Carlisle, and Wrightsville sent rebel forces scurrying quickly to Gettysburg to defend rebels there.

Stuart was looking for those detachments delaying his arrival. Think how he would have impacted the outcome had he found them!

It all had an impact. Every move in war forces another so it’s all linked.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbrown and bohucon

s1uggo72

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
5,614
4,402
113
Anything that happened on the West Bank of the Susquehanna was important because it delayed/prevented Lees forces from crossing.

Had they crossed and occupied HBG, for instance, the war may have ended because the northern voters would have been horrified of Lincoln’s failure to protect a major hub of commerce at that time.

The Union forces would have gone to Hbg as would have the Rebs because that was their objective to begin with. Gettysburg may never have happened!

The resistance in Camp Hill, Carlisle, and Wrightsville sent rebel forces scurrying quickly to Gettysburg to defend rebels there.

Stuart was looking for those detachments delaying his arrival. Think how he would have impacted the outcome had he found them!

It all had an impact. Every move in war forces another so it’s all linked.
They scurried to Gettysburg to go to Ernie’s Texas lunch….,
 

bohucon

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2021
2,131
5,960
113
They scurried to Gettysburg to go to Ernie’s Texas lunch….,
Drive 13 miles east to Hanover and try the Famous's Hot Weiners.....the best.!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DELion and s1uggo72

razpsu

Well-known member
Oct 19, 2021
8,090
10,329
113
Unfortunately there never is. Most people know very little about one of the most significant moments in American history. It was all on the line. And to have fought over the July 1-3 dates with the Rebs in full retreat on 7/4 is not just ironic. Never got too caught up in military movements or strategy. The stories that I find most fascinating is pre and post… the threat on Harrisburg, Wrightsville, and what the poor town of Gettysburg had to endure during the cleanup.
I posted today in history on the 1st and 2nd.
 

J.E.B

Well-known member
Oct 30, 2021
1,687
2,251
113
I posted today in history on the 1st and 2nd.
The story of the confederate retreat, the length of the “train”, carrying the wounded, in torrential rains, and the Union let them out.

They could have ended the war right there.

That was the biggest and costliest blunder of the war! Why did the union let Lee escape?
 

Nitt1300

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
5,121
9,726
113
The story of the confederate retreat, the length of the “train”, carrying the wounded, in torrential rains, and the Union let them out.

They could have ended the war right there.

That was the biggest and costliest blunder of the war! Why did the union let Lee escape?
Grant would never have let it happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pioneerlion83

razpsu

Well-known member
Oct 19, 2021
8,090
10,329
113
Because the days of capturing an army in history were over due to battle. Grant knew this and politicians didn’t. and when grant was finally put In charge he knew that he had the manpower to strangle the south and not just defeat it at once after a battle. Eventually he boxed lee in after terrible carnage for months costing the north 60k lives. After 9 months lees army like vickburg pembertons army was strung out, decimated and worn out. Lincoln to his credit after the first two months of carnage let grant continue his campaign!
IMG_6943.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU87

bohucon

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2021
2,131
5,960
113


These guys are doing a great series on YouTube. If you have followed the PCN Gettysburg coverage you will recognize many of the people.

Interesting fact: Appomattox was closer in time to Pearl Harbor than the signing of the Japanese surrender on the battleship Missouri was to today.

Used to do Civil War reenactments and Gettysburg was always the big one. It was always hot as hell and we were always in our wool with our shirts buttoned at the cuffs. Water was a necessity and more than one reenactor was taken off because of the heat. Looking back I am glad I did it, with my son btw, and it was a real life experience when participating it in.

It brings back a lot of good memories with my fellow reenactors and I celebrate the day, but it was brutal.
 

razpsu

Well-known member
Oct 19, 2021
8,090
10,329
113
Used to do Civil War reenactments and Gettysburg was always the big one. It was always hot as hell and we were always in our wool with our shirts buttoned at the cuffs. Water was a necessity and more than one reenactor was taken off because of the heat. Looking back I am glad I did it, with my son btw, and it was a real life experience when participating it in.

It brings back a lot of good memories with my fellow reenactors and I celebrate the day, but it was brutal.
I never did it but I’ve been to at least 10. The camps are the coolest. I do not know how you wore those wool coats. I’ve taken my girls to many so they are well versed both civil war and revolution
 
  • Like
Reactions: bohucon

bohucon

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2021
2,131
5,960
113
I never did it but I’ve been to at least 10. The camps are the coolest. I do not know how you wore those wool coats. I’ve taken my girls to many so they are well versed both civil war and revolution
Yes the camps are very good and we taught a lot of living history during the days and evenings when we did those reenactments.
 

razpsu

Well-known member
Oct 19, 2021
8,090
10,329
113
Yes the camps are very good and we taught a lot of living history during the days and evenings when we did those reenactments.
I had the girls run across burnside bridge at Antietam actually they did it on their own which was funny, when they were little wearing their blue kepis and they wore grey at Gettysburg. I’m from pa and my mothers side is from Texas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bohucon

PSU87

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
1,698
3,472
113
The story of the confederate retreat, the length of the “train”, carrying the wounded, in torrential rains, and the Union let them out.

They could have ended the war right there.

That was the biggest and costliest blunder of the war! Why did the union let Lee escape?
It was actually a theme throughout the Civil War, and not unique to the battle of Gettysburg. A few reasons for it....

Even the victors in most battles were beaten down and exhausted, and many times the victors suffered almost as many casualties as the losers.
Gettysburg may have been a decisive victory, but the casualty totals were 28,000 Confederate and 23,000 Union. Chancellorsville, a decided Confederate victory... 17,000 Union, 13,000 Confederate. Antietam was probably the North's best chance to end the war in a single day and they blew it. It was considered a Union victory, but casualty totals: 12,000 Union, 10,000 Confederate. The victories simply were not one sided enough where one army then simply routed or cleaned up the other.
Contrast that to Austerlitz, considered one of Napoleon's best battles: French casualties about 8000 while the coalition forces lost about 27,000 killed, wounded or captured. A lot more decisive than most Civil War battles
So when you think about a battle like Gettysburg, where it is considered a fairly decisive Union victory, the Union army was not in much better shape than the Confederate. When you think about repulsing Pickett's charge, remember that the battles on the 1st and 2nd at places like Culp's Hill and Little Round Top were very near things.

When someone says, "Grant would have pursued"... well.....after his victory at Chattanooga, the Federal's attacked at Ringgold Gap, got beat and Grant gave up the pursuit.
The only example I can think of in the Civil War where one army simply wiped the other out was the Battle of Nashville, where the Union effectively ended the war in Tennessee. But that example was primarily the result of the stubbornness of John Bell Hood, who pursued the Federals to Nashville after losing the Battle Of Franklin fairly badly.

Unlike in the Napoleonic Wars, the cavalry arm of both armies was weak. Despite the heroic exploits of the Stuarts, Bufords, etc, there was no true heavy cavalry in the US that could ride down a retreating enemy and decimate them. Cavalry in the Civil War armies was used more for scouting and raiding. Therefore, you were for the most part pursuing a retreating enemy with your own tired, worn out infantry. It simply was not a recipe for removal of an enemy army from the field.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bohucon

razpsu

Well-known member
Oct 19, 2021
8,090
10,329
113
It was actually a theme throughout the Civil War, and not unique to the battle of Gettysburg. A few reasons for it....

Even the victors in most battles were beaten down and exhausted, and many times the victors suffered almost as many casualties as the losers.
Gettysburg may have been a decisive victory, but the casualty totals were 28,000 Confederate and 23,000 Union. Chancellorsville, a decided Confederate victory... 17,000 Union, 13,000 Confederate. Antietam was probably the North's best chance to end the war in a single day and they blew it. It was considered a Union victory, but casualty totals: 12,000 Union, 10,000 Confederate. The victories simply were not one sided enough where one army then simply routed or cleaned up the other.
Contrast that to Austerlitz, considered one of Napoleon's best battles: French casualties about 8000 while the coalition forces lost about 27,000 killed, wounded or captured. A lot more decisive than most Civil War battles
So when you think about a battle like Gettysburg, where it is considered a fairly decisive Union victory, the Union army was not in much better shape than the Confederate. When you think about repulsing Pickett's charge, remember that the battles on the 1st and 2nd at places like Culp's Hill and Little Round Top were very near things.

When someone says, "Grant would have pursued"... well.....after his victory at Chattanooga, the Federal's attacked at Ringgold Gap, got beat and Grant gave up the pursuit.
The only example I can think of in the Civil War where one army simply wiped the other out was the Battle of Nashville, where the Union effectively ended the war in Tennessee. But that example was primarily the result of the stubbornness of John Bell Hood, who pursued the Federals to Nashville after losing the Battle Of Franklin fairly badly.

Unlike in the Napoleonic Wars, the cavalry arm of both armies was weak. Despite the heroic exploits of the Stuarts, Bufords, etc, there was no true heavy cavalry in the US that could ride down a retreating enemy and decimate them. Cavalry in the Civil War armies was used more for scouting and raiding. Therefore, you were for the most part pursuing a retreating enemy with your own tired, worn out infantry. It simply was not a recipe for removal of an enemy army from the field.
Well stated. I would add that Both calvaries at Gettysburg were shattered or exhausted as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSU87

DaytonRickster

Well-known member
Oct 25, 2021
867
982
93
It was actually a theme throughout the Civil War, and not unique to the battle of Gettysburg. A few reasons for it....

Even the victors in most battles were beaten down and exhausted, and many times the victors suffered almost as many casualties as the losers.
Gettysburg may have been a decisive victory, but the casualty totals were 28,000 Confederate and 23,000 Union. Chancellorsville, a decided Confederate victory... 17,000 Union, 13,000 Confederate. Antietam was probably the North's best chance to end the war in a single day and they blew it. It was considered a Union victory, but casualty totals: 12,000 Union, 10,000 Confederate. The victories simply were not one sided enough where one army then simply routed or cleaned up the other.
Contrast that to Austerlitz, considered one of Napoleon's best battles: French casualties about 8000 while the coalition forces lost about 27,000 killed, wounded or captured. A lot more decisive than most Civil War battles
So when you think about a battle like Gettysburg, where it is considered a fairly decisive Union victory, the Union army was not in much better shape than the Confederate. When you think about repulsing Pickett's charge, remember that the battles on the 1st and 2nd at places like Culp's Hill and Little Round Top were very near things.

When someone says, "Grant would have pursued"... well.....after his victory at Chattanooga, the Federal's attacked at Ringgold Gap, got beat and Grant gave up the pursuit.
The only example I can think of in the Civil War where one army simply wiped the other out was the Battle of Nashville, where the Union effectively ended the war in Tennessee. But that example was primarily the result of the stubbornness of John Bell Hood, who pursued the Federals to Nashville after losing the Battle Of Franklin fairly badly.

Unlike in the Napoleonic Wars, the cavalry arm of both armies was weak. Despite the heroic exploits of the Stuarts, Bufords, etc, there was no true heavy cavalry in the US that could ride down a retreating enemy and decimate them. Cavalry in the Civil War armies was used more for scouting and raiding. Therefore, you were for the most part pursuing a retreating enemy with your own tired, worn out infantry. It simply was not a recipe for removal of an enemy army from the field.
Appreciate that insight.
 

Georgia Peach

Active member
Oct 28, 2021
249
406
63
Drive 13 miles east to Hanover and try the Famous's Hot Weiners.....the best.!!!!!
Even better, get there for breakfast and try the "egg sandwich with everything", which includes onions, mustard and a very mild chili. Yummy.
 

WanderingSpectator

Well-known member
Oct 12, 2021
478
832
93
I’m researching my Great Great Grandfather’s movements during the War. He did three tours from 1861-1865.

It’s fascinating to me to be able to retrace his steps and add stories that add context to his time in service.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeLion and PSU87
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login