GDG- Re: why not blame a well led Union Army

[DShultz180 at aol.com]

> <<Lee told Jefferson Davis that Harvey Hill was a good division commander 
> but was not an independent thinker nor could he handleanything larger than a 
> division.>>
> 
Been reading lots of queries and questions concerning Confederate generalship 
at GB July Second. Why not start July 1? June 30? Lots of mistakes made by 
many of Lee's subordinates all three days ... far to many to blame any-one 
officer. Instead of looking at CSA mistakes why not visualize a well led Union Army 
successfully countering Lee's every move (well, most of em-anyway), whether 
it be that of Hill, Hood, Longstreet, Johnston, Ewell, Anderson, etc.   Oh-yea 
... Stuart too. 

What could, would or may, have been was not a factor. The CSA was whipped in 
every aspect at GB beginning with simple logistics. July 2 was no exception. 
The day began early with a reconnoiter. The Union recon was superb. Meade 
personally led the group made up by extremely knowledgeable officers mostly 
engineers and artillerists. The Confederate recon was led by Lee's chief of artillery 
accompanied by Capt. Johnston and a couple other young engineers, whose names 
I have but cannot recall. That recon was well planned and completed. 
Pendelton did exactly as ordered and found the Union left. Unfortunately 
communication, and the skills handled by Meade's subordinates, was not the same in the CSA 
as that of the USA.   Oh-yea ... Meade sent Hunt on two more rides between 
5:00 and 10:00 AM to be sure. Hunt's last ride entrenched the hunch that an 
attack from the west of immanent.   I cannot understand why do much blame be heaped 
upon CSA generals July 2 especially after one considers whom they were up 
against. Whatever we think of Sickles .... he was no pushover!

Regards,

Dave S.

> 
>