GDG- Ewell and the High Ground

Thu Mar 1 22:28:07 CST 2007

Dear Tom - the problem I have with your scenario below is that for 
Stuart to be with Lee in PA changes a whole lot of things. Is Custer 
out at Hanover is Stuart is known to be with Lee, for example? So 
much stuff changes that I think we get ourselves in big trouble to 
predict anything about how July 1 would be different. Chances are 
both Union and confederate Corps are in different positions than they 
are on June 30th is Stuart is doing his job and not riding around the 
AoP. So, everything changes and we can't really predict anything.

Best,

Laurie Schiller

>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
>Hi J.D.,
>
>	The critical point that I look at in measuring the absence of Stuart
>initially is June 29, when, as I understand it, Lee sent scouts out to
>verify the spy Harrison's information he brought on the 28th that Hooker had
>crossed the Potomac and was marching northward through Maryland.
>
>	At the same time on the 29th, Buford was following instructions to move
>from present-day Thurmont to Gettysburg to look for the ANV.  Somehow Lee's
>scouts did not run into Buford's two brigades that presumably should have
>been on a collision path -- one heading northward and the other southward.
>It seems logical that if Stuart had been with Lee at Chambersburg, his units
>would have been out searching for the Union army with a brigade or more
>rather just a few of Lee's scouts, and would have discovered Buford's cav
>heading toward Fairfield and Gettysburg.
>
>	By reporting that fact to Lee, Lee could have hurried Hill's 
>corps on to
>Gettysburg to capture the good ground prior to Buford's arrival.
>
>	Beyond that, we both know how aggressive Stuart was in 
>reconnoitering when
>traveling with the army.  His standard practice was to have guards in the
>advance and rear as well as on the flanks, to smoke out any obstacles in the
>army's path.  Not to mention he often freelanced in the sense of
>anticipating trouble before it happened by sending out scouting parties.
>
>	My sense is that, if he were with Lee on the march into Pennsylvania,
>things would have been a lot different.  Or, if he arrived with Ewell,
>having successfully maneuvered past the Union army in Virgina, things would
>have been a lot different on July 1 as well.  Not to mention that Stuart's
>presence on July 2 would have given Lee more flexibility in getting around
>the Union left flank if he chose to do so.
>
>	These scenarios aside, the point I was trying to make in 
>response to Todd
>was that Lee was dependent on Stuart, even overly so, and Stuart's absence
>made a great difference to the outcome at Gettysburg.  The evidence for this
>being the history of practically every battle fought by Johnston and Lee
>prior to Gettysburg reflects the key role of cavalry in the outcome.  My
>research and instincts tell me that, if Lee had not been denied Stuart's
>support for those seven or eight days in June and July, the outcome of the
>Battle of Gettysburg would have ended  differently.
>
>	Having said that, the credit for Stuart being absent from Gettysburg
>justifiably goes to the Union army and its intelligence assets that kept a
>close watch on the ANV as it marched into Maryland and Pennsylvania, and
>triggered the decision for the movement north of the Potomac that,
>unbeknownst to them, blocked Stuart's ability to pass through the AoP's
>previously stationary position and denied Lee the wherewithal to win the
>upcoming battle.
>
>Regards, Tom
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com
>[mailto:gettysburg-bounces at arthes.com]On Behalf Of J. David Petruzzi
>Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:25 PM
>To: GDG
>Subject: RE: GDG- Ewell and the High Ground
>
>
>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
>Tom Ryan wrote:
>
>>>The stumbling and fumbling that went on regarding Cemetery Hill and Culp's
>Hill was a mere reflection of Stuart's absence.  If he had been with the
>army, undoubtedly Culp's Hill would have been in the hands of the ANV.  As a
>matter of fact, if Stuart had been available, it is even more likely that
>the ANV would have arrived at Gettysburg first, and the situation would have
>been reversed with the ANV on the high ground and the Union army trying to
>decide how to confront this near impregnable position.>>
>
>Hi Tom,
>
>I think you probably know my opinion on this pretty well by now :-)  I'm not
>so sure that the statements above aren't arguable - for instance, we often
>hear that if Stuart were available to Lee on June 30 or July 1, the ANV
>would have taken Gettysburg.  Let's look at that closely.
>
>We have to assume that Stuart would have advanced to Gettysburg with Heth at
>all.  We have to change two events for this to happen, not just one - first,
>of course, Stuart must be available; secondly, and more importantly, Heth
>(or someone higher) would have had to have requested Stuart to accompany
>him.  We know that more than 2 brigades of cavalry were available in spite
>of Stuart's absence, and none were requested - not by Heth, not by Hill, not
>by anyone else.  Not only that, but Heth marched to Gettysburg with his
>artillery in the van - described by him later as not being as "cautious" as
>he could have been.  This is why I always ask folks who make the broad
>contention that "if Stuart were available, there wouldn't have been a
>Gettysburg..." and also why Eric Wittenberg and I make the contention in our
>book that things on July 1 might not have been all that different.  In
>summation, then, you can't change just one variable to put Stuart at
>Gettysburg anytime by early afternoon - you must change TWO.  IMO, changing
>one variable is a "what-if" and having to change two is a fantasy.  We can't
>just have Stuart at
>Chambersburg or Cashtown - we have to change many, many events on the eve of
>June 30/morning of July 1 to get him to Gettysburg at all.
>
>	>>The fact that neither Lee nor Ewell used the cavalry that 
>was available
>to
>them (Jenkins' brigade, White's battalion and the 1st Maryland) to scout the
>ground, however irresponsible on their part, seems to be another reflection
>of how dependent Lee was on Stuart personally for gathering information and
>providing advice on battlefield tactics.>>
>
>
>Exactly, and I can't argue with that - but it also reflects the decisions
>that were made that day, especially by subordinates.  As with what I stated
>above, you have to put Stuart on the ground again - again changing a whole
>host of events that led up to the afternoon of July 1.  We can airdrop
>Stuart and his three "best" brigades down onto the battlefield at various
>times - morning of July 1, afternoon of July 1, morning of July 2 etc.
>etc... but in doing so we can't ignore the multitude of variables that would
>necessitate it.  It's extremely interesting to muse about what effect Stuart
>would have had at various points in time, but in doing so we have to make
>sure we're considering how much of history we'd have to change in order to
>make that happen.  If we knock down one domino on the table, it doesn't just
>fall alone - it knocks down every other one behind it, completely changing
>what you have left.
>
>J.D.
>
>                    ---------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>You may unsubscribe by going to
>http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
>
>You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
>http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
>
>View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at
>http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
>
> 
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>You may unsubscribe by going to 
>http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
>
>You can add yourself to the GDG map at: 
>http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
>
>View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at 
>http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/

-- 
Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller
Maitre d'Armes
Head Fencing Coach
Department of History
Northwestern University
Commissioner, Midwest Fencing Conference
Midwest VP, US Fencing Coaches' Association
Vice-Chair USFA Illinois Division
Lds307 at northwestern.edu
847-491-4654
FAX 847-467-1406
Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/
Student web site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/