Email not received:
Hey Ben, let's play the "empathy" game, you know, put yourself in some other guy's shoes!
Response not sent:
Ok!
Put yourself in this guy's shoes: You are the head of a new breakaway nation. You have been fighting for survival for two years against the invasions of the clearly more formidable, though not omnipotent, enemy on whom you have had the advantage of fighting on the defensive. Your military has won five major battles and has become a wonder of the world but its success has come at a disproportionate cost because you have fewer resources, personnel and materiel. Foreign intervention on your side would be a splendid thing. Comes now your star general who proposes to you an invasion of the country you broke away from. What say ye?
Put down your crack pipe you jackanapes. Would have been my initial, instant, response.
Jefferson Davis and his cabinet were awed. And thus Robert E. Lee's Gettysburg Campaign commenced.
I anonymized the question because we all know how the Battle of Gettysburg turned out and you know what they say about that hindsight thing. Those are substantially all of the facts of the situation though. Now that the cat is out of the bag we may add that Grant was besieging Vicksburg (which would shortly succumb to the siege) at the same time; that another of Lee's "selling points" was that he would destroy the Army of the Potomac (which was not the same as defeating the entire United States military given the inconvenience of Grant being in Mississippi); that Lee's proposal left Richmond completely uncovered; that Lee believed a successful invasion would demoralize the U.S. at worst and cause the government in Washington, D.C. to flee at best; that the audacity of invading the U.S. would lead to foreign recognition of the C.S.A.;and that Lee and Davis desperately wanted to drive the United States the hell out of the Shenandoah Valley on which their invaders had feasted and stripped pretty clean through two years of war. Still.
No and hell no. Would have been my response (given the unavailability of crack cocaine).
What were they thinking? British recognition was a plausible hope of the C.S.A. and fear of the U.S.A.(1) Presumably it would have led to intervention, to breaking the U.S. blockade of the Confederacy which would have enabled the sale of cotton and the purchase of arms, of which the rebels were in desperate need.
Putting ourselves in Davis' shoes we would have asked the following questions of Lee:
Q: What would victory look like in this proposal?
A: Independence.
Q: Tell us about each link in the chain leading to independence, what is the first link, the first thing you envision happening from your proposal to invade Pennsylvania for us to win independence?
A: My men would whip them as they have whipped them so many times before...
Q: ...We were fighting on the defensive before, though. Is not whipping them easier on the defensive than on the offensive?
A: It is. We invaded Pennsylvania earlier and were successful. My men will do it again. They can do anything.(2)
Q: The previous "invasion" was a raid, though, you contemplate no mere raid, correct?
A: That is correct. I contemplate an invasion of my entire army.
Q: A raid is a hit-and-run, you contemplate a full invasion, going on the offensive against an enemy army fighting on the defensive?
A: I do.
Q: Have we had much experience at that?
A: We have not.
Q: Do you believe the North have more men at arms and more arms than have we?
A: Clearly. However, we have a greater fighting spirit.
Q: I acknowledge we do, General Lee.
A: And that greater fighting spirit will overcome the shortages we face.
Q: Even on the offensive?
A: Even on the offensive.
Q: All right. Continue. We whip the Army of the Potomac. Would that result in our independence?
A: Yes, the North would be thoroughly demoralized, the Republicans would be finished and perhaps their government would have to flee.
Q: So then military victory would not gain us ultimate victory, independence, independence is conditioned upon political consequences to your military victory, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Obviously your military victory is necessary to achieve independence, I do understand that, General Lee.
A: Yes.
Q: But it is not sufficient, there are these political conditions.
A: Yes sir.
Q: What of defeat?
A: Our military defeat, which I consider unlikely in the extreme, would not end the war either. We will fight on.
Q: General Lee, if you are "whipped," thoroughly beaten, your army effectively destroyed--killed, wounded, captured--the end of the war would be near at hand indeed, would it not?
A: It would. I understand the position we are in in Vicksburg and my men are the main military arm of our cause.
Q: All right. We achieve military victory and the next link is political then, which do you envision leading to independence?
A: Britain at least recognizes us, breaking the blockade, we get money and arms, the Peace Democrats win the presidency in 1864 and we have independence.
Q: Wait, one link at a time please. Is your proposal's success then, is your definition of victory then, that Britain recognize us--after the military victory, of course?(3)
A: Yes, and breaks the blockade, giving us the resources we need.
Q: So if the British do not recognize us upon your triumphant invasion, your proposal will have failed?
A: It would be a great blow. However the invasion would still lead to the end of the Republican government.
Q: Wait...would British non-recognition, meaning no break of the blockade and no trade mean that your proposal would fail, even if you and your men drove the Yankees flying?
A: It would prolong the war, there is no doubt of that but I feel that a successful invasion would end Republican government.
Q: In 1864, correct?
A: Unionism would be thoroughly discredited, we would have the upper hands in negotiating our independence.
Q: Perhaps Lincoln would negotiate independence?
A: Correct.
Q: And if that didn't happen we would have to await the 1864 presidential election, I see.
A: Yes,the Republicans maintaining control of the government would mean the prolongation of the war certainly, but then we would be fighting a substantially weakened enemy. Too, we would be strengthened by not having the Yankees marauding in the Shenandoah Valley and feeding themselves at our expense.
Q: That is indisputable. Getting those people out of our country would allow us to feed ourselves and you would be able to feed your army on the Pennsylvania farmland.
A: Yes.
Q: If the Republicans win reelection?
A: That would prolong the war.
Q: If we win on the battlefield we could hold out, but if we lose your army we agree that the war would not be prolonged, we could be defeated promptly?
A: Yes, if we lose and if I lose my army.
Q: Risky.
A: Yes.
Q: All right. You being in Pennsylvania means also that Virginia and Richmond would be defenseless though, correct?
A: Yes, temporarily, I do not envision this campaign to be lengthy.
Q: Then what do you intend it to be General Lee? (4) A raid is a quick thing, an invasion is not, sir. Do you intend the defeat of the entire U.S. military? (5) Then what of Grant in Mississippi and Rosencrans in Tennessee? Do you intend to pursue Lincoln and his government and capture them? That is an invasion. That is what Lincoln and his government want to do to us. Do you plan to occupy Washington? That is what Lincoln intends with Richmond.(6) Do you intend to seize and hold that part of Pennsylvania which you invade? (7) That is what they are doing to us now. If you do not intend any of those things General, then how is this an invasion and not a...big raid with our entire goddamned army, leaving Richmond exposed, leaving Grant in Vicksburg and dependent for its success on the contingencies of your army's whipping the enemy on the offensive for the first time AND the British recognizing us and able to break the blockade that we have been unable to break AND Lincoln being defeated next year.
I had read several times in the various histories of the Civil War that the C.S.A. had come "so close" to victory at Gettysburg that I began to wonder what "victory" would have been. The answers above truly are the things Lee said and I incorporated all of them in this hypothetical meeting. The answers are insufficient. There is no answer to that last summation question so I did not provide one. Davis never asked, he was simply "awed." Lee's Gettysburg Campaign was a disaster from conception to execution.(8)
1. Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson pp 389-391 (1861); 387-388, 546-557 (1862); 650-651 (1863), France, 682-683 (1863).
2. According to the historical record this is what Lee said to doubters. He believed his men invincible.
3. "...recognition by England was very unlikely..." http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a266793.pdf
"Very unlikely:" I think McPherson supra would agree with that, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, especially with 20-20 hindsight, but I think both, and all other historians, would also agree that it was not irrational, not with the British government's previous statements and actions and not after Chancellorsville in May 1863 immediately preceding the Gettysburg Campaign. McPherson devotes chapter 18, "John Bull's Virginia Reel" to the back and forth of this.
4. "Davis' approval of Lee's plan for an offensive operation was not without some reservation. This is where the first questions concerning Lee's intent begin to surface. Davis wrote to General Lee on 31 May stating that he never fully comprehended Lee's view or purpose for the movement...A review of the literature and the records available also indicates that General Lee may not have clearly defined his ultimate intentions to himself. Correspondence and reports of conversations seem to point to two different sets of intentions." (emphasis added) Ditto.
5. "Lee also conveyed another view in a few conversations; in retrospect his actions seem to reveal an alternative underlying intention. That intention was to engage the Army of the Potomac at the first practical opportunity and defeat it in a decisive battle." (emphasis added) ditto
6. General Hooker in fact proposed to Lincoln that if the rebels came north to Washington that he take Richmond. Lincoln then removed Hooker from command and replaced him with General Meade. Hooker's proposal would have been similar to what the Russians did when Napoleon invaded. Independently as Tolstoy describes it the Russian people and the Russian army both simply abandoned Moscow. Imagine Nappy's disappointment upon arrival! It completely demoralized Napoleon and extended his supply lines so far that he was forced to retreat with the Russian guerrillas nipping at his heels all the way back. Napoleon had successfully invaded Russia, had captured Moscow and had lost.
7. "One view,supported by most of [Lee's] official correspondence, points to the intention of
staying in Pennsylvania as long as possible to maximize the effect of operating outside of
Virginia. This view also implies his desire to avoid major combat as long as possible, only
accepting battle when forced...It is important to note that, if this was his true intention, he
would have had to stay in Pennsylvania at least through August, if not longer, in order to
allow Virginian farmers to harvest their crops. " (emphasis added) Ditto.
8. "The above evidence supports the idea that Lee did not have an ultimate objective
firmly set in his mind and did not really know what he intended to do once the army was in
Pennsylvania." ditto.
Hey Ben, let's play the "empathy" game, you know, put yourself in some other guy's shoes!
Response not sent:
Ok!
Put yourself in this guy's shoes: You are the head of a new breakaway nation. You have been fighting for survival for two years against the invasions of the clearly more formidable, though not omnipotent, enemy on whom you have had the advantage of fighting on the defensive. Your military has won five major battles and has become a wonder of the world but its success has come at a disproportionate cost because you have fewer resources, personnel and materiel. Foreign intervention on your side would be a splendid thing. Comes now your star general who proposes to you an invasion of the country you broke away from. What say ye?
Put down your crack pipe you jackanapes. Would have been my initial, instant, response.
Jefferson Davis and his cabinet were awed. And thus Robert E. Lee's Gettysburg Campaign commenced.
I anonymized the question because we all know how the Battle of Gettysburg turned out and you know what they say about that hindsight thing. Those are substantially all of the facts of the situation though. Now that the cat is out of the bag we may add that Grant was besieging Vicksburg (which would shortly succumb to the siege) at the same time; that another of Lee's "selling points" was that he would destroy the Army of the Potomac (which was not the same as defeating the entire United States military given the inconvenience of Grant being in Mississippi); that Lee's proposal left Richmond completely uncovered; that Lee believed a successful invasion would demoralize the U.S. at worst and cause the government in Washington, D.C. to flee at best; that the audacity of invading the U.S. would lead to foreign recognition of the C.S.A.;and that Lee and Davis desperately wanted to drive the United States the hell out of the Shenandoah Valley on which their invaders had feasted and stripped pretty clean through two years of war. Still.
No and hell no. Would have been my response (given the unavailability of crack cocaine).
What were they thinking? British recognition was a plausible hope of the C.S.A. and fear of the U.S.A.(1) Presumably it would have led to intervention, to breaking the U.S. blockade of the Confederacy which would have enabled the sale of cotton and the purchase of arms, of which the rebels were in desperate need.
Putting ourselves in Davis' shoes we would have asked the following questions of Lee:
Q: What would victory look like in this proposal?
A: Independence.
Q: Tell us about each link in the chain leading to independence, what is the first link, the first thing you envision happening from your proposal to invade Pennsylvania for us to win independence?
A: My men would whip them as they have whipped them so many times before...
Q: ...We were fighting on the defensive before, though. Is not whipping them easier on the defensive than on the offensive?
A: It is. We invaded Pennsylvania earlier and were successful. My men will do it again. They can do anything.(2)
Q: The previous "invasion" was a raid, though, you contemplate no mere raid, correct?
A: That is correct. I contemplate an invasion of my entire army.
Q: A raid is a hit-and-run, you contemplate a full invasion, going on the offensive against an enemy army fighting on the defensive?
A: I do.
Q: Have we had much experience at that?
A: We have not.
Q: Do you believe the North have more men at arms and more arms than have we?
A: Clearly. However, we have a greater fighting spirit.
Q: I acknowledge we do, General Lee.
A: And that greater fighting spirit will overcome the shortages we face.
Q: Even on the offensive?
A: Even on the offensive.
Q: All right. Continue. We whip the Army of the Potomac. Would that result in our independence?
A: Yes, the North would be thoroughly demoralized, the Republicans would be finished and perhaps their government would have to flee.
Q: So then military victory would not gain us ultimate victory, independence, independence is conditioned upon political consequences to your military victory, is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Obviously your military victory is necessary to achieve independence, I do understand that, General Lee.
A: Yes.
Q: But it is not sufficient, there are these political conditions.
A: Yes sir.
Q: What of defeat?
A: Our military defeat, which I consider unlikely in the extreme, would not end the war either. We will fight on.
Q: General Lee, if you are "whipped," thoroughly beaten, your army effectively destroyed--killed, wounded, captured--the end of the war would be near at hand indeed, would it not?
A: It would. I understand the position we are in in Vicksburg and my men are the main military arm of our cause.
Q: All right. We achieve military victory and the next link is political then, which do you envision leading to independence?
A: Britain at least recognizes us, breaking the blockade, we get money and arms, the Peace Democrats win the presidency in 1864 and we have independence.
Q: Wait, one link at a time please. Is your proposal's success then, is your definition of victory then, that Britain recognize us--after the military victory, of course?(3)
A: Yes, and breaks the blockade, giving us the resources we need.
Q: So if the British do not recognize us upon your triumphant invasion, your proposal will have failed?
A: It would be a great blow. However the invasion would still lead to the end of the Republican government.
Q: Wait...would British non-recognition, meaning no break of the blockade and no trade mean that your proposal would fail, even if you and your men drove the Yankees flying?
A: It would prolong the war, there is no doubt of that but I feel that a successful invasion would end Republican government.
Q: In 1864, correct?
A: Unionism would be thoroughly discredited, we would have the upper hands in negotiating our independence.
Q: Perhaps Lincoln would negotiate independence?
A: Correct.
Q: And if that didn't happen we would have to await the 1864 presidential election, I see.
A: Yes,the Republicans maintaining control of the government would mean the prolongation of the war certainly, but then we would be fighting a substantially weakened enemy. Too, we would be strengthened by not having the Yankees marauding in the Shenandoah Valley and feeding themselves at our expense.
Q: That is indisputable. Getting those people out of our country would allow us to feed ourselves and you would be able to feed your army on the Pennsylvania farmland.
A: Yes.
Q: If the Republicans win reelection?
A: That would prolong the war.
Q: If we win on the battlefield we could hold out, but if we lose your army we agree that the war would not be prolonged, we could be defeated promptly?
A: Yes, if we lose and if I lose my army.
Q: Risky.
A: Yes.
Q: All right. You being in Pennsylvania means also that Virginia and Richmond would be defenseless though, correct?
A: Yes, temporarily, I do not envision this campaign to be lengthy.
Q: Then what do you intend it to be General Lee? (4) A raid is a quick thing, an invasion is not, sir. Do you intend the defeat of the entire U.S. military? (5) Then what of Grant in Mississippi and Rosencrans in Tennessee? Do you intend to pursue Lincoln and his government and capture them? That is an invasion. That is what Lincoln and his government want to do to us. Do you plan to occupy Washington? That is what Lincoln intends with Richmond.(6) Do you intend to seize and hold that part of Pennsylvania which you invade? (7) That is what they are doing to us now. If you do not intend any of those things General, then how is this an invasion and not a...big raid with our entire goddamned army, leaving Richmond exposed, leaving Grant in Vicksburg and dependent for its success on the contingencies of your army's whipping the enemy on the offensive for the first time AND the British recognizing us and able to break the blockade that we have been unable to break AND Lincoln being defeated next year.
I had read several times in the various histories of the Civil War that the C.S.A. had come "so close" to victory at Gettysburg that I began to wonder what "victory" would have been. The answers above truly are the things Lee said and I incorporated all of them in this hypothetical meeting. The answers are insufficient. There is no answer to that last summation question so I did not provide one. Davis never asked, he was simply "awed." Lee's Gettysburg Campaign was a disaster from conception to execution.(8)
1. Battle Cry of Freedom, James McPherson pp 389-391 (1861); 387-388, 546-557 (1862); 650-651 (1863), France, 682-683 (1863).
2. According to the historical record this is what Lee said to doubters. He believed his men invincible.
3. "...recognition by England was very unlikely..." http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a266793.pdf
"Very unlikely:" I think McPherson supra would agree with that, especially after the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, especially with 20-20 hindsight, but I think both, and all other historians, would also agree that it was not irrational, not with the British government's previous statements and actions and not after Chancellorsville in May 1863 immediately preceding the Gettysburg Campaign. McPherson devotes chapter 18, "John Bull's Virginia Reel" to the back and forth of this.
4. "Davis' approval of Lee's plan for an offensive operation was not without some reservation. This is where the first questions concerning Lee's intent begin to surface. Davis wrote to General Lee on 31 May stating that he never fully comprehended Lee's view or purpose for the movement...A review of the literature and the records available also indicates that General Lee may not have clearly defined his ultimate intentions to himself. Correspondence and reports of conversations seem to point to two different sets of intentions." (emphasis added) Ditto.
5. "Lee also conveyed another view in a few conversations; in retrospect his actions seem to reveal an alternative underlying intention. That intention was to engage the Army of the Potomac at the first practical opportunity and defeat it in a decisive battle." (emphasis added) ditto
7. "One view,supported by most of [Lee's] official correspondence, points to the intention of
staying in Pennsylvania as long as possible to maximize the effect of operating outside of
Virginia. This view also implies his desire to avoid major combat as long as possible, only
accepting battle when forced...It is important to note that, if this was his true intention, he
would have had to stay in Pennsylvania at least through August, if not longer, in order to
allow Virginian farmers to harvest their crops. " (emphasis added) Ditto.
8. "The above evidence supports the idea that Lee did not have an ultimate objective
firmly set in his mind and did not really know what he intended to do once the army was in
Pennsylvania." ditto.
