So many answers to my query yesterday were Gettysburg-centric that it is worth reminding people that the notion that Gettysburg was the turning point of the war is a romantic exercise and reflects interesting assumptions about the Confederacy.
For one thing, Union victory at Gettysburg simply preserved the strategic stalemate in the Eastern theater. Both sides were winning on home turf. That would change during the decidedly unromantic Overland Campaign.
Second, we keep on asking how Lee lost at Gettysburg. I think George G. Meade and the Army of the Potomac won the battle.

Remember them?
Had Lee won at Gettysburg, what would have happened next? That what-if requires much unpacking. Does he win it on July 1? Then most of the Army of the Potomac is intact, and Lee has to fight a second battle rather soon.
Does he win it on July 2? Dusk is coming, and the Army of the Potomac, while battered, pulls back. Civil War armies are resilient. Lee had a better chance at Second Manassas to destroy his foe on the field, snd didn't come close to doing so.
July 3? The assault on the US center was poorly supported and so any breakthrough would have been difficult to exploit. Lee's army was limping along by the end of that attack. What would be his next move?
Most Civil War battles were bloody indecisive affairs where the challenge was what to do with the result. Lee never really drove the foe from the field a la Chattanooga: Union generals chose to withdraw. Gaines Mill and Second Manassas were as close as he got.
And the question of how and why Lee lost Gettysburg becomes an exercise in pointing fingers. Was it Stuart's fault? What about Ewell? Longstreet?

And, if course, what if Stonewall Jackson was there? So what if he had been dead for eight weeks?
Our focus on Gettysburg is more about how we find the narrative of that battle so compelling that we become entangled in it and embrace it as stirring and romantic. It's also because we are Lee-centric and Eastern theater-centric.
US victory was secured in the grim and relentless bloodletting of 1864, when Grant nullified Lee and his subordinates Sherman and Sheridan took care of business elsewhere in time to secure Lincoln's reelection. It was neither pretty nor romantic.
*and

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Brooks D. Simpson

Brooks D. Simpson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BrooksDSimpson

11 May
So, to answer my own question posed yesterday: Robert E. Lee had more impact on the outcome of the American Civil War than did any other Confederate military leader.

I'm sure you're wondering why I think that.
1. Lee's overlooked work on the South Atlantic coastal defenses brought to a halt already hesitant US efforts to exploit the landings of November 1861. Imagine the implications of a more active front along the coast into the interior.
2. Lee's support of Stonewall Jackson's Valley campaign in 1862 proved a sufficient deterrent to US efforts to unite on Richmond. Lee got Jackson to live rent-free in Yankee heads.
Read 17 tweets
10 May
I am tired of people who have spent most or all of their life on the West Coast telling me about what's East Coast.

Especially when what they really mean is LA versus NY. Even then they aren't right.
Somehow they forget the East Coast includes New England, Florida, and the Carolinas (for starters), and that the West Coast includes the Pacific NW (no word on Alaska and Hawaii).

Where's Arizona's coast? Yuma? Silence.
This came up with the term BBQ/barbecue/barbeque.

I said the words (as spoken) could mean a number of things, including nouns and verbs.

Oh no, said the self-pronounced authorities hailing from the West Coast, at least in their imagination.
Read 7 tweets
6 May
Ulysses S. Grant, May 6, 1864, in the Wilderness, Virginia, upon hearing an excited officer declare that he knew what Lee would do next after the Confederates launched an attack at dusk:
It had been a rough two days for the general-in-chief. One of his West Point classmates, Alexander Hays, had been killed on May 5. Grant was shaken when he heard the news.

Hays had graduated a year after Grant. Here is an image of the two men (Hays is in the foreground):
Hays's death meant that there was one less friendly face for Grant in the Army of the Potomac, and there were not many (although he knew Winfield Scott Hancock, among others).

Hancock had opened the fighting on May 6 by attacking Lee's right. The attack was initially successful.
Read 13 tweets
5 May
This is one of the most interesting (and sometimes misunderstood) images of Ulysses S. Grant on the afternoon of May 5, 1864. Image
It presents Grant whittling away with a knife at his headquarters as the Army of the Potomac swung into action against Robert E. Lee's Army of Northern Virginia (Burnside's separate IX Corps would be up later).
Some people interpret this as a man whittling away without a care in the world: a sign of the calm, imperturbable Grant.

William McFeely saw it as potentially mindless, even insensitive to the carnage around him.

Both interpretations are wrong.
Read 17 tweets
1 Mar
The refounding of the American republic in 1787-88 was made possible by major concessions to southern slaveholding interests. The three-fifths rule gave the South artificial advantages in the House and the electoral college.
It was no accident that the presidency and the Supreme Court were bulwarks of the slave power, along with the desire to maintain a free state-slave state balance in the Senate.
Three other early safeguards eventually cracked.

1. The House eventually reflected population growth in the North and the West, allowing free states to control the House.
Read 32 tweets
28 Feb
No surprise to see Republicans who dismissed stories of Donald Trump's harrassing women jump on the allegations against Andrew Cuomo.

No surprise to see Democrats who welcomed charges against Republicans urge that we need to investigate before believing charges against Cuomo.
We'll hear a lot about motives (especially partisan ones) and a renewed debate on how we should initially treat allegations and view the people who make them.

None of this was hard to predict.
This will become a political football. and that means that larger issues will be obscured.

Sexual harassment is wrong, period. It's not boys just being boys, and it isn't always boys doing it or women being targeted.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(