[ Back to the listing ] [ Post Reply ] [ Help ] [ Search ]
[ List All Forums ]
| Posted By: on: 08/30/2000 17:57:09 EDT
Subject: RE: Gettysburg and should Meade have persued Lee?
Well you guessed it by the title, I am the son of Jim TNO. My dad suggested that I bring my question before you folks so here goes..
Should Meade have persued Lee more vigoroously? Or was the AOP just as badly mauled as the ANV and that trully prevented it from doing so!
And if the AOP had chased the ANV and caught it BEFORE it got to the river, does the war end there as the ANV is destroyed?
M. Hawthorne (bluelady)
Sorry if I'm late on this reply, but I just got back from a trip...This aspect of the Gettysburg Campaign has always facinated me...why was Lee allowed to escape?...I'm familiar with most of the reasons generally given - new leadership, fatigue, casualties, etc. etc...However, it would seem to me that even with minimal cavalery recon, Meade & Co. must have known the the ANV had to cross SOME river at SOME time...leaving half of the forces on one side and half on the other (unless my math is wrong)...doesn't that leave the AOP with an opportunity to inflict a serious hurt on the ANV??? It's one thing to divide your forces in the face of a superior enemy to fight a force in detail, it's quite another to divide your force with its back to a swollen river...I must be missing something....AAROGON
I share your curiosity about that AAROGON. Time after time throughout the Civil War, both Union and Confederate armies successfully crossed rivers despite being in the close proximity to an opposing army. It happened too many times for there not to be a rational explanation.