I had to look him up... didn't know he murdered Francis Scott Keys son (!) and got away with it in the first-ever use of the "temporary insanity" plea... And introduced his (prostitute) girlfriend to Queen Victoria..! Stranger than fiction.

You have to look back to the cavalry battle at Brandy Station and the resulting criticism of Stuart to understand his actions leading up to Gettysburg.

The oroblem is that we have here not trained soldiers that worked their way over years through the ranjs nor an understanding of how an army works and what following an order means. It is the difference between people having a hobby and professionals working in a company with yhousands of employes and naking it work.

Basically Stuart and Lee both planned for Stuart to ride around the Union army like he did to Hooker. They both approved the plan and Lee deserves as much blame as Stuart. The part both failed fo realize is that Hooker's union army was stationary so riding around it took less time. With this gettysburg campaign the union army was moving north and so for Stuart to ride around it and link back up too much longer. If Gary is going to defend Lee and say he isn't to blame because he thinks Stuart is so great then Lee also should then have judged that if Stuart hasn't shown up yet something is delaying his link up and that something must be the union army moving north. But Lee completely fails to realize that.

He’s direct, he’s tough, but he’s not mean. I’d totally take a class with him.

Also wondering this.

Never mind - got my answer a couple of minutes later.

Lee's target was Harrisburg and destroying the B&O bridge over the Susquehanna totally disrupting the movement of troops and supplies from the west. Gettysburg was just peripheral damage... major peripheral damage but it wasn't an intended target (from what I've read.)

@@indy_go_blue6048 Disagree, I see it was a feint. Reynolds, in his zeal, fell for Lee drawing him in to Gettysburg. Lee lost it on day 1 when Johnson didn't get there in time to assist in forcing Howard off Cemetery Hill. That was key.

Further, the street grid didn't help either to allow them to form lines, particularly at the salient.

Lee wasn’t specifically targeting Gettysburg in his invasion of Pennsylvania. It just happened to be place where all the roads came together and enabled the ANV to assemble. That’s the only reason the ANV ended up at Gettysburg. Lee wasn’t trying to draw Mead to Gettysburg. He was just trying to concentrate his army before Mead was able to come up and destroy the ANV in detail. He’d probably have been happy to have Mead not show up at all at Gettysburg enabling the ANV to reunite without bringing on a general engagement.

True. But neither did he order an attack at dawn. That is Gallagher's point - 1. the Lost Causers claimed incorrectly that Longstreet was ordered to attack at dawn, 2. Longstreet was a poor subordinate at Gettysburg and took too long on the 2nd day. The Lost Causers had all the ammunition they needed to berate Longstreet for his behaviour on Day 2 but they overegg the pudding by lying about a dawn attack. Lee absolutely has to be made whiter than white and so they exaggerate how poor Longstreet was by making up a lie - to the extent that apparently he lost the war! - even though the historical record would have been enough evidence.

It is a lost cause argument. The orders were not clear to attack at dawn. Orders were clear to remain unseen (causing the delay) Longstreet did follow these orders. If lee was disappointed with Longstreet’s performance, he was never subsequently demoted or replaced indicating that. The lost causers never mention JEB Stewart, Ewell, or indeed Lee’s failures AND the biggest problem Longstreet had was that he was RIGHT

Ewell shares most of the blame for the loss by not securing Cemetery Hill on the first day.

@@spencerkimble3824 wow how clever to use the same old worn out lost cause argument lol. Nobody said that the other guys are blameless. Lee, ewell, Stuart, and so on all made mistakes and share blame. I'm simply pointing out Longstreet's role in it. We could talk all day about the mistakes Lee and others made. We could talk all day about Meade, Sickies, and other Union mistakes too. Longstreet's bright idea was a pipe dream. It wasn't practicable or even possible. Entire armies and miles of supply wagons and logistics just don't pack up and move like that in front of another army who is squared off with them. You really think Meade would suck his thumb and let Lee move his entire army around and get between him and Washington?? Give the man some credit lol. There's no way that would have been allowed.

@@JohnnyRebKy I use the same argument about logistics. During Lee's retreat he had some 30 miles of train stretching down 2 or 3 roads; however cautious Meade might have been he wouldn't have allowed it to happen. I also tend to think that, however wise it might have looked in hindsight, had Hood been allowed to circle behind the two Round Tops he would've run smack dab into the V Corp which was at that time just NE of LRT. They would've been unsupported and isolated and possibly wiped out. JMO.

Poor old Rosey had the misfortune of opening that gap right in front of Longstreet immediately before his attack.

Lee had a cardiac event in the spring, before gettysburg

It was stupid to attack where the suppprt lines for the army of the potomac are very short and Lee's army could not forage with the imminent threat of battle. We see that they did it anyway and that it was a deseaster.

I thought just the opposite. Yes, he's sarcastic at times but he usually follows it with a smile. He wants his students to THINK, not just absorb what he's teaching. I'd love to have him as a teacher, or just to sit in on these seminars or his lectures. Personally I have no problem with sarcasm IF a person can take it as well as (s)he gives it, otherwise (s)he's just an ass.

Well they did ask some stupid questions for people in university level history lol

I wouldnt term it as caustic. He does use a lot of sarcasms but it's just his sense of humour. Watch his other lectures and audience interactions and you would see the same approach.

I find his demeanor fun and engaging. Then again Im old.

You need to watch the old TV show about law school called Paper Chase. Now there is some real life docudrama mean and nasty. Ah the good old days. Lol

Idk. I love him and would love to take his class and be there to press back on his Lee loving. This session he really stretched a few times when the woman asked him about Stuart and his only defense of Lee approving Stuart's bad plan was "Lee thought Stuart was great." Ok but that's not really a defense Gary. It is basically saying the truth is Lee screwed up in letting Stuart ride around the union army and take A B C with him. Lee signed off the plan and recently had seen a review of Stuart's cav corps he knew all the information yet still allowed the situation and failed to forsee an issue with having DEF with him. Gary continues to defend Lee and say "Lee is somewhat culpable" then proceeds to blast some subordinate for being themselves. Imo Lee failed to adapt after losses in leadership. He fails to adapt to different subordinates. He continues to send vague yet binding orders when his corps commanders need specifics and movement. For example Gary argues Longstreet should have made the executive decision to go right yet Lee pretty clearly forbade it. Literally loves Lee so much that even when Lee does give specific orders and someone follows them Gary says "but Lee's leadership style always allowed modification and Longstreet should have known that he could break orders." Come on man. Everyone but Lee is blamed for what they should have known but Lee isn't blamed for that same thing with Gary. My stretch theory is Lee cared alot about his reputation. He carefully lead the army in a manner in which every order he gave he wouldn't be blamed. He gave vague orders for that reason. If a subordinate failed Lee would just say "not my fault. I told him to take the hill and his plan failed." This is because Lee gave the vague order to take the hill and it was up to the commanders to make these vague demands actually happen with plans.

This isn't 5th grade. These are grownups.

@@Guitcad1 The sounds are awful on the video. All the cans opening

Jamie van Brewen grownups ?? Lol. Today’s 20 year olds are like 6th graders 30 years ago

Yeah, in every class I ever took in college…

We did it in high school as certain teachers liked to do it themselves and we had a very productive working atmosphere.