This text is part of:
[363] lines on Seminary Ridge, it was clear to Lee that the attempt to break through the Union position was hopeless. The troops went back much disrupted, and it was only by the energetic, personal exertions of Longstreet and of Lee that they were rallied and re-formed. It is said that a counter-attack by the Union forces was much feared at this moment; and it is possible that had General Meade been aware of the extent of the damage he had inflicted on his opponent, and the extreme disorder of the moment, as also that the Confederate ammunition had run very low, an immediate advance by the left might have converted the repulse into a rout. But it must be borne in mind that he did not then know these things, and all he did know favored a cautious policy. For his own loss was terrible, the different corps were much intermingled, and to have quitted his defences would have exposed him to a repulse similar to that the enemy had just received; and as —with the exception of a few brigades of Sedgwick's corps— there were no reserves, attack must have been made by already exhausted troops.1 With Lee there now remained only the alternative of retreat;
1 So far as I am aware, the only important witness on the Confederate side in favor of attack at this time, is Colonel Fremantle of the British service. Referring to the situation after Pickett's repulse, he says: ‘It is difficult to exaggerate the critical state of affairs as they appeared about this time. If the enemy, or their general, had shown any enterprise, there is no saying what might have happened. General Lee and his officers were evidently fully impressed with a sense of the situation.’ But the sequel seems to belie this; for he immediately remarks: ‘Yet there was much less noise, fuss, or confusion of orders than at an ordinary field-day; the men as they were rallied in the woods, were brought up in detachments, and lay down quietly and coolly in the positions assigned them.’—Three Months in the Confederate States, pp. 269-270. A very different view of the probable success of an assault at this time is given by Captain Ross, of the Austrian service, who also witnessed the battle from the Confederate side. ‘The enemy,’ says he, ‘made no attempt to follow up their advantage, and it is well for them they did not. I see that a General Butterfield, in evidence given before some Federal committee, blames General Meade for not attacking Lee's right after the repulse, imagining that enormous captures of guns and other great successes would have been the result. It was, however, well for the Federals that General Meade did not do so, for he would have found McLaws and Hood's divisions there perfectly ready and willing to give him a much hotter reception than he would have liked.’ —Cities and Camps of the Confederate States, p. 65. On the Union side, many of the generals present have testified before the Committee on the Conduct of the War, in favor of attack. See Report, second series, vol. i., passim.
But since the above text was written, I have become convinced from testimony more weighty than any given above—to wit, the testimony of General Long. street himself—that attack would have resulted disastrously. ‘I had,’ said that officer to the writer, ‘Hood and McLaws, who had not been engaged; I had a heavy force of artillery; I should have liked nothing better than to have been attacked, and have no doubt I should have given those who tried as bad a reception as Pickett received.’
1866.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.