Analysis Of They Met At Gettysburg By General Edward J. Stackpole

They Met at Gettysburg by General Edward J. Stackpole, provides a rich understanding of the Battle of Gettysburg through vivid descriptions of the battlefield logistics and the leadership from General George Meade (Union) and General Robert E. Lee (Confederate). Stackpole argues that the result of the Battle of Gettysburg, a Union victory, was brought on by more than just chance events. A combination of poor leadership and the poor performance of his officers contributed to Lee’s ultimate defeat, according to Stackpole. A clear and fully disseminated battle plan is essential to victory. Stackpole argues that because this factor was absent from the Confederate side, defeat was inevitable from the beginning. While the argument can be made that Lee’s generals were not capable to begin with, it is a fallacy to assume their ignorance when they were never even given a chance. Lee formulated what he thought was the winning battle plan, but never established a

Through an albeit ambiguous order, Ewell was tasked by Lee with capturing the high ground at Cemetery Hill. As it was left up to his discretion, Ewell decided to not act on Lee’s order to take the Hill. The inclusion of “if practicable,” by Lee was key to Ewell’s decision to not attempt a move on the Hill. Had Lee given Ewell a direct order to attack and capture Cemetery Hill, the Confederacy might have gained the high ground, giving them greater advantage over Union forces. But since Lee, perhaps unintentionally, left the ultimate decision up to Ewell, the attack never happened. It is hard to say who was more at fault in this situation, Lee for the ambiguous order, or Ewell for not acting aggressively enough. Either way, this situation is yet another argument Stackpole presents on failed leadership and poorly performing