Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

charlie and algernon

(13,447 posts)
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 09:34 AM Jul 2013

150 years ago today - Pickett's Charge






While the Union lost about 1,500 killed and wounded, the Confederate casualty rate was over 50%. Pickett's division suffered 2,655 casualties (498 killed, 643 wounded, 833 wounded and captured, and 681 captured, unwounded). Pettigrew's losses are estimated to be about 2,700 (470 killed, 1,893 wounded, 337 captured). Trimble's two brigades lost 885 (155 killed, 650 wounded, and 80 captured). Wilcox's brigade reported losses of 200, Lang's about 400. Thus, total losses during the attack were 6,555, of which at least 1,123 Confederates were killed on the battlefield, 4,019 were wounded, and a good number of the injured were also captured. Confederate prisoner totals are difficult to estimate from their reports; Union reports indicated that 3,750 men were captured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickett's_Charge
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
150 years ago today - Pickett's Charge (Original Post) charlie and algernon Jul 2013 OP
The Union troops just stood the high ground and picked them off. liberal N proud Jul 2013 #1
they didn't have to advance charlie and algernon Jul 2013 #4
The high tide of the Confederacy. rug Jul 2013 #2
Evidence that R E Lee has been highly overrated as a general. WhoIsNumberNone Jul 2013 #3
He did benefit from facing incompetent Union Generals the first couple years. charlie and algernon Jul 2013 #5
Grant is still consistently underrated by pointing out that he had more men Aristus Jul 2013 #6

liberal N proud

(60,338 posts)
1. The Union troops just stood the high ground and picked them off.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 09:41 AM
Jul 2013

It is amazing how little the Union troops advanced.

charlie and algernon

(13,447 posts)
4. they didn't have to advance
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:04 AM
Jul 2013

Not enough credit is given to General Buford for getting to Gettysburg first and picking the best ground. Even after the Union retreated back through Gettysburg, they still had the wherewithall to stop at the right spot. At that point, they just had to dig in and wait.

charlie and algernon

(13,447 posts)
5. He did benefit from facing incompetent Union Generals the first couple years.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:10 AM
Jul 2013

He wasn't used to a Union General (Meade) actually holding his ground and staying. And then Grant took it to the next level by using sheer overpowering numbers to smother Lee's Army.

Aristus

(66,431 posts)
6. Grant is still consistently underrated by pointing out that he had more men
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:35 AM
Jul 2013

and equipment.

Scholars are re-assessing Grant as a gifted tactician and field commander, and not just a textbook strategist with more resources at his disposal. He made a name for himself for battlefield skill when he was still a mid-level commander with smaller units and fewer resources. He rose to the level where those assets were available to him in order to win the war.

Latest Discussions»The DU Lounge»150 years ago today - Pic...