Though it wasn't ultimately successful, was Lee's reasoning to attack the North sound?

Answer 1

The aim was to get the yankees off southern soil and achieve a significant enough victory to where the Confederacy could obtain recognition from European powers. That old gremlin "what if" is not worth discussing except that if we had fought a defensive war the North surely would have sued for peace.

God Bless You and The Southern People.

Answer 2

Clearly it was. In the short term armies, even when not fighting, ruined the areas they marched through, and particularly camped in. Food, shelter, firewood, and so on were used quickly. Forcing the North to sustain the two armies relieved a great burden from the southern states. In the long term, losing a state or capital city would not have been half the tragedy for the CSA as it would have been for the USA. Imagine if Lee had not attacked the union army at Gettysburg, but instead swung around and sacked New York City or Philadelphia. Even Washington DC was not as fortified from the North access routes. Such an action could easily have brought England or France into the war on the Confederate side. And the Union army had no choice but to chase the rebels because the CSA survived only for so long as it's army did. Invading the north was sound strategy. Attacking the well protected Union army outside Gettysburg was not.

Answer 3

From General Lee's point of view, he was defending the Confederacy, from the Unionists in the North. Of course his reasoning was sound, he was defending his country, as the Colonies-turned-Revolutionaries had defended their freedom from Britain, a Century previously.

The US Civil War, contrary to later propaganda, was unrelated to slavery.

It was, as are all wars (I don't care how 'holy' they pretend to be...) economically motivated. The Southern States traded raw materials with Britain, and got a good price for their primarily agricultural society's way of life. Cotton, sugar cane, and tobacco were the foundation of this trade.

The Industrial Northern States wanted those raw materials, but did not want to (or could not) match the price the British offered.

The Secession of the Southern States, and creation of the Confederacy of States of America, was about landowners not wanting to be, to their minds, ripped off by the Industrial North.

The Unionists' argument was that the land was there, and the trade should stay there, and no money should leave the (united) country.

There had been Quakers and such, protesting slavery, since before the Constitution was dreamt up. They didn't stop. There weren't very many African-American imported people in the North, but they were not much better liked, than they were in the South. (Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose; nobody outside the USA has the first idea how deep the racism still is, over there).

So yes, General Lee was doing his job, as a Confederate patriot, and defending the independence of his country.

Answer 4

Yes. Both times.

1) He'd just beaten the Army of the Potomac away from the gates of Richmond (Peninsular Campaign).

2) He'd just smashed the Union Army of Virginia at Second Manassas. One more Confederate victory, and the Union army might shatter.

3) The effectiveness of the Union's strategy of cutting the South off from the rest of the world (by capturing port cities and blockading all shipping) was becoming apparent. The South needed help, and fast.

4) Northern opinion in 1862 wasn't united. A concerted effort by Confederate forces (the Army of Tennessee "invaded" Kentucky when Lee went north into Maryland) could have further fractured Northern opinion.

5) Virginia and Tennessee needed a rest from supporting the armies.

In 1863...

1) He'd just smashed the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville. One more Confederate victory, and the Union army might shatter.

2) Vicksburg was about to fall, and Union forces needed to be pressured into shifting to the East.

3) Virginia desperately needed to have the fighting take place elsewhere.

4) The blockade was clearly working, and defeat was now only a matter of time unless the Army of Northern Virginia could shake something loose.

5) After the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation following the Battle of Sharpsburg, the Confederacy needed to be seen as clearly able to win to gain any outside help. Which wasn't a crazy prospect: Britain was itching to intervene to A: smash the upstart colonies, B: Stop the heavily Irish northern side from becoming a problem in British politics, and C: regain access to Southern cotton to get British mills running again. The Union blockade had a significant effect on the British economy.

Answer 5

Lee's advance into Pennsylvania in 1863 was part of an overall Confederate strategy to end the war that summer. The plan was that Lee would win a victory on Northern territory, and a letter would be delivered to Lincoln soon afterwards to offer peace. Lee had just beaten Hooker at Chancellorsville in May, and it was widely believed on both sides that the North couldn't take another defeat like it. Another victory would probably have assured recognition of the Confederacy by European powers, namely Great Britain, which would have effectively ended the war through their intervention. So, Lee invaded Pennsylvania looking for a fight. Unfortunately for his army, they didn't find the fight they wanted.

Answer 6

The basic point: the south could win by not losing, while the north would lose by not winning. In bringing the realities of war to the north, Lee was hoping to encourage war-weariness there. So, yes, sound.

Answer 7

Jesus has the Jean company attacked the North Pole!!! Santa will be pisss off

Answer 8

Economically yes. Morally, probably not.

Answer 9

wot u on bout?
summat i missed ?