Dan Sickles, Union Savior?

[Donald Schneider]

To all:

In a case of putting the proverbial cart before the horse, here is the URL for the letter from General Meade to General Benedict that prompted General Sickles's "reply" to it in the Century Magazine in 1888:

http://members.cox.net/jcampi/benedict.htm

Thanks.

Don

P.S. This site also gives some personal background regarding Colonel Benedict and the circumstances of his contacting General Meade. It confirms my previosuly stated conjecture that Meade and himself were not acquainted when Colonel Benedict wrote to General Meade in Philadelphia in 1870.

[nbforrest]

In reference to this curious document I cannot help but comment on the sheer ignorance of the facts on Sickles' part. And it is no wonder why. He had just destroyed his corps in an ill advised move forward! Of course he wanted to attack Meade, for Sickles had disobeyed Meade's explicit orders in a foolhardy move that wrecked his corps. The letter of typical of all of Sickles' postward writings, Historicus and all. Sickles wanted to salvage his reputation. In light of the evidence (and moreover, common sense) his arguments reek of half truths and falsehoods. His claim that Meade ignored his left is pure nonsense. Shifting troops not engaged to an immediately threatened position is easy to excuse. As don himself admits, Sickles is flat wrong (read: Sickles lied) about Meade's desire to withdraw. This tends to discredits whatever else Sickles has to say.

don (or anyone else), have you ever been to Gettysburg? I really urge you to go out there and walk along Sickles' original line, then along Sickles' forward line. It is the best and most obvious evidence of the foolishness of Sickles assuming the forward line.

Respectfully

[Donald Schneider]

Dear Sam:

"Obviously you have given a Lot of thought to this subject. Perhaps more than anyone else on this forum.

"I fear that your case is somewhat weakened by, to at least obvious morons like me the incoherent presentation of your arguments:"

"Perhaps if you could present your arguments a bit more simply and cogently, we might be better able to understand your thesis. Your arguments seem to be all over the place so , to me , and don't appear to have a tying together that would support your thesis. It's just a bunch of seemingly unrelated accounts which cannot logically be reconciled."

--If by my arguments being "incoherent" you are referring to the sloppy presentation of my post #74--which originally contained several typos and haste mistakes, which I did not have time on Sunday to edit properly (and have now corrected--I hope, at least)--then perhaps I can agree with you to some extent. However, if you are referring to the substance of what I have been maintaining in that post and throughout this discussion, then I am at a loss as to how my arguments could be more crystal clear and "coherent."

--Your side of this dispute argues that Sickles's advance was a "blunder." I rebut this by pointing out that if so, then the enemy that day--and long afterwards reflecting upon it--seemed to be strangely unaware of the existence of this alleged blunder. To that effect, I quoted several high-ranking, Confederate general officers in the forefront of the action that day; and, have pointed out by their writings, that they actually imply that Sickles's order to advance, prefatory to Longstreet's attack, was a necessary--even obvious--course of action for Sickles to have made. Now what can be more coherent than that?

--I pointed out that if the result of Sickles's order for his corps to advance was such a tactical blunder, then why did a Confederate brigade commander--and his division commander--actually protest at assulting this presumed blunderous position--while neither--to my knowledge--of Sickles's division commanders did likewise upon being ordered to march into it? Again, what could be more clear and coherent than this?

--Your side quoted someone who you respect from another forum named Steve to have said he had "shook his head" (in presumed disbelief at Sickles's order), while standing on Cemetery Ridge and gazed upon the area a half-mile or so ahead of him where Sickles advanced to. I pointed out that if that is the case, then how strange it seems that such a highly-respected figure in American military history as General Hunt could have looked upon the same site--July 2, 1863--and had had no similar reaction. Yes, he had some reservations, but actually wrote that he understood why Sickles wanted to advance there--though he could not authorize the movement on his own authority without consulting with Meade. What could be more coherent than that?

--Your side--obviously--must concede that despite this alleged blunder made by Sickles on July 2nd, the Federal side won a great, decisive victory. Thus, you are forced to fall back upon the assertion that Sickles's advance had been unnecessary to effect that outcome, and that had he maintained his original line then the same results would have been achieved with far less causalities. I don't accept this assertion to begin with which is based upon two assumptions you cannot ever prove. However, I pointed out if the high causality rate afflicted upon the valorous Federal III Corps made Sickles's movement a "blunder" per se, then one would all the more be forced to ascribe "blunder" status upon the order for the most heroic First Minnesota's charge into immortality and near annihilation! Do you so ascribe that order a "blunder?" Again, I don't see how I could be more coherent than by pointing this out along with the aforementioned lines of argument I have made here.

Don

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Donald Schneider

Dear Sam:

"Obviously you have given a Lot of thought to this subject. Perhaps more than anyone else on this forum.

"I fear that your case is somewhat weakened by, to at least obvious morons like me the incoherent presentation of your arguments:"

"Perhaps if you could present your arguments a bit more simply and cogently, we might be better able to understand your thesis. Your arguments seem to be all over the place so , to me , and don't appear to have a tying together that would support your thesis. It's just a bunch of seemingly unrelated accounts which cannot logically be reconciled."

--If by my arguments being "incoherent" you are referring to the sloppy presentation of my post #74--which originally contained several typos and haste mistakes, which I did not have time on Sunday to edit properly (and have now corrected--I hope, at least)--then perhaps I can agree with you to some extent. However, if you are referring to the substance of what I have been maintaining in that post and throughout this discussion, then I am at a loss as to how my arguments could be more crystal clear and "coherent."

--Your side of this dispute argues that Sickles's advance was a "blunder." I rebut this by pointing out that if so, then the enemy that day--and long afterwards reflecting upon it--seemed to be strangely unaware of the existence of this alleged blunder. To that effect, I quoted several high-ranking, Confederate general officers in the forefront of the action that day; and, have pointed out by their writings, that they actually imply that Sickles's order to advance, prefatory to Longstreet's attack, was a necessary--even obvious--course of action for Sickles to have made. Now what can be more coherent than that?

--I pointed out that if the result of Sickles's order for his corps to advance was such a tactical blunder, then why did a Confederate brigade commander--and his division commander--actually protest at assulting this presumed blunderous position--while neither--to my knowledge--of Sickles's division commanders did likewise upon being ordered to march into it? Again, what could be more clear and coherent than this?

--Your side quoted someone who you respect from another forum named Steve to have said he had "shook his head" (in presumed disbelief at Sickles's order), while standing on Cemetery Ridge and gazed upon the area a half-mile or so ahead of him where Sickles advanced to. I pointed out that if that is the case, then how strange it seems that such a highly-respected figure in American military history as General Hunt could have looked upon the same site--July 2, 1863--and had had no similar reaction. Yes, he had some reservations, but actually wrote that he understood why Sickles wanted to advance there--though he could not authorize the movement on his own authority without consulting with Meade. What could be more coherent than that?

--Your side--obviously--must concede that despite this alleged blunder made by Sickles on July 2nd, the Federal side won a great, decisive victory. Thus, you are forced to fall back upon the assertion that Sickles's advance had been unnecessary to effect that outcome, and that had he maintained his original line then the same results would have been achieved with far less causalities. I don't accept this assertion to begin with which are based upon two assumptions you cannot ever prove. However, I pointed out if the high causality rate afflicted upon the valorous Federal III Corps made Sickles's movement a "blunder" per se, then one would all the more be forced to ascribe "blunder" status upon the order for the most heroic First Minnesota's charge into immortality and near annihilation! Do you so ascribe that order a "blunder?" Again, I don't see how I could be more coherent than by pointing this out along with the aforementioned lines of argument I have made here.

Don

Don,

I'm sorry about he tone of that post. I do regret it.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by samgrant

I'll have to agree with NB on this. LRT was not crucial, tho in lore it became the site where the battle, if not the war was decided.

How can you claim it was "the wise choice" to leave a gap in the original line so that reinforcements could later be sent to save Sickles troops who had been moved to a longer more indefencible line?

I just don't see it.

Or as Meade wrote in 1870:

"If this is an advantage, — to be so crippled in battle without attaining an object, — I must confess I cannot see it."

[Donald Schneider]

Dear Terry and Matt:

Please read the following when you have time, and give me your evaluation and opinion, as I'd be interested.

Thank you.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/birneygettysburgor.htm

Don

[Donald Schneider]

To all:

Okay, here is the mother load of URLs for all interested in the Battle of Gettysburg, from a source perspective. We will have a lot to reflect upon and then chew on:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/gettysbu...tle(union).htm

I'm not sure who is to thank for this invaluable online contribution to this subject, but he, she or they have my gratitude. Read up on the Third Corps reports, especially in light of this discussion.

Don

[milhistbuff1]

Don,
Do you know if the list of casualties or the map Birney refers to at the end is available online anywhere?

[nbforrest]

While interesting, I don't really see anything that makes me change my mind about Sickles. I think a look at the ground is sort of the death knell of Sickles' theory about how he saved the army. As I said earlier, if Sickles' advance had any benefit for the North, it was that it upset the en echelon attack of Longstreet. It just seems to defy logic that one could correctly call Sickles' advanced position superior to the one he left.

Respectfully

[Donald Schneider]

"Dear NB:

"While interesting, I don't really see anything that makes me change my mind about Sickles. I think a look at the ground is sort of the death knell of Sickles' theory about how he saved the army. As I said earlier, if Sickles' advance had any benefit for the North, it was that it upset the en echelon attack of Longstreet. It just seems to defy logic that one could correctly call Sickles' advanced position superior to the one he left."

--Well, once again, the Confederate officers I quoted would have seemed to have disagreed with you, and they were the ones facing their enemy on the field at the time. Additionally, I note having read the official reports thus far of several officers of the Union III Corps I referenced via URL, one of Sickles's artillery commanders refers to the very poor placement he had had for his cannon before the move.

Thanks.

Don

P.S. I'm still waiting for time to answer Chuck's articles and citations. Has anyone turned up anything against Sickles's arguments in favor of his move from the official reports now available online? Did anyone even hint at it having been a "blunder" at the time, aside from perhaps Meade?