Dan Sickles, Union Savior?

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Donald Schneider

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?

Here's a few. I might find more if I felt it worthwhile to pursue this issue much further.


Porter Alexander

"... Sickles, he unwisely ordered an advance of his whole corps to hold the ground about the Peach Orchard. He probably had in mind the advantage given the Confederates at Chancellorsville in allowing them the occupation of the Hazel Grove plateau. But it was, nevertheless, bad tactics. It exchanged strong ground for weak, and gave the Confederates an opportunity not otherwise possible. They would be quite sure to crush the isolated 3d corps. If their attack was properly organized and conducted, it might become possible to rush and carry the Federal main line in the pursuit of the fugitives." ... "There was not during the war a finer example of efficient command than that displayed by Meade on this occasion."

- Military Memoirs, pg. 392-393

*****

Cadmus Wilcox

"Sickles' position was certainly such as to invite attack, not so much from any salient that may have been formed by refusing his left, but from the fact that his right flank was exposed. His position was faulty in the extreme, as the result of the collision must have shown him."

-Cadmus M. Wilcox Papers, LC

****

Winfield Scott Hancock

" I knew that the fight was expected to commence,but the object of General Sickles moving to the front I could not conceive. ...and I thought it would be disadvantageous to us."

- JCCW Hearings, March 22, 1864

****

Andrew A. Humphreys

Question: "Did you consider your line of the 2d of July as really too far advanced from the main line?"

Answer: "Yes. I do not know what the enemy's plans would have been if we had occupied the main line and not the advanced line. I think, very probably, he would have done what he did the next day - that is, have attacked us on that Round Top ridge, advancing over somewhat the same ground from which I had fallen back; but it will be seen that we were driven from this advanced position which we took up, and were not driven the next day from Round Top ridge, although we had a reduced force then."

Question: "Suppose you had taken your position at first at the position to which you finally retired; would it not have been better?"

Answer: "Undoubtedly, as the result showed."

- JCCW Hearings, March 21, 1864

****

Gouverneur Kemble Warren

"Soon afterwords, I rode out with General Meade to examine the left of our line, where general Sickles was. His troops could hardly be said to be in position." ... "I felt very well satisfied that General Sickles could not hold his position...."

- JCCW Hearings, March 9, 1864

****

Alexander Stuart Webb

K - "Well, what do you think of Sickles' movements that day at Gettysburg?"

W - "Oh, I dispute his claims; have all along. He knows I did. He could fight, yes; as a tactician, no."

Interview of General Webb by James E. Kelly, May 18, 1899 (from Generals in Bronze by William M. Styple)

****

Just to add a bit of levity to this thread, I'll add this bit of an interview between Kelly (see above) and Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain:

"April 7, 1903 ......

K - What was your appearance at Gettysburg?

C - I wore a beard and mustache at Gettysburg.

K - How many times were you wounded during the war?

C - I was wounded six times seriously, but twice mortally --

Here he laughed and I said:

K - That's good and Irish --
.....

K - Yes, Gen. Viele told a friend of mine that Sickles got an irresponsible surgeon to to cut off his leg which was not severely wounded to save him from the mess he got in.

Chamberlain at this looked astonished.

K - General Howard spoke very highly of Sickles' service at Gettysburg; he seemed to think he saved the day.

C - What! (said Chamberlain looking in astonishment).

K - Yes. He compared Sickles' stand - to that incident at Waterloo when that officer [Col. James MacDonnell] defended that stone house [Hougoumont] - you know what he means.

C - I do! I do! It is not true! When Howard says that, he is merely paying his debts."

[Donald Schneider]

Dear Sam:

Thank you for taking the time to do some research on this subject and posting some interesting resulting quotations. I'm again pressed for time today, though I hope to answer tomorrow (Saturday).

In the meantime, I am at a loss why you would once again bring up this ridiculous assertion conerning the extent of General Sickles's wound, when surely you must know how absurdly easy it would be to refute. You tell me. As it is said, "One photograph is worth...."

http://members.aol.com/rezogrl2000/Danslegindex.html

Don

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Donald Schneider

Dear Sam:

Thank you for taking the time to do some research on this subject and posting some interesting resulting quotations. I'm again pressed for time today, though I hope to answer tomorrow (Saturday).

In the meantime, I am at a loss why you would once again bring up this ridiculous assertion conerning the extent of General Sickles's wound, when surely you must know how absurdly easy it would be to refute. You tell me. As it is said, "One photograph is worth...."

http://members.aol.com/rezogrl2000/Danslegindex.html

Don

Apparently you did not notice the word 'levity' in my post, or did not know the meaning of it.

It comes from the Latin levitās, from levis, light.
As opposed to 'gravity' - French gravité, heaviness, from Old French, from Latin gravitās, from gravis, heavy.

One definition: "Lightness of manner or speech, especially when inappropriate; frivolity."

In short, in light of your seeming grave obsession with this issue (might you be a relative of Mr. Sickles?), I just included that last, in the hope that you might just "Lighten Up".

[nbforrest]

Good quotes, sam. I think I have a burden now to dig up some of my own, time permitting. I knew that I had read plenty of generals who did not think Sickles' move forward was correct.

don,
Now, I'm no geologist, but I know that the Peach Orchard area hasn't dramatically changed since the battle. And not all generals pronounced Sickles' move forward wise, far from it, as sam's brief sampling has shown.
Porter Alexander always had something wise to say, and I think he hit the nail on the head here.

Respectfully

[nbforrest]

A little snippet I found regarding Regis deTrobriand, one of Sickles' own brigade commanders:in his words the new position offered "some great inconviences and some great dangers."

Even if one is to believe that the Peach Orchard was a good artillery position, the position was simply untenable, rendering an occupation of it pointless.

Respectfully

[ole]

To give any credit to Sickles, one would have to assume that his assigned position couldn't be held and, therefore, Sickles saved Meade's bacon by moving forward. Crediting Sickles for averting an imagined disaster does the argument no favors.

Hunt opined that the assigned position wasn't that great, but that there was time available to dig in and fortify. Meade was absolutely correct in his observation that Sickles was driven at great loss back to the position he was assigned. A cost of men and materiel with virtually no gain.

How bad was the assigned position? An attacking force would cross open fields, dense woods, the Plum Run marshes, and Devil's Den -- none of which were conducive to a solid wall of attacking infantry. Dismissing defense of that position as untenable is, itself, untenable.

Meade managed to shuffle troops to help Sickles. Is there any reason to believe he couldn't have done the same had Sickles gotten into trouble in his assigned position?

Ole

[nbforrest]

Good points, ole. I agree that an argument based solely on a hypothesis is not a very good one in situations like this.
Hunt merely commented that the Peach Orchard had some favorable ground for artillery. The fact that he refused to give authority for Sickles to move forward says a lot.

Respectfully

[Donald Schneider]

Dear NB:

Hey, who's side are you on? With a screen name like "NBForrest," and being from Old Virginny, why are you arguing with the great bulk of the Confederate general officers I have quoted thus far who had been the principal players? (Alexander appears to have been the sole dissenter, and he had been writing years afterwards, probably simply following others he read--on the Union side! There's always one in every crowd.)

Ah, perfidy. Thy name is Dixie!

Don Schneider

P.S. Hunt didn't "refuse" to give the order. He hadn't the authority, which is why he had to consult with Meade.

[Donald Schneider]

Dear NB:

You talk about assumptions! It is no "assumption" that the Union won a decisive victory at Gettysburg--and might well have ended the bloodshed then and there had they had a commander less seemingly timid in his reactions!

Presumably, those who argue against Sickles's movement that day would --if they somehow had the power to do so--go back into time and prevent the movement in question, sacrificing the known certainty of the ultimate result in favor of a real assumption that the Union would have prevailed anyway; and many of those who would do so allegedly favor the Union cause!

Don Schneider

[nbforrest]

don,
I go with what the facts point to. Blind obedience to one side is extremely foolish. Of course, that is even assuming that the majority of Confederate officers approved of Sickles' move forward. That has not been proven to me. A couple of selectively chosen quotes does not constitute a conclusive survey to me. Even if the Rebs did agree with Sickles, that doesn't mean they were right.

Regarding your second post, it just seems like all you have to hold onto is a hypothesis. You aren't considering facts, like the terrain or the actual collapse of Sickles' line. I just don't think you have a lot to hold onto. As I said earlier, the terrain doesn't lie.

Respectfully