Dan Sickles, Union Savior?

[Donald Schneider]

Dear Sam:

Of course I don't mean to argue that Sickles alone saved the day for the Union at Gettysburg. He had been just one of several who could make such a claim--a far cry from the injustice inflicted upon his reputation by revisionist historians. Joshua L. Chamberlain--one of the most totally admirable men ever to grace our country--is another, of course.

Don

[Donald Schneider]

Dear NB:

When you make remarks such as: "All you need to do is to look at the terrain..." [in order to see what a terrible blunder Sickles had made], and refer to Steve "shaking his head" [in apparent befuddlement as to how Sickles could have even thought of such an idea], you are attempting to assert a "slam-dunk" case that Sickles's move had been idiotic. But to do so, you seem to imply that many highly experienced and respected officers, such as General Henry Hunt (whom I quoted from--first hand) had been just as inept as Sickles in not "instantly comprehending" what this Steve and yourself can now, almost 150 years later.

Hunt did not think Sickles proposed move was at all absurd. He had reservations that it would extend Sickles's line too much and force a gap in the Union line. Sickles apparently believed that leaving the gap with Hancock was absolutely necessary if the Union left had any chance at all to be held in light of the threatening storm upon him. In no way can you or anyone else make an ironclad case that Sickles move was a blunder simply by taking into account the terrain (even assuming it is much the same now as it had been then).

Don

[nbforrest]

Hunt did not advocate that Sickles move forward, he merely noted that the high ground was possibly a good artillery position. In an abstract sense it was. But obviously Hunt did not believe that the position was critical enough to be occupied by Sickles. Nor did Hunt have the time to ride over and examine the ground.
Perhaps if there were a significant number of officers who stated that the terrain was worth occupying by Sickles...but they're not there. Again, even assuming that Hunt fervently believed that the Peach Orchard area was crucial ground (he didn't), that doesn't make him right. Throughout this discussion you seem to take the words of those who support your theory as the Gospel truth.
By this point I assume that you have not had a chance to walk over the battlefield personally. But written descriptions and maps can suffice. An examination of the ground leads to the sole conclusion that Sickles' forward line was untenable. The reason why that is the sole conclusion? Because despite Sickles' supposedly brilliant deployment, his line crumpled with some bloody but not terribly difficult fighting by the Rebs.

Respectfully

[ole]

Thanks, Don, for the thorough and earnest reply.

You seem to be advancing the idea that there was no "blunder" because of a lack of contemporary comments calling the movement one. Sam cited a few, so I thought that door was closed.

Seems like it wasn't until recently that the word "blunder" cropped up. At the time, I would suspect that those who thought it was a blunder were not in position to say. Sykes, for example, would have no reason express anything other than wonderment at Sickles' movement. Meade himself, years later, would opine that there must have been some misunderstanding. (Although he did, at a different time, express that a lot of blood was spilled resulting in Sickles being pushed back to where he started from.)

As for the hyptheticals: That Sickles' original position would have been easily overrun is supposition. That it would not have been easily overrun is also supposition, but has some rational basis in facts, i.e., the suppositions are not equal.

Do keep up your defense. I'm diverted from tariff's to checking out the 2nd Day.
Ole

[ole]

Citations:

Henry Hunt's observations seem to be on the order of "Yes, that's a good place for artillery. Why are you ringing me in on this?" The cited observation of Hunt also concludes that the original position could have been entrenched and fortified.

On Longstreet: Longstreet wrote that book largely as a defense. Virtually every one of his contemporaries hated him, and more than a few of them were whitewashing Lee at Pete's expense. Although none of that means that all Longstreet's recollections are unreliable, enough of them have been proven false to cause the others to be suspect.

Two confederate generals opined that Sickles' position caused them difficulty: did either of them speculate on what difficulty they might have had if Sickles had been where he was intended to be?

There is no doubt that Sickles' troops put up a good fight, and after that, Caldwell's division. But they were beaten back. The question remains: would the intended position have suffered the same mauling? Now we're in opinion.

I can't say they wouldn't have been mauled, or possibly rolled up and driven from the field. But I can believe that they stood a better chance on Hancock's right -- where they were supposed to be.

Ole

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by ole

Meade himself, years later, would opine that there must have been some misunderstanding. (Although he did, at a different time, express that a lot of blood was spilled resulting in Sickles being pushed back to where he started from.)


Ole

Meade did at one point ask for an official inquiry on the criticism from 'Historicus', but was advised not to waste his time as his opponent had resources in the press (etc.) which could not be matched...

"Meade understandably denounced the Historicus account, reaffirmed his opinion that the salient position was untenable, and objected to the many statements prejudicial to his reputation. He wanted action to be taken against the author, presumably Sickles, and requested that Lincoln convene a court of inquiry. In reply to Meade's letter, Maj. Gen. Henry Halleck advised Meade to ignore Sickles and said the latter's authorship of the story could not be proved. To pursue the matter would only benefit Sickles by providing him with another forum in which to glorify himself.


Sickles and his supporters attempted to show that the salient position had acted as a breakwater that deflected the Confederate attack before it could reach the main Union line. This breakwater effect, they contended, enabled the Federals to hold Cemetery Ridge and ultimately win the battle. The argument may have some validity, but it ignores the fact that Sickles had no such end in view when he disobeyed his orders to stay put."

http://www.historynet.com/acw/bldevi...ts/index2.html

At any rate, I would suggest that Meade took the 'Gentleman's' position when he said it was a 'misunderstanding'.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Donald Schneider

Dear Sam:

Of course I don't mean to argue that Sickles alone saved the day for the Union at Gettysburg. He had been just one of several who could make such a claim--a far cry from the injustice inflicted upon his reputation by revisionist historians. Joshua L. Chamberlain--one of the most totally admirable men ever to grace our country--is another, of course.

Don

OK, then can we disregard all that "irrefutable" nonsense?

Many soldiers did make claims for their credit at Gettysburg; after all, it was the the most well publicized battle or the era, and everybody wanted to get their piece of the glory, understandably.

I'd suggest that the difference between a Sickles and a Chamberlain in that regaerd, might be that the former touted his claims almost before the battle had ended, while the later finally succumbed to his claim to fame years after the fact.

There's lots of Chamberlain debunkers out there as well.

[nbforrest]

I guess I fall into the camp of Chamberlain debunkers, but that is another thread...
Sickles and Chamberlain were different in their claims though...Chamberlain didn't have to defend a bad action, but rather built up his own reputation (in my opinion at least).

I'm sort of the opinion that Union victory at Gettysburg was a near certainty. I suppose Longstreet's en echelon attack was the best alternative in the circumstances, but I think in some sense all of this argument over Sickles' actions is a moot point because I think that any gap would have been closed by the II/V/VI Corps.

I still can't condone a move that moves from a relatively stable and protected position to one floating in the open with two open flanks, though.

Respectfully

[Donald Schneider]

Dear Matt:

Thanks so much for contacting him and finding this invaluable resource. Due to time constraints, I've only had the opportunity to look at the Cornell site reproducing The War of the Rebellion on a casual basis. I don't think I understand as yet how to locate and find specific information.

I was disappointed that at Shotgun's site there is no report from General Geary, nor apparently any of his brigade commanders. Our minds must think alike as I would very much like to find his report as being of particular interest in this matter. I.E., to see if he reported ever being on LRT and, if so, how far his line extended to his right. Sickles seems to indicate that Geary's division had never actually occupied LRT, but rather had been massed to the right of it as Sickles claims had been Hancock's orders to Geary. Thus, since the only specific order Sickles ever acknowledged he received from Meade was to replace Geary, Sickles's point that Meade had never expected him to either, notwithstanding what Meade later wrote to Benedict.

In regard to the matter of whom exactly ordered Buford to quit the Union left flank to guard the trains in Westminster, it is curious that neither Buford's own report, nor that of his commander, Pleasanton, is of any help. They both simply indicate that Buford's division withdrew upon having "been relieved by the Third Corps." Can you come up with any definitive research as to whom actually initiated the order? Sickles claimed that it had been Meade, which he tried to use as yet another justification for his contention that Meade had wanted to retreat from Gettysburg (and therefore wanted Buford to guard his line of prospective retreat).

Thanks, Matt. I appreciate your efforts as I have time pressures right now, as I suppose many do, possibly yourself included. I can see from your note of your Civil War veteran relative that you are at least partially a fellow Kraut. Thus, we are Volk!

Don

[samgrant]

ARTICLE I.
MILITARY DISCIPLINE.

1. ALL inferiors are required to obey strictly, and to execute with alacrity and good faith, the lawful orders of the superiors appointed over them.

http://www.usregulars.com/Regulations%20Home.html