Civil War History - Gettysburg ForumGettysburg! It's not just a National Park. It's a Civil War Battlefield. For some it's historic and storied past are almost an obsession! All related discussions are welcome here!
The question, then was it possible for 3d Corps to effectively cover the ground from Hancocks's left, up to and including LRT?
It does look like a lot of ground to cover for one Union Corps and still be strong enough to repel a full blooded offenseive from
Really? Does it look like an unreasonable amount of ground? On the map to me it kind've looks like if Sickles had stuck it out between Hancock's left and Little Round Top that he would be covering about the same amount of ground as Hancock was.
To me it almost doesn't really matter where Lee's blow eventually would've fallen; his assault would've hit the fishhook square on. I think Lee's assault is going to hit Hancock.
The line Sickles was supposed to hold was considerably shorter than the one he chose to hold. I believe I read that the ground he was assigned would have been stretching his corps somewhat thin, but nowhere near as tenuously as his chosen position.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
For the purposes' of this thread, where Longstreets attack falls, does matter.
If Longstreet is attacking Hancock, then Sickles movement forward did more harm than good, to 3d Corps at least. But, if he is indeed planning his attack on Sickles' Crops. Then it would seem that meeting the attack from the more forward position allowed 3d Corps to absorb the full brunt of the attack and rob it of all impetus, something problematic if that corps had received the attack on its flank while facing West.
So if Lee planned his attack to include LRT, then 3d Corps would become the main target, whether inteded by Lee or not.
If nothing else was learned from Day 2, a single Union Corps stood little chance of standing up to an all-out attack by a much bigger Confederate corps, especially if attacked on one of its flanks. If not Sickles' then Hancock's.
For the purposes' of this thread, where Longstreets attack falls, does matter. If Longstreet is attacking Hancock, then Sickles movement forward did more harm than good, to 3d Corps at least. But, if he is indeed planning his attack on Sickles' Crops. Then it would seem that meeting the attack from the more forward position allowed 3d Corps to absorb the full brunt of the attack and rob it of all impetus
Actually I'm of the opinion that if Longstreet is attacking Hancock, Sickles' movement forward aids the Hancock. On Day 2 Longstreet's Corps is making the major assault, but Anderson from Hill's Corps is also sent in. Anderson's division DOES hit Hancock on his left flank and DOES make a penetration, but it is unsupported (this is also one of the reasons why Lee orders Pickett's charge the next day, he thinks Union center is vulnerable). Nevertheless, if Sickles is in his proper position (from Hancock's left to the Little Round Top), the Confederate assault would land square onto Hancock's left and that, in my opinion, would be A LOT of firepower at a concentrated point. Sickles' movement forward absorbs the shock from McLaws and Hood, pressure NOT applied to Hancock.
Anderson, being on the 'left' of the Confederate assault, I think appropriately demonstrates Lee's actual target for Day 2, Hood and McLaws should be hitting to the right of Anderson of course, so we're looking at an assault targeting Hancock's left and if Sickles' had stayed in position, possibly the junction between the two corps.
BUT EVEN IF the attack is aimed lower on the Union fishook, specifically at Sickles' proposed position between Hancock and the Little Round Top, again the assault would be landing SQUARE onto the fishook; WHEREAS by moving forward, elements of the assault hit Hancock, Sickles in the Peach Orchard with Hood trying to move around Sickles' left - ie. the attack is diffused over a wider area.
The movement of Sickles forward does rob Longstreet's attack of impetus, which is a good thing. We can't truly know what would have happened if he had stayed in his original position, but the fighting would either have been much harder for both, or more just plain disastrous to the Confederates, because they are attacking higher ground under plunging artillery fire. It may well have been Pickett's charge a day earlier.
The fact that Sickles moved forward and robbed the attack of its full force is a key factor, but it wasn't as if Sickles was thinking that at the time. He saw what he thought was better ground, and he left his right flank open and exposed his men to a brutal attack that practically destroyed the Third Corps as a unit, as it was later consolidated into either the Second or Fifth Corps (can't remember which; if someone knows, put it in ).
The high ground at the Peach Orchard wasn't really all that great a position to begin with. Even if Sickles hadn't taken it, and Alexander had put artillery there, it was commanded itself by roughly equal ground on Cemetery Ridge and higher ground on Little Round Top. Alexander himself stated after the battle that the ground in the Peach Orchard was useless to both sides, because it was commanded from both the Union and the Confederate lines. And the fact that his flank was hanging left a possible disaster waiting to happen from the beginning.
So yes, it slowed Longstreet down, and took momentum from the attacks of McLaws, Anderson and Hood, but at what cost? It cost a corps, and many, many men in some of the fiercest fighting of the day. Sickles moved his men into a mediocre, not better position. And even though it very well may have saved the day, it was still ill advised and I don't think any of the credit should go to Sickles. It should go to the men who fought in the Peach Orchard, in the Wheatfield, the Rose Farm, Devils Den, and Little Round Top. They fought hard to hold an almost unholdable position.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
A most excellent post, J_Man. It deserves some better response than I have in me at this hour. Will try again tomorrow.
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
Mediocre position; as opposed to what better position? In any case Sickles was not the only General officer to misread the terrain and made wrong decicisons based on inadequate information, that influenced the battle at Gettysburg, some of them of much higher rank.
As I have noted, it is unlikely that Hancock's Corps would have withstood Longstreets attack any better than Sickles and Sickles in his original postion would have been as vulnerable as he was in his forward position except (like Hancock) he would have been facing the wrong direction.
Did not Lee want to take the Peach Orchard in the first place, so that he could establish a artillery base to support his attack? I don't think it fair to blame Sickles for making the same mistake as Lee, IF it was a mistake.
If one admits that Sickles movement forstalled an overwhelming Confederate attack on the Left Flank of the AoP and more than likely saved the 2d Day for the Union, which Led directly to Pickett's Charge on the 3d day, then one might logically claim that the sacrifice of 3d Corps was justified, whatever the intents of Lee, Meade, Longstreet or Sickles. might have been at the time.
Mediocre position; as opposed to what better position? In any case Sickles was not the only General officer to misread the terrain and made wrong decicisons based on inadequate information, that influenced the battle at Gettysburg, some of them of much higher rank.
As I have noted, it is unlikely that Hancock's Corps would have withstood Longstreets attack any better than Sickles and Sickles in his original postion would have been as vulnerable as he was in his forward position except (like Hancock) he would have been facing the wrong direction.
Did not Lee want to take the Peach Orchard in the first place, so that he could establish a artillery base to support his attack? I don't think it fair to blame Sickles for making the same mistake as Lee, IF it was a mistake.
If one admits that Sickles movement forstalled an overwhelming Confederate attack on the Left Flank of the AoP and more than likely saved the 2d Day for the Union, which Led directly to Pickett's Charge on the 3d day, then one might logically claim that the sacrifice of 3d Corps was justified, whatever the intents of Lee, Meade, Longstreet or Sickles. might have been at the time.
Lee might have wanted it, but Lee is guilty of making a few bad command decisions during the battle of Gettysburg, not just Picketts charge. And to have charged men on high ground would have been suicide.
The Peach Orchard, as I said earlier, was not a better position than where Sickles had been posted. Sure, it dominated the left end of Hancock's line. But, if Sickles had remained in the position he had been assigned, he would have enjoyed superior position to any Confederate artillery posted in the Peach Orchard. Three batteries were put in place from the summit of LRT to the hill just north of what is Wheatfield Road. The positions on LRT, as stated earlier, dominated the Peach Orchard, and could rain shot and shell down on the enemy artillery, making the position wholly untenable to Alexander's guns.
Now let me define more clearly what I mean by a mediocre position. For one, it is not the better ground, for there was superior ground, much more defensible, behind where Sickles put his men. By pushing his corps forward, Sickles not only had to defend it, but keep the enemy from getting around his position and losing the high ground behind him. To do this,he had to extend his lines, which made the left as vulnerable as the right. If you look at the maps of the fighting on the left during the second day, you will see that there were only two brigades positioned between the Peach Orchard and Devils Den. Hardly enough to stand up to the better part of Hood's and Mclaw's Divisions. The position might have been defensible had a better corps commander been in place, but I don't think any of the others would have left the high ground. Sickles poorly allocated troops and picked a poor position to hold.
The line that Sickles was assigned was a fine defensive position. It was chosen by men trained to locate and occupy good ground. Hancock and Meade knew what they were doing. Sickles had no training and was a political general. He saw what he thought was better ground and it turned out he was wrong. Colonel Alexander, when he came to the Peach Orchard after the Federals were driven out looked toward the Union line and realized that had Sickles been positioned further back, where he was supposed to be, though Alexander didn't know that, the Confederate assault would have failed miserably and probably driven nobody off. In speaking of the Cemetery Ridge positions, he noted that the ridge offered "good cover behind it and endless fine positions for batteries." What ground is he speaking of? Why its the very ground Sickles was to have held.
Hood was ordered to attack the Federal line. He was not to go around the flank, but charge straight ahead, against his wishes. He knew that it was suicide. The reason he went up LRT was because of Sickles line extending out, forcing him up the hills. The signal station was still on LRT, and Warren probably still would have gone up there. If there was a threat, it would most likely have been taken care of with the Fifth Corps, securing the flank, making the attack even more disastrous for the Confederates.
The move forward may have been helpful, to be sure, as I have said. It took the oomph out of the attack. But that does not, in my opinion, justify it. Sickles was a glory hound, looking out for his own good and fortune, and he destroyed his corps and lost a leg for it. He tried to hold a position thats superiority was illusionary. It was through efforts of the men of the Second and Fifth Corps that the line was saved. The Third Corps fought valiantly to be sure, but what else were they to do? Sickles wasted his corps. The ends do not always justify the means.
__________________ "The unity of government which constitutes you one people is also now dear to you. It is justly so, for it is a main pillar in the edifice of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad; of your safety; of your prosperity; of that very liberty which you so highly prize." George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796
It cost a corps, and many, many men in some of the fiercest fighting of the day. Sickles moved his men into a mediocre, not better position. And even though it very well may have saved the day, it was still ill advised and I don't think any of the credit should go to Sickles. It should go to the men who fought in the Peach Orchard, in the Wheatfield, the Rose Farm, Devils Den, and Little Round Top. They fought hard to hold an almost unholdable position.
I think the Feds were going to lose a corps (or the equivalent of one, one way or another); you are going to lose something to beat off an 1863 Confederate Corps. Its difficult to determine which would've been a better position, the Peach Orchard, or Sickles' original position, but even if we consider Meade's original position to be better, I am still concerned that the full weight of a Confederate Corps will make the entire fishhook untenable. The Federals can 'afford' to lose the Peach Orchard, they cannot lose any position on the fishhook, for any substantial period of time of course)
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Really? 
).
Linear Mode
