Sickles Venture Forward

Citation: Displayed most conspicuous gallantry on the field vigorously contesting the advance of the enemy and continuing to encourage his troops after being himself severely wounded. I'm sure it can be rescinded.



Sounds like a weak argument.



Of course.... the entire invasion was "temporary." In regards to clarity of orders.

Point one - it pays to be a congressman with the president's ear. And what good would it do to rescind the MoH from him almost 100 years after the man died?

Point two - weak argument? I'm the one throwing quotes around here to prove my points, you and Opn have done none of that, you've only made wild arsed claims, so far. And as far as a quote from Humphreys, here goes, Coddington page #356:

General Humphreys later commented that if all the troops of the Third, Fifth, and Second Corps engaged on the Union left flank had been in position at the beginning of the battle on July 2, or if all the reinforcements had been sent in in one body, the result would have been different. Any attempt, he asserted, to maintain by successive reinforcements a position which was originally held by inadequate numbers of men and was about to give way, was bound to be unsuccessful. It was so with his Third Corps.

Point three, what does the temporary nature of the whole invasion have to do with the fleeting value of the PO?
 
Good for him.... maybe Meade should have done the same.

The interesting thing is that the officers and men of the III Corps endorsed him to the end.... and that's all that really matters.

Meade did not have the political pull that Sickles had. Not all of the officers and men endorsed Sickles. His staff was a bunch of toadies and lackeys. The only West Pointer he had of any rank in his corps was Andrew Humphreys. So there was a major question as to the veracity of those backing Sickles.
 
Meade did not have the political pull that Sickles had. Not all of the officers and men endorsed Sickles. His staff was a bunch of toadies and lackeys. The only West Pointer he had of any rank in his corps was Andrew Humphreys. So there was a major question as to the veracity of those backing Sickles.

I respect your opinion but I would like to see solid proof.... it must exist somewhere. I do know he had political pull but if what you say is really true about the entire III Corps then Sickles must have been one brilliant officer.
 
I respect your opinion but I would like to see solid proof.... it must exist somewhere. I do know he had political pull but if what you say is really true about the entire III Corps then Sickles must have been one brilliant officer.

A quote from one of the division commanders in Sickles Corps isn't enough? You asked for proof that Sickles subordinates disagreed with the move and TDMD provided it..
 
A quote from one of the division commanders in Sickles Corps isn't enough? You asked for proof that Sickles subordinates disagreed with the move and TDMD provided it..

Not much of a distasteful quote. I would rather see something like this:

"There was considerable grumbling from below. The new Maj. Gen. Pleasonton had become notorious for lack of bravery among the men "who have served under him and seen him under fire." One cavalry surgeon wrote, "Poor little pusillanimous Pleasanton wants to . . . have Stoneman's place--& he is about as fit for it as any 2nd Lieutenant in the command." As a captain in the 1st Massachusetts saw it, Pleasonton was "pure and simple a newspaper humbug. . . . He does nothing save with a view to a newspaper paragraph." As another officer observed, "it is the universal opinion that Pleasonton's own reputation, and Pleasonton's late promotions are bolstered up by systematic lying." Pleasonton soon used his new power to purge the cavalry's foreign-born brigade commanders, believing them insufficiently patriotic because of their foreign origins. His troopers were also antagonized by his growing reputation as a cold-blooded martinet, and soon yearned for Stoneman's return. One cavalry officer pointed to Pleasonton's "tyrannical & illegal exercise of military authority," in calling him an exceedingly brutal disciplinarian. Earlier in the war, one critic had warned army headquarters that "I sincerely believe that somebody will be wanted before long to prefer charges against him."
 
A month earlier Sickles held the high artillery ground at Chancellorsville until ordered off by Hooker. Sickles remembered this advantage and I think was one of his reasons for vacating his assigned position.
 
I respect your opinion but I would like to see solid proof.... it must exist somewhere. I do know he had political pull but if what you say is really true about the entire III Corps then Sickles must have been one brilliant officer.

Being loved by his men does not make an officer either more or less brilliant. I gave you the opinions of Humphreys. Birney (the other division commander of Third Corps) was in bed with Sickles and may have even been the guy who wrote with the alias of Historicus in defense of Sickles through the years. Sykes, Hancock, and Humphreys were all ticked off by the move. It is just as important to consider the opinions of the leaders of neighboring corps about what they thought of Sickles move.

As an alternative, why don't you come up with evidence to prove your point that Sickles' move was so popular among the Third Corps?
 
Not much of a distasteful quote. I would rather see something like this:

"There was considerable grumbling from below. The new Maj. Gen. Pleasonton had become notorious for lack of bravery among the men "who have served under him and seen him under fire." One cavalry surgeon wrote, "Poor little pusillanimous Pleasanton wants to . . . have Stoneman's place--& he is about as fit for it as any 2nd Lieutenant in the command." As a captain in the 1st Massachusetts saw it, Pleasonton was "pure and simple a newspaper humbug. . . . He does nothing save with a view to a newspaper paragraph." As another officer observed, "it is the universal opinion that Pleasonton's own reputation, and Pleasonton's late promotions are bolstered up by systematic lying." Pleasonton soon used his new power to purge the cavalry's foreign-born brigade commanders, believing them insufficiently patriotic because of their foreign origins. His troopers were also antagonized by his growing reputation as a cold-blooded martinet, and soon yearned for Stoneman's return. One cavalry officer pointed to Pleasonton's "tyrannical & illegal exercise of military authority," in calling him an exceedingly brutal disciplinarian. Earlier in the war, one critic had warned army headquarters that "I sincerely believe that somebody will be wanted before long to prefer charges against him."

Humphreys said what he said, and I quoted it. It came from Coddington, who normally is an unimpeachable source for Gettysburg info. Humphreys quote was clearly not a ringing endorsement of what Sickles had done.
 
A month earlier Sickles held the high artillery ground at Chancellorsville until ordered off by Hooker. Sickles remembered this advantage and I think was one of his reasons for vacating his assigned position.

Yes, but the high ground that Sickles wanted to hold at Chancellorsville and the PO were different situations that Sickles had misread as the same. Hazel Grove (the high ground at Chancellorsville) was secured from the kind of fire from all over the field that the Peach Orchard was not. The Peach Orchard was one spot that could be reached by fire from across the two ridges.
 
Being loved by his men does not make an officer either more or less brilliant. I gave you the opinions of Humphreys. Birney (the other division commander of Third Corps) was in bed with Sickles and may have even been the guy who wrote with the alias of Historicus in defense of Sickles through the years. Sykes, Hancock, and Humphreys were all ticked off by the move. It is just as important to consider the opinions of the leaders of neighboring corps about what they thought of Sickles move.

What your men say or don't say should mean something. Humphrey's statement is like most made after the fact.... nothing obvious there. I'd like to know what he said just prior or during the move. Sickles was not liked by the other Corps commanders because he was not one of those ring knockers, this was evident prior to Gettysburg. The more I read I have to wonder what Meade was really thinking in putting Sickles in the position and why is the exact position still confusing to historians to this day.

As an alternative, why don't you come up with evidence to prove your point that Sickles' move was so popular among the Third Corps?

The fact that the III Corps men under him didn't complain is somewhat an approval of that move in my opinion. As I said before I don't agree with Sickles move but apparently Meade's orders were not clear enough for Sickles and his staff. I understand Sickles concern on finding a better tactical position and his initiative is commendable, but the timing was bad luck. Have you considered the possibility that maybe Meade had it out for Sickles? Apparently, both personalities clashed before Gettysburg.
 
What your men say or don't say should mean something. Humphrey's statement is like most made after the fact.... nothing obvious there. I'd like to know what he said just prior or during the move. Sickles was not liked by the other Corps commanders because he was not one of those ring knockers, this was evident prior to Gettysburg. The more I read I have to wonder what Meade was really thinking in putting Sickles in the position and why is the exact position still confusing to historians to this day.

How about the fact that those ring knockers were working while Sickles, Hooker and Buttrerfield were partying? It seems like most historians assess the position that Meade ordered Sickles to as superior to the one that Sickles assumed. And named named about thirteen reasons as to why before.




The fact that the III Corps men under him didn't complain is somewhat an approval of that move in my opinion. As I said before I don't agree with Sickles move but apparently Meade's orders were not clear enough for Sickles and his staff. I understand Sickles concern on finding a better tactical position and his initiative is commendable, but the timing was bad luck. Have you considered the possibility that maybe Meade had it out for Sickles? Apparently, both personalities clashed before Gettysburg.

I don't place any credence as to what Sickles men thought. He recruited them and they were not about to admit that they fell apart, even under the most adverse of circumstances. I told you what Humphreys thought. On the flipside, you haven't given any quotes as to what Sickles men thought either. Yes, I know the two clashed before Gettysburg, but that doesn't change the fact that Sickles disobeyed orders (sketched out for him on a map), and screwed up Meade's defensive alignment so far out of whack that it affected the defense of Culp's Hill.
 
The Proof is the Result

Sickles as a politician had political pull in Washington. After Sickles was carried from the Gettysburg battlefield, he never again served with the Army of the Potomac.
 
How about the fact that those ring lknockers were working while Sickles, Hooker and Buttrerfield were partying? It seems like most historians assess the position that Meade ordered Sickles to as superior to the one that Sickles assumed. And named named about thirteen reasons as to why before.






I don't place any credence as to what Sickles men thought. He recruited them and they were not about to admit that they fell apart, even under the most adverse of circumstances. I told you what Humphreys thought. On the flipside, you haven't given any quotes as to what Sickles men thought either. Yes, I know the two clashed before Gettysburg, but that doesn't change the fact that Sickles disobeyed orders (sketched out for him on a map), and screwed up Meade's defensive alignment so far out of whack that it affected the defense of Culp's Hill.

I would think that if his men supported Sickles move, they would have been lining up to give their support and testimonies on his behalf, when the firestorm erupted over this...I haven't run across any, has anyone else..
 
I don't place any credence as to what Sickles men thought. <snip> Yes, I know the two clashed before Gettysburg, but that doesn't change the fact that Sickles disobeyed orders <snip>

What about wise old Lincoln's criticism of Meade?

"You have given the enemy a stunning blow at Gettysburg. Follow it up, and give him another before he can reach the Potomac. When he crosses, circumstances will determine whether it will be best to pursue him by the Shenandoah Valley or this side of the Blue Ridge." Lincoln's "prevent his crossing" had become "when he crosses."

I guess you could say Meade also "disobeyed orders."
 
What about wise old Lincoln's criticism of Meade?

"You have given the enemy a stunning blow at Gettysburg. Follow it up, and give him another before he can reach the Potomac. When he crosses, circumstances will determine whether it will be best to pursue him by the Shenandoah Valley or this side of the Blue Ridge." Lincoln's "prevent his crossing" had become "when he crosses."

I guess you could say Meade also "disobeyed orders."

No you can't say that Meade disobeyed Lincoln's orders, because Lincoln did not specifically "order" Meade to pursue. Lincoln had a habit of suggesting, not ordering. Secondly, Lincoln was not on the ground at the time of the pursuit, so he couldn't honestly judge what Meade was doing, or how he was doing it. Thirdly, Lincoln was wrong - Meade was pursuing Lee, but circumstances were not in Meade's favor for a swift pursuit as was usual back then. In a large way, Sickles, himself, contributed to the problems Meade had in pursuit - the Sixth and Fifth Corps were no longer fresh and Meade's three most aggressive corps commanders were out of action.
 
I would think that if his men supported Sickles move, they would have been lining up to give their support and testimonies on his behalf, when the firestorm erupted over this...I haven't run across any, has anyone else..

I agree. That's why I asked 101 to provide me examples of support from former Third Corps officers and men. Birney provided some support from what I understand in testimony to the CCotW, but he was into it up to his eyeballs along with Sickles.
 
I have always believed that on the morning of July 2nd neither General Hancock or Meade had a complete understanding of the ground before them. Confederate E. P. Alexander commented that the Peach Orchard and surrounding ground was a artilleryman dream. Elevated flat ground perfect for gun placement. If the Northern command had seen the potential that Alexander did they could have positioned artillery and infantry support in a manner that would have been very difficult for Longstreet to push back. Artillery fire from the Peach Orchard area would be much more commanding of the field and more deadly. Re-enforcing Sickles line would have allowed his left flank to be well anchored into the base of LRT and Devils Den. Sickles right with proper support could have tied back into the troops on Cemetery Hill. Longstreet would have had a hard time attacking the left flank or attempting a frontal assault.
The re-enforcing of Sickles line in this manner would have also showed Lee that the Northern troops were strong in the center. I wonder what Lee's battle plan would have been on the 3rd.
 
Back
Top