Dan Sickles - Anything good?

[davepi2]

I asked this about Burnside a bit ago and got some good information. He did have some good service despite history largely only remembering Fredericksburg.

How about Sickles? History remembers either insanity defense or his day 2 Gettysburg movement. Perhaps the most generous thing history may remember is that he visited his leg at Walter Reed, showcasing his bravery under fire.

So, what are the good things of Sickles? Service or lesser advertised actions?

Depending on your view of reconstruction he is the initial person to get the ball rolling to overturn the results of the election of 1876.

 

[Belfoured]

Here's the thing about Dirty Dan - for some reason he lasted an incredibly long time against great physical odds that would have killed most men and did. He and Longstreet were friendly to a point and that made a good talking point long after the Civil War. His widely known good deeds - Gettysburg Park, publicly breaking with pre-war Southern sympathizers, recruiting the Excelsior Brigade - offset his bad deeds. And by outliving his accusers, he's the one that got to tell the story.

Plus the eccentricity of visiting his leg in the museum didn't hurt either.

I think we'll agree to disagree about "offset". He was basically a morally bankrupt, corrupt Tammany pol. We can salute his role in establishing Gettysburg but even his involvement in those sorts of activities was accompanied by corruption - all that "missing" dinero belonging to the NY Monuments Commission. I'm not even bringing in his sordid personal life. As for "visiting" the leg, we can add "narcissist" to "liar" and "corrupt pol". And he was far from the only one who paid a heavy price for his arrogant stupidity on July 2.
Yep - I really like Ole Dan.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

I think we'll agree to disagree about "offset". He was basically a morally bankrupt, corrupt Tammany pol. We can salute his role in establishing Gettysburg but even his involvement in those sorts of activities was accompanied by corruption - all that "missing" dinero belonging to the NY Monuments Commission. I'm not even bringing in his sordid personal life. As for "visiting" the leg, we can add "narcissist" to "liar" and "corrupt pol". And he was far from the only one who paid a heavy price for his arrogant stupidity on July 2.
Yep - I really like Ole Dan.

No - we really agree - I misspoke and meant to edit out "offset" and somehow I didn't. I hadn't woken up yet and was trying to figure out my wording.

What I meant is, he outlived most of them and his odious behavior somehow just drifted to the side because of outliving most everyone. He, in my mind, was a classic sociopath.

Just because the clock is right twice a day (Gettysburg, supporting Lincoln) doesn't mean he is a good person.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Suffice to say that sentiment is against Dan Sickles and I would not disagree with the majority. How ironic then is the undisputable fact that his move to the Peach Orchard salient and Emmitsburg road disrupted the Confederate plan of attack on the right from the outset, diverting a portion of the brigades of Laws and Robertson and having Anderson and Benning exert themselves in attacking the Federals posted between the Devil's Den and Wheatfield, besides seriously damaging (by Union artillery) the brigades of Kershaw and Semmes. Sickles may have been like that blind squirrel who still finds an acorn occasionally. His adversary Longstreet thought the Union won the battle because of Sickles' move (https://civilwartalk.com/threads/longstreet-to-sickles-on-gettysburg-1902.145172/). The Confederates took the initiative at Gettysburg from start to finish, so it is ironic (that word again) that Sickles was the only one to disrupt Lee's plans by assuming the initiative himself, even if he was insubordinate and his motives questionable in doing so.

In fact, the Oxford definition of "irony" seems to perfectly define Sickles' actions on that day: "Ill-timed arrival of an event or circumstance that is in itself desirable." There are plenty of relevant sayings from history on this topic, but I will just quote one from Theodore Roosevelt: "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing." Admiral Horatio Nelson, for one, disobeyed orders and won the battle of Copenhagen. But if one is going to be insubordinate, it is a requirement to win. It's the difference between being called a hero or being vilified in posterity. A stainless reputation also helps.

 

[JerryD]

Suffice to say that sentiment is against Dan Sickles and I would not disagree with the majority. How ironic then is the undisputable fact that his move to the Peach Orchard salient and Emmitsburg road disrupted the Confederate plan of attack on the right from the outset, diverting a portion of the brigades of Laws and Robertson and having Anderson and Benning exert themselves in attacking the Federals posted between the Devil's Den and Wheatfield, besides seriously damaging (by Union artillery) the brigades of Kershaw and Semmes. Sickles may have been like that blind squirrel who still finds an acorn occasionally. His adversary Longstreet thought the Union won the battle because of Sickles' move (https://civilwartalk.com/threads/longstreet-to-sickles-on-gettysburg-1902.145172/). The Confederates took the initiative at Gettysburg from start to finish, so it is ironic (that word again) that Sickles was the only one to disrupt Lee's plans by assuming the initiative himself, even if he was insubordinate and his motives questionable in doing so.

In fact, the Oxford definition of "irony" seems to perfectly define Sickles' actions on that day: "Ill-timed arrival of an event or circumstance that is in itself desirable." There are plenty of relevant sayings from history on this topic, but I will just quote one from Theodore Roosevelt: "In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing." Admiral Horatio Nelson, for one, disobeyed orders and won the battle of Copenhagen. But if one is going to be insubordinate, it is a requirement to win. It's the difference between being called a hero or being vilified in posterity. A stainless reputation also helps.

Strongly suggest you read this analysis of his actions. It pretty convincingly puts to the lie the idea that Sickles saved the day. More accurately, he put the day at risk and Meade had to save his tuchus.

Advance to Disaster

 

[JerryD]

I've always found compelling Dave Powell's detailed analysis c. 2003 of the several reasons why Sickles' decision was incompetent. That's aside from his subsequent public relations campaign which was an exercise in, shall we say, "mendacity".

Good analysis by Powell. I particularly like how he shows that instead of Longstreet trying to attack a larger force with an inferior force, because of Sickles movement Longstreet had point of contact numerical superiority, which he was able to maintain due to the piecemeal nature of the forces sent to avoid the catastrophe that Sickles brought onto the army by his ill advised advance.

Never have understood how people can claim his movement was anything but the disaster it was, given it was effectively the end of his corps. The only positive result of his movement was the end of his military career (for all intents and purposes).

 

[Scott1967]

I've always found compelling Dave Powell's detailed analysis c. 2003 of the several reasons why Sickles' decision was incompetent. That's aside from his subsequent public relations campaign which was an exercise in, shall we say, "mendacity".

To be fair Sickles didn't know about Longstreet's movement and Longstreet didn't anticipate Sickles would be there and we just don't know how it would have panned out if Sickles had stayed put in his assigned position no doubt the Confederates would have placed battery's on that high ground.

Also bear in mind Meade was to busy to look at the ground he deployed a whole Corps on which I find incredible because he didn't have a clue what Sickles was on about even when Sickles protested and pleaded Meade should come look at the ground himself but Meade has form in this he also failed to look at the ground at Cold Harbour before sending many men to their deaths instead he placed the blame on his division and corps commanders something that irks me because ultimately he is the man in charge and giving that massive responsibility to his Subordinates he should have checked they had done there jobs right.

Just because the clock is right twice a day (Gettysburg, supporting Lincoln) doesn't mean he is a good person.

He also supported the liberated slaves that nobody talks about , He refused to return slaves to their owners and employed many ex slaves getting them jobs , In 1867 he supported black voting rights in S Carolina and stopped the banks taking the property of many people.

Dan is very complicated man but unlike many I think Dan had a humane side he was beloved by his men and yes he was self serving and stretched the truth but to be fair so did Joshua Chamberlin & John B Gordon and many others who fought in the war.

 

[Scott1967]

Never have understood how people can claim his movement was anything but the disaster

People are not claiming its a fact it happened unlike many people speculating that had Sickles stayed in line everything would have been Peachy and Dandy and Meade would of beaten off the attack , The fact is that never happened so to speculate everything would have been fine is even worse.

 

[Belfoured]

People are not claiming its a fact it happened unlike many people speculating that had Sickles stayed in line everything would have been Peachy and Dandy and Meade would of beaten off the attack , The fact is that never happened so to speculate everything would have been fine is even worse.

We know that moving to where he did was a near debacle that sacrificed his corps and was held by the nearest of margins because of the triaged response by Meade, etc. You're correct that reaching a conclusion about the alternative result had he stayed in position is speculative but it's hardly implausible. If you look at his alignment, the projected alignment of Longstreet's attack, and Sickles' link to another corps on his right, I'll go with the alternative.

 

[Belfoured]

To be fair Sickles didn't know about Longstreet's movement and Longstreet didn't anticipate Sickles would be there and we just don't know how it would have panned out if Sickles had stayed put in his assigned position no doubt the Confederates would have placed battery's on that high ground.

Also bear in mind Meade was to busy to look at the ground he deployed a whole Corps on which I find incredible because he didn't have a clue what Sickles was on about even when Sickles protested and pleaded Meade should come look at the ground himself but Meade has form in this he also failed to look at the ground at Cold Harbour before sending many men to their deaths instead he placed the blame on his division and corps commanders something that irks me because ultimately he is the man in charge and giving that massive responsibility to his Subordinates he should have checked they had done there jobs right.


He also supported the liberated slaves that nobody talks about , He refused to return slaves to their owners and employed many ex slaves getting them jobs , In 1867 he supported black voting rights in S Carolina and stopped the banks taking the property of many people.

Dan is very complicated man but unlike many I think Dan had a humane side he was beloved by his men and yes he was self serving and stretched the truth but to be fair so did Joshua Chamberlin & John B Gordon and many others who fought in the war.

Chamberlain and Gordon had their moments embellishing accomplishments, etc but they weren't flat-out serial liars, so far as I know never "misplaced" significant funds entrusted to them, and never played the "insanity card" after pulling off a first-degree murder.

Sickles was wrong on July 2. Hard stop. And being dishonorable at the core, he predictably resorted to prevarication, etc afterwards.

 

[Belfoured]

Strongly suggest you read this analysis of his actions. It pretty convincingly puts to the lie the idea that Sickles saved the day. More accurately, he put the day at risk and Meade had to save his tuchus.

Advance to Disaster

I don't read @Tom Elmore's post as going quite that far. Sickles' ill-advised maneuver did not "save the day" as he later disingenuously claimed. It did certainly cause some significant disruption of/alteration of the Confederate attack but whether that was worth the destruction of his corps is a very suspect proposition - certainly as measured against the alternative. What did "save the day", as you suggest, was the response of Meade, et al rushing reinforcements into the fight from multiple units/locations.

 

[JerryD]

People are not claiming its a fact it happened unlike many people speculating that had Sickles stayed in line everything would have been Peachy and Dandy and Meade would of beaten off the attack , The fact is that never happened so to speculate everything would have been fine is even worse.

Well, we can agree to disagree. What we do know is his move resulted in a near disaster that required Meade to funnel troops into the are due to Sickles decision to adopt a laughably weak position that was quickly overrun and nearly destroyed his corps. We know that. So its pretty hard to imagine a frontal attack by an inferior force on a well entrenched line consisting of multiple corps, anchored on Little Round Top, to be anywhere close to the disaster that actually occurred.

 

[Scott1967]

Chamberlain and Gordon had their moments embellishing accomplishments, etc but they weren't flat-out serial liars, so far as I know never "misplaced" significant funds entrusted to them, and never played the "insanity card" after pulling off a first-degree murder.

Sickles was wrong on July 2. Hard stop. And being dishonorable at the core, he predictably resorted to prevarication, etc afterwards.

Misplaced is the word it was never proven or taken to court so again were speculating that Sickles in his 90s by then was the culprit.

Longstreet also defended his reputation after Gettysburg both him and Sickles were close friends.

Longstreet Quote:

"I believe it is now conceded that the advanced position at the Peach-Orchard, taken by your corps and under your orders, saved the battlefield to the Union cause."

End Quote:

Longstreet concluded that Sickles Corps blunted and took the wind out of his attack an attack made by some of finest Brigades in Lee's army , And yes Dan was unaware but claimed credit for saving the Union a self serving attitude just as Chamberlin did at LRT.

Did Sickles make a dumb move or did he use his initiative? , In my view the latter , He tried to go through channels but Meade was to busy instead he sent Hunt who agreed with Sickles that the Confederates would surely use the high ground to his front to place cannon and he would have a word with Meade on Sickles behalf and this was enough for Sickles to move his Corps after all Meade had given permission for Sickles to move his Corps within the parameters of his placement like Lee telling Ewell "Take the Hill if practicable".

Whichever way you slice the cake Sickles actions rightly or wrongly led to Lee's decision on day 3 , Two of his best divisions were expended forcing him to use troops from the III Corps already depleted & de-moralised.

We are going to have different views on this mate and I respect your opinion immensely but in my view If Sickles had not moved his Corps then some of Lee's best Brigades , Barksdale , Benning , Texas Brigade , Law , Wofford , Semmes , Kershaw would have slammed into Meade's line and who knows what would have happened.

The fact that Sickles was there and did take the momentum out of the Rebel attack is what happened everything else is speculation.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

Sickles was one of these Teflon guys that for some weird reason, behavior that would sink anyone else, just rolled off him. There were many facets to him, most of them not pretty.

While he did things to help support liberating slaves, etc, my cynical side, having once worked for someone very much like a Sickles, (and somehow survived and thrived), I think he did it to tweak other people - not for a genuine, heart-felt emotion that it was the right thing to do.

Sorry if I'm rambling but I'm having the worst migraine day.

 

[Scott1967]

Well, we can agree to disagree. What we do know is his move resulted in a near disaster that required Meade to funnel troops into the are due to Sickles decision to adopt a laughably weak position that was quickly overrun and nearly destroyed his corps. We know that. So its pretty hard to imagine a frontal attack by an inferior force on a well entrenched line consisting of multiple corps, anchored on Little Round Top, to be anywhere close to the disaster that actually occurred.

Its only a weak position if you know the enemy are about to attack Sickles didn't have a Crystal Ball or Hindsight.

You have to put yourself in Sickles shoes and what he and his men experienced 8 weeks before at Hazel Grove and the consequences of having massed Confederate battery's pummel your lines from higher ground especially when your told to give up that ground and march back into line.

Imagine Sickles stays inline the confederates place multiple battery's on that high ground and start firing what does Meade do? He can get his own Battery's to counter fire but that didn't work at Hazel Grove or is he forced to attack to remove them from the high ground causing high casualties and i would just like to remind you it was Porter-Alexander who placed those batteries on Hazel Grove and he was present with Longstreet on the 2nd he would have jumped at the chance to place mass batteries on the high ground.

 

[JerryD]

Its only a weak position if you know the enemy are about to attack Sickles didn't have a Crystal Ball or Hindsight.

You have to put yourself in Sickles shoes and what he and his men experienced 8 weeks before at Hazel Grove and the consequences of having massed Confederate battery's pummel your lines from higher ground especially when your told to give up that ground and march back into line.

Imagine Sickles stays inline the confederates place multiple battery's on that high ground and start firing what does Meade do? He can get his own Battery's to counter fire but that didn't work at Hazel Grove or is he forced to attack to remove them from the high ground causing high casualties and i would just like to remind you it was Porter-Alexander who placed those batteries on Hazel Grove and he was present with Longstreet on the 2nd he would have jumped at the chance to place mass batteries on the high ground.

Its a weak position because both wings were in the air and unsupported, it had a 400 yard gap in the middle, and had several salients that could be enfiladed. It was a horribly weak position, as shown by how it crumbled almost at first contact with the enemy. It was simply overrun because it was completely in the air, unsupported, poorly aligned, and undermanned. Other than that, it was great. LOL>>>>

 

[Belfoured]

Misplaced is the word it was never proven or taken to court so again were speculating that Sickles in his 90s by then was the culprit.

Longstreet also defended his reputation after Gettysburg both him and Sickles were close friends.

Longstreet Quote:

"I believe it is now conceded that the advanced position at the Peach-Orchard, taken by your corps and under your orders, saved the battlefield to the Union cause."

End Quote:

Longstreet concluded that Sickles Corps blunted and took the wind out of his attack an attack made by some of finest Brigades in Lee's army , And yes Dan was unaware but claimed credit for saving the Union a self serving attitude just as Chamberlin did at LRT.

Did Sickles make a dumb move or did he use his initiative? , In my view the latter , He tried to go through channels but Meade was to busy instead he sent Hunt who agreed with Sickles that the Confederates would surely use the high ground to his front to place cannon and he would have a word with Meade on Sickles behalf and this was enough for Sickles to move his Corps after all Meade had given permission for Sickles to move his Corps within the parameters of his placement like Lee telling Ewell "Take the Hill if practicable".

Whichever way you slice the cake Sickles actions rightly or wrongly led to Lee's decision on day 3 , Two of his best divisions were expended forcing him to use troops from the III Corps already depleted & de-moralised.

We are going to have different views on this mate and I respect your opinion immensely but in my view If Sickles had not moved his Corps then some of Lee's best Brigades , Barksdale , Benning , Texas Brigade , Law , Wofford , Semmes , Kershaw would have slammed into Meade's line and who knows what would have happened.

The fact that Sickles was there and did take the momentum out of the Rebel attack is what happened everything else is speculation.

On the missing funds, I agree that it was never prosecuted, etc. But it's also not just wild speculation. He was the Chair and the "trustee" of the funds. If it were somebody with a track record of honesty and integrity, it's probably a reach, but Sickles hardly fits that model.

As for the July 2 decision/maneuver, I'm really relying primarily on Dave Powell and some others who are more qualified than I am. The bottom line is that he did it based on a myopic/amateurish fixation on "higher ground" with zero consideration for the isolated position he put his corps in and the consequences of extending a line his small corps already could not fully man. As with much in these forums, it comes down to opinions that can disagree.

I also wouldn't rely much on things that Longstreet said/did after the war. Reliability was not a hallmark.

 

[Belfoured]

Sickles was one of these Teflon guys that for some weird reason, behavior that would sink anyone else, just rolled off him. There were many facets to him, most of them not pretty.

While he did things to help support liberating slaves, etc, my cynical side, having once worked for someone very much like a Sickles, (and somehow survived and thrived), I think he did it to tweak other people - not for a genuine, heart-felt emotion that it was the right thing to do.

Sorry if I'm rambling but I'm having the worst migraine day.

Not rambling at all and wordsmithing here probably isn't great for the migraine.

I agree. Sickles was not a guy whose actions ever involved much in the way of "principles".

 

[JerryD]

I also wouldn't rely much on things that Longstreet said/did after the war. Reliability was not a hallmark.

Longstreet was also anxious to find allies who would support his version of events, and I always felt (opinion only, I admit) that he and Sickles had an understanding to support each other in the face of the criticism they were both receiving.

 

[Tom Elmore]

One final thought and I surrender. Sickles could have stayed put as intended on south Cemetery Ridge (which was not much of a ridge), extending toward Little Round Top and confronted several intact Confederate brigades of Hood and McLaws at close range, supported by Confederate batteries moved up along the Emmitsburg road. Even supported by the Fifth Corps (Caldwell's division would not likely left their assigned sector on Sickles's right unprotected), I think the odds of the Confederates cutting the Taneytown road at an earlier hour would have been considerably improved. Meaning no help from the Sixth Corps and leaving just one avenue of escape (Baltimore Pike) open to the Union army. If Sickles' line eventually collapsed, his reputation would still be intact, having followed orders, but the Union army's chances of withdrawing down that narrow escape corridor without it turning into a disastrous retreat/rout would likely have been slim, and then I'm guessing we'd be discussing Meade's reputation instead of Sickles' now.