Dan Sickles - Anything good?

[JeffBrooks]

So, what are the good things of Sickles?

He always struck me as a pretty good dresser.

 

[JerryD]

He always struck me as a pretty good dresser.

And I hear he was a good shot with a pistol.

 

[Belfoured]

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.

Absolutely no need to "surrender". In my own opinion (which is what it is), Sickles did not make a decision that took account of the size of his corps, the inability of his corps to hold an even more extended line, or the elimination of support on his right and increasing the distance from his other support. And there is no evidence that he made a tactical decision to isolate and sacrifice his corps as a desperate maneuver designed to give Meade time to add reinforcements to defend the left. That may be what ended up happening but for Sickles it was the result of dumb luck. And his post-battle b******t was just that.

I think Dave Powell did a solid job of addressing the "stay put" option (and, BTW, the "follow orders" option):

"Due to abysmal reconnaissance work, Longstreet's attack was aiming at a mythical Union flank. The original concept for the Confederate attack had Longstreet's men deploying across the Emmitsburg Road, facing northeast, towards what the Rebel leadership thought was an exposed Union flank resting about halfway between Cemetery Hill and Little Round Top - in effect the Confederates thought that the Union line ended with the Federal Second Corps. Had Longstreet reached the Peach Orchard unmolested and deployed as intended, his line would have had to advance not towards the Union Third Corps line but instead parallel to it, from south to north. Once he discovered Yankees in the Peach Orchard, however, Longstreet instead deployed his command facing east, and stretching much further south in an effort to find the new Union flank. The result was that Longstreet's line greatly overlapped the Federal force he faced."

 

[Belfoured]

And I hear he was a good shot with a pistol.

At very close range, anyway. But - calling on defense counsel Stanton - I may just be crazy.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

At very close range, anyway. But - calling on defense counsel Stanton - I may just be crazy.

But not so crazy as to require institutionalization or anything like that. Just crazy enough to evade being held criminally responsible for my actions, but not crazy enough so as to inconvenience the remainder of my life.

 

[Belfoured]

But not so crazy as to require institutionalization or anything like that. Just crazy enough to evade being held criminally responsible for my actions, but not crazy enough so as to inconvenience the remainder of my life.

I should have been more precise - "I may just be momentarily crazy".

 

[Scott1967]

I should have been more precise - "I may just be momentarily crazy".

Key was no saint either in fact some Newspapers actually stated that Sickles had good reason to shoot him as Key had a habit of dabbling with other fellows wives and while Sickles himself was a ladies man from what I found he never seduced another mans wife even though many people push this narrative he was more of dabbler of the Ladies of night.

Interesting to note many Newspapers called Sickles a Hero , According to one reporter covering the case the whole courtroom cheered and clapped when Sickles was found not guilty.

I mean the point here is that Key was sat outside Sickles home , Sickles thought Key was his friend and trusted him and when he saw Key making signals to the window of his wife he knew the letter he had received was true.

If you have the audacity to do it in front of the husbands home and given the time period yeah many though Key deserved it.

 

[Belfoured]

Key was no saint either in fact some Newspapers actually stated that Sickles had good reason to shoot him as Key had a habit of dabbling with other fellows wives and while Sickles himself was a ladies man from what I found he never seduced another mans wife even though many people push this narrative he was more of dabbler of the Ladies of night.

Interesting to note many Newspapers called Sickles a Hero , According to one reporter covering the case the whole courtroom cheered and clapped when Sickles was found not guilty.

I mean the point here is that Key was sat outside Sickles home , Sickles thought Key was his friend and trusted him and when he saw Key making signals to the window of his wife he knew the letter he had received was true.

If you have the audacity to do it in front of the husbands home and given the time period yeah many though Key deserved it.

Nobody said he was. I'll refrain from responding to the apparent suggestion that Sickles was justified in committing murder. Why do think his defense team had to come up with the "insanity" defense? It may have been the mid-19th century but even then it was not an "everything goes" time period. By the way, was the wife whose dalliance "justified" Dirty Dan in killing Key the same wife who he apparently left at home pregnant while he took a prostitute across the Pond?

 

[A. Roy]

I read the Powell article, which I thought was good. Filled me in on an engagement I only had a vague understand of previously. I know that there are folks here who understand the battle much better than I do, and maybe I'm forgetting something my Swiss-cheese brain should remember, but I'm wondering:

Was there something further that Sickles should have done to assess the ground and the enemy positions more thoroughly? It sounds as if his advance was precipitate. What was it that required him to act so quickly, rather than obey orders and stay in position?

I know that might sound naive...

AR

 

[Scott1967]

I read the Powell article, which I thought was good. Filled me in on an engagement I only had a vague understand of previously. I know that there are folks here who understand the battle much better than I do, and maybe I'm forgetting something my Swiss-cheese brain should remember, but I'm wondering:

Was there something further that Sickles should have done to assess the ground and the enemy positions more thoroughly? It sounds as if his advance was precipitate. What was it that required him to act so quickly, rather than obey orders and stay in position?

I know that might sound naive...

AR

Sickles was unaware of Longstreet's march even though Longstreet had been spotted numerous times before 2pm which is the time Sickles moved his Corps if he had obeyed orders and stayed in Line there is a good chance Alexander would have occupied that Higher ground and massed his batteries as he did and Hazel Grove with devastating effect and this is obviously is what was playing on Sickles mind.

Was it a bad position YES did Sickles expect an attack NO

8 weeks prior Sickles was ordered by Hooker to abandon high ground and return to the line , In doing this Porter Alexander immediately occupied that high ground with up to 50 guns and blasted the Union line so much so that it effected Hookers decision to retreat.

 

[Belfoured]

Sickles was unaware of Longstreet's march even though Longstreet had been spotted numerous times before 2pm which is the time Sickles moved his Corps if he had obeyed orders and stayed in Line there is a good chance Alexander would have occupied that Higher ground and massed his batteries as he did and Hazel Grove with devastating effect and this is obviously is what was playing on Sickles mind.

Was it a bad position YES did Sickles expect an attack NO

8 weeks prior Sickles was ordered by Hooker to abandon high ground and return to the line , In doing this Porter Alexander immediately occupied that high ground with up to 50 guns and blasted the Union line so much so that it effected Hookers decision to retreat.

I think you may be correct regarding what Sickles was thinking. I use the term "thinking" loosely, of course, because this wasn't Hazel Grove. Making the move unilaterally - oblivious to the results for his flanks, support from the rear, and reduced strength of his new line - was foolish.

 

[JerryD]

I read the Powell article, which I thought was good. Filled me in on an engagement I only had a vague understand of previously. I know that there are folks here who understand the battle much better than I do, and maybe I'm forgetting something my Swiss-cheese brain should remember, but I'm wondering:

Was there something further that Sickles should have done to assess the ground and the enemy positions more thoroughly? It sounds as if his advance was precipitate. What was it that required him to act so quickly, rather than obey orders and stay in position?

I know that might sound naive...

AR

All we really know is that he was looking for higher ground for his troops. When Meade came to see where he had moved, Sickles defended the move by saying he moved to higher ground. Meade, supposedly, responded that if he kept going a few miles he would find even higher ground, the point being that higher ground, in and of itself, is irrelevant. He was supposed to be part of a defensive line and not just sticking out like a sore thumb.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I'll refrain from responding to the apparent suggestion that Sickles was justified in committing murder.

I won't.

I am a longtime believer that infidelity justifies execution. However, that applies to both spouses. I have trouble believing that a narcissist like Dan Sickles wasn't cheating on his wife well before she started cheating on him.

 

[Belfoured]

All we really know is that he was looking for higher ground for his troops. When Meade came to see where he had moved, Sickles defended the move by saying he moved to higher ground. Meade, supposedly, responded that if he kept going a few miles he would find even higher ground, the point being that higher ground, in and of itself, is irrelevant. He was supposed to be part of a defensive line and not just sticking out like a sore thumb.

Sickles obviously had an amateur's myopic focus on higher ground. Higher ground means little if to get there you isolate your force and require it to defend an inadequate line against an enemy that now outnumbers you as a result of the move. Grade: F.

 

[Belfoured]

I won't.

I am a longtime believer that infidelity justifies execution. However, that applies to both spouses. I have trouble believing that a narcissist like Dan Sickles wasn't cheating on his wife well before she started cheating on him.

I'm not a believer in that, ever. But as you indicate, Sickles was likely a hypocrite in his outrage.

 

[Scott1967]

Sickles obviously had an amateur's myopic focus on higher ground. Higher ground means little if to get there you isolate your force and require it to defend an inadequate line against an enemy that now outnumbers you as a result of the move. Grade: F.

I don't feel that was his intention , It was to deny the enemy said high ground so they could not place cannon he had no clue he was about to be hit by two full divisions , If Longstreet hadn't attacked that day there is no doubt Meade would have pulled him back in Line

It was extremely naïve of Dan to think he would not be attacked in such an exposed position however some of the blame has to go on the chain of command like I said previously Longstreet had been spotted many times before Dan moved his Corps but nothing was said to Sickles.

Interesting to note is Dan refused to criticise Hooker a close friend for having to give up the high ground at Hazel Grove but didn't hold back on Meade he kept peddling the false narrative that Meade wanted to retreat and therefore his movement stopped that from happing.

 

[Belfoured]

I don't feel that was his intention , It was to deny the enemy said high ground so they could not place cannon he had no clue he was about to be hit by two full divisions , If Longstreet hadn't attacked that day there is no doubt Meade would have pulled him back in Line

It was extremely naïve of Dan to think he would not be attacked in such an exposed position however some of the blame has to go on the chain of command like I said previously Longstreet had been spotted many times before Dan moved his Corps but nothing was said to Sickles.

Interesting to note is Dan refused to criticise Hooker a close friend for having to give up the high ground at Hazel Grove but didn't hold back on Meade he kept peddling the false narrative that Meade wanted to retreat and therefore his movement stopped that from happing.

"he had no clue he was about to be hit by two full divisions"

And that is the problem. Sickles was playing Super Mario checkers. Any West Point plebe could have sketched where his unilateral maneuver left his corps and checked off the "very bad idea" box. Whether he knew he was "about to be hit" is irrelevant. He was doing this in the context of an actual battle in the presence of the enemy. Amateur Hour ...

 

[CowCavalry]

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.

It's likely Longstreet was being extemely generous here after the war. He might have also been looking for friends due to the vitriol that had been dumped on him and being blamed for essentially losing the battle.

 

[Belfoured]

It's likely Longstreet was being extemely generous here after the war. He might have also been looking for friends due to the vitriol that had been dumped on him and being blamed for essentially losing the battle.

I agree. Post-war Longstreet was vilified by many in the South and (understandably to a point) was prone to "overreaction".

 

[Tony Z]

It's likely Longstreet was being extemely generous here after the war. He might have also been looking for friends due to the vitriol that had been dumped on him and being blamed for essentially losing the battle.

I listened recently to a replay of a several years old ranger walk, hosted by Matt Atkinson, who reveres the ground Lee walks on. Matt referenced direct orders from Lee to McClaws, directing his entry into the second day's battle. To me, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Longstreet, being by-passed by Lee's direct orders, may have been a bit "reluctant" to engage as he might have otherwise?