OpnDownfall said:
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.