Defending Dan Sickles

[WinterLeia]

You'd have to be crazy to run off with that:

View attachment 549654

Maybe he just couldn't outrun her. He did only have one leg, after all.

 

[rpkennedy]

That's a reasonable analysis, but I think we agree that whatever the basis for Sickles' "why" in the abstract, the decision to make the move unilaterally was simply incompetent for the numerous reasons Powell and others have pointed out. The "strength of the position" became pretty much irrelevant when the result was exposing his flanks and doubling the length of a line his corps was already strained in holding. The other thing that bears mention is that Sickles may have "overcompensated" on July 2 for his erroneous conclusion about where Jackson was headed on May 2. His message issued that morning had helped fuel the flawed assumption that Jackson was retreating. (Of course, Sickles being Sickles, his subsequent report played that down).

Agreed. It was the wrong decision. But his reasoning is not unsound.

Ryan

 

[Grant's Tomb]

He didn't have that "history". He was very politically-connected in NY and had raised a brigade at the outset of the war. He got promoted by working his connections. He was also tight with Hooker and that helped him get corps command. The problem is that his "military experience" before the war was his role in the NY Militia.

When he was a lawyer before the war, he became connected with Tammany Hall, the Democratic Party machine. The brigade he organized was called the Excelsior Brigade

 

[Belfoured]

When he was a lawyer before the war, he became connected with Tammany Hall, the Democratic Party machine. The brigade he organized was called the Excelsior Brigade

And raising the brigade got him a "leg up" in being given rank. As I noted, his "military experience" was limited to being in the State militia before the war.

 

[rpkennedy]

And raising the brigade got him a "leg up" in being given rank. As I noted, his "military experience" was limited to being in the State militia before the war.

To be fair, he actually performed pretty well on the Peninsula as a brigade commander. But he was never tested in combat as a division commander and was promoted to corps command for political/personal reasons.

Ryan

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

My view is that Sickles took the wrong actions for understandable reasons. He was receiving reports that strong columns of Confederates were moving south along and behind Seminary Ridge and so dispatches part of the 1st US Sharpshooters and 3rd Maine who ran into Anderson's Division in Pitzer's Woods. As the pressure increased, Buford's cavalry (who were guarding the Union left) were ordered away and no other cavalry replaced them. As the 1st USSS and 3rd Maine retreat back to Cemetery Ridge, they again report Confederate troops moving south. With no cavalry watching his left, Sickles started to look at the Emmitsburg Road ridge as a good position to both keep an eye on Confederate movements and to protect the left flank of the army. He sent multiple reports back to HQ but the only response he gets back is for General Henry Hunt to hear what he has to say. Sickles took him out to his skirmish lines and pointed out the strengths of the position to which Hunt agrees although he also noted that if the Confederates occupied Seminary Ridge in force, Sickles would be in trouble. After Hunt left and his skirmishers kept noting movements on their front, Sickles took it upon himself to advance his line to the ERR.

Clearly, without support, it was the absolute wrong move but I get why he made the decision. The ghost of Jackson's flank attack clearly was on his mind.

Ryan

Good thought about "The ghost of Jackson's flank attack" possibly being on his mind.

 

[Belfoured]

Good thought about "The ghost of Jackson's flank attack" possibly being on his mind.

... which, as noted, was something he had completely misread at Chancellorsville. I've never seen a credible explanation of his reasoning that the competent military response to the situation on July 2 was for his small corps to move forward on its own. All anybody has to do is look at a "before" and "after" map. That makes his reasoning regarding a "better" position completely irrelevant.

 

[121st PA Vols]

Error....Ignore

 

[ColonelBuckwalter]

You'd have to be crazy to run off with that:

View attachment 549654

Who is this?.

 

[John Hartwell]

Who is this?.

Isabella II of Spain, I believe.

"After the war, Sickles commanded a military district in the South until his retirement in 1869. He then served as U.S. ambassador to Mexico and Spain. While in Madrid, Sickles had an affair with Queen Isabella II and began a second marriage to one of Isabella's young attendants. He quarreled with Hamilton Fish, the secretary of state. He was accused of using "child virgins for the purpose of prostitution," and of seeking to foment a war with Spain. After he resigned, he moved to Paris in 1874, before returning to the United States in late 1879." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/20/acquitted-murderer-daniel-sickles-is-born-oct-20-1819-243913#:~:text=After the war, Sickles commanded,one of Isabella's young attendants.

Say what you will about Dan Slckles ... it's probably true! [sarcasm]

 

[WinterLeia]

... which, as noted, was something he had completely misread at Chancellorsville. I've never seen a credible explanation of his reasoning that the competent military response to the situation on July 2 was for his small corps to move forward on its own. All anybody has to do is look at a "before" and "after" map. That makes his reasoning regarding a "better" position completely irrelevant.

It's a "what if" scenario, which I've never particular liked debating, because they tend to be more reflective of the person's own thoughts and opinions than of the people involved and probably don't match what would have happened. Humans are not exactly good at predicting the future. So why we would be any good at predicting alternate histories is beyond me. We honestly have no way of knowing how far the ramifications of Sickles' move went. Battles are swift moving events that are predicated on cause and effect. Take just one action out of the chain, and it can change the battle completely. But, again, my point stands. Had Meade not found out what Sickles had done and rushed reinforcements into the area, not only would the Third Corp have been put into a far more exposed position, but there would have been a hole in the defensive line, because Sickles did not have enough men to cover the Peach Orchard and hook back up with the line. It's probably the reason why Meade didn't put them there. But if anybody deserves the credit, it's Meade, because it's far more likely that his actions turned what would have been a disaster into an advantage, by rushing reinforcements in. It is a credit to the bravery and the fighting skill of the individual men in the Third Corp that they were able to act as "shock troops", and they gave Meade time to do that. Nobody should take that away from them. But it's kind of funny that people argue that Sickles moved because he wanted to nullify the Confederates raining artillery down on them from a higher position. And yet his move put his corp into even greater danger than they ever would have been had they just stayed put. It shows the fallacy of Sickles' thinking. He did not have a bird's eye view of the battlefield. He did not understand how his corp fit into the overall structure of the Federal defensive plan, how it affected the rest of the Union army. And contrary to what he may have asserted, he did not win the battle single-handedly. Unless someone is ready to show that the Third Corp could have taken on Lee's entire army all by their lonesome selves, it was still just a cog in the wheel, and there were several surrounding units that had to compensate for it being out of place. Without that, it could have just easily been that the Third Corp was decimated and the Confederates broken through the defensive line.

And I would be wary of taking Longstreet's word for it. His own actions at Gettysburg had come under fire, unfairly, I would say, as what I think his attackers had trouble with was his post-war activities. But Sickles version would have appealed to him, because they showed the cause and effect interplay I mentioned earlier. He did attack, like Lee wanted, but the Third Corp stopped him. Even he, though, is ignoring that fact that his assault had nothing to do with Sickles' actions in moving his corp and thus being in a position to stop him. Sickles was evidently more worried about phantom Confederate artillery. Only Meade was worried about Longstreet's flesh and blood troops.

 

[Belfoured]

It's a "what if" scenario, which I've never particular liked debating, because they tend to be more reflective of the person's own thoughts and opinions than of the people involved and probably don't match what would have happened. Humans are not exactly good at predicting the future. So why we would be any good at predicting alternate histories is beyond me. We honestly have no way of knowing how far the ramifications of Sickles' move went. Battles are swift moving events that are predicated on cause and effect. Take just one action out of the chain, and it can change the battle completely. But, again, my point stands. Had Meade not found out what Sickles had done and rushed reinforcements into the area, not only would the Third Corp have been put into a far more exposed position, but there would have been a hole in the defensive line, because Sickles did not have enough men to cover the Peach Orchard and hook back up with the line. It's probably the reason why Meade didn't put them there. But if anybody deserves the credit, it's Meade, because it's far more likely that his actions turned what would have been a disaster into an advantage, by rushing reinforcements in. It is a credit to the bravery and the fighting skill of the individual men in the Third Corp that they were able to act as "shock troops", and they gave Meade time to do that. Nobody should take that away from them. But it's kind of funny that people argue that Sickles moved because he wanted to nullify the Confederates raining artillery down on them from a higher position. And yet his move put his corp into even greater danger than they ever would have been had they just stayed put. It shows the fallacy of Sickles' thinking. He did not have a bird's eye view of the battlefield. He did not understand how his corp fit into the overall structure of the Federal defensive plan, how it affected the rest of the Union army. And contrary to what he may have asserted, he did not win the battle single-handedly. Unless someone is ready to show that the Third Corp could have taken on Lee's entire army all by their lonesome selves, it was still just a cog in the wheel, and there were several surrounding units that had to compensate for it being out of place. Without that, it could have just easily been that the Third Corp was decimated and the Confederates broken through the defensive line.

And I would be wary of taking Longstreet's word for it. His own actions at Gettysburg had come under fire, unfairly, I would say, as what I think his attackers had trouble with was his post-war activities. But Sickles version would have appealed to him, because they showed the cause and effect interplay I mentioned earlier. He did attack, like Lee wanted, but the Third Corp stopped him. Even he, though, is ignoring that fact that his assault had nothing to do with Sickles' actions in moving his corp and thus being in a position to stop him. Sickles was evidently more worried about phantom Confederate artillery. Only Meade was worried about Longstreet's flesh and blood troops.

As somebody has pointed out, Longstreet's assertion made long after the battle when he was "partnering" in a sense with Sickles and Gettysburg memory-making and when he was defending the spurious allegations by Early, et al. should be viewed with skepticism. The Union left wasn't "saved" by Sickles' blunder that effectively destroyed his corps. It was saved by the actions of Meade and several bold "first responders" from other units rushing into the fighting.

 

[Belfoured]

Isabella II of Spain, I believe.

"After the war, Sickles commanded a military district in the South until his retirement in 1869. He then served as U.S. ambassador to Mexico and Spain. While in Madrid, Sickles had an affair with Queen Isabella II and began a second marriage to one of Isabella's young attendants. He quarreled with Hamilton Fish, the secretary of state. He was accused of using "child virgins for the purpose of prostitution," and of seeking to foment a war with Spain. After he resigned, he moved to Paris in 1874, before returning to the United States in late 1879." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/20/acquitted-murderer-daniel-sickles-is-born-oct-20-1819-243913#:~:text=After the war, Sickles commanded,one of Isabella's young attendants.

Say what you will about Dan Slckles ... it's probably true! [sarcasm]

I still want to know where that $800K (in 2025 dollars) went that disappeared from the NY Monument Commission's bank account.

 

[TallTallMan]

Isabella II of Spain, I believe.

"After the war, Sickles commanded a military district in the South until his retirement in 1869. He then served as U.S. ambassador to Mexico and Spain. While in Madrid, Sickles had an affair with Queen Isabella II and began a second marriage to one of Isabella's young attendants. He quarreled with Hamilton Fish, the secretary of state. He was accused of using "child virgins for the purpose of prostitution," and of seeking to foment a war with Spain. After he resigned, he moved to Paris in 1874, before returning to the United States in late 1879." https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/20/acquitted-murderer-daniel-sickles-is-born-oct-20-1819-243913#:~:text=After the war, Sickles commanded,one of Isabella's young attendants.

Say what you will about Dan Slckles ... it's probably true! [sarcasm]

OK, I thought I knew a pretty good bit about Dirty Dan, but one specific accusation is far below what I ever expected to see

 

[rpkennedy]

I still want to know where that $800K (in 2025 dollars) went that disappeared from the NY Monument Commission's bank account.

I think that we all know where that money went.

Ryan