George G. Meade at Gettysburg

cash

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Right here.
Today, Prof. Allen Guelzo of Gettysburg College gave a presentation on George G. Meade's generalship at Gettysburg. Prof. Guelzo is not a fan.

What's your assessment?
 
Well, what are we to assess, his generalship of the entire campaign, his performance in the actual battle once he arrived, or his ineffective pursuit?
 
Well, he won the battle and that's what counts. Everyone talks about Grant not coming up to Lee in abilities but he won the war. Nobody except the losing team remembers who lost the Super Bowl. Even if the opposing team had 6 fumbles or you won by a field goal it's the victory that counts.
 
I think Meade did one heck of a job at Gettysburg, getting people where they needed to be, workingon 3 days notice with the old regime's staff who hated him. The lack of success on getting Lee on the retreat has been overblown - the Union army was not in much better shape than the Confederate, the weather was abominable, and the Confederates were fighting for their very existence - desperation makes tigers.
 
Using the Hooker loyalist, Butterfield, as his Chief of Staff was maybe Meade's biggest error and sending his son rather than himself to get Sickles to move back was second. Why Hunt joined the bandwagon to undermine Meade is hard to understand. Meade gave Hunt the most leeway to deploy his guns than any other AoP commander, yet his wishy-washy agreement with Sickles and later testimony belied Hunt's rock solid professional reputation.
 
Meade did a good, workman-like job at Gettysburg. Talk that he wanted to retreat after the second day are much overblown. And criticism of his pursuit of Lee after the battle are also not fully justified, as Wittenberg, Petruzzi, and Nugent point out in their "One Continuous Fight: The Retreat from Gettysburg and the Pursuit of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, July 4-14, 1863".
 
Meade did a good, workman-like job at Gettysburg. Talk that he wanted to retreat after the second day are much overblown. And criticism of his pursuit of Lee after the battle are also not fully justified, as Wittenberg, Petruzzi, and Nugent point out in their "One Continuous Fight: The Retreat from Gettysburg and the Pursuit of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, July 4-14, 1863".


The retreat canard was Butterfield and Sickles contribution to Meade's character assassination.
 
From the record, Meade was the best general produced from within the AoP. The first Northern general to face Lee directly and defeat him, was no small task.
Although probably not the man to actually win the war, he was certainly a match for Lee in generalship.
 
I am not so sure the assesment Meade did a great job at Gettysburg in light of the fact that he had been in command only three days has much weight. While it is true to a degree he was after all with the AoP in some command capacity from the begining. He knew his subordinates and the army and knew their capabilities. It was not as if he were coming from the west to take over "with three days notice". To say he did well in spite of his newness to army command tends to sound like he was just lucky, rather than he did well because of his skill level. A meeting engagement is perhaps the most difficult battle to fight and his standing at Gettysburg rather than retreating is to his credit. The ground was good ground and he recognized it and remained there. I do think the three days notice may have been an advantage in the fact that Meade did not have time to make everything perfect or worry about outcomes. The battle needed to be fought and he did so. Gettysburg finally showed what the Army of the Potomac was made of and what they could do.
As far as pursuit of the ANV; after three days fighting in the hot July sun and absorbing 23,000 casualties what kind of immediate pursuit with good result could have been mounted?
 
I think Meade did one heck of a job at Gettysburg, getting people where they needed to be, workingon 3 days notice with the old regime's staff who hated him. The lack of success on getting Lee on the retreat has been overblown - the Union army was not in much better shape than the Confederate, the weather was abominable, and the Confederates were fighting for their very existence - desperation makes tigers.

I agree wholeheartedly, Rob. I might add that he was down two of his best, most aggressive, corps commanders, too. And Sickles was wounded, too, being replaced with French - not exactly a dynamo.
 
Meade wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he was sharp enough to dig in and force Lee to dash his army against those emplacements or leave. He had the interior lines and the savvy to use them to his advantage.

Pursuit? Ever chase a venomous snake into his territory? I can understand Lincoln's frustration with the tepidity of the pursuit, but Lee had not been totally defanged. Meade was satisfied with running Lee back to Virginia; that Lincoln was not is a sidebar to a sidebar.

Meade was the first Union General to give Lee a drubbing. That he did not stomp Lee's army into a smear of bloody snot can be argued. (And it probably will be.)
 
There was some method in my madness, first getting assessments, then hearing Guelzo. :smile:

http://www.historynet.com/who-was-george-g-meade.htm

I assumed that. Actually, that probably should have been worded as dvrmte asked: "What are we to assess? His generalship of the entire campaign, his performance in the actual battle once he arrived, or his ineffective pursuit?"


Interesting. Shame we couldn't hear the actual questioner in the back. Unfortunately, after Part 2 played, Parts 3 to 9 disappeared and the "Next" button wouldn't work.

Perhaps you could fill us in?
 
I was working down at the plaza at VC when he was speaking yesterday. I was wondering who it was who sounded so much like a preacher at a funeral.
 
I assumed that. Actually, that probably should have been worded as dvrmte asked: "What are we to assess? His generalship of the entire campaign, his performance in the actual battle once he arrived, or his ineffective pursuit?"


Interesting. Shame we couldn't hear the actual questioner in the back. Unfortunately, after Part 2 played, Parts 3 to 9 disappeared and the "Next" button wouldn't work.

Perhaps you could fill us in?
Nate, I had the same trouble but if you click the pictures below the video you can go through to chapter 9. Then go to You tube from the screen and get the rest. I know, kinda awkward.
 
Nate, I had the same trouble but if you click the pictures below the video you can go through to chapter 9. Then go to You tube from the screen and get the rest. I know, kinda awkward.

Kinda thought there might be a roundabout method--but at the time, I couldn't pass up a lunch date with the husband :smile: Some things take priority! I'll probably try again tomorrow. Thank you for the info in case someone else is having a problem.
 
Back
Top