Meade Meade!

[byron ed]

If I'm not mistaken, General George Meade was in sole command of the Union army when it whipped General Lee's army at Gettysburg. What more should it take to be worthy of a biography forum here? Did I miss that there was a Meade forum here years ago?

Related to that, How is it the venues or unit overall command even at a Gettysburg site reenactment haven't required an overall command structure that included a Meade? At least I don't recall that anyone stepped up a rank to portray Meade as overall commander (though as a private I didn't attend morning command meetings so maybe there was).

I understand there was a "show" Meade that made a short presentation to the public in the sutler areas, but of course he had no standing with the reenactor command.

 

[E_just_E]

Well, start a thread if interested in George Meade, or sponsor a forum.

Not sure how the make belief stuff works at Gettysburg. Methinks that they have a hard time to find 200,000+ people to play all the necessary roles these days...

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

If I'm not mistaken, General George Meade was in sole command of the Union army when it whipped General Lee's army at Gettysburg. What more should it take to be worthy of a biography forum here? Did I miss that there was a Meade forum here years ago?

Related to that, How is it the venues or unit overall command even at a Gettysburg site reenactment haven't required an overall command structure that included a Meade? At least I don't recall that anyone stepped up a rank to portray Meade as overall commander (though as a private I didn't attend morning command meetings so maybe there was).

I understand there was a "show" Meade that made a short presentation to the public in the sutler areas, but of course he had no standing with the reenactor command.

No expert, and know not a thing about reenacting but have spent a lot of hours staring at Meade's HQ! If ' Meade ' was nearby, better! Of course, have yet to see a reenactor there you didn't want to annoy with too many questions. Who, where, what, why- so ridiculously interesting, a ' Meade ' would be pestered into fleeing where the Confederate army did not succeed.

A lot of forums here have more than one host. Maybe, if there was interest, a few together could ask the owners?

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Unfortunately, Meade is not sexy. There are some really good things in the works, but it's all yet to come. My own book will not be out until 2019.

 

[jackt62]

Looking forward to a new biography of Meade.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

There are a lot of Meade fans here, so maybe there would be enough interest for a Meade forum. But I have found a lot of interesting threads about Meade in the current forums as well.

 

[amweiner]

Poor Meade becomes easy to shunt to the sidelines. Some think he wasn't even a power player at Gettysburg, given the role Hancock played. Some find his "failure" to bag the ANV to be inexcusable, and the inconclusiveness of the Mine Run campaign to be evidence that he was somehow second-rate. Others think he was overshadowed by Grant for the rest of the War and therefore not worthy of notice.

I think all of this unfair to his legacy. I feel he had an incredibly hard job and sensitive dynamic to deal with, and handled it as well as anyone could have.

Just a thought,
Adam

 

[diane]

I wouldn't mind jabbering a little more about Meade. Have a soft spot for the Old Snapping Turtle! When Grant came east and all battles then revolved around Lee and Grant...everyone forgets Meade was commander of the AoP all that time. They also think Grant won Gettysburg! In a day of prideful men with massive ambitions, this general was willing to be second banana to get the job done.

 

[Bee]

Dr. Jennifer Murray is also working on a Meade project. From her UVA page:

Murray is currently working on a monograph on George Gordon Meade and the Army of the Potomac, to be published with the Conflicting Worlds Series at Louisiana State University Press.​

 

[Andy Cardinal]

Yes, and there is a book by Christopher Stowe supposed to be published as well. Here is his Gettysburg Institute presentation found on YouTube:

I am looking forward to all three upcoming books as I believe Meade is the least studied and least understood major commander of the war.

As I've stated in other posts, I'm really interested in the Grant-Meade relationship in 1864-65. While this partnership was not as close as Grant's with Sherman, or as personally close as Grant's relationship with Sheridan, I do believe the Grant-Meade partnership was very important, even vital, to winning the war.

 

[Bee]

As I've stated in other posts, I'm really interested in the Grant-Meade relationship in 1864-65. While this partnership was not as close as Grant's with Sherman, or as personally close as Grant's relationship with Sheridan, I do believe the Grant-Meade partnership was very important, even vital, to winning the war.

I would like to see this posit expanded upon, as I have often felt at times that Grant was both throwing a bone to Meade and taking a bit of time to adjust to his new command before fully pressing the full potential his position. For instance, the "hands off" approach of ordering up the Cold Harbour assualt, but leaving it to others to impliment did not work. Again, I have only begun to explore this aspect of the war, thus, I may prove my first impressions to be wrong.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

In light of what most people know about Meade -- the prematurely aging, grumpy commander of the Civil War, I have always found the description of the younger Second Lieutenant Meade, circa 1837, to be very interesting. It was written by Richard Bache in an 1891 biography of the general (pp. 557-558), and describes Bache's first encounter with the future general:

"He wore his hair down to the nape of the neck, as was the fashion of the day, and long afterwards, and that being the fashion, did not, of course attract my attention; but what did attract and fix it was the new experience to me of a man with long ringlets, looking as to his head like a cavalier of the time of Charles I. He was, in a word, a dandy, to which I had seen of the same order of being in Philadelphia was only the faintest approach. Without being particularly good looking in face and figure, he was tall and slender and graceful with an air of higher breeding. But beyond this there was something which engaged my attention, and but for which I should doubtless, from my rude, boyish point of view, have regarded him with contempt, as a young man of twenty-two who had curls. The circumstance was his demeanor to his mother. As I have said, he sat to his mother's right at breakfast, and then, and whenever he occupied that place, his air of tenderness to her was so blended with indescribable deference and courtesy, that had she been a queen-mother, instead of the widow of a citizen of a democratic-republic, her son could not have shown her more princely respect. Not unused as I was to see courtesy in the family life of the society in which I moved, this I recognized as beyond anything I had ever witnessed, nor have I to this day ever again seen its like; and such as it was when I first saw it, it endured to the day of his mother's death."

 

[Arioch]

Just echoing what others have said..Feel free to start a thread, forum etc....lots of folks (meeself included)....would enthusiastically jump in to a Meade thread / Forum...

Bring it!.....

 

[Andy Cardinal]

I would like to see this posit expanded upon, as I have often felt at times that Grant was both throwing a bone to Meade and taking a bit of time to adjust to his new command before fully pressing the full potential his position. For instance, the "hands off" approach of ordering up the Cold Harbour assualt, but leaving it to others to impliment did not work. Again, I have only begun to explore this aspect of the war, thus, I may prove my first impressions to be wrong.

My knowledge is not very good either, so I am not sure I can expand upon it. I am just beginning to gain some understanding of the Overland Campaign, but my belief at this point is that Meade and/or Humphreys saw to many of the specific details of the general instructions Grant gave. Not that Grant turned over tactical control to Meade totally, but that these decisions were made in partnership under Grant's direction. I may he totally mistaken, but this is the gist of what I gleaned from Sears's Lincoln's Lieutenants. Plus, Meade had spoken often during the war of the James River as the true line of operations, and so the ultimate result of the campaign (crossing the James and attacking the supply routes to Richmond through Petersburg) was something both Grant & Meade understood from the beginning despite overt opposition from Halleck and historical reluctance by Lincoln.

This is just a hypothesis of mine given several statements by Grant of how he valued Meade's military judgment, and that he kept Meade in command despite the fact that there was really no political reason to do so and in fact perhaps political pressure from some to remove him. I believe their relationship was closer than is often depicted, although it was professional, not personal. In fact the relationship was at times contentious as they were personally quite different people, but marked with professional respect. I do think the relationship waned as the war drew to a conclusion. But for me it is notable that Grant never (as far as I know) expressed the same kind of reservations about Meade that he did about Thomas or Rosecrans. That may be because Meade, to quote Horace Porter, was "perfectly subordinate."

But as I said, this is just my hypothesis and I have not studied enough to be sure in my thoughts. So that is a topic I plan to explore more fully.

 

[byron ed]

I'm not knowledgeable enough about Meade to initiate a full thread on him myself, was hoping he had been covered before.

I understand though that this man who had won the (up to then) greatest land battle in history, against one of the (claimed by some to be) greatest Generals in history, had only been given command of his army a week or so before the battle. Pretty good stepping up, I'd say.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

I'm not knowledgeable enough about Meade to initiate a full thread on him myself, was hoping he had been covered before.

I understand though that this man who had won the (up to then) greatest land battle in history, against one of the (claimed by some to be) greatest Generals in history, had only been given command of his army a week or so before the battle. Pretty good stepping up, I'd say.

Not even a week. About 3:00 AM on June 28, 1863, to be quite precise. And he was ORDERED to take command of the army--it was a peremptory order, with nothing voluntary about it. He neither wanted it, nor asked for it, and after the battle tried to resign from it, to no avail.

He won that battle with a chief of staff he hated and who hated him. He won that battle without despite losing the two corps commanders he most trusted (Reynolds and Hancock). He won that battle despite Dirty Dan Sickles' insubordination that nearly destroyed an entire army corps. He won that battle despite taking one-third casualties and having his officer corps devastated.

I cannot imagine a general being asked to do as much under such circumstances, and then beating the odds and Lee in the process. It's why I admire the Goggle-Eyed Old Snapping Turtle so much.

 

[diane]

One thing, too, is Lee's reaction to learning Meade was in command. His officers giggled about yet another Yankee rotation but Lee didn't giggle. He said Meade wouldn't make a mistake before him and he'd better not make one before Meade! As it fell out, Lee made more than one mistake before Meade and he became the first Union general to give Lee a beating about which there was no doubt.

 

[chucksr]

I'm not of the "poor Meade" persuasion--I see Meade as a competent leader (especially when compared to his predecessors) that dealt with his responsibilities exceedingly well. Lauded for being "hands off" and letting his subordinates fight the battle at Gettysburg, only to be criticized for not being more "hands on" during the Overland Campaign, I think too many critics go fishing for actions to demean Meade. He was fine as a theater commander under the shadow of Grant--a very good choice for the job that had to be done, especially with the revitalized Army of the Potomac, so often badly lead and defeated only to become a winner with Meade's leadership.
That he was "forgotten" is no surprise, it happens in war. I often think of Meade as I think of Omar Bradly, complete professional soldiers who fought and fought well but who did so subordinated to larger personalities--Grant and Eisenhower. That subordination certainly doesn't in the least detract from what both of the generals accomplished as warriors. There are certainly worse things in life than being known as a "complete professional".

 

[Billy Yank]

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters wrote a decent historical fiction account of Gettysburg, viz., "Cain at Gettysburg." The book, among other things, is Peters' attempt at giving G.G. Meade his due credit and respect.

 

[Canadian]

Ron Chernow quotes from Meades's journals and letters in his Grant biography. Meade seems to have been highly observant and wrote really well.