Meade Meade

[Jbg]

If you are interested in Meade and Lee, the best and accurate detailed account I've found is the 4 series books by Jeffrey Wm Hunt.

As many Generals were fired by losing battles, Meade was cautious and paranoid of losing. So he only took the offensive when he had very favorable numbers and very f a favorable ground, absent a direct order to attack. Not Meade, nor Lincoln nor Halleck wanted to be blamed find r anoty look st battle, so Meade blamed the other 2, and the other 2 blamed Lee. Under such blame, as well as the press and public's blame the winning Gettysburg General offered to resign multiple times. Lee took chances and knew by only attacking might the north come to a truce. But then Lincoln won re-election, by a wide margin. Then he didn't have re-election dependant he thought on winning battles.

 

[infomanpa]

Your first post. Welcome. I'm reading the best book on Meade that I've ever read. It's called, "Meade at Gettysburg."

 

[Drew]

Rod Andrew Jr. at Clemson University wrote a great bio of Wade Hampton. He's rumored to be working on one of Meade.

I'll wait for it.

 

[JOHN42768]

If you are interested in Meade and Lee, the best and accurate detailed account I've found is the 4 series books by Jeffrey Wm Hunt.

As many Generals were fired by losing battles, Meade was cautious and paranoid of losing. So he only took the offensive when he had very favorable numbers and very f a favorable ground, absent a direct order to attack. Not Meade, nor Lincoln nor Halleck wanted to be blamed find r anoty look st battle, so Meade blamed the other 2, and the other 2 blamed Lee. Under such blame, as well as the press and public's blame the winning Gettysburg General offered to resign multiple times. Lee took chances and knew by only attacking might the north come to a truce. But then Lincoln won re-election, by a wide margin. Then he didn't have re-election dependant he thought on winning battles.

Welcome, enjoy

 

[ErnieMac]

Your first post. Welcome. I'm reading the best book on Meade that I've ever read. It's called, "Meade at Gettysburg."

I agree. I'm about 1/3 through it.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I agree it's an excellent series.

I wouldn't say Meade was afraid of losing so much as afraid of the blame he would receive if the results were unsatisfactory, whether he deserved it or not. I think Williamsport permanently soured relations between Meade and Lincoln & Halleck.

I think Meade's caution was largely unrelated to his problems with his superiors. Rather he was an engineer and nearly all the former US Army engineers were conservative men, militarily and politically. McClellan, Franklin, and Joe Johnston to name three prominent examples. Lee and Beauregard were outliers in that regard.

 

[GwilymT]

If you are interested in Meade and Lee, the best and accurate detailed account I've found is the 4 series books by Jeffrey Wm Hunt.

As many Generals were fired by losing battles, Meade was cautious and paranoid of losing. So he only took the offensive when he had very favorable numbers and very f a favorable ground, absent a direct order to attack. Not Meade, nor Lincoln nor Halleck wanted to be blamed find r anoty look st battle, so Meade blamed the other 2, and the other 2 blamed Lee. Under such blame, as well as the press and public's blame the winning Gettysburg General offered to resign multiple times. Lee took chances and knew by only attacking might the north come to a truce. But then Lincoln won re-election, by a wide margin. Then he didn't have re-election dependant he thought on winning battles.

Welcome to CWT. I'll check out the book.

 

[Drew]

I agree it's an excellent series.

I wouldn't say Meade was afraid of losing so much as afraid of the blame he would receive if the results were unsatisfactory, whether he deserved it or not. I think Williamsport permanently soured relations between Meade and Lincoln & Halleck.

I think Meade's caution was largely unrelated to his problems with his superiors. Rather he was an engineer and nearly all the former US Army engineers were conservative men, militarily and politically. McClellan, Franklin, and Joe Johnston to name three prominent examples. Lee and Beauregard were outliers in that regard.

These are good points, but one of the least militarily conservative West Point engineers was General Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. I just can't help myself pointing this out...

 

[Kentucky Derby Cavalier.]

If you are interested in Meade and Lee, the best and accurate detailed account I've found is the 4 series books by Jeffrey Wm Hunt.

As many Generals were fired by losing battles, Meade was cautious and paranoid of losing. So he only took the offensive when he had very favorable numbers and very f a favorable ground, absent a direct order to attack. Not Meade, nor Lincoln nor Halleck wanted to be blamed find r anoty look st battle, so Meade blamed the other 2, and the other 2 blamed Lee. Under such blame, as well as the press and public's blame the winning Gettysburg General offered to resign multiple times. Lee took chances and knew by only attacking might the north come to a truce. But then Lincoln won re-election, by a wide margin. Then he didn't have re-election dependant he thought on winning battles.

Welcome friend.

 

[Lubliner]

Welcome from the Railroads and Steam Locomotives Forum. Not easy to condense 4 books into a paragraph synopsis. You did a good job!
Lubliner.