General Sickles; Villain or Hero??? (1 Viewer)

[Rob]

Guys,I'm really enjoying learning a little more each day about the ACW and Gettysburg. Now I put this question to you experts out there just to get your views, I have no strong feeling either way but am just interested. Dan Sickles, hero or villain?. Putting his troops way out in front on the rest of the Union line that day, creating a salient, risking the overall defence and exposing his men to fire from different directions and in the process incurred the wrath of General Meade who rode out to berate him. On the other hand some say he helped break up the Confederate advance and in fact helped save the Union center. So what do you think?.

Rob

 

[Warrior]

Rob,
Excellent question, by bringing his troops forward, he held the higher ground around the peach orchard, but the problem was his left flank was exposed and when the Confederates attacked, that spot is where the Union line caved in as Barksdales and McLaws troops hit the Union line in two spots.

He also left Little Round Top totally defenseless and were it not for General Warren rushing troops to the top of the hill, that position would have been taken and the entire Union line flanked.

Sickles was the first person to push for Gettysburg to be designated as hallowed ground and preserved as a national park.................

 

[lancer]

Sickles was an interesting character, a political animal who got a field command. Not going to stir the pot because there are more knowledgeable people out there, but in his partial defense, his position was on lower ground that left him no view or idea of what was going on. His move forward to higher ground was part of his attempt to fix this. I find the move understandable, if ill timed. Not going to get into the whole failure to follow orders thing, or the pursuit of personal fame as other commanders did similar things throughout the war. Sickles could have brought disaster to the Union position, but such was not his intention though that doesn't excuse his rash move. His move was a bad one in retrospect and he should have trusted that he was put where he was for a reason, but such is war. -- Al

 

[Scott]

With Sickles, it's more like a hero who made a mistake rather than a villain.

 

[Warrior]

As Al pointed out, his initially position was on lower ground, the peach orchard area was a better defensive spot, but the issue was by moving, his left flank was exposed and LRT was now undefended...............

 

[UKReb]

Rob

Agree with the comments from Al. George and Scott as the Sickle's issue has always been a thorny issue, discussed endlessly on various ACW round tables. Couple of other points to consider when studying his actions on the second day:

Sickles as Al stated was a political general-most of these incompetents had long gone by July '63 but Sickles was not incompetent and had many powerful friends in Washington that kept him in position. Subsequently, he was loathed by Meade and the other Union Corps commanders.He was not "old army"

His action of moving forward did indeed leave the Union "left side door" open. But it forced Lee to struggle for possession of the Peach Orchard, so essential as an artillery platform from which to enfilade the Cemetery Ridge position. The Rebs did not expect any Yankees to be in this position hence the fearful fight that ensued.

Also Sickel's movement forward forced Meade to attend to events on his left flank. He had been active throughout the morning inspecting the northern part of the Union line from Culp's Hill past Cemetery Hill to Cemetery Ridge. He most definitely had not displayed the same diligence or interest personally inspecting positions on the Union left. Whether this was because of his antipathy toward Sickles or because he believed the real threat to his line existed around Cemetery Hill salient (the fish-hook) is of course debatable.

If Sickles had not moved forward and seized the Peach Orchard then his enemy would have done so, leaving much of the Union II Corps, then posted on his right along Cemetery Ridge, to suffer enfilading artillery fire from the Confederate batteries which would have certainly been positioned there by Col. Porter Alexander (as he wrote in his memoirs)

As I said above a thorny issue-post battle Meade, Hancock etc blamed Sickles for causing a near disaster. Sickles called himself the Second Day Saviour and managed to get himself a Medal of Honour for his actions-minus his leg of course :smile2:

Bob

 

[lancer]

Rob

Agree with the comments from Al. George and Scott as the Sickle's issue has always been a thorny issue, discussed endlessly on various ACW round tables. Couple of other points to consider when studying his actions on the second day:

Sickles as Al stated was a political general-most of these incompetents had long gone by July '63 but Sickles was not incompetent and had many powerful friends in Washington that kept him in position. Subsequently, he was loathed by Meade and the other Union Corps commanders.He was not "old army"

His action of moving forward did indeed leave the Union "left side door" open. But it forced Lee to struggle for possession of the Peach Orchard, so essential as an artillery platform from which to enfilade the Cemetery Ridge position. The Rebs did not expect any Yankees to be in this position hence the fearful fight that ensued.

Also Sickel's movement forward forced Meade to attend to events on his left flank. He had been active throughout the morning inspecting the northern part of the Union line from Culp's Hill past Cemetery Hill to Cemetery Ridge. He most definitely had not displayed the same diligence or interest personally inspecting positions on the Union left. Whether this was because of his antipathy toward Sickles or because he believed the real threat to his line existed around Cemetery Hill salient (the fish-hook) is of course debatable.

If Sickles had not moved forward and seized the Peach Orchard then his enemy would have done so, leaving much of the Union II Corps, then posted on his right along Cemetery Ridge, to suffer enfilading artillery fire from the Confederate batteries which would have certainly been positioned there by Col. Porter Alexander (as he wrote in his memoirs)

As I said above a thorny issue-post battle Meade, Hancock etc blamed Sickles for causing a near disaster. Sickles called himself the Second Day Saviour and managed to get himself a Medal of Honour for his actions-minus his leg of course :smile2:

Bob

Good post, Bob. I have gotten into some spirited discussions about the Sickles actions. I have defended the actions on the basis of, what I feel to be, the quite understandable need for a field commander to be able to see what is going on in his area of action. When all is said and done, the move was an important element in the Union triumph, whether it seemed so or not at the time. It is quite obvious, as stated in the above post, that Confederate occupation of the Peach Orchard line would have changed the battle. The self-promoting Sickles could have caused disaster, but he didn't, even though it was a close run thing. -- Al

 

[Rob]

Thanks guys, as an ACW newcomer its really good to get the views of those of you who have studied this conflict for many years, I can't decide myself so am enjoying reading your comment.I understand as Bob suggests he did see himself as somewhat of a hero. When asked about his feelings regarding the fact that there was no memorial to him on the Battlefield he replied along the lines of ' The whole Gettysburg battlefield is a memorial to me'.

So if that question is a federal hot topic, how about this Confederate one that I understand is if anything even more debated!. Should Ewell have taken Cemetery Hill after Lees's order to take it ' If practicable'?.

The following questions arise.

1. Would it have succeeded?
2. Would it have changed the whole outcome of the Battle and possibly the War?
3. Would Jackson have done it if he'd still been alive?

Rob

 

[lancer]

Thanks guys, as an ACW newcomer its really good to get the views of those of you who have studied this conflict for many years, I can't decide myself so am enjoying reading your comment.I understand as Bob suggests he did see himself as somewhat of a hero. When asked about his feelings regarding the fact that there was no memorial to him on the Battlefield he replied along the lines of ' The whole Gettysburg battlefield is a memorial to me'.

So if that question is a federal hot topic, how about this Confederate one that I understand is if anything even more debated!. Should Ewell have taken Cemetery Hill after Lees's order to take it ' If practicable'?.

The following questions arise.

1. Would it have succeeded?
2. Would it have changed the whole outcome of the Battle and possibly the War?
3. Would Jackson have done it if he'd still been alive?

Rob

Ah, the BIGGEST what if of the battle. There are about the same number of opinions as historians.^&grin Here are mine.
1,3- Late in the afternoon after desperate fighting, both sides disorganized and tired with a lot of casualties, I believe the hill could have been, and should have been, taken. Jackson would have done so. Ewell, new to Corps command and not as aggressive as Jackson, missed his chance, for all the reasons above. The situation was too fluid for a Confederate attack on the hill not to have succeeded, if executed and supported in the flow of the continuing action. Although both sides were exhausted and depleted from casualties, I am of the opinion that the Union forces could not have rallied and held off a determined assault at that time.
2- Would have changed the whole course of the battle for sure. How could it not have? Don't know about the outcome of the war, though. That calls for a lot more speculation and what if's than I'm smart enough to discuss.:wink2:^&grin -- Al

 

[UKReb]

Thanks guys, as an ACW newcomer its really good to get the views of those of you who have studied this conflict for many years, I can't decide myself so am enjoying reading your comment.I understand as Bob suggests he did see himself as somewhat of a hero. When asked about his feelings regarding the fact that there was no memorial to him on the Battlefield he replied along the lines of ' The whole Gettysburg battlefield is a memorial to me'.

So if that question is a federal hot topic, how about this Confederate one that I understand is if anything even more debated!. Should Ewell have taken Cemetery Hill after Lees's order to take it ' If practicable'?.

The following questions arise.

1. Would it have succeeded?
2. Would it have changed the whole outcome of the Battle and possibly the War?
3. Would Jackson have done it if he'd still been alive?Rob

Rob

The best and most accurate answer to question 3 that I have ever read was supplied by Jackson's biographer James I Robertson. He stated the following

"If Stonewall Jackson had been alive on July 1st 1863, there would have been no battle at Gettysburg, as Jackson and his battle-hardened foot cavalry would have reached Vermont by that date"

Bob

 

[Rob]

Ah, the BIGGEST what if of the battle. There are about the same number of opinions as historians.^&grin Here are mine.
1,3- Late in the afternoon after desperate fighting, both sides disorganized and tired with a lot of casualties, I believe the hill could have been, and should have been, taken. Jackson would have done so. Ewell, new to Corps command and not as aggressive as Jackson, missed his chance, for all the reasons above. The situation was too fluid for a Confederate attack on the hill not to have succeeded, if executed and supported in the flow of the continuing action. Although both sides were exhausted and depleted from casualties, I am of the opinion that the Union forces could not have rallied and held off a determined assault at that time.
2- Would have changed the whole course of the battle for sure. How could it not have? Don't know about the outcome of the war, though. That calls for a lot more speculation and what if's than I'm smart enough to discuss.:wink2:^&grin -- Al

What if's are fun though are they not!^&grin.What if the 20TH Maine had not held at LRT, what if the Confederate bombardment of the Union center had been more effective, what if Jeb Stuart had not been absent for so long, they are all fascinating questions.

Rob

 

[lancer]

Rob

The best and most accurate answer to question 3 that I have ever read was supplied by Jackson's biographer James I Robertson. He stated the following

"If Stonewall Jackson had been alive on July 1st 1863, there would have been no battle at Gettysburg, as Jackson and his battle-hardened foot cavalry would have reached Vermont by that date"

Bob

LOL. No doubt. I read Robertson's book on the Stonewall Brigade but have not read the Stonewall Bio. -- Al

 

[Scott]

Rob

The best and most accurate answer to question 3 that I have ever read was supplied by Jackson's biographer James I Robertson. He stated the following

"If Stonewall Jackson had been alive on July 1st 1863, there would have been no battle at Gettysburg, as Jackson and his battle-hardened foot cavalry would have reached Vermont by that date"

Bob

Ha! Until Stonewall runs into the Vermont Yankee that tells him.."St. Albans ya say? Ya c'ain't get the-ah from he'ah!"

 

[jazzeum]

Rob

The best and most accurate answer to question 3 that I have ever read was supplied by Jackson's biographer James I Robertson. He stated the following

"If Stonewall Jackson had been alive on July 1st 1863, there would have been no battle at Gettysburg, as Jackson and his battle-hardened foot cavalry would have reached Vermont by that date"

Bob

Doubt he would have made it past Pennsylvania.

 

[UKReb]

Doubt he would have made it past Pennsylvania.

Brad

I have no doubt your above post is about right. I think Al got the gist of my Jackson comment which was more than a little "tongue in cheek" as I'm sure the original quote by the author also meant it to be :smile2:

Bob

 

[jazzeum]

Sometime you have to wonder Bob. With the general incompetence of the Union generals, you have to speculate if they could have acted like Sherman did in 1864, sowing mischief wherever they did. The Democrats and the Peaceniks would have howled, calling for peace and Lincoln's head.

 

[UKReb]

3. Would Jackson have done it if he'd still been alive?

Rob

Rob

One of my old history professors used to state "Nothing elevates the reputation of a senior officer like death in battle" He was speaking generically of course but he was absolutely right. Because when you align his statement with the ACW be it the death of Jackson or Reynolds or Armistead or Albert Sidney Johnson or Sedgwick or Cleburne or McPherson-History paints their life and death in utter reverence with all depicted as being brilliant commanders cut down in their prime that immediately generates a whole list of "What Ifs" (That could be the basis of a fine dissertation for a history student there Rob )

Stonewall Jackson was probably the finest combat commander during the ACW but he was far from perfect-his divisional commanders despaired before every engagement as he always refrained from sharing his plans with subordinates until the last possible moment. This habit of his nearly led to disaster at Cedar Mountain in 1862.

If he had survived Chancellorsville and led the Second Corps into Pennsylvania he may have been as aggressive as he was in his famous victories. I have no doubt he would not have waited for Lee's communique "to take that hill if practicable". At a glance Jackson would have seen that that position was the key to winning the fight. But then again he may have aligned himself with Longstreet and advised Lee that Gettysburg was not good ground for the Reb army and it would be prudent to find a better place to fight.

Amongst my stash is a reference to a letter written by an infantryman of the 23rd Virginia regiment, forced to charge the Union defences at Cemetery & Culp's Hill again and again he wrote to his brother"....... I wish old Jack had been present to correct the situation-for it was always his policy never to assault strongholds or storm positions has impregnable as these were"

Bob

 

[chasbo]

Don't believe he was a hero. The federal army suffered severe casualties in the wheatfield and the Peach Orchard.To my understanding from a visit there, it was the federal artillery that saved them, at that juncture of the battle and perhaps the whole.

 

[Scott]

Don't believe he was a hero. The federal army suffered severe casualties in the wheatfield and the Peach Orchard.To my understanding from a visit there, it was the federal artillery that saved them, at that juncture of the battle and perhaps the whole.

"Hero" could be applied to Sickles in that he was in a position to be severely wounded and when carried from the field showed composure and panache.

"He had an important effect on preservation efforts at the Gettysburg Battlefield, sponsoring legislation to form the Gettysburg National Military Park, buy up private lands, and erect monuments." from Wikipedia

 

[Rob]

Am totally hooked on Mark Adkins Gettysburg companion at the moment and have been studying troop figures for Corps, Brigades, and Regiments. I was truly shocked to see that four regiments in John Caldwell's 1st div went in with less than one hundred men! This included the 116th PA who had just 66 men , really astonishing figures and highlights the losses of Antietam and Fredericksburg and the affect on the make up of the Army of the Potomac when it formed up for Gettysburg.

Rob