American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 3:29 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2007 1:48 am
Posts: 345
Location: United Kingdom
Meade is a strange one...almost a case of George who? He commands the victorious side in one of the greatest battles ever fought but he's not actually present for a large part (possibly the most important part) of the engagement. How many outside this club and not students of military history would or could name him in a list of famous Generals?
Elevated From Corps to Army command just before the battle, he seems an extra from the pages of history...not a main character. The important decisions were made by Hancock and Howard on day 1. I don't know the details for Meades late arrival on the field. Was it physically possible for him to have arrived sooner?
After Gettysburg, Meades command is trumped by the presence of U.S.Grant in the eastern theatre. All we see of Meades character is a reluctance to press the retreating Rebs. Surely the failure to press immediately with the available fresh troops was one of the biggest missed opportunities ever?
If events had taken a different course we may have seen Meade in a different light. Definitely a manager...certainly a competent one at that. But uninspired and uninspiring as a leader.
What were Meades key command decisions during the 3-days? most of the crucial decisions seem to have been made by sub-ordinates.

Colonel Jim Wilkes.
2nd Brigade, Cavalry Division, XX Corps.
AoC. U.S.A.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 4:12 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />
With Stuart on the loose who knows where the CSA army could have shown up on the next day? Or how about if the CSA didnt attack on the 2nd day and instead you saw a night march by Longstreet around the USA left?

Col. Bill Peters, The Boise Rifles, II Corps Artillery, AoA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

All reasons why he didn't immediately rush to the front, I think. Hancock was a great commander - Meade knew he could handle things. (Before Hancock it was Reynolds, who Meade thought should have been offered the command anyway.) Think Lee letting Jackson go off on his own and make decisions around Second Manassas, etc.

People seem to forget that Lee was mostly a manager as well. He went to the front to review things as necessary, but spent the majority of his time at HQ monitoring the battle via reports and sending out the ocassional courier. He was not a hands on commander during a battle itself.

Likewise Meade made it near the front at Gettysburg a few times after he arrived, but spent the majority of his time at his HQ behind Cemetery Ridge.

That is the commanders job - command, not lead from the front line. In a battle line that stretches multiple miles and with only horses, feet, or possibly flags, to use for communication, having your commanding general galavanting off all over the battlefield can be a deadly liability in coordinating an effective attack or defense.

Meade may have been an odd goose but I don't blame him for not rushing straight to Gettysburg at the first report of fighting on the morning of the 1st.

Regards,

Lt. Gen. Alan Lynn
CSA Chief of Staff
3rd Bgde, 3rd Cav Div, II Corps, AoA

God Bless <><


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 1:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 3:48 am
Posts: 155
Location: USA
Let's see here...to answer a whole bunch of questions....

Yes. Meade was physically able to go to the front. He chose not to, because, A) He was still considering Pipe Creek as a line, and B) He couldn't be sure that more Confederates wouldn't pop up at say, Emmitsburg. So he, in my estimation, wanted to stay in a central location, (Taneytown), prepared for any eventuality. He christened Hancock, an officer that he trusted, and whom he had just gone over his plans with, and sent him north in his stead. (Apparently a wise choice on his part, as we all seem to agree.) Just as a what-if, how much criticism would he have taken, and still be taking, had he rushed off to the front, and the rebs have shown up at Emmitsburg in force? He'd have been the General that lost the war in a mere 3 days.

To say that he stayed at his HQ for most of the battle, is also, I think harsh. He spent the entire morning on the 2nd, looking over the right of his line. Probably concerned because of the nearness of the Baltimore Pike to his right, and, also looking to strike a blow there when 6th Corps arrived. He then went to see Sickles about, his, (Sickles), inability to find a line. When Longstreet's guns opened on Sickles front, he rode off, and began to send every available horse, man, and gun, and in some instances, some men who were in fact not available, to pull Sickles bacon out of the fire. (At one point, even leading a counter-charge.) July 3rd, I do agree that he spent mostly at HQ, then moving HQ when the cannonade became, um, bothersome, to HQ activities. He did arrive on Cemetery Ridge just as the attack was ending and receding back toward Seminary Ridge. Lastly, I'd like to point to John Pope, a man who had "his headquarters where his hindquarters ought to be".

His alleged failure to pursure Lee effectively, I think, is also a revisionist kind of history. (I can agree that he got off to a terrible start, giving Lee an etire day's headstart. He was overly cautious, and sent out John Sedgwick, a fella also prone to be over cautious, to see what the rebs were up to.) He chose, not follow Lee, but rather, to try and swing around him, and get ahead of him before Lee reached the Potomac. (Much the same way that Grant did at Appomattox.) He was unsuccessful in that attempt, and would have been forced to attack Lee, in a prepared position. I think that the 1864 Campaign offers plenty of evidence as to how difficult a poposition that was. So to say it was a missed opportunity? Sure it was. But after Lee got the headstart, there really wasn't much chance to head him off.

I do agree that he is a character of the Civil War, and even the battle of Gettysburg, more than a leading role kinda guy. I also think this has alot to do with the way he was. He didn't seek credit, or advancement. Didn't look to become famous, and went so far as to throw newspaper reporters out of his camp, because he thought that they were giving secrets away to the rebs. For that he was completely stricken from any reports made by them, and the army was ever after, "Grant's Army". I think that it's a shame that he doesn't get more notoriety, as I think that he was one of the best army commanders produced by the Civil War on the union side.

For a more thorough look into Meade, check out some light reading. (LOL)
Life and Letters of George Gordon Meade
Meade of Gettysburg
Coddington's Gettysburg Campiagn, a Study in Command is another good look.

WOW! Sorry so windblown...but Meade is my guy! LOL!



"We must decide. If it's the wrong thing, we'll find out soon enough, and can then do the other, but we must decide." US Grant

Major General Rusty Hodgkiss
VIII AoS
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 2:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 312
Location: USA
Atta boy Rusty!!

Didn't Meade fight at Peninsula also? (loaded question... lol)

I think Meade did a FANTASTIC job that week...
"Hey George, take over the army... btw, Lee took off somewhere north, can you take care of that?"



Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 10:10 pm
Posts: 1035
Location: USA
Gen Lee was pretty good at sizing up his union opponents having prior knowledge of most of them. His opinion of Gen Meade says a lot, "He will commit no blunder in our front and should we make one will make haste to take advantage of it."

As to Meade's actions at Gettysburg, he held conferences with his corps commanders each night asking their opinions, this had been done by previous AoP commanders. Gen Butterfield, who was a holdover from Hooker's staff and an avid supporter of him reported this and made it appear Meade did not want to fight and was ready to retreat. Gen Sickles brought this up during the hearings on the battle in an effort to belittle Meade and make himself look better in defence of his failure to follow orders on the second day. Meade's subsequent actions during the late afternoon fighting clearly show a commander who was capable of sizing up a battle and of making the quick decisions needed during one.

About the only criticism of Meade's actions at Gettysburg that has any merit is his slowness in his initial pursuit of Lee. He allowed the rebel army to steal a whole days march before his pursuit began but after that delay he made every effort to cut off their retreat. Considering the record of the AoP against the ANV his caution was not unwarranted. His failure to attack Lee in his works north of the Potomac probably saved heavy union casualties as did his suspension of the Mine Run campaign when he discovered Lee dug in barring his advance.

Having done a little reading on the Overland Campaign lately I feel the problem there was not Meade but the failure of his corps commanders. Sedgewick had already proven he was capable of following orders but unable to improvise, Hancock who was suffering from the effects of his Gettysburg wound was not up to his usual level while Warren proved he should have continued as chief of engineers and Burnside showed he was as incompetent as a corps commander as he was at the army level.

Grant's memoirs make the point that he had no complaints with Meade's handling of the AoP. His opinion of Meade was such that he would have given Meade the independent command of the AoS had he not been overruled by Lincoln.

Certainly Meade was not a brilliant strategist but he had been an excellent division and corps commander and I feel he showed himself to be a competent army commander, better than many on both sides of the war.


Gen. Ken Miller
1/2/VI
AoS
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 312
Location: USA
Well,

It appears that the club members generally agree the General George Meade was a better field general than General Robert E. Lee.

Sure Lee won a lot of impressive battles against crappy Union generals early in the war, but head to head, look what happened.

Feel free to discuss...

Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 7:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by P.A.T.</i>
<br />Well,

It appears that the club members generally agree the General George Meade was a better field general than General Robert E. Lee.

Sure Lee won a lot of impressive battles against crappy Union generals early in the war, but head to head, look what happened.

Feel free to discuss...

Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

He wasn't a bad Staff General which is what Grant used him for.[:D]

After all, someones got to bring the coffee for the real generals.[^]

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 1:01 pm
Posts: 312
Location: USA
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by KWhitehead</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by P.A.T.</i>
<br />Well,

It appears that the club members generally agree the General George Meade was a better field general than General Robert E. Lee.

Sure Lee won a lot of impressive battles against crappy Union generals early in the war, but head to head, look what happened.

Feel free to discuss...

Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

He wasn't a bad Staff General which is what Grant used him for.[:D]

After all, someones got to bring the coffee for the real generals.[^]

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

LOL...

Conveniently skipping the battle where Grant wasn't there eh??

Major General Thompson
Chief of Staff
AoS


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 15, 2009 3:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
From what I have read of his decisions during the battle and contribution to it, he fought it still as a Staff Officer.[:D]

LG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
1/1/III AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 163 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group