| |
texasbob
Texas Hill Country, TX, USA
Posts: 622
 | | Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 7/16/2010 11:39:31 AM | It seems to me that there is from time to time a fair bit of Meade-bashing, based primarily on his post-Gettysburg failure to demolish Lee's army, with a "proof" of this being that Lincoln chose Grant over Meade as army commander. Heaven knows that Meade made many mistakes.
But I wonder just how valid some of the assumptions behind the Meade-bashing are. On paper he was c-in-c of the AoP, with extraordinary authority granted upon his appointment by Lincoln. So he should have commanded with great authority, or so many folks seem to assume. But paper authority usually does not trump real life experience.
At the time of Meade's appointment as c-in-c, there were four corps commanders in the AoP with seniority over him and two others with the same date of rank as MGs. How much clout did Meade have over these prima donnas? On day one, Slocum and Howard ran their own wars. On day two, Sickles joined in the free for all big time, and Slocum again decided that he knew better. On the third day, Sedgwick and even the newbie Sykes decided that they did not not want to counterattack Lee. At various stages, Butterfield acted as if he ran the army, not Meade, and then there was Pleasonton. As a practical matter, I think that Meade, who knew these fellows, quickly came to the realization that he could not exercise command without the concurrence of his fellow MGs. Hence councils of war. After the battle, he had additional evidence that his command authority was nominal and only went so far. It may be perfectly fair to criticize Meade for not rising above these limits and kicking a lot of MG ass, but it seems to me that doing so misses the very real strength of the practical limits on his authority. He had to work with these men, after all. If he kicked ass and fired one or two of them, where were the replacements to come from and who might they be? If he kicked ass, how would the others react? Would he get obedience from them or greater resentment if not outright insubordination? It seems to me that he viewed keeping the army together in at least a marginally functional way as more important than trying to impose his will on a recalcitrant bunch of MGs and probably making the AoP even more dysfunctional in the process. His disinclination later on to bring charges against his "colleagues" suggests this as well. He had to swallow a lot to keep from exploding the army. "Heroes" like Sickles bore no such responsibility. Did Doubleday or Pleasonton or others who back-bitched about Meade show any concern for the unity or morale of the AoP?
I cringe, too, when I see people insinuate that Lincoln's choice of Grant as overall commander of the Union army was a repudiation of Meade. I think it should be viewed instead as an affirmation of Grant. Grant had been a MG for 9 months longer than Meade. He had been in relatively high command when Meade was still getting his feet wet as a division commander. Grant had not only a string of victories along the Mississippi culminating in Vicksburg, but I think he had something to do with a major victory in the Chattanooga area later in 1863. True enough, Meade had little to show after Gettysburg, but neither had he earned removal. When Lincoln decided to name a Lt General in March 1864 -- nine months after Gettysburg and Vicksburg -- had not Grant's longer and more distinguished record earned him that position above Meade or any other general in the whole army? Add to this that Grant had not been "conditioned" by the likes of McClellan.
Who was responsible for McClellan, by the way? Maybe it was the same man who was annoyed at Meade for not pressing home his victory?
All the above is probably a good example of why I try not to venture outside historic Adams County, PA.
---------------
Cheers y'all,
And with full respect for all who fight the fight against obfuscation, the sowing of confusion, deception, falsification, fabrication, and other intellectual dishonesties,
texasbob
|
| borderstates
Raceland / Lafayette, LA, USA
Posts: 715
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 7/16/2010 12:21:04 PM | Bob,
A great, thought provoking post. I find myself in a very small minority at times. I support both Grant and Meade. Much is made of Meade failing to sack Lee after Gettysburg. I often ask, With what? The AoP was very beat up. Hancock and Danny Boy were down. Many brigade commanders (the unit for attack) were also down.
To Grant: Grant understood the war and more importantly, Grant and Lincoln understood each other. There may not have been any greater source of Union success than the total understanding and trust that Lincoln and Grant had for each other.
Meade deserves a better place in history. Grant has earned his place by simply winning the war. I for one do not discount that statement in the least bit.
---------------
Respectfully yours,
Mike
OUR DEBT TO THE HEROIC MEN AND VALIANT WOMEN IN THE SERVICE
OF OUR COUNTRY CAN NEVER BE REPAID. THEY HAVE EARNED OUR
UNDYING GRATITUDE. AMERICA WILL NEVER FORGET THEIR SACRIFICES.
President Harry S Truman
|
| Dale E. Mallett
Bartlett, NH, USA
Posts: 1626
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 7/16/2010 12:25:39 PM | Hi texasbob,
Nice post!
I think part of the reason Grant was allowed to remain in the East and babysit Meade was 1) because Lincoln did not have confidence in Meade and 2) Grant had a capable subordinate in the form of former nut-case Sherman to carry on in Grant's absence in the deep South, plus 3) with the fall of Vicksburg and the securing of the Mississippi the final collapse of Southern resistance in those areas was pretty much a foregone conclusion and just about any Union general would prevail against the lackluster remnants of a once formidable Confederate threat.
IIRC Forrest offered to shoot Bragg himself, thus saving a Union minie ball.
Mac was the "man of the hour", loved by his men, but afraid to commit any of them to the cause. Wasn't Mac a Winfield Scott protege'?
Dale
|
| Red Bailey
Dewey, AZ, USA
Posts: 840
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 7/16/2010 12:30:16 PM | Great post Bob! Amen!
I have enough trouble judging my own generation and their performance during their time in history. I think it's presumptuous to assume to be that expert on past historic eras.
We all can find fault with facets of Lee's, Grant's, etc. characters and performances, but one should never approach that subject with the attitude of a know-it-all. We all walk on the eggshells of our own biases, ignorance, and often misguided judgements. "Let he who is without sin .....".
---------------
'War is often the result of the failure to reason' - Anonymous
As usual,
Red
|
| kp
Belle Vernon, PA, USA
Posts: 269
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 7/16/2010 1:19:39 PM | May I also add a very large AMEN to this thread.
Meade, in his first few days of command, lost two of his most aggressive MGs (two of those who knew HOW to fight aggressively -- Reynolds and Hancock) The AoP had suffered heavy casualties, which meant Meade had to be concerned about which units were still capable of effective combat.
Lee, on the other hand, still had all three of his corps commanders. And Lee had the advantage of the respect of his top commanders, something Meade never had among the back-stabbers covering their own butts.
Lee knew how much he could count on each of his surviving commanders. Meade, in command for such a very short time, did not have that luxury. And Lee had the utmost support of his CIC. For Lincoln, Meade was somewhat of an unknown quantity.
Did Meade make mistakes? After being in command for such a short period, he was bound to. He had not had the chance of learning the ropes of his command.
---------------
With respect,
KP
|
| scoucer
Berlin, Germany
Posts: 507
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 7/16/2010 7:20:44 PM | An excellent thread and also an AMen kp,
I`m often irritated by the Meade and Lee bashing. I often think of it this way, that Lee and the ANV were in the position, in 63 to invade Penn. and attack the AoP showed the amazing fighting power of the ANV and the amazing military ability of Lee. The ANV should have been finished in AUtumn/Winter 62. An amazing achievement.
Meade, a few days before Gettysburg, takes over an AoP that has been misled and often defeated, whose commanding officiers have intrigued against each other or been the victims of political manouvering. He defeats Lee. Ends the invasion of Penn. Then he gets bad-mouthed because he doesn`t completely destroy Lee.
Makes me think of my Boss!
All the Best
Trevor
---------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
|
| tnemelckram
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Posts: 17
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 7/29/2010 9:58:36 PM | Hi All!
I liked Texasbob's thoughtful and balanced OP and the discussion that followed.
Being also semi-informed, I try to keep my view of Meade simple. Napoleon said that he only looks to do one thing - destroy the enemy's main body - all other matters are secondary and will fall into place afterward. With Meade I first look to one thing - he won the Battle Of Gettysburg, compared to that all other matters seem secondary, because after this decisive battle a Union victory in the Civil War fell into place.
|
| Scott Bowden
Posts: 112
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 7/29/2010 10:59:41 PM |
Quote:And Lee had the utmost support of his CIC.--kp
Kp,
You may wish to reconsider your claim.
Jeff Davis' decision not to fully support Lee's Pennsylvania gambit, resulting in the President's refusal to honor Lee's multiple, specific requests for the return to the mobile army of five valuable brigades numbering about 11,000 battle-hardened veterans who were being wasted in idle duty in Virginia, loomed very large indeed on the fields of Gettysburg, especially on July 2.
Regards
|
| Tom L
McKeesport, PA, USA
Posts: 1
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 1:27:48 AM | to take your point a little farter, in my opinion, grant was already the predetermined commander for the army of the potomoc. the reason meade was appointed was to fill in till grant finished vicksburg. meade was not seeking the post but he was an excellent choice to fill in. he would keep the army between lee and washington and the better choice kept flat out refusing the posting i.e. reynolds. i can see meade's reluctance to follow up on the third day. he had a victory and could have negated that buy taking heavy casualties in any counterattack. and as was already stated he had no subordinates he could trust leading the attack. lincoln needed victories to silence the 5th columnists in the north to keep the war going. as far as i'm concerned he was the right man for the job at the time.
|
| tom ryan
Bethany Beach, DE, USA
Posts: 254
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 12:12:47 PM | With some trepidation, I am about to put my foot into it on this subject. I have found that the tendencey to defend Meade from examination of his decisions late on July 3, July 4, the retreat and pursuit, and the post-Gettysburg Campaign period tends to stiffle in-depth review of his generalship during this period.
The fact that Meade was a good leader and hero of Gettysburg is indisputatble. IMO that needs to be put aside while analyzing his strategy and tactics from that point on (perhaps until Grant came East to become general-in-chief). From time to time, some of the unanswered questions about Meade's decision making during this period have been raised, yet there seems to be a reluctance to adddress them.
Asking questions about Meade's thinking during this period often earns an anti-Meade label. Certainly Meade, as pointed out above, had a number of obstacles to overcome, but, at the same time, there were opportunities for improved performance that he appeared to overlook or ignore.
Unless these instances are examined, then a complete historical record of his generalship is not possible. And that should be done without bashing or giving preferential treatment.
By reading the entire record and considering each opportunity and decision under the circumstances in the field at the time, there is a realization that General Meade had many plusses as well as some minuses. Considering the entire picture helps to place all of this into context. Avoiding criticism for whatever reason leaves the story incomplete.
Now I am going to run for cover!!!
Regards, Tom
|
| texasbob
Texas Hill Country, TX, USA
Posts: 622
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 1:48:32 PM |
Quote:
Now I am going to run for cover!!!
Regards, Tom
--tom ryan
Tom,
I, for one, don't plan to be shooting at you. My focus has been on July 29-July 3, when Meade was (a) new to army command, (b) incredibly stressed, and (c) ill served by many of his fellow MGs. Accordingly,I am inclined to pass over his errors during this period. Perhaps someday I'll do something with what I see as his mistakes, but from my current viewpoint it is more needed these days to emphasize positives that have been denied him and to pin the tail on some of the donkeys that undermined him. These are larger issues, events that had larger consequences, in my mind. Peccadilloes can wait.
But as time wears on, and at least factor (a) diminishes, I am less inclined to cut him slack. Excusing someone for being new, gets "old" pretty quickly. But I am essentially a novice at the period after July 3, just getting ready to plunge into the "retreat" period and conflicting assessments of Meade's leadership then. The back issues of GM with your articles arrived just an hour ago, and the books by Brown and Wittenberg/Petruzzi turned up in the past two days, so I'll soon take the plunge. For the moment, my mind is still reeling with Antietam.
---------------
Cheers y'all,
And with full respect for all who fight the fight against obfuscation, the sowing of confusion, deception, falsification, fabrication, and other intellectual dishonesties,
texasbob
|
| Red Bailey
Dewey, AZ, USA
Posts: 840
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 2:21:34 PM | Much of the criticism of Meade involves 'what-if' thinking on the part of the critics, and we all know that 'whst-ifs' change all of the equations in strategic and tactical thinking.
---------------
'War is often the result of the failure to reason' - Anonymous
As usual,
Red
|
| tom ryan
Bethany Beach, DE, USA
Posts: 254
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 4:06:02 PM | Rather than "what if," my examination of Meade's generalship has been more "why not?" and/or "why so?." His decisions had to be tied into his strategy, and it is the latter that is difficult to fathom in some cases.
Tom
|
| tom ryan
Bethany Beach, DE, USA
Posts: 254
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 4:21:59 PM | Bob,
Bob,
As I am sure you know, I welcome your take on the post-Gettysburg period. There is an awful lot there that has not gotten the attention that other aspects of the campaign has received. Not only the 10 days following the Battle of Gettysburg. That itself requires more attention, but the period after Lee's crossing of the river until arrival back below the Rappahannock has been virtually free of examination. But those additional two to three weeks (roughtly July 15 to early August) will have to wait awhile for further attention.
While historians generally end their coverage on July 14, it is interesting that Meade did not consider the campaign to be ended until "the close of July," and Lee's last date included in his report of the campaign was August 4.
Regards, Tom
|
| Rick Schaus
Capon Springs, WV, USA
Posts: 504
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 5:07:03 PM |
Quote:Much of the criticism of Meade involves 'what-if' thinking on the part of the critics, and we all know that 'whst-ifs' change all of the equations in strategic and tactical thinking.
--Red Bailey
Hi,
Red would you be more specific.
What are the "what-ifs" you are referring to?
Are you referring to Gettysburg, Lee's retreat, the rest of 1863, or all of the above?
VR, Rick Schaus
|
| Red Bailey
Dewey, AZ, USA
Posts: 840
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 7:24:25 PM | Rick,
Well, I think all of the above would apply, but I am specifically thinking of the criticism of Meade for not assaulting Lee's defensive lines at Williamsport. We've hashed this one over for the past month or so; and perhaps the biggest what-if of the war is whether Meade should have assautled Lee or not.
---------------
'War is often the result of the failure to reason' - Anonymous
As usual,
Red
|
| Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
Posts: 940
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 8:08:54 PM |
Quote:Quote: And Lee had the utmost support of his CIC.--kp Kp, You may wish to reconsider your claim. Jeff Davis' decision not to fully support Lee's Pennsylvania gambit, resulting in the President's refusal to honor Lee's multiple, specific requests for the return to the mobile army of five valuable brigades numbering about 11,000 battle-hardened veterans who were being wasted in idle duty in Virginia, loomed very large indeed on the fields of Gettysburg, especially on July 2. Regards --Scott Bowden
I'm not sure Kp meant it in quite the way you suggest. The impression I get is that he was referring to the level of personal support he could expect from Davis, not physical support in terms of additional troops or material.
---------------
Jim Cameron
Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.
|
| Jim Cameron
North Bellmore, NY, USA
Posts: 940
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 8:14:15 PM | Bob,
A thought occurred to me in reading your other thread, comparing Antietam and Gettysburg. Having been at Antietam, Meade had seen first hand how the ANV could fight on the defensive, with it's back (somewhat figuratively speaking) to the river. Might there have been some echo of this in the decision not to press the attack at Williamsport?
---------------
Jim Cameron
Every time I go to Gettysburg, I learn two things. Something new, and, how much I still don't know.
|
| scoucer
Berlin, Germany
Posts: 507
| | Re: Meade: a semi-informed comment | | Posted on: 8/12/2010 9:09:56 PM | Bob and Jim,
I had exactly the same thought.And it wasn`t just Meade. Sedgewick, Sykes, Slocum, Howard and French come also to mind.
All the Best
Trevor
---------------
`Hey don´t the wars come easy and don´t the peace come hard`- Buffy Sainte-Marie
|
| |
|
|
|