From: cowan@ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu (P.L. Cowan)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: LINCOLN'S GENERALS
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:47:48 -0800
Organization: SSRL, Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: ssrl01.slac.stanford.edu

In article <1993Jan8.172011.10775@leland.Stanford.EDU>, whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.161136.18699@starbase.trincoll.edu> () writes:
>>You can't diagnose Meade's decision to not pursue a crippled Lee on 3 July
>>1863, pushing him back against a swollen Potomac, as a result of his desire
>>to win battles, and not the war.
> 
> You can diagnose his failure to attack July 13th near Williamsport Maryland
> as such. He had a crippled Army of Northern Virginia trapped against an
> unfordable Potomac river and (apparently at the advice of his corps
> commanders) failed to attack. You can also suggest that he shouldn't have
> taken 10 days to get that close to the Rebel army again (Lincoln suggested
> this in a letter to Meade which he never sent) and you can also suggest that
> the failure to follow up against the repulse of Pickett was a mistake (Gen.
> Hancock was trying to organize such an attack when he was wounded) although
> I wouldn't necessarily endorse that. But Hancock's opinion shouldn't be
> dismissed too lightly: he was there.

I touched on this in a separate post. As I recall the Corps commanders voted
5 to 2 against Meade's plan to attack Lee at Williamsport. Perhaps more
significantly, the experienced corps commanders Segwick and Slocum were with
the majority. I don't mean to pick on Howard, but he was one of the 
two who voted to attack. He also clearly was in most need of redeeming
his reputation.

It is not strictly correct that Meade did not counter attack on July 3
after Longstreet's Second Assault (aka the Pickett-Pettigrew Charge).
Meade sent Sam Crawford's division of the 5th Corps (including the
Bucktails) plus cavalry against Logstreet's right flank, but was
sharply repulsed. One of Meade's newly promoted young West Point
cavalry brigade commanders (Farnsworth?) was killed. It is true that
he held the entire 6th Corps out of the battle (reminisent of
McClellan at Antietam) but after watching Lee's attack fail, it would
have been tough to pick a location on Seminary Ridge to attack that 
would not likely have ended with the same result (inverted blue for
grey).

>>Firstly, Meade doesn't deserve that much credit for the Union's victory at
>>Gettysburg. 
> 
>We might also give credit to G.K. Warren who was responsible
> for sending V Corps to the left, and to Cols Vincent and Weed whose brigades
> did most of the fighting on Little Round Top. 
> Also we should credit Hancock
> with holding the center together on both the second and third days, plus
> for advising Meade to fight at Gettysburg in the first place.

Yes, and Hayes and Hunt and Reynolds and many more. At Gettysburg
there were many heroes in the AotP. I think this was a sign of their
arrival as the world's greatest army of its day. Traditionally, one would
credit the commander for such an achievement.

> -- 
> Steve Schmidt			<><		   whale@leland.stanford.edu

-- 
Paul Cowan     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Please send replies, comments etc. (no flames thank you) to COWAN@ANL.GOV   
"If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to
retract it, but also to deny under oath that I ever said it." Tom Lehrer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa