Talk:George Meade

message: General Meade's full name is George Gordon Meade.
:And that's what it says at the beginning of the article. George Gordon Meade redirects to George Meade. Ideally, the article should be under his full name, but it would need an administrator to do that, as we would want to move George Meade to George Gordon Meade, which already exists as the redirect. -- Dalbury(Talk) 19:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not what his full name is, but what he is best known as.  I would agree that he is probably best known by his full name as George Gordon Meade, and will move if there seems to be a general consensus to do so. john k 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: I wonder how he could have been graduated at the age of 19. Were the age-requirements lower at that time?--Anglius 23:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Point 

message: Under the paragraph heading ‘With Grant’.  There is a statement that says: (and that Sheridan, his junior, was promoted to permanent major general before he was).
I checked with the reference Eicher & Eicher, Civil War High Commands and it states that Meade’s commission was dated 23 Sept 1864 while Sheridan’s was dated 8 Nov 1864.  Meade always outranked Sheridan.  This line should be removed. Dmercado 03:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In his Memoirs, Grant said that he requested that Meade be made a permanent Major General immediately after Spotsylvania, concurrent with Sherman. Despite what this entry says of their relationship (I'm not disputing whether they had a contentious relationship), Grant spoke very warmly of Meade in his Memoirs - referring to him time and again as "The Gallant Meade."Khan_singh 01:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have elaborated on the sequence of events and cited the Grant memoirs. The significant change is the date of Grant's request. Thank you for that research. There is some interesting detail in Grant's biography by Jean Edward Smith. Henry W. Halleck informed Grant confidentially that there were two slots available for permanent major general and that there was some political sentiment in Washington that these promotions be given to Daniel Sickles and Benjamin Butler, the intent being to dilute the influence of West Point graduates in the high command. Grant was adamant that Meade and Sherman get the appointments and sent his political mentor, Elihu Washburne, to lobby with Lincoln. The reason the dates of appointment lag the original request significantly is that the government wanted to wait for demonstrated success in the Atlanta Campaign and the Overland Campaign prior to committing the promotions. Smith indicates that Grant approved of this delay. Hal Jespersen 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  With Grant 

message: I have done a significant upgrade on this article. If the person who originally added the two books on lighthouses would like to adjust footnotes appropriately and move those back into the References section, that would be fine with me. I have access to neither of those books, so could not use citations from them in this edit. Hal Jespersen 00:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can take care of the florida lighthouse references, although I think I just returned one possible source to the library yesterday. -- Donald Albury 02:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  updated -- lighthouse refs? 

message: Happy Birthday to George Gordon Meade, born on this day in 1815! Hal Jespersen 18:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Happy Birthday 

message: The following paragraph was modified on May 2 to add the sentence beginning "Notably..." I have removed it for the following reasons:
: For the remainder of the fall campaigning season in 1863, during both the Bristoe Campaign and the Mine Run Campaign, Meade was outmaneuvered by Lee and withdrew after fighting minor, inconclusive battles, because of his reluctance to attack entrenched positions.Sauers, pp. 1295-96. Notably, while in command over the Army of the Potomac (opposed to being a subordinate commander under Grant, McClellan, Burnside, etc.) Meade is distinguished for never having lost a battle to Lee.
# It is a non sequitur. Following a sentence that describes two failed campaigns against Lee is not the place to claim that Meade is distinguished for never having lost a battle.
# It is a clumsy construct to talk about command of the Army of the Potomac in this way. Meade never gave up command of the Army of the Potomac for the rest of the war. The only arguable command relationship in the list of examples given was Grant, who was not in command of the Army of the Potomac, although he did give orders to Meade and the other subordinate generals (Burnside, Butler, and Sheridan). Furthermore, a case can be made that some of the blame for the loss at Cold Harbor can be attributed to Meade.
If you assume that Meade was not responsible for his conduct under Grant (which I do not), about the only statement of this type that one can make with impunity would be to reverse its sense: "In 1863, Meade was the only general to defeat Lee in a battle." (In 1861, McClellan defeated Lee in the West Virginia campaign. In 1862, McClellan defeated him at Beaver Dam Creek and Malvern Hill, although his Peninsula Campaign did not go well overall.) If the editor of this revision would like to pursue a statement of this type in a more appropriate location, please provide a citation from a secondary source for the claim. Hal Jespersen (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  record 

message: General Meade lived at 1836 Delancey Place, Philadelphia, and died in the house, 1872. The Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission marker in front is copyrighted and trademarked, so a photo of it cannot appear in Wikipedia without permission. The story is that he was offered the house by the citizens of Philadelphia, but modestly declined, so they asked his wife if she would accept it, and she said "Sure!"  I have this story from a TV show, but perhaps it is documented elsewhere. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meade house in Philadelphia 

message: As fine an article as this is, there are several troubling aspects to it - a lack of citation at some key points and the intrusion at others of an auctorial voice. For example, the last sentence under "Command Decisions" reads -
:"His decisions to entrench when practicable and not launch frontal assaults on fortified positions should have been more carefully studied; they were lessons that could have been used to great effect on the Western Front during World War I. See, for example, Gallagher, essay by Richard A. Sauers, pp. 231-44." 
How is an editorial comment such as this last sentence (or references to Sickles as "infamous" or "grossly insubordinate"), which is off-topic for an article on Meade and which includes the homiletic "should," ever or in any way appropriate in an encyclopedia article? American Heritage, yes; professionally-written encyclopedia, no. Sensei48 (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Comments about Sickles are certainly not off-topic for a Meade biography, but I have reviewed them and toned down or removed some of the uncited opinions. (I doubt that many Civil War scholars would challenge the adjective "infamous" about Sickles, a Tammany Hall politician who was embroiled in one of the most sensational criminal trials of the 19th century, but it is gratuitous for an encyclopedia.) By the way, you get a prize for the most sophisticated vocabulary used on an ACW talk page. :-) I actually had to look up two of the words you used. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a genuine LOL, Mr. J. - I figure that you are pretty much the ranking Wiki Civil War maven and know whereof you speak. I still forget that hlj is you - you may not recall, but you helped considerably several years ago with improving the article on George Armstrong Custer, in which I've had a particular interest as well. As I look back at my initial note here, I think it was a bit too abrupt - and I happen to think that American Heritage under Catton several decades back was as finely-written a magazine as the U.S. ever produced, so I actually meant it as a compliment. I'm a bit of a CW buff and agree that an assessment of Sickles actions here is fully warranted, but I think your edits and sourcing brings the section more in line with standard encyclopedia style. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: That was about 10,000 edits ago, so I cannot say I recall the details of GAC. That is one of the articles that I took off my radar a long time ago because there was too much controversy (primarily postbellum activities) and I lost patience trying to keep up with it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Command Decisions: Question 4/30/11 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on George Meade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100812023454/http://www.chestnuthilllocal.com:80/issues/2005.12.22/locallife3.html to http://www.chestnuthilllocal.com/issues/2005.12.22/locallife3.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just reverted an edit that added "Google-eyed" to Meade's nickname, "Old Snapping Turtle". A couple of sources I found for including "google-eyed" were blogs, but I did find this publication, , in which Meade's comment that soldiers had called him a "d----d old google-eyed snapping-turtle" is labeled as "perhaps apocryphal". I therefore question the significance of including a possibly apocryphal "google-eyed" in the infobox. - Donald Albury 16:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Google-eyed' snapping-turtle 

message: Meade [reluctantly] deferred to Grant's judgment and sent [Sheridan] on a raid toward Richmond, directly challenging the Confederate cavalry.
:We need to point out that Sheridan’s raid actually failed, despite the trophy-killing of Jeb Stuart, and that Meade’s judgment was totally vindicated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valetude (talk • contribs) 
::You can add that yourself, but please cite a reliable source that supports it, especially the part about Meade's judgment being validated. - Donald Albury 14:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sheridan’s drive on Richmond