Need To Focus on Why We are Here - OK DANNY BOY is UP

[markpeters]

Mike,

Thank you for clarifying your position, and correcting my mis-understandings.

As I said, I do have issues with some of the timings quoted by Pfanz. In particular, the final arrival of the 3rd Corps and how long the salient held.

My belief is that the excellent performance by Sickles's artillery, successful counter-attacks by regiments such as the 2nd New Hampshire, the fact that it took Sykes an hour to respond to the situation, McClaws comments on the result of the attack, and even the knowledge that avowed 'Sickles hater' Sauers considers the defence to have held for "around an hour", makes the 30 minute time frame unlikely. You yourself, advised us how you had to make the distance in the time involved. However, I would be more than open to any evidence proving that the five points I've made are not valid.

I also find no evidence to suggest that Sickles moved forward of his alloted line, prior to Berdan's reconnaisance. Again I'd be pleased to consider any evidence that I've overlooked.

Best wishes,

Mark
_________________
"History must not be written with bias, and both sides must be given, even if there is only one side." JOHN BETJEMAN

[markpeters]

We all know that Allan's opinion is coloured by his particular views on Sickles. he also points out, correctly, that Sickles was a "non-military man". This of course, does not invalidate Sickles's concerns, as much as his uncovery of the Jay Gould railrad conspiracy fails to persuade us that he was an honest, decent politician. Allan does, however, concede that he had "valid concerns", and this lends me to belive that he is on his own personal road to Damascus.

Allan's first substantial paragraph is not relevant to the points I made, but once again the issue of the fence removal rears it's ugly head. This, of course, is red-herring, as there is no doubt that Sickles wanted to take a more forward position. That does not signify he actually did so, and so-far no-one has presented any evidence that he did so until after Berdan's reconnaissance,

Allan then tries to make us believe that Sickles was not worried about his flank, as result of Chancellorsville. Yes, he is correct that Sickles wanted the high ground, at his front, to avoid a repeat of hazel Grove. Of course, Sauers tells us that Sickles was rightly concerned. I quote, "... Sickles received the 3d Corps for the Chancellorsville Campaign. Some of his skirmishers discovered Stonewall Jackson's flanking march and Sickles received permission from Hooker to pull his corps out of line to attack the enemy, which was supposed to be retreating towards Richmond ..." So, Sickles learned valuable lessons at Chancellorsville. The damage done when a Corps gets flanked (in this the XIth) and the damage done by 'plunging fire' from unoccupied high ground.

Allan then goes into a 'colourful' version of the morning. Whilst I accept that much is right, both in terms of events and time, there are several glaring discrepancies. For example, there is no evidence that Meade said he would "ride over to the sector". Rather, he dismissed concerns that Lee would attempt a flanking move, and saying that Generals look to see attacks appearing where they are positioned. Hunt was no more than a sop to keep Sickles quiet! I also see the "30 minute" time-frame which I've discussed in an earlier post, and can't accept as realsitic. However, the length of time is a 'moot point', AS I HAVEN'T ARGUED THAT HIS ADVANCE WAS MILITARILY CORRECT.

Allan then suggests that I think Berdan '"fights Longstreet". Of course, I have mentined Wilcox by name on a number of occasions. Of course, this is a matter of mere semantics, as Wilcox was intended to support Longstreet's far left flank. At the end of the day, Sickles was correct in that his fear of a flanking move was more than paranoia, as suggested earlier by Meade. This was the exact manouever that Lee went with, although poorly conducted by the officer responsible for co-ordinating the attack.

Best wishes,

Mark
_________________
"History must not be written with bias, and both sides must be given, even if there is only one side." JOHN BETJEMAN

[James_Longstreet]

Oh, gees - you DO have a 'way with words'

First, I don't think my views on Sickles are 'particular' - way too many people agree with them.

Second - I don't have to 'concede' the 'valid concerns' - I never shied away from them to begin with.

Third - too bad I am NOT on the Road to Damascus, least be assured that there would be no Damascus once I get there

Fourth - make what you want about the fences, but it is obvioulsy an important enough poin that it is noticed by practically EVERY Historian! Again - YOU find me a very well-Military versed person who will 'designate' (if you will) taking down of an existing obsticle as a 'defensive' tactic and I will pay your FULL BILL for your next stay in Gettysburg!!!!

Fifth - it is NOT that I tried to make you believe that Sickles is NOT worried about his flank, rather (as per your earlier post) I disagree with an assesment that THAT particular worry has anything to do with Chancellorsville! And at 8:00 am - it is somewhat a bit premature for the Corps Commander to start worrying about his flank (if anything, without any knowledge of Commanding General's intentions, etc AND also without any knowledge of the numbers of the troops already on hand, or arriving shortly there after - he does NOT have a 'big picture' in his head). Granted, once cavalry is pulled - it becomes an additional headache, but up until then - everything is in Danny's head!!!! (I also would like to quote Wayne W, who offered this during December 2003 Skirmish "Dan Sickles came to Gettysburg and turned left at PO. He took a good look to the East, but NEVER looked to the West!"). So, before we get into this 'My Flank, My Flank' thingy - he's fixating on PO because he sees HG!!! What is the significance of that??? He was ordered to abandon high ground (The HIGH Ground!), JEB Stuart immediately occupied it, put the artillery on it and gave Danny HELL!!!! And to drive the nail further - this happens on Day 3 of Chancellorsville, and as such - has NOTHING to do with Stonewall's flanking manenuver (which, btw, IIRC, did NOT come from any unoccupied high ground - and even if it did, it probably had more to do with 'wooded' (read 'concealed') than 'high')! Thus, IMHO, your quote

[Borderstates]

Mark,

First thanks for all of the thoughtful posts. It was my hope to have someone offer a studied defense of Danny Boy. You have done so in a commendable fashion. In starting this post, I was looking for someone to explain Danny's move forward in relationship to what was driving his thoughts. You've stood to the post very well, indeed.

If we may leave exact timing on the back burner for a moment, time keeping in the Civil War being what it is. It is not in dispute that III Corp had the fences down early in the morning. When the fences came down, Buford and his troopers were still out there guarding the flank. If these facts are not in dispute, then I deduce that concerns for being flanked cannot be sustained. To pursue this further, Clausewitz’s theories support natural or man made protection of the flanks. Sickles moved away from the dominant natural defensive feature of LRT. Even today, if you stand in the middle of the P.O. LRT is the dominant feature on that end of the field. If one walks from the east end of the Triangle field, north along where III Corp actually had their cannons, you cannot help but notice the superior line along the spine.

Taken further, as supported by the Report of Lieut. Col. Freeman McGilvery

[James_Longstreet]

Mike - you are ABSOLUTELY correct!

To further a view of all this 'artillery' business - whether one thinks that PO IS a good platform or not - at least the guns posted there could conceivably cover the field of fire to the West and South West. Same can be said of the line Humphries' men take along ER - there are plenty of spots to place some guns.

However, as those who might've listened to my presentation during the Muster should note - the ONLY spot to deploy the Artillery through Birney's line is on top of Devil's Den, where Smith was posted! Technically speaking, those would be the only guns that would look SW in that portion of the field - exactly to the direction from which this perceived flank attack would come from! Not a very good 'preparation' for someone who is SO CONCERNED, wouldn't you agree???

To abandon the position assigned to him by Meade - he is not only a complete Ignoramus, but also puts the Army in danger by his wanton disregard of Meade's wishes!!!!

Mark - in the previous post you stated that

[Borderstates]

First off: Allen it is good to be having a discussion where we are on the same side of the issue. A pleasure to be sure.

In my tour with Wayne W. this summer, I was struck by the line on the spine's clearly superior position, particularly where the batteries really were placed running north, not where the guns are today on the top of Devil's Den. I drove around this in the rain, last weekend just to get a feel with the additional tree clearing.

Sickles not only advanced away from the high ground, but he put the natural defensive properties of Plum Run to his rear. I honestly don't think that your namesake would have attacked on July 2, 1863 if III Corp and V Corp had occupied this line connecting with the left of II Corp south. If instead of wasting time running around breaking up brigades, Sickles had spent time building breast works, I cannot see Longstreet entering into an attack that would get his I Corp ANV destroyed. We might well be talking about the flanking move to Baltimore as Ewell and Hill held the AoP at Gettysburg.
_________________
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." Harry S. Truman WWII Memorial

[markpeters]

Gentlemen,

Is this a good time for me to shut up, as I don't want to annoy anyone, more than I have too?

Needless to say, I haven't seen anything to change my mind, and it's obvious that I've failed likewise to do likewise.

Once again, I want to point out that I've not been justifying Sickles's advance, but simply suggesting he had 'valid' concerns that needed dealing with. I'm not an apologist for Sickles!

Best wishes,

Mark

PS. I think it great that Mike and Allan have become allies on at least one subject.
_________________
"History must not be written with bias, and both sides must be given, even if there is only one side." JOHN BETJEMAN

[RickAllen]

Hey Mark, I owe you an apology, my comment about Sickles NEVER seeing Meade on July 2nd before he moved forward were obviously in error. Frankly, timing aside, I had forgotten about the first visit and you are right, it was later than I thought it was.

Doesnt change my POV any, but I was wrong in making such a sweeping assesment, sorry for the error.

Best Regards,

Rick
_________________
" Do you like French fries, Wyatt Earp?"

[James_Longstreet]

[Borderstates]

Gen. Longstreet,

Well put. I know that LRT only came to focus when the boys from Alabama and Texas drifted off course. The focus was to have been further north and west of LRT.

You're point on the VI Corp is well taken. Things break differently and the largest Corp in the AoP (13,000 men) could have been in Longstreet's rear or flank. That has some very nasty possibilities.
_________________
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." Harry S. Truman WWII Memorial

[markpeters]

At times like this, when we experience a little ... lull in hostilities, I always like to look at this thread which started about a year ago. This, and Rick's thread on "... Flatulent Retard", (in my opinion ) have been the two most fun.

What, I believe, is most interesting is that all on-line sources are negative, in the way that DS is portrayed. For example, they nearly all report how Sickles was fired from the NY State Monuments Commisssion (on circumstantial evidence of his complicity in a theft of $28,000) and, in all cases, fail to report his part in the uncovering of the Jay Gould Railroad Conspiracy. Hardly unbiased, is it? They all report his cheating of his wife, yet 'gloss over' the fact that she also played the field, and that he only received the scorn of the public when he forgave her.

As for his military record, the only blemish (albeit of sizeable enormity) was his action on day 2. Yes, even with Meade's unexplained dismissal of the concerns that Sickles held. His other performances seem to be conveniently ignored. Why? Perhaps, because he was the only non-West Point Corps Commander, at that time, in the AoNV?

Best wishes,

Mark

[James_Longstreet]

[markpeters]

General Longstreet wrote: