George Gordon Meade, the Most Misunderstood General of the Civil War, Gettysburg Hero or Scapegoat
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Despite the critical role Union Maj. Gen. George Gordon Meade played in the Civil War, his historical legacy typically downplays or ignores his success on the battlefields upon which he bettered the Confederacy’s legendary General Robert E. Lee. An intelligent, hard-working, and courageous commander, Meade was wounded twice at the June 1862 Battle of Glendale, during the Seven Days Campaign, and later in the year he was in the thick of the fighting at Second Bull Run, Antietam, and Fredericksburg. After his immediate predecessor in command of the Army of the Potomac, Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker, was humiliated at the May 1863 Battle of Chancellorsville-spurring Lee to invade Pennsylvania-President Abraham Lincoln almost literally “dumped” army command in Meade’s lap-only three days before Union and Confederate armies collided at the Battle of Gettysburg. Meade, however, would prove he was up to the challenge, leading the Union victory over Lee at Gettysburg.
Meade remained in command of the Army of the Potomac through the end of the war, fighting in all its major battles during the 1864 Overland Campaign, at the Siege of Petersburg, and, finally, victory at Appomattox. Given such notable accomplishments, why is Meade not better known and respected? Perhaps most significant were the calculated efforts of Union Maj. Gen. Daniel E. Sickles and his subordinates to strip him of credit for defeating Lee at Gettysburg-a scheme magnified by anguish that Meade had missed a golden opportunity to destroy Lee’s army with a cautious post-battle pursuit as the Confederates retreated to Virginia. Moreover, the decision by Union Army commander-in-chief Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant to establish his headquarters with Meade’s army at the outset of the Overland Campaign-Grant thereby taking direct operational as well as strategic control of the Army of the Potomac in 1864 and 1865-inevitably cast the impression that Meade was serving merely as a figurehead.
Meade was a professional soldier. When John Reynolds turned down Lincoln’s “request” to command the Army of the Potomac- he urged Lincoln to “order” Meade to command. Meade- ever the dutiful soldier- obeyed the order the command. Several times after Gettysburg, he offered to resign. Even to US Grant. Each resignation was denied and Meade was retained. Lincoln and Grant knew Meade was the right man to command the AOP.
Meade was much underrated. He made the right decisions.
Meade is studied nowhere. Lincoln didn't like him.
@marknewton6984 Both false statements.
Meade is studied everywhere the Battle of Gettysburg is studied. Unlike every previous Union commander who faced Lee, Meade minimised his mistakes and exploited those of Lee. I think those are two desirable traits for generals
Lincoln was a Monday quarterback in regard to Meade's decision to not attack Lee while retreating. Lee's Army was deadly when defending a position, and in the Civil War you needed at least a 3 to 1 numerical advantage to win when attacking fortified positions. Grant brought Lee down in 1864-65, but it took 10 months in total. Grant lost literally half his army in 40 days before the seige of Petersburg. Meade was wise not to risk Lee turning his loss at Gettysburg into a win.
I believe he saved the Union at the most pivotal battle in History Gettesyburg totally misunderstood of his talents as a field commander.
He certainly stabilized it at a crucial time.
Well done. When I first became interested in Gettysburg, I went to the NPS website on the battlefield. To my surprise, the coverage only included Lee and Pickett. Meade's name, at that time, appeared nowhere. Seems though, the truth is coming out, belatedly perhaps, but there.
Yea, much of the Gettysburg legacy is meant to attract the masses and is based off a fictional book, Killer Angels.
Sheridan’s personal character was as bad his his generalship was good. But the press liked him as much as they hated Meade. Yet it was only Cuister’s testimony that saved his reputation. Grants administration was marked by a lot of corruption and Sheridan fit in with the rest.
I think this is great work. You hit on allot of the things that aren't discussed, on a great American who deserves our attention. I cannot understand, assholes who complain about the production quality of good and free of charge historical content. I thank you.
Thank you!
The beginning of Gen. Meades' unfair criticism of his conduct at Gettysburg began with Abraham Lincoln. At that stage of the Civil War, President Lincoln had acquired a fair understanding of strategy. Unfortunately for Meade, the President had no knowledge of more mundane military minutiae, such as the daily consumption of feed by cavalry and artillery horses and mules. The after effects of a huge battle such as Gettysburg was extreme on both sides for the men. But for the the Federal animals, it was even more-so. For a while, due to the actions of Southern cavalry, and the changes of direction of Federal units, the supply trains bringing fodder for the animals were not getting through. A Civil War army depended on the animals, totally. The cavalry can't pursue, and artillery can't be moved without healthy horses and mules. Mr. Lincoln may not have sent his letter of displeasure to Gen. Meade, but had voiced his frustration liberally.
Thank you for your video. Meade was superb at Gettysburg on the 2nd and 3rd days Meade was plugging every hole in the lines. Sickle's unapproved advance put the whole army in a pickle but once Longstreet's attack started Meade took every effort plugging the open positions with 5 of his other corps. Many do not know until recently how much of a supply problem the army of the Potomac had during the whole Getty campaign. Both livestock and men were not fed for many days. Worst of all horse's and mules lacking even a bite of food started dying. By the end of the campaign 15,000 horses and mules died. Meade did everything he could but it took weeks to get the supplies situation finally remedied. In my view Meade was one of the best union generals and Lincoln's claim that Meade missed the chance to destroy Lee's army was total hogwash. Lincoln and his supporters were greatly ignorant of the true situation and acted selfishly. The idea of destroying the enemy army is a childish mentality and shows the lack of intelligence of anyone advocating such an action. Only armchair experts were so foolish. Even though Grant set up his HQ near Meades it was not for any lack of confidence in his leadership. I believe he did not interfere with Meade's control of the army of the Potomac and only gave recommendations rather than strip Meade of his control and authority. Grant had the authority to remove any commander as general in chief and I personally think he enjoyed having his HQ out of Washington and the clingy advice of any of Lincoln or halecks medeling. Besides Grant's strategy was to keep up the pressure and keep all of his armies on the move. I believe Grant and Meade made quite a good team as well as many officers who rose to command brigades divisions and armies to win the war for the union.
The fishhook formation was genuis! I don't think many people undertand the importance of fighting with interior lines rather then exterior. It was this early decission that won the battle and maybe the war.
Please don't just skim over Meades wound as being a minor wound. Through his arm pit close to his spine. I think that Meade was healing to the end of the war. It is unfortunately the way of the world that the person who stepped up and was willing to serve get beat up by the press. Meade was just a soldier.
Agreed. I rather like what I've read of Meade, especially in his letters to his wife. I think he was a good soldier and a real leader, the kind that does his duty and makes sound decisions and doesn't seek all the credit when things go right, but takes blame when things go wrong. That's special because it's always hard to find selfless people in positions of authority.
Encourage anyone interested to read two books by Kent Masterson Brown
"Lee's Retreat"
and
"Meade at Gettysburg"
and
"Over Lincoln's Shoulder: The Committee on the Conduct of the War" by Bruce Tap
Three wonderful works and good reads.
I have both but have not read them yet, may be time to bump them up on the list. Thanks for the recommendation.
@@maddhattalscivilwarhistory2728
Masterson does a great job detailing the shifting of troops Meade performed between his flanks.
Read the Retreat second...
I am a big Kent Masterson Brown fan.
and dont forget Over Lincoln's Shoulder..... another really good book which reveals the politics and the pressures from the Radical Republicans regarding the Union War efforts and the stuff the generals had to put up with.
@bjohnson515 The politics of the war is something I've been exploring recently. Doing so has helped me understand some of the decisions made at different points in the war. Thanks for the recommendations!
@@hattals Then I double recommend "Over Lincoln's Shoulder" by Bruce Tap.
The pols in Washington were suspect of West Point generals, lots of politics ...
what they did to Meade and Fitz John Porter
"Meade at Gettysburg is a great read. Demonstrates insight into his difficult job of coordinating all of those "Corps".
If you have read Meade at Gettysburg by Brown you understand how Meade overcame multiple obstacles to make a stand and defeat Lee. What did he have to offer? He did not fear Lee. He was determined. He had a sense of personal bravery that was extra-ordinary. In the famous painting "Grant and His Generals" Meade is second from to the right from Grant, just after Sherman. I believe that is appropriate.
I think if you step back and look at the hand Meade was dealt, what he did was truely remarkable. Basically he led an army, organized a defense, and defeated the cough, cough, unbeatable in a week.
We cannot know what would have happened had Meade pursued Lee after Gettysburg. He had good reasons not to. That is all we can know.
We can play the what if game for just about every action of every battle.
He worked pretty well under Grant.
They did work well, they complmented each other.
Interesting story. I knew about the Joint Commitee but couldn't imagine the fuss was that enormous.
But I'd say Meade was responsible for the Crater, because it was his order to replace a prepared division with an unprepared one at the very last moment. Burnside tried to appeal, but Grant sided with Meade.
if Meade would have immediately pursued Lee's army, the army of the Potomac would have taken a severe beating at the hands of Longstreet, who was ordered by Lee to protect their retreat.
@raymonddundys1497. Wrong. Meade had fresh reserve divisions that would have torn apart Lee's 14 mile long column of defeated and wounded Rebels. Especially if Meade attacked the retreating columns while they were crossing the Potomac River. That would have finished the Army of Northern Virginia.
@@paulgiarmo3628 Meade's VI th Corps was relatively fresh.....and did do the pursuit. But the remainder of Army was severely in disarray.
There were bottlenecks in the South Mtn Range that allowed delaying measures by the ANV. (Monterey Pass) Also, there was the formidable Downsville Line defending the Williamsport crossing (See Meade at Gettysburg by Kent Masterson Brown, page 361)
Who would Longstreet have used to protect the rear of the Army of Northern Virginia? Pickett's division was in shambles and the divisions of Hood and McClaw's were almost as bad. The pitched fighting they had been involved in at the Wheat Field, Peach Orchard and Little Round Top had left them fought out. The VI Corps was the largest union Corps with 4 divisions and had fought little if any.
@@johngaither9263
Well he used what he did use.
Kent Masterson Brown's account in "Retreat from Gettysburg" is outstanding and detailed. The bottlenecks in the South Mtn range assisted the defense of the retreat.
Longstreet still could have mustered up enough soldiers to put a couple of corps together and then put a vigorous defense. Longstreet was much better at defense that he was at offence. You have to also consider that the confederates put a very good rear guard as they made their way back to Williamsport. If Meade would have attacked he would have lost a lot of men.
Though Lees attack at Gettysburg was defeated his army had not been destroyed. Meades army was short of supplies, ammunition, many had not eaten for days, Lee having destroyed railway bridges thus holding up
Union supplies.
Am I right in believing Stuart’s cavalry was largely intact ?
As played by Tom Hanks in 1883
Wow, I didn't know Tom was that old!
I think mead shouldve got more credit sure he could have attact lee after pickits charge but I think he had good reason not to I also think he was the true hero not grant after all do they not say gettysburg was the turning point now if that is true then mead won the war grant just mocked up now think about it.
General Grant was busy capturing Vicksburg the same day Gettysburg was won. Then he saved Thomas at Chattenooga, allowed Sherman to march South, and then whipped Lee all over Virginia.
I detest the politicians (not named Abraham Lincoln) that all thought they were in charge of the military. I find inept politically appointed generals equally disgusting. Civil War history is nearly unreadable with all the post-war finger pointing in glory hounding memoirs and newspaper articles. Even today, there is zero embarrassment that we decided to kill each other on a national scale, and continue to argue about Lost Cause hero worship. I actually love studying History, and i find these Civil War tropes increasingly tiresome.
He was no match for the confederate soldiers he just had resources at his side!
Nah, he outsmarted Lee and his confederate forces by reinforcing the center at Gettysburg on day 3 instead of the flanks like Lee predicted he'd do. Now, if the wonderful confederate soldiers hadn't shot their best general a couple months prior to their most important battle they might have had a shot at winning. It's almost like it was gods will or something, lol.
@KevinWillson-nf3gh The Confederates did make some tactical mistakes if Ewell would have interpreted Lee's orders correctly Gettysburg would have been won and if jeb didn't go off on his glory ride to embarrasse the union army! Yes if Jackson would have been there the outcome would have been different.As far as friendly fire that is common on the battlefields, pat Tillman, the American fighter jet that killed those Canadian soldiers tragic but it happens in the confusion of the battlefields! Bless those brave and Honorable men on both sides of that tragic war.
lo, too funny. He bettered Lee
@shellysmith1037 resources.,resources,resources, every military leader says the south was out resourced FACT!
❗ Mead's seeming sluggish response to situations drove Lincoln to study classical warfare which led him to supplant Mead with Grant.
He never relieved Meade, he just put Grant over everybody, which, in turn, diminished Meade's authority.
Meade was mediocre. Promoted sideways, which is a military insult.. Lincoln couldn't stand him.
@@marknewton6984 Meade was supremely competent. If a Meade had led the Army of Northern Virginia instead of Lee, Grant would have faced a much harder task in 1864 in neutralizing the ANV. Lincoln wanted Grant in Virginia and Mississippi at the same time. Not Meade's fault.
Intro music too loud, narration level too low .
Go out and make a friend.