Gettysburg : the Meade-Sickles controversy
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
Gettysburg : the Meade-Sickles controversy
（Military controversies）
Brassey's, c2003
Available at / 1 libraries
-
No Libraries matched.
- Remove all filters.
Note
Series statement on jacket
Bibliography: p. 191-199
Contents of Works
- Background : the Gettysburg campaign through July 1
- The second day at Gettysburg
- Germination : the Committee on the Conduct of the War
- Postwar development of the controversy, 1869-1930
- The controversy within the context of Gettysburg historiography
- Confederate movements on the right flank at Gettysburg, July 2, 1863
- General Sickles and his orders, July 2, 1863
- The weak position on Cemetery Ridge
- The supposed retreat from Gettysburg
Description and Table of Contents
Description
On July 2, 1863, the second day of fighting at Gettysburg, Maj. Gen. Daniel E. Sickles, in a controversial interpretation of his orders, advanced his men beyond the established Union line, exposing his flanks to a potentially devastating Confederate attack. Shortly after being reprimanded by his commander, Maj. Gen. George G. Meade, for endangering the entire Union Army, Sickles was hit by a cannonball. He returned to Washington, D.C., with his leg amputated and his pride badly wounded. A politician and lawyer prior to the war, Sickles was already notorious for being the first person in U.S. history acquitted of murder by pleading temporary insanity. During his recuperation in the nation's capital, Sickles defended his actions at Gettysburg to anyone who would listen, including President Lincoln, and criticized Meade before the Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War. He continued defending himself for years after the war, while Meade remained mostly silent.
Historian Richard A. Sauers destroys many commonly held myths about the controversy by examining the evidence in detail. In this fascinating analysis, he highlights the way combat is always complicated by personality conflicts and human frailties among military leaders. He also demonstrates that distortions, like Sickles's version of Gettysburg, are frequently accepted as fact by historians and repeated for generations to come. Sauers shows that Sickles's unjust manipulations harmed Meade's reputation for years after the war.
by "Nielsen BookData"
