GDG- Re: Gettysburg Digest, Vol 32, Issue 27

[Biggsk at aol.com]

Tom Ryan writes:


No question Meade was up to the job at  Gettysburg.  The problem was that 
Gettysburg was only one part, albeit an  important part, of the entire campaign.  
Meade and his commanders were  unable to look beyond Gettysburg to muster the 
effort to complete the job of  doing further, and perhaps
permanent, damage to Lee and the  ANV. 


I think the real answer is to look at the Mine Run/Rappahannock  Campaign 
later in 1863 for clues as to how Meade would be on an offensive  campaign - and 
while he did gobble up some of Lee's very poorly placed brigades  (with their 
backs to the river), there is nothing Meade did in that campaign  that gives 
me full confidence in him being the guy to beat Lee and the ANV to  win the 
war.  And this was a campaign where Lee was not even firing on all  of his 
cylinders either.
 
Meade had the easier job at GB - stand on his ground and fight his  defensive 
battle.  He chose his ground well and fought his battle very  well.  But that 
is easier for a commander to do than having to attack such  a position and 
force your foe off of it.  Meade then failed the  "Wellington" test by not 
ordering his army to pursue Lee as he retreated with  any real level of 
aggressiveness.  He certainly had the fine cavalry to do  it with along with fine cav 
commanders.  After being pounded by Napoleon  all day at Waterloo and defeating 
the Old Guard's final attack, Wellington's  first order was for "the whole line 
will advance," and with his onrushing  Prussian allies, went after what was 
left of the Army of the North.  And  pursue Napoleon they certainly did - all 
the way to Paris!
 
The only guy that could beat Lee was the guy that did beat Lee -  Grant.  
This is why I rate Shiloh as the greatest "what if" battle of the  entire war - 
for if Grant loses there, being deep in Halleck's doghouse as it  was, he is 
finished as a commander and Sherman goes with him for both failed to  adequately 
protect their army from the Confederate onslaught of the first  day.  If they 
go in 1862, then who wins the war for the Union?
 
Meade?  I certainly don't think so.  Rosecrans was as good or  better a 
commander and had one bad day at Chickamauga that helped remove  him (along with 
the Chattanooga seige).  Buell was the McClellan of the  West - too timid to 
fight. Charles Smith died in the Spring of 1862, so there  really wasn't anyone 
else but the men that did win the war - Grant and  Sherman.
 
Greg Biggs