George Meade Battle Analysis

Many historians have very different ideas of the both generals Joseph Hooker and George Meade as well as their successfulness as positive military leaders. Professor Allen C. Guelzo argues that the victory of the battle would have occurred also with Hooker in command because war decisions during the battle weren’t always made my Meade. General Meade was recorded present at the Battle of Gettysburg on July 2nd at 1 p.m. The battle began on July 1st and the battle was on 3 days, this means Meade missed about a day and a half of battle. During the time of his absence, General Winfield Scott Hancock was in charge. While Meade was gone, on the first day John F. Reynolds, a Union General was killed. However, if Hooker was in command, he would have made more of the war decisions and he would have been there throughout the entire battle. Meade didn’t miss the first day for any important business, he missed and put Hancock in charge to irritate General Howard. Howard had many years of experience over Hancock and was most likely a better general, but Meade chose Hancock to cause problems. While Meade was off making childish decisions, Hooker would have been at the battle making important decisions to lead to the Union victory. Others argue that the result would have been the same because the Union victory took place because of Lee’s mistake to communicate the importance of taking Cemetery Ridge first, his decision to attack the strong Union position on the second day, and the unacceptable failure of Pickett’s Charge make the battle appear more like Lee’s indiscretion than a flair victory for Meade. So even if Hooker was in charge, Lee’s mistakes would have been a significant advantage for the Union allowing the battle to end in a victory. Meade has been both exalted and castigated for his role as general at Gettysburg. Historian T. Harry Williams states that Meade performed well strategically at Gettysburg, but that Meade lacked any aggression or desire, showing no will to fight an offensive battle. He says that Meade did not comprehend that the annihilation of the enemy’s army was the goal at hand and that Meade seemed to …show more content…
General Dan Sickles spent his life after the battle claiming that he had forced decisions at the battle at Gettysburg onto Meade because he had intended to retreat. Meade had no intention of winning the battle and wanted to retreat. General Sickles claim was supported by General Butterfield, who stated that Meade ordered him to prepare a retreat order for the Union army. Butterfield and Sickles were good friends, so it is argued whether they can be trusted, Meade didn’t trust them. Sickles was a New York politician and he used his these connections to convince the CCW (Committee on the Conduct of War) to investigate Meade’s role as General at Gettysburg. The committee attempted to remove Meade as general, however they failed ,others had hoped he would be succeeded. Although they couldn’t get him fired, his reputation was damaged significantly. This supports that Meade was sometimes perceived as a fearful leader, allowing Hooker to be seen as a strong leader who failed to follow Lincoln’s wishes. If Hooker was supposedly not scared or timid, he would have been an even better war leader during the Battle of Gettysburg and he would have been known for the significant