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 …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