 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
Member
| Joined: | Sun Oct 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2027 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Sickles was a despiccable character and should have been shot for his disobedience, if not his after-battle and after-war self-promotion and campaigns of defamation.
It does remain, however, that his disobedience did break up Lee's and Longstreet's plans for the second day. The discussion ought to devolve around the "what if" had Sickles deployed as ordered. If it is determined that Longstreet's drive would not have been successful with Sickles deployed where he should have been, then Sickles is guilty of getting his corps and numbers of other corps destroyed.
If Longstreet's offensive might have been successful, then Sickles' egregious action ought at least to be acknowledged as having some merit.
Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
ole