View single post by javal1
 Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 12:02 am
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
javal1
Grumpy Geezer


Joined: Thu Sep 1st, 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Posts: 1502
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

Reb,

You're correct Reb, this is an oldie but never fails to invoke varied opinions. If we use the "can't see the forest for the trees" analogy, I like to stick to the forest - the over-all principle of what Sickle's did.

NO subordinate commander has the right to over-rule his commanding officer, lacking evidence of treasonous intent or feebleness of mind. As far as I'm aware, neither applied here. If one starts arguing what-if's and could-haves, then by definition, one is conceding to Sickle's an authority he didn't have. Anyone who thinks Sickle's had the right to make that move must also believe that his regimental commanders had the same right to over-rule him if they didn't like their assigned position. And of course, the company commanders had the right to overule the regimental commanders.

The blood of the 3rd Corps men who died that day should forever stain the name of Sickle's. He got medals. He should have been court-martialed. Some may consider him the "father" of the Gettysburg battlefield. He'll always be the undertaker in my book.

OK Reb, can you tell you hit my real Civil War sore spot?  ;)=+++

 

 Close Window