I think because of O.O. Howards slanderious reports
2007-10-23 03:20:47 · 7 answers · asked by Johnny 7 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
why was Doubleday not respected by his fellow officers? Did he just ride his buddy Reynold's coattails? One can't argue that he didn't command well July 1st.
2007-10-23 06:05:19 · update #1
Gen. Meade, was not aware of all of the facts concerning Doubleday's meritorious service on Day one of the battle and Doubleday's division's credit for the ultimate Union victory on the third day of Gettysburg. Therefore, Doubleday did not earn the permanent command of the 1st Corps let alone his division; instead it was given to former West Point classmate John Newton, and Doubleday was returned to a lesser command. The only thing Meade remembered was his mediocre performance before the battle. Orders had already been issue for Newton to takeover the Ist Corps. Before Newton got on scene, Doubleday had taken over from the dead Reynolds and performed admirably on this first day. Doubleday's reputation as a slow and mediocre commander is what did him in, not his performance at Gettysburg. O.O. Howard was an idiot.
2007-10-23 09:35:02 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Meade had already decided to make this change, apparently in part at least due to Howard's reports, before July 1st, 1863 (the first day of that famous battle). There were other reports casting doubt on Doubleday's abilities, though how credible those, as well as Howard's, were is a matter of conjecture. Meade never elaborated in any depth regarding his decision, and if one uses today's standards, it's very difficult to judge the effectiveness of Gen. Doubleday as a combat commander. It's sorta like when we try to figure out George McClellan - he was absolutely superb at building and organizing an army but proved worse than incompetent in the use of that magnificent force. Sometimes all we really can do is look at the historical record and go "WTF?"
2007-10-23 03:29:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree with arnoldmick, he was the only one to give an intelligent answer! Whether WE think the commanders Doubleday or Howard or Longstreet were "idiots" or "retards" is a moot point. I do not think any of US, with our hindsight, would have fared any better in the same situation.
2007-10-23 04:13:28 · answer #3 · answered by WMD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"Longstreet was an over cautious retard."
If Lee had listened to Longstreet the battle would likely have never taken place, certainly the third day wouldn't have. Your beloved Lee lost you that battle, no one else. So far as Jackson goes, he is so overrated. If can fill history with all the "ifs" you want, but the simple truth of the matter is that you lost. Get over it.
2007-10-23 05:26:42 · answer #4 · answered by blakenyp 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have to agree with the other two legitimate answers. The switch was actually in motion before July 1 and in light of the coming battle it was moved more quickly.
As far as the Stonewall answer, IF IF IF and if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump.......
2007-10-23 05:25:07 · answer #5 · answered by rabbitmedic 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That battle was a joke. If Stonewall Jackson had been alive, the South would have won that battle. He would have torn the damnyankees up early while we still had the advantage. You can't wait for an overwhelming force like the Yankees had to get set for battle. Longstreet was an over cautious retard.
2007-10-23 03:36:21 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
dude why did u ask that. now everybody thinks ur a nerd!
2007-10-23 03:28:39 · answer #7 · answered by wareagleprince 1 · 0⤊ 5⤋