"Mead's Grand Review Slight?" Topic

General Mead and staff and escort lead the Grand Review of the Army of the Potomac in Washington D.C. following the Civil War. According to the "New York Times" of May 24, 1865, when Mead arrived before the reviewing stand where the President and Gen. Grant were to review the troops, the President and Gen. Grant were not present, thus denying Mead the honor of being reviewed. After Mead had passed, President Johnson and Gen. Grant arrived at the reviewing stand, Johnson from "the President's House" and Grant from his headquarters.

Was the absence of the President and Gen. Grant an intentional slight or were they simply late to the parade? Mead may not have been the most competent of generals, however, he did "save" the country at Gettysburg and did a good job of administering the AOP. Was there bad blood between Mead and Grant or was Mead simply too prompt in arriving at the reviewing stand? I seem to recall reading that Grant was cognizant of Mead's hard feelings when Grant decided to maintain his headquarters in the field, with the AOP and that he tried to sooth the feathers of the "old snapping turtle." Then again, I'm old and find that I can make things up, so perhaps Grant didn't actually care about Mead.

Was it bad form for Mead to "pass in review" while the reviewing officer was absent? Should he have halted the parade until the President and Gen. arrived?

It sometimes seems that all the Civil War generals took classes at West Point in how to take offense at perceived slights.
It wasn't just the Confederate officers. The Union was quite fussy too.

his name was MEADE

his name was MEADE!

One more thing to get upset about! 😄

I'll probably be jumped on for this, but I'd look for independent confirmation of the incident first. Did other reporters mention it? Did Meade, Grant or Johnson refer to it in memoirs? The New York Times' files cover a lot of history and are easy to consult, but reporting biases are not a 21st Century invention. See Mark Twain on inventing incidents for "good copy."

Imagining myself in the ranks of the Grand Army, I'd be in favor of chalking up the whole thing to Washington's celebrated inability to coordinate and continuing the march. I spent enough time in uniform standing around waiting for some high mucky-muck to show up and tell us we could go about our business, and DC in late May could easily be a swamp--hot, wet and generally no place to be standing around in a wool uniform with a pack.

Robert, no jumping allowed! I appreciate your suggestion. I looked into it a little further and have not found much that addresses the subject. I did find one reference saying that Meade (thank you Don) saluted the reviewing stand "before most of the dignitaries had arrived." Based simply upon that, I tend to believe that folks simply had not finished their coffee soon enough to make it to the stands on time.

I have never seen anything suggesting that Meade believed that he had been disrespected in relation to the Review. Then again, I confess to have never read a biography of Meade. Given the thin skin of many in military command, I suspect that we would have known about Meade getting his panties in a bunch over late arrivals. Some very clear photos of the main reviewing stand that are available on line clearly show Meade, Grant and Johnson and they do not appear to exhibit adverse body language, for what that is worth.

One more thing to get upset about!

I'm not upset. It almost meets Sherman's definition of military glory: To die in battle and have your name misspelled in the newspapers.