Lee and His Men at Gettysburg: The Death of a Nation (49 page)

Other comparative articles by participants appear in Volume 3 of
Battles and Leaders.
Representing the Confederates are two articles by Longstreet, a single article by Mosby and General Beverly H. Robertson, superb pieces by Law, Kershaw, and Alexander, another of the “replies” to Longstreet by Colonel William Allan, and a fine account on Lee’s retreat by General John D. Imboden, the late-arriving leader of the cavalry raiders, who showed himself a far better writer than a soldier.

The Federals, while outnumbering the Confederates, are less loquacious. They offer a number of brief sketches by Major Halstead, H. M. M. Richards, General Gibbon, H. S. Melcher, General Grindlay, Captain Jones and General Greene, J. B. Smith, Captain Parsons, General Walker, John L. Collins, excerpts from official reports, a vivid account of the third-day assault by Brevet Lieutenant Colonel Rice, and fragments of private controversies between Major General Henry J. Hunt and General Francis A. Walker and between General Meade and General Sickles. Three long accounts, one of each day, by General Hunt, chief of artillery, are among the best available records of the battle. He was highly observant, with a fine eye for the detail of terrain, thoughtful, and generous.

Among other sources in collected volumes, the
Photographic History
contains some splendid scenes of the ground and the men, very helpful on physical details.
The Confederate Veteran,
published in Nashville, is somewhat similar to the
SHSP
but not so well done; it is larded with trivia, and the lack of an index would make a life’s work of sorting through the literally countless short items. Mr. Ray D. Smith, of Chicago, is performing this herculean service, and generously provided me with nearly three hundred references to Pickett and Gettysburg; but no specific article was used, though the body of reading contributed to the general impression.

The
Dictionary of American Biography
and Clement Evan’s twelve-volume
Confederate Military History
were used for biographical sketches of general officers. The publications do not always agree and errors can be pointed out in each, but they are far and away the best sources for statistical details of the lives of the leaders.

The maps used were a non-military map of the terrain prepared on the authority of Secretary of War Elihu Root, made under the direction of the Gettysburg National Park Commission, from an original survey made by General Warren in 1868 and 1869 (reprinted in the Atlas of OR); and the more famous maps of John D. Bachelder, published in 1876, which place the positions of the opposing forces on this terrain. These maps (32” by 47”) were placed at my disposal through the courtesy of Dr. Frederick Tilberg, historian of the battlefield, who also gave unstintingly of his time and knowledge in walking the fields, explaining the ground from the large contour map in his office, and in suffering long harangues gallantly in person and in correspondence. Although many other maps were examined, I found nothing significant that was not included in these basic maps. Having studied the big maps, however, it is interesting to follow the progressive maps in the third volume of
Battles and Leaders
and in the second volume of Matthew Forney Steele’s
American Campaigns.

Concerning maps, a note must be entered. Presumptuous though it may seem, I do not feel that the position of Pickett’s division during the cannonade is properly placed on the Bachelder map, and I have not followed the map in the movements of Kemper, Garnett, and Armistead into action. There are three reasons why I think the position of the troops is placed inaccurately on the open ground running north and south from the Spangler house and farm buildings.

(1) All of Pickett’s officers and men who described the terrain where they endured the cannonade placed themselves either on a wooded ridge or in an open field extending south from the woods on Seminary Ridge. Garnett and Armistead were placed in the woods, and Kemper in the field. There were no woods in the swale. Specific witnesses are: with Armistead, Colonel Rawley Martin (cited in
SHSP),
Captain James Poindexter (pamphlet cited); with Kemper, Charles Loehr (cited in SHSP and book), David E. Johnston (book cited), Captain John Dooley (book cited); with Garnett, Colonel Eppa Hunton (book cited), Captain H. T. Owens (in Hoke, cited with books, reprinted from
Weekly Times),
W. H. Swallow (also in Hoke, in reprint from
Times);
Major Walter Harrison, inspector general of the division (book cited); Wm. W. Chamberlaine, of Hill’s corps (book cited). M. Jacobs (book cited), a native whose observations are not disputed, wrote that “the division was seen to emerge from the crest of Seminary Ridge. …” Mrs. Pickett (book cited) quotes the general: “Wilcox’s brigade was lying about 200 yards in front of our line. … The troops which were to make the attack were screened from view by the ridge. …”

(2) All agreed that the men did not see the ground over which they were to attack until they moved out from the wooded ridge; if diey had left Seminary Ridge to form near the Spangler farm buildings, they would have viewed the ground on their way down from the ridge.

(3) Alexander’s batteries were posted along the Emmitsburg road east of the Spangler buildings. In that vicinity, where the road bent sharply to the northeast, the gun placements curved west from the road. Without question, Wilcox’s brigade was placed in immediate support of the guns. But it would be contrary to both military logic and ordinary intelligence to place the troops composing the spearhead of an assault in close proximity to guns engaged in a tremendous artillery duel.

Only Wilcox, writing twelve years after the war in an article manifestly intended to derogate Longstreet, stated that Pickett did not come “out of any woods”; but his account is full of errors that reveal a hazy memory. To refute Wilcox, observant young Alexander specifically stated that he went
back
to find Pickett in the woods, where his troops were waiting. And Walter Harrison, who with Garnett and others was having lunch with Wilcox in the Spangler yard, wrote at “the signal, I told Gen. Garnett that we had better be getting
back
to our line. …”

A final point: Bachelder placed Archer’s brigade on the wooded ridge, where all agree it formed. Colonel Fry, then commanding Archer’s troops, and Harrison both placed Garnett immediately to the right of Fry and adjoining his troops. Garnett was so close to Fry that Armistead was forced to form in the rear-in the woods on the western side of Seminary Ridge where the ridge slopes southward. In support of them, Chamberlaine, with Hill, wrote: “I passed on down the line and soon came to Pickett’s Division, also lying under the crest of the hill.”

As Garnett and several officers from his staff joined Wilcox for lunch in the Spangler yard, it can reasonably be assumed that over the years Wilcox confused the presence of Garnett with the nearness of his brigade. His faulty memory is indicated by his statement that Garnett was the center brigade, with Armistead on his left; actually, Armistead remained in reserve from the formation of the lines until the regiments converged at the stone wall. There was no center brigade.

Frequently, in reports, troops were mentioned as being on the field when only their commanders were present. Pickett personally arrived on the field late on the afternoon of July 2, and even the historians who prepared the markers on the Gettysburg battlefield (still there) give the 2nd as the time of his division’s arrival. They came up between 7:00 and 9:00 on the morning of the 3rd.

In fine, it does not seem reasonable that all of Pickett’s officers and men who recorded the event could be wrong as to the locale in which they formed and waited; it does not seem militarily reasonable that assaulting troops would wait where Bachelder placed them; and, in consulting participants, Bachelder did not interview any of the general officers with Pickett’s division.

In placing Pickett’s brigades, I am deeply indebted again to Dr. Tilberg for his generous efforts in reworking the ground personally and in the study he made toward properly locating the troops.

I do not suppose that this explanation for the deviation from Bachelder’s long-accepted map will come under the head of what some academicians are pleased to call “original research.” However, it should indicate the nature of the research necessary in effecting a resolution from the conflicting testimony on the Gettysburg campaign. David Donald recently wrote that nothing significant can be achieved by adding new oddments of data; the need is to interpret the existing material. At Gettysburg this includes the field, which cannot yield any new research material, but only a ground to walk over with maps and brood upon.

The only unpublished material actually
used
was the moving letters of General Pender to his wife, to which Dr. Freeman gave me access some years ago; a letter of Charles Pickett, younger brother and aide, a copy of which was given me by Major Pickett’s grandson; and the letters recently deposited in the Virginia Historical Society from Pickett’s staff officers. Although these letters are largely devoted to refuting the canard that Pickett huddled in the Spangler barn (which, in any case, had been burned), they give very sharp impressions of the activity around General Pickett on the field.

In all truth, I did consult, as does everyone, other “unpublished material”—chiefly packets of old letters, which are as commonplace around Richmond as Confederate money—only to discover why it remains unpublished. A long letter to Dr. McKim recounted a wonderful first-day episode of some troopers of Lige White’s cavalry with Ewell, but it simply did not fit into the plan of the chapter. I have in my possession the diary of a great-uncle who, a chemist, was transferred from Richmond’s Company “F” with Jackson to the field medical corps and served at Gettysburg. But he was obsessed with working out a formula of meat juice to serve as a meat substitute for the wounded and ill, and, try as I might, I could not justify the inclusion of Uncle Ira’s findings in a narrative of the invasion.

Also, as is probably true of everyone trying essentially to interpret, I have received impressions from readings and long since forgotten the volume in which some fragment, some passing reference, made a lasting impression. There is a small book of letters by a South Carolina army doctor from which I used one sentence: I borrowed the book from the State Library, had it around for several weeks, and can neither remember the title nor find it listed anywhere. In another way, a pamphlet published by Emory University on
The War Letters of Jeb Stuart to His Wife
was extremely illuminating on the man. Someone stole my copy, no other was obtainable, and I cannot remember whether or not any of the letters were written from Gettysburg.

Growing up in an era when Confederate veterans retained their full faculties and clear memories, I absorbed through listening innumerable impressions of army life and some of Gettysburg. At Gettysburg I had, in addition to the medical-corps great-uncle, three great-uncles in the infantry (one was killed there and one who was wounded later recovered), another great-uncle in the field-quartermaster corps, one grandfather in the Emmett Guard of Richmond, which became incorporated in the 1st Virginia Regiment of Kemper’s brigade, and the other grandfather in Cabell’s artillery battalion, the most advanced guns on the third day; wounded there, he recovered enough to serve again, but never fully regained his health.

I have never used any of their anecdotes, having been taught to distrust the lies of “old veterans,” but two of their tales I have seen authenticated in print. Uncle Robert, the quartermaster, described the fighting with the wagoneers when, on the retreat, the wagons of the wounded were attacked by Union cavalry at the Williamsport crossing; they formed the wagons as pioneers did in Indian fights and fired between the spokes. It turned out that his account of a neglected action of minor heroics was completely true.

Uncle Walter, asked about Pickett at Gettysburg, said the only time he personally saw the general in action was on the retreat toward Appomattox, when Pickett was bent over his horse’s neck and hurrying to the rear. At the time I suspected that Uncle Walter, a banker and a realist, was enjoying reversing the romantics on which Southern children were raised. Other witnesses to Pickett’s flight, after his heart was no longer in the fighting, have described it in print.

Because of these confirmations I trust the spirit and detail of the impressions made on me by these long-dead Confederate gentlemen, and, though I can not cite them as authorities, I wish to make my acknowledgments to them for their contributions to this book.

I also wish to express my appreciation to Mr. Samuel Neal, of Chatham, Virginia, for the gleanings from his great personal library on the Army of Northern Virginia, for his knowledgeable support in examining the battlefield, and for his continuing interest in puzzling over obscure points and new findings; to Dr. Louis Rubin, of Hollins College, Roanoke, Virginia, for lengthy consultations on Longstreet and on the second day’s fighting, and for invaluable suggestions on the presentation of both; to Mr. Richard Harwell, now of Chicago, Illinois, for long consultations on the personnel of the army and for advice deriving from his long scholarship on the Confederacy; to Mr. Monroe Cockrell, of Evanston, Illinois, for tireless and generous consultation by correspondence, and for particularly painstaking work in helping to locate the precise positions of Pickett’s brigades; to the Reverend Joseph Heistand, Dr. Beverly Randolph Wellford, and Mr. McDonald Wellford, all of Richmond, redoubtable field companions of many campaigns in the “reconnaissance car” of Mr. Wellford; and for consultation on medical matters, particularly Lee’s health at Gettysburg, Dr. Harry Warthen, Dr. David Markham, Dr. DuPont Guerry III, and Dr. St. George Tucker, all of Richmond.