The Battle of Gettysburg As Seen Through Disunion (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

The New York Times has been running its Disunion series since November 2010 to commemorate the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War. This is an excellent series of articles written by specialists and others knowledgeable in the field.

As this is a chronological series, the Disunion series has now reached Gettysburg.

The first article is The Tigers Invade the Union by Terry Jones, a Professor of History at the University of Louisiana.

The article treats the experiences of the Louisiana Tigers (who had gained notoriety for their off the field and on the field endeavors) as they crossed into Pennyslvania on June 23, 1863.

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/25/the-tigers-invade-the-union/?_r=0

 

[jazzeum]

Next up is The Invasions of Pennsylvania by Ron Soodalter, a featured writer and columnist for America’s Civil War magazine and a frequent contributor to Civil War Times and Military History.

In this article, Mr. Soodalter discusses the travails of cities in Pennsylvania such as Chambersburg and Carlisle at the hands of the Confederate forces, from 1862 through the end of the Civil War.

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/the-invasions-of-pennsylvania/?pagewanted=print

 

[jazzeum]

Phil Leigh, a Civil War enthusiast, has written an article entitled Making "Killer Angels" which needs no explanation, by the late Michael Shaara.

In writing the article, he talked to Helen, Jeff and Lila Shaara – widow, son and daughter, respectively of Michael Shaara.

Leigh shows how Killer Angels shifted the accepted historical interpretations and even changed the landscape of Gettysburg National Park.

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/making-killer-angels/

 

[jazzeum]

Next up in the Battle of Gettysburg articles is a fine article entitled Buford Holds The High Ground by Ron Soodalter.

This is a study of General John Buford and his important role in holding Gettysburg for the Union forces.

The article highlights how his aide Captain Myles Keough presented him with his promotion to Major General as General Buford lay dying in December 1863. Keough would later die at the Battle of Little Big Horn.

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/29/buford-hold-the-high-ground/?_r=0

 

[jazzeum]

Professor Allen Guelzo of Gettysburg College, who has just recently written Gettysburg: The Last Invasion, follows suit with What Gettysburg Proved.

What did Gettsyburg -- a battle that "like Waterloo must stand conspicuous in the history of all ages" according to a staff officer Frank Aretas Haskell, as quoted by Professor Guelzo -- prove?

According to Professor Guelzo,

"Gettysburg marked the last time that Lee was able to seize the strategic momentum. And it marked something even more important in Lincoln’s mind. The American republic was, in 1863, a dangerously isolated democratic flower in a garden full of aristocratic weeds, and if the Civil War succeeded in sundering the United States into two separate pieces, it would be the final confirmation that democracies were unstable and unworkable pipe dreams. 'The central idea pervading this struggle,' Lincoln said in 1861, 'is the necessity … of proving that popular government is not an absurdity,' for 'if we fail it will go far to prove the incapability of the people to govern themselves.'

If there was to be a legacy to Gettysburg, it would not belong to Lee or to Meade. It would reach beyond even the limits of the Civil War. It would be a legacy for democracy itself, a new birth of freedom.' "

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/what-gettysburg-proved/

 

[lancer]

Good articles, Brad. Especially liked the one on the Louisiana Tigers and The Killer Angels. Thank you for posting them and I look forward to more. :smile2: -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

A source of controversy in the history of the Battle of Gettysburg and thus the Civil War was the "failure" of General Richard Ewell to take Cemetery Hill.

In General Ewell's Dilemma, Professor Terry Jones discusses what occurred on July 1 and the aftermath of that day, focusing on those who criticized General Ewell for his inaction, such as Randolph McKim's 1915 article in the Southern Historical Society Papers on the critical side and, on the pro Ewell side, the statements of Major Campbell Brown, Ewell's stepson and aide. General Winfield S. Hancock, on the Union side, who commanded the troops on Cemetery Hill, believed that they would have withstood any Confederate attack.

This is an excellent article, which can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/general-ewells-dilemma/?_r=0

 

[jazzeum]

Good articles, Brad. Especially liked the one on the Louisiana Tigers and The Killer Angels. Thank you for posting them and I look forward to more. :smile2: -- Al

Al, I think you'll (and hopefully others) will find the one of Ewell interesting. I found it fascinating.

Anyway, glad to post them.

Thanks.

Brad

 

[lancer]

A source of controversy in the history of the Battle of Gettysburg and thus the Civil War was the "failure" of General Richard Ewell to take Cemetery Hill.

In General Ewell's Dilemma, Professor Terry Jones discusses what occurred on July 1 and the aftermath of that day, focusing on those who criticized General Ewell for his inaction, such as Randolph McKim's 1915 article in the Southern Historical Society Papers on the critical side and, on the pro Ewell side, the statements of Major Campbell Brown, Ewell's stepson and aide. General Winfield S. Hancock, on the Union side, who commanded the troops on Cemetery Hill, believed that they would have withstood any Confederate attack.

This is an excellent article, which can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/general-ewells-dilemma/?_r=0

This is another good article. Makes it clear that any late day assault was going to be a desperate fight and no walkover, as well as making it clear that Ewell was more or less on his own in terms of the decision and supplying the troops, unsupported by others. -- Al

 

[jazzeum]

In A Regiment Is Sacrificed at Gettysburon, Ronald Coddington, who writes for the Civil War News and has written "Faces of War," discusses how on July 1 the 134th New York Infantry was sacrificed so Carl Schurz's Division could safely retreat from the Town of Gettysburg. When the Regiment mustered for duty in the evening, only 32 of the original 400 men had survived. Col. Goodwin of the 57th North Carolina Infantry praised their stubbornness in his battle report.

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/a-regiment-is-sacrificed-at-gettysburg/#more-146276

 

[Rob]

Excellent articles Brad, just catching up! Thanks for posting^&cool

Rob

 

[lancer]

In A Regiment Is Sacrificed at Gettysburon, Ronald Coddington, who writes for the Civil War News and has written "Faces of War," discusses how on July 1 the 134th New York Infantry was sacrificed so Carl Schurz's Division could safely retreat from the Town of Gettysburg. When the Regiment mustered for duty in the evening, only 32 of the original 400 men had survived. Col. Goodwin of the 57th North Carolina Infantry praised their stubbornness in his battle report.

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/a-regiment-is-sacrificed-at-gettysburg/#more-146276

This is a really interesting read. Boggles the mind how these guys were capable of surviving such wounds, given the state of medical care at the time. -- Al

 

[Rob]

In A Regiment Is Sacrificed at Gettysburon, Ronald Coddington, who writes for the Civil War News and has written "Faces of War," discusses how on July 1 the 134th New York Infantry was sacrificed so Carl Schurz's Division could safely retreat from the Town of Gettysburg. When the Regiment mustered for duty in the evening, only 32 of the original 400 men had survived. Col. Goodwin of the 57th North Carolina Infantry praised their stubbornness in his battle report.

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/a-regiment-is-sacrificed-at-gettysburg/#more-146276

Wow! How on earth did he survive that?!{eek3} A hole in his chest and a leaking bladder , jeez. Sounds like a terrible action doesn't it. Those New Yorkers being fired on from three directions, must have been a horrible thing.

Thanks again Brad these are great!

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

Al and Rob,

It's amazing to me how people were able to face that, whatever war they may been in. I don't think it's something we can really understand today.

Brad

 

[jazzeum]

In The Sacrifice of the Second Wisconsin, Michael Kirschner, who is married to a great-great granddaughter of Philo Wright, a first sergeant of the Second Wisconsin, part of the Iron Brigade, writes about his ancestor and the Second Wisonsin on July 1, 1863.

Wright, who was the color sergeant on July 1, and led his men into battle that day, had orders to proceed to McPherson’s Ridge and prevent it from being lost, for it was only Seminary Ridge that would stand between the Southern troops led by General James Archer and the prize, Cemetery Ridge. The key to McPherson’s Ridge was a five-acre stand of forest known as Herbst Woods. At the Woods, the Second Wisconsin held in the face of Archer’s much larger force and prevented the Confederate forces from taking the high ground of Cemetery Hill and Cemetery Ridge. The cost was great; of the 300 men who went into battle, only 34 answered roll call that night at Cemetery Hill.

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/the-sacrifice-of-the-second-wisconsin/

 

[Rob]

In The Sacrifice of the Second Wisconsin, Michael Kirschner, who is married to a great-great granddaughter of Philo Wright, a first sergeant of the Second Wisconsin, part of the Iron Brigade, writes about his ancestor and the Second Wisonsin on July 1, 1863.

Wright, who was the color sergeant on July 1, and led his men into battle that day, had orders to proceed to McPherson’s Ridge and prevent it from being lost, for it was only Seminary Ridge that would stand between the Southern troops led by General James Archer and the prize, Cemetery Ridge. The key to McPherson’s Ridge was a five-acre stand of forest known as Herbst Woods. At the Woods, the Second Wisconsin held in the face of Archer’s much larger force and prevented the Confederate forces from taking the high ground of Cemetery Hill and Cemetery Ridge. The cost was great; of the 300 men who went into battle, only 34 answered roll call that night at Cemetery Hill.

The article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/the-sacrifice-of-the-second-wisconsin/

Brad, this just gets better and better mate!:salute:: I was only just reading about this very action a few days ago and am totally fascinated by it. What a story, and how did he come through that alive and not even losing his leg. Really enjoyable reading. I read the other day that Herbst woods has now been purchased by the G'burg National Park and will soon be incorporated into the battlefield trail with signs/info panels etc.

Thanks again mate
Rob

 

[Rob]

Brad, forgive me if I'm stating the bleeding obvious here, but did you know there are two New York Times books ' Disunion' and 'Complete Civil War' available on Amazon?

Rob

 

[jazzeum]

John Bell Hood's Great Adventure is sketched by Richard Parker, a writer for the McClatchey-Tribune Syndicate, the Columbia Journalism Review and the New Republic.

This is a study of General John Bell Hood his Texans, Hood's Division (although not all were Texans and neither was General Hood).

On July 2, Hood wanted to move to the right of Big Round Top but Longstreet wouldn't permit that. After Devil's Den had been subdued, Hood's troops veered to the south to take a smaller hill called Little Round Top. Hood was caught between the two Round Tops in the "slaughter pen" and the Union troops withdrew up Little Round Top, which despite repeated attempts by his Texans and Alabamas, Hood was unable to take. Hood had been bled white, according to Harold Simpson's Hood's Texas Brigade.

The butcher's bill was heavy: 343 killed, 1,504 wounded and 442 missing, including Hood, whose arm was shattered.

The full article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/john-bell-hoods-great-adventure/

 

[lancer]

John Bell Hood's Great Adventure is sketched by Richard Parker, a writer for the McClatchey-Tribune Syndicate, the Columbia Journalism Review and the New Republic.

This is a study of General John Bell Hood his Texans, Hood's Division (although not all were Texans and neither was General Hood).

On July 2, Hood wanted to move to the right of Big Round Top but Longstreet wouldn't permit that. After Devil's Den had been subdued, Hood's troops veered to the south to take a smaller hill called Little Round Top. Hood was caught between the two Round Tops in the "slaughter pen" and the Union troops withdrew up Little Round Top, which despite repeated attempts by his Texans and Alabamas, Hood was unable to take. Hood had been bled white, according to Harold Simpson's Hood's Texas Brigade.

The butcher's bill was heavy: 343 killed, 1,504 wounded and 442 missing, including Hood, whose arm was shattered.

The full article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/john-bell-hoods-great-adventure/

This is a timely post, Brad. I just received notice today from Casemate Publishing that their new book entitled "John Bell Hood: The Rise, Fall, and Resurrection of a Confederate General" by Stephen Hood, is now available. The Simpson book is a superb history of the whole unit. -- Al

 

[lancer]

John Bell Hood's Great Adventure is sketched by Richard Parker, a writer for the McClatchey-Tribune Syndicate, the Columbia Journalism Review and the New Republic.

This is a study of General John Bell Hood his Texans, Hood's Division (although not all were Texans and neither was General Hood).

On July 2, Hood wanted to move to the right of Big Round Top but Longstreet wouldn't permit that. After Devil's Den had been subdued, Hood's troops veered to the south to take a smaller hill called Little Round Top. Hood was caught between the two Round Tops in the "slaughter pen" and the Union troops withdrew up Little Round Top, which despite repeated attempts by his Texans and Alabamas, Hood was unable to take. Hood had been bled white, according to Harold Simpson's Hood's Texas Brigade.

The butcher's bill was heavy: 343 killed, 1,504 wounded and 442 missing, including Hood, whose arm was shattered.

The full article can be accessed here, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/03/john-bell-hoods-great-adventure/

Upon reading the article, I see Mr. Parker has misinterpreted or misread the casualty figures for the Texans at Gettysburg. The 4th Texas was part of Robertson's Brigade and went into action with 415 men available for action. They could hardly have suffered the 600 casualties Parker assigns to them. According to Petruzzi, the 4th suffered 28 KIA, 53 WIA, and 31 MIA for a total of 112, 27%. I believe Parker has accidently used Robertson's Brigade total loss figures by mistake as Robertson's 4 regiments, the 3rd Ark., 1st, 4th, and 5th Texas suffered a total of 602 casualties, with 152 KIA, 312 WIA, and 138 MIA, out of a total present for duty of 1729. Where Parker got his figure of 84 KIA for the 4th Texas is anyone's guess as it does not match any loss figures for the 4 regiments. The closest I could come was combining the KIA for the 4th and 5th Texas, which totaled 82. Given all that, I'm sure Parker pulled the figure from somewhere, and there are fluctuations in Confederate loss estimates. -- Al