Iron Men: Iron Will, History of the 19th Indiana
Volunteers.The book is published by Guild Press,
Indianapolis, In. 415 pp. Over 40 images. The book follows
the regiment from muster on July 29, 1861 through its
consolidation with the 20th Indiana in October 1864. I
believe you will particularly like the Gettysburg Chapter.
E-Mail me if you would like a promotional flyer.
Editor's Note: See Excerpts from this book on "Articles by Members" page.
From: BTMM58A@prodigy.com (MR CRAIG L DUNN)
Alexander Cameron asked for info on my resources for my book so I
will list several that I used for the Gettysburg chapter:
1. William N. Jackson-journal (Indiana Historical Society)
2. George E. Finney-diary (Indiana State Library)
3. Allen Ogborn-diary (Indiana Historical Society)
4. William Roby Moore-letter and manuscript (Indiana Historical
Society)
5. Indiana's Roll of Honor (2 vols.)
6. Soldier of Indiana (3 vols.)
7. Indiana Magazine of History "Sgt. Major Blanchard at Gettysburg"
1934
8. Otis, Second Wisconsin
9. William W. Dudley, The Iron Brigade at Gettysburg
10. Indiana Adjutant General Report
11. Muncie Press
12. Helm, History of Delaware County
13. Burr Clifford-letter (Indiana State Library)
14. Hassler, Crisis at the Crossroads
15. Symonds, Battlefield Atlas
16. Dawes, Sixth Wisconsin
17. Chamberlain, Sketches of War History
18. Indiana at Antietam
19. Indiana at Gettysburg
20. Nineteenth Indiana Reunion Invitation
21. Beaudot and Herdegen, Irishman in the Iron Brigade
22. Cheek and Ponton, Sauk Co. Rifles
There was a wealth of other material available from other members of
the regiment in the form of letters, diaries and journals. I quote
extensively from several other soldiers including Solomon Meredith,
Lt. Thomas Crull, Bob Patterson, Abram Buckles, Adam Juday. Soldier
of Indiana (a very rare set of books) quotes many first person
accounts of the Nineteenth Indiana.
The initial critical review of the book has been good and sales have
been brisk. Booknotes on C-Span recommended it as a Christmas book
purchase. Hopefully the book is in the hands of the illustrious Ben
Maryniak who is reviewing it for "The Courier" and possibly for our
group. Also, Dr. Gary Gallagher is reviewing it for America's Civil
War.
Thanks to Alexander Cameron for his inquiry and the opening for me to
discuss my first love. I hope my discussion of this book does not
come across as shameless self-promotion but rather somewhat shameless
self-promotion.
Best Wishes,
Craig Dunn
Subject: Abram Buckles Picture Story
Terry Moyer asked that I post for the group how I acquired the image
of Abram Buckles that I use in my book. (Iron Men:Iron Will) Here it is.
In December of 1994 I learned, through a researcher that I hired in
California to look for Buckles memorbilia in Solona County, that ;
there was a picture of Abram Buckles in uniform in the California
State Library. She indicated to me that I could not get a copy of
the image because the library had changed its policy on photo
reproduction due to funding cutbacks imposed by Governor Pete Wilson.
I couldn't quite believe her so I called the library and talked to
an extremely rude staff member who informed me that there were no
exceptions to the policy and that I was out of luck. When I
protested I was told that if I didn't like it, I could bitch to the
Governor. .
I have never been one to accept bureaucratic bullshit, so I launched
on a cyberwarfare campaign through the internet. First, I put my
dilemna out on the net and asked for any suggestions. I received
several, one from a librarian in Australia. Most responses were
merely ones of indignation at the library. Next, I asked on the net
for any information, telephone numbers, e-mail addresses etc.. that
might be helpful for California government personnel. I received an
E-Mail with the Governor's personal fax number on it. I then typed
up a long explanation of the situation and faxed it to the governor.
At the same time, someone e-mailed me the e-mail addresses for the
director of the library and the curator of the manuscript division.
I received the same bureaucratic response to my request from them as
I had earlier received from the staffer. He was my offer:.
I would hire a photographer, send them to the library and then pay
the library $100 to just pull the picture. I thought that the
thought of a profit might motivate the library, but no luck..
Finally, I went back to the newsgroup alt.war.civil.usa and restated
my problem and asked that everyone e-mail the director and the
curator a very simple message, "Free Abram Buckles From Captivity".
Hundreds of e-mails were sent to them. I'm not sure whether it
motivated them to act but I received an e-mail from the curator
asking that I call her. She indicated that because of my persistence
they might make an exception in my case, but that if they did they
could not accept the $100. They didn't have any way to process it.
The library finally gave in and sent the picture. .
Postscript: A few days after I got the picture I received a set of
correspondence from the Governor detailing his orders to the library
to free Abram Buckles and to immediately change the library policy
regarding historical access and reproduction. He also ordered the
library to stop engaging in political carping. A couple of days
later I got a call from the real director of the library who had been
away on sick leave at the time of my requests. He had no idea that
the policy had been changed. He apologized profusely..
My thanks to the Net, Civil War friends and Governor Pete Wilson..
Craig Dunn
From: benedict@ns.moran.com (Benedict R Maryniak)
Subject: Bliss Farm
>Arthur C. Snellbaker sends these additions to the book archive on our web site.
>Christ,Elwood "The struggle for the Bliss Farm at Gettysburg" Butternut and
>Blue Press,3411 Northwind Rd. Baltimore Md. 21234-1250... Was the skirmishing in >and around the Bliss Farm on July 2 & 3 coincidental to the rest of the action >on the field? This 200+ page book makes a compelling case for a much more >organized contest for this patch of ground half way between the Union right and >Confederate left.
Benedict R Maryniak replies
The 12th New Jersey regimental history by Longacre is a great book and,
along with the OR, tells the Bliss Farm story very well. For that matter,
the plaque on the 12th's monument portrays it effectively - close-up fire
fight for the barn with the house burning in the background. It's only my
opinion, but don't waste your time on the Christ book. Jake Blues' brother
is the only Elwood I'll ever trust. "Hancock the Superb" and Pfanz's book
also contain fair treatments of the Bliss Farm affair. None of them,
however, bring out the vindictive genius of Genl Alexander Hays. He did
things at Gburg that will never get on the TV!
From: benedict@ns.moran.com (Benedict R Maryniak)
Subject: Iron Brigade unheralded?
Doug Macomber wonders if Rufus D and his 6th Wisconsin are overlooked? Good
God, he must've led a fortunate existence so as not to be buried in Iron
Brigade rhetoric!! Alan Nolan's famous book on the Iron Brigade, and "In
The Bloody Railroad Cut At Gettysburg" by Herdegen & Beaudot both cover the
6th's considerable contributions. Next to the long-standing argument about
what cavalry unit fired the first shot of the battle, the Iron Brigade was
always good for a run at Lysander Cutler's brigade over who let loose with
the first federal infantry fire on July 1.
From: "Douglas M Macomber"
Subject: Staanards brigade, 16th Vermont (Col. Veazy)
I am an avid prusuer of Staanards brigade, paticulary the 16th Vermont under
Colonel Veazy. I recently found a brief history about the 16th, I did not know
Staanard and his brigade played such a major role on the third day.Until
Gettysburg, Staanard and his brigade assigned garrison duty at Washington D.C.
When Lee invaded Pennsylvainia, the brigade was attached to the first corps
under Reynolds. Staanards brigade arrived late in the first day, after Reynolds
was killed and all major actions on the first day were over. The 16th and the
rest of the brigade was posted on Culps hill. They saw no fighting on the
second dday, and on the third were detached to strengthen Hancocks second
corps.The 16th along with the 14th Vermont acted as the adavnce regiments
during Picketts charge. They withdrew and took part in Hancocks famous flanking
movement, soon afterward Hancock was wounded. Staanard bent over him saying "It
is not bleeding from the artery you will live."Thinking Staanard to be a
surgeon, Hancock replied "Thank you for that surgeon." After Gettysburg the
16th's enlistment was up and was discharged
For further information on Vermonters duringthe civil war see FULL DUTY by
Edwin C. Bearss
From: Bill Mankins
Subject: Gettysburg - First day's battle reading list.
Hassler, Jr., Warren W., "Crisis at the Crossroads The First Day at
Gettysburg", University of Alabama Press, 1970. 214 pages.
Martin, David G., "Gettysburg July 1", Combined Books, 1995. 736 pages.
These are two outstanding books on the first day's action. Martin's book
is almost a minute by minute account.
From: CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER)
Subject: Book report
Get your credit cards ready, volume 3 of The Bachelder Papers_may be
the most interesting one to date. My copy arrived today and I just spent
about 1 1/2 hours looking through it. It contains letters written up to the
time of Bachelder's death then adds several appendices which include
letters found in other collections. For the first time there are letters
written by John Badger himself in this final volume. There are two
multi-page letters from JB which describe the conceptualization and
development of the High Water Mark monument. VERY Interesting. From an idea
as simple as merely affixing a bronze tablet to the iron fence at the
copse, the marker grew into what JB described as 'a first class monument'.
An interesting insight I drew from this treatise was the fact that this
monument was recognized by the GBMA as a final tribute to the field, and
that they would leaving it behind as their day passed and the watch was
assumed by the federal government. It was felt that the fina
l gift of the association to their field should be a quality monument,
commensurate with the events it commemorated. JB paid for most of the
monument from his private bank account, almost $3000 worth of his private
funds. He worried about how he could recoup this money until he finally
figured out a plan that worked.
The original cannon ball pyramids that support the 'book of history' on
the monument were actual iron cannon balls 'baked and enameled'. After the
dedication it was noticed that a recent rain had already caused corrosion
in the balls, and it was realized that they must be replaced. And there was
not a dollar in the treasury of the association to pay for the replacement.
There is also a lengthy transcript of the courtroom cross examination of
members of the 72d Pennsylvania concerning their desire to place their
monument at 'the Angle'.
There are also a collection of pictures of Bachelder attending various
monument dedication ceremonies in the book.
It appears that this last volume in the series will be full of great
info. Talk to you all later. Terry.
From: Jim Radmore
Subject: Bachelder Map (fwd)
To all from Jim Radmore:
I was able to spend a few hours up in Gettysburg on Sat the 16th. Had to
go up to pick up a copy of Frass's book to give as a retirement gift. (I
know any escuse to go to G'burg :-)
Anyway I took some time to follow the tour from the book "Guide to the
Battle of Gettysburg" This is the book put out by the U.S> Army War
College. I was doing the Devil's Den part of the tour. (p 90). I got to
Smith NY Battery monument and was reading the excerpt from the OR that is
included. I was confused about exactly where and from what direction the
Rebs came from. So I got out the Bachelder Gettysburg Battlefield map
that shows the approximate location of the troops during the three days.
Well as I am reading the book and looking at the map, I began to get even
more confused, (those of you that know me will find it hard to believe
that I can get more confused that I already am).. The book talks about
ROBERTSON's brigade of Hoods division as attacking, etc. I looked all
over Bachelders map and I couldnot find ROBERTSON anywhere. However, I
did find ROBINSON listed in the area that ROBERTSON was supposed to be
in. Ok says I to myself, Bachelder is supposed to know what he is
talking about, but I agree with Dennis and his assertations about Pfanz's
work on the second day. So I return to my truck and go to my library and
pull out Pfanz to see what he had to say. The only ROBINSON he lists is
the Robinson that fought on Oak Hill, just off the Mummasburg road on the
first day. He(Pfanz) does have a Robertson in Hood's brigade. Now my
question is: Does Bachelder know something that no one else does, or is
this a BIG TYPO on the map??? If so, and even confused me would go with
this one, then are there other mistakes on the map also? I have used the
map to get better acquainted with troop movements and from where they
came etc.
From: TERRY MOYER
Subject: Re: Bachelder Map
Jim,
I looked at the Bachelder's isometric map and saw what you saw, that is,
'Robinson' in battle line alongside Law. This is definitely a typo, but not
having an original of Bachelder's isometric map, I can only guess whether
the typo is the fault of the reprinter, or is the original spelling as it
appeared on the isometric map.
I am sure Bachelder knew who was in this position. As Ben Maryniak points
out, the position is shown correctly as held by 'Robertson' on the map that
comes with the Bachelder Papers published by Morningside. These maps, one
for each day of the battle, are drawn on the Warren survey map, with a
publication date on the map of 1876. I am not sure whether 1876 is the date
of the survey or just the date of the map publication. (I would have to go
back and check that out). I know a survey was made of the field in 1869 also.
Robertson attacked alongside of Law across the Slyder and Bushman farms.
If you can spot the Alabama monument from Little Round Top, while looking
past Devil's Den, you will see Robertson's attack position to the (Union)
right of Law's position. Robertson was on Law's left and near the
Emmittsburg road.
From: lawrence@tyrell.net (Dennis Lawrence)
Subject: Maps and Books
Miles Orchard asks>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>I am looking for good maps (fairly detailed) of Gettysburg mainly and
>other main battle fields with movements printed on them. I have read
>through the various postings that some are available from the
>Gettysburg site office (would they post some to the UK ?) but as I am a
>little too far to pop over to collect them it has proved very difficult
>to find anything apart from in a few books (which aren't that
>detailed). I am prepared to cover the cost of posting etc, please let me know.
Dennis Lawrence replies>>>>>>>>>>>
Some good references to Gettysburg are the Warren Map which is plate XCV in the OFficial Military Atlas' and one of the best buys at Gettysburg for around $5. An excellent map to take onto the field. The Offiial Military Atlas is oversized and overpriced, but does provide excellent maps of the battles of the Civil War.
Another map is one published by the "I Corps." It contains elevations as well as marking the trees and roads of the CW era along with the tree lines and roads of today. I bought this for about $5 out of a CW magazine several years ago and used it extensively on the field. Terry Moyer tells me it is being reordered by at least one shop in the Burg, so if he or anyone else knows where to pick this up, please post.
The most famous maps are the Bachelder maps. His colored map titled "The Gettysburg Battlefield" shows the position of every regiment on every day. An excellent reference and art work. It too can be bought quite cheaply at the Burg.
John Bachelder was the foremost early historian of the field. It was the rediscovery of the Bachelder papers by Coddington that made possible _The Gettysburg Campaign_. The reprinting of the Bachelder Papers by Morningside is in three volumes. The first vlume came with 7 maps - one for each day of the fighting at an enormous 25" by 32". Have a strong light and a magnifying glass, because the maps are intricate and at best adequately reproduced.
The second volume came out last year, and the third volume is due out the end of this month. It contains "maps and photos" also. IMHO these three volumes and maps are indispensable to the study of the field.
Nice orientation maps to the disposition of the troops are also found in the Time-Life volume on Gettysburg.
Miles also asks about books on the Twentieth Maine. My favorites are Shaara's _Killer Angel's_ , Alice Trulock's _In the Hands of Providence_ Norton' _The Attack and Defense of Little Round Top and Styple's controversial _With a Flash of the Sword_. Nice balance between realism and romance in reading those four.
Morningside Books can be reached at 1-800-648-9710. They will be glad to send a catalog which will give you more choices.
A generic number for the Gettysburg National Park is 1-717-334-1124. From there you can get to the book store at the visitor's center for information on map mailing.
Harry Pfanz describes the various areas in relationship to the nearest flat plain from which attacks would be launched.
About the crests of Little Round Top :
"Little Round Top can be described simplistically as having three elevations. The long north slope rises gradually about forty feet above the Wheatfield Road to a rock faced shelf on which the monuments of the 146th New York and 155th Pennsylvania stand today. This shelf in turn is at the base of another bluff of boulders that rises at the north end of the Hill's Crest (Warren Statue). From this north end of the crest the surface rises gently over a distance of fifty yards to a knob near center of the hil (Hazlet's Monument). From the knoll's crest, the surface declines gently one-hundred yards to the south (New York Castle).... Ten or fifteen feet below the crest is another shelf ... in all probability first visited by Vincent and became the right of his brigade line...
The south slope of the hill... faced the saddle between Little Round Top and ... Big Round Top... Vincent took Chamberlain to the tip of the spur probably to a point amid the rocks beneath the large boulder on which the monument to the Twentieth Maine stands today. This would be the Twentieth's left" (_Gettysburg The Second Day_ pp. 209-212).
Harry Pfanz describes Culp's Hill area this way:
"(Culp's Hill) had two peaks; the highest (where the tower is today) 180 feet above Rock Creek, was about 800 yards southeast of Cemetery Hill and was conected to it by a sagging crest line that included Steven's knoll. The lower peak was 400 yards south of the taller summit and was separated from it by a narrow saddle that notched the hill from east to west. The lower creek rose about eighty feet above the creek... It was about 850 yards from the highest peak to the meadow at Spangler's Springs" (pages 111 -112 _Culp's Hill and _Cemetery Hill_.
About Benner's Hill Pfanz says
"The hill's crest extended about three hundred yards south-southwest from the Hanover Road and 500 yards north-northeast of it. The crest loomed 100 feet above Rock Creek at the hill's base... The south end of Benner's Hill was 1,000 yards northeast of Culp's Hll and 1,500 yards east-northeast of East Cemetery Hill." (169-170).
From: CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER)
Subject: Re: Maps and Books/Oates Rock
Tom Swantko asks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Who knows the heights of Seminary Ridge, Cemetery Ridge, Culp's Hill,
>Little Round Top and Big Round Top. Are there references which show
topoographical
>maps of the area?
A friend of mine goes hiking alot, and many hiking stores carry U.S.
Geological Survey Maps of most of the state of Penna. (At least they do
here in Penna...)
The following heights are from the U.S.G.S. maps for Gettysburg (which
claim to be photo inspected 1981 (aerial photo that is):
Peace Light 647 feet, Culp's Hill, 600 feet and 542 feet for the two
summits, Little Round Top 650 feet, Big Round Top 785 feet. Seminary Ridge
around the angle to lrt area seems to rise from 500 to 550 feet near lrt.
The Seminary seems to be sitting on a contour line labeled 580. East Cem
Hill looks to be between 580 and 600 foot contour lines.
To get your own map and make your own interpretations I quote you from
the legend at the bottom of the maps (2 of them) "For Sale by U.S.
Geological Survey Denver, Colo. 80225, or Reston Va 22092" "A folder
describing topographic maps and symbols is available on request." The two
maps as near as I can make out, are identified as AMS 5563 I SW - SERIES
V831. This map shows most of the battlefield but excludes the portions of
the 1st days field west of the middle ridge, between the Seminary and the
McPherson farm. The second map which contains the confederate area of the
1st days field and the McPherson farm area is DMA 5363 IV SE - SERIES V831
Aside from the contour information, you also get to see where all you
favorite glut is situated on the map... swimming pools, the high school and
so forth.
From:Lisa Mucha
Subject: Hancock Bios
Hello!
Regarding good biographies of Hancock, I recommend the following:
1. Hancock the Superb by Glenn Tucker
2.The Reminiscences of Winfield Scott Hancock by Almira Hancock. This is
not a very detailed bio of Hancock. What is does do is let the reader hear
a very distinct voice (that of Almira Hancock) from the ACW. Even
though it is written in Victorian prose, it is still easy to read. 8-)
From: ATWF68A@prodigy.com (MS EILEEN M MURPHY)
Subject: HANCOCK THE SUPERB
FOR PAT..(GaTechFan@aol.com)...
General Hancock happens to be a particular favorite of mine. You'll
enjoy reading Glenn Tucker's "Hancock the Superb". (Save your shuddering
and hissing for Henry Hunt!! )
From: anthony.staunton@pcug.org.au (Anthony Staunton)
Subject: gettsbury film
The film Gettysburg only got a limited run in Australia and I did nit hear
about the film until the season had finished. I have waited for the video to
be released which happened on 12 October and have just finished watching it
(for the first time).V
Very impressive. I think that Old Pete deserves to get credit so long denied
him. I was also impressed with Lee and gained a better understanding of his
decsion making which makes his comments to Stuart even more remarkable.
I now understand why there are JLC is falvour of the month. I was pleased
that the 20th Maine flag bearer
Andrew J Tozier, the other 20th Maine Medal of Honor recipient got some lines.
Anthony.Staunton@pcug.org.au ( AUSTRALIA)
Federal Secretary - Military Historical Society of Australia
Member - Orders & Medals Research Society of the UK
Member - Orders & Medals Society of America
From: "LMM136@psuvm.psu.edu 'Lisa Mucha'"
Subject: New 20th ME book
Hello!
This message is in reply to the gentleman from the U.K. and anyone else
interested in the new 20th ME. book:
The book is called "Stand Firm Ye Boys" (the title is a bit longer, but
I have forgotten the rest...sorry!) by Tom Desjardin.
It can be purchased from Thomas Publications. The phone # is
1-800-840-6782.
The book is $28.00 plus $3.00 shipping and 6%tax if you are a resident
of PA (I guess the tax is to pay for the cool new PA homepage on the
net 8-) ).
I ordered my copy today and the person I spoke to said they expect the
book from the printers around Halloween and it should be shipped out the
week in November.
Lisa Mucha
LMM136@psuvm.psu.edu
From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)
Subject: Lee/Longstreet
Paul wrote:
>Bryan,
> I belive I sent a message via by Dennis L., in case it did'nt get through
here
>is the book your looking for. THE LEE/LONGSTREET CONTROVERSY by Glenn Tucker.
>Tucker was one of the first and great G'burg authors. Hope this helped. Sorry,
>I don't have the ISBN.
The title of the Tucker book is LEE AND LONGSTREET AT GETTYSBURG,
Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968. 268 P. E475.53T8. (There is also a
1982 Morningside reprint in paperback) Agree with Paul, Tucker does a good
job with this subject.
Bill
From: "MICHAEL E HARTENSTINE"
hello all
I was looking in my library for the publisher of general
longstreets autobiography. I came across a book called Lee and
Longstreet at High Tide, Gettysburg in the light of the
official records by a Helen D. Longstreet at Broadfoot publishing
for $30.00. Published in 1904 Is this book worth the purchase? I
would appreciate any advice given.
Take care!Michael E. Hartenstine
E-mail: mharten@admin.mc3.edu
FFrom: CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER)
Subject: Re: Bachelder Papers
B. Wells wrote:
Hi, I have been reading with great interest many of the items posted in
the Gettysburg Discussion Group (including those of Ben Maryniak, our
BCWRT President). I am considering purchasing the BACHELDER PAPERS & would
like your opinion/brief description of each Volume. The description of
Vol.II in a Morningside catalog says they are "less formal in tone than
Vol.1." It sounds like Vol. II has more first hand accounts - am I
correct. I would like to know more about Vol. 1. I hope this doesn't
sound like a dumb question, but does each Vol. have its own focus or do
they follow each other in continuation? In other words, is purchasing Vol.
II (which may be more interesting reading) contigent on having read Vol. 1?
Any information would be greatly appreciated! Thank you.
Hi B. Wells,
The 3 vols of the Bachelder papers contain the correspondence JB held with
the many participants in the battle of Gettysburg. They are arranged
chronologically in the 3 volumes, so the earliest writings concern
Bachelder's attempts to ascertain troop movements and positions on the
field and so on. Therefore their tone may be 'formal' in as much as JB is
interviewing and requesting information. Don't let the formal/informal
designation fool you. If you love Gettysburg you need every one of these
volumes as each one contains fascinating, first hand, eye witness accounts
of action on the battlefield, as well as glimpses into some of the behind
the scenes events that shaped the park and made it what we see when we
visit it today.
You will want to buy the 1st volume because included in the purchase
price are 7 maps upon which JB marked the position of troops as they were
on the 1st 2d and 3d days of the battle. Reference in all 3 volumes are
keyed to these maps. Each book does have a slightly different flavor. I
particularly like the 3d volume which contains letters written during the
peak monument building period at Gettysburg. It contains many interesting
insights into the process by which the monuments were placed on the field.
You do not have to read one book to be able to follow what goes on in the
other (except for the Hunt vs. Hancock controversy, for which you should
read volume one, then two) But really, each one is well worth having, and
if you are going to get them all, you may as well read them in order!
Terry
From: deicher@astronomy.com (David Eicher)
Subject: Book suggestion
Hi Bob, Dennis, and Bryan --
Just ran across the Gettysburg discussion group Home Page, which looks very
nice. I have a suggestion for the reading list document:
Civil War Battlefields: A Touring Guide by David J. Eicher (Taylor
Publishing Co., Dallas, 1995). ISBN 0-87833-886-1. Foreword by James M.
McPherson, Maps by John H. Eicher. The book provides detailed tours of
Antietam/South Mountain/Harpers Ferry; Bull Run; Chattanooga; Chickamauga;
Fredericksburg/Chancellorsville/The Wilderness/Spotsylvania; Gettysburg;
Petersburg/Five Forks/Appomattox; Richmond/City Point; Shenandoah Valley;
Shiloh; Stones River/Franklin/Spring Hill; and Vicksburg. The longest and
most detailed chapter covers Gettysburg, featuring three detailed maps
showing many of the most prominent Gettysburg monuments, a lengthy park
tour, and descriptions of 168 features to see.
In the last six months, the book has sold more than 10,000 copies, making
it one of the more recent, available, and thorough tours of the Gettysburg
battlefield.
Editor's Note: See Excerpts from this book on "Articles by Members" page.
Yours,
Dave Eicher
deicher@astronomy.com
http://www.kalmbach.com/astro/astronomy.html
From: FIORAVANTI@mayb.dnet.teradyne.com
Subject: Re:Fredericksburg Artillery
Hi Dennis,
On Tuesday, November 7th, you asked:
I have been painfully tapping in the Order of Battle for Pickett's Charge
and came across the following listing in Pegramn's Batallion.
Fredericksburg Artillery, Captain E.A. Marye
The name Marye linked to Fredericksburg leaps out. Anybody know if
there is a connection?
Yes, Marye is related to the family that gave those heights their name. If
you like to read more on teh Fredericksburg Artillery, there is an excellent
articl by Robert Krick in Volume One, Number One, of the publication: "Civil
War Regiments; A Journal of the American Civil War" I believe Morningside sells
copies of these, and other issues of this publication. There's even a picture
of Edward Avenmore Marye on page 13 of the article.
Regards,
Jeff Fioravanti
From: Norm Levitt
Subject: Re: thanks
Thanks for the info on Bachelder. I'm still not entirely clear as to
whther an intact MS of his projected book survives at Gettysburg,
Concord NH, of elsewhere. Is there any likelihood of it's being
published?
From: "LMM136@psuvm.psu.edu Lisa Mucha"
Subject: New 20th ME BookNorm Levitt
Hello!
I just recieved my copy of "Stand Firm Ye Boys From Maine" by Thomas
Desjardin. Upon leafing through the book, it covers the Gettysburg
battle as well as reunions and monument activities (I just happened
to see the page that reproduces Oates' sketch of where on LRT he
would like the 15th Alabama monument placed!). It has some
wonderful pictures in it that I have never seen before. Am I gushing too
much? 8-)
Anyway, this looks like a terrific book -- It can be ordered from
Thomas Publications
333 Buford Ave.
Gettysburg, PA 17325
717-334-8440
ISBN-0-939631-89-X
Subject: Book Review: Stand Firm Ye Boys From Maine
Please forgive if this has already been discussed in the Group...
If so turn the Channel...now...
My other Christmas present this year was a book written by a man I met at
Gettysburg mid-August this past year...he was the NPS Tour Guide for the
walking Tour of LRT
at the Park..his name..Tom Desjardin...a well spoken, reserved and strikingly
frank History Scholar whom had just graduated with his PhD from the
University of Maine at Orono..my wifes alma mater...
His insight, eagerness to point out facts, dispute facts, dispell rumored
facts and point
out over play points of the 20th Maines position and relevence at LRT were
very
enlightening and full of just plain common sense...
Much to my surprise when his book came out parts of it could have been
scripted from his lectures on LRT or vice versa...his candid statements of
facts, exagerations, and other possibilities jumped from the pages of this
fine work...but I am ahead of myself...
Title: Stand Firm Ye Boys From Maine
Author: Thomas A. Desjardin
Published: Thomas Publications, PO Box 3031, Gettysburg, PA 17325
1995
John Pullen introduces the book in an appropriate way giving due credit to
the work Tom
has added to and put together in developing this the latest of Unit histories
of the 20th Maine.
I found the book to have the usual foundation of well known facts of the
actions on LRT from the 20th Maine viewpoint...with more candid realism than
I had ever read before in
a single work. He further takes great time to portray
1] the members of the 20th Maine as real, relatively inexperienced, just
doing what seemed right vs. heroic Infantry Men....
The description of the actual site is extremely accurate all the while
pointing out rumors and physical alterations by well meaning groups...
His portrayal of the disorganization of the fighting and its short time frame
help put the confrontion into proper perspective...
He not only points out that the wheeling motion of the Regimen was
unorganized and more reactionary but he offers a very credible alternative
that perhaps explains the
action. None of this is meant to diminish the hard fought efforts of those
courageous
young fighting men that believed if they retreated they would imperil the
cause...
2] on JLC he is very factual yet flatterring..pointing out JLCs ability to
instill confidence in those he fought with...how he came to recieve his
various promotions...his career after the War...his ever growing Romantic
viewpoint of the Battle and War as he grew older...differences, arguments,
and literary battles with his Companions...all this Tom places in proper
perspective as if he is looking out from the eyes of JLC...
3] on the 20th Maines Opponents he gives an equal view...hardships, decisions
that were made and why....he greatly honors the 15th Alabama by recounting
their entire
ordeal......Oates is given a good deal of credit
and explaination given as to his decisions and alternatives...Tom recounts
efforts made by both sides to
commemorate the site and the fight Oates faced in later years to gain equal
recognition.
Thus the book becomes the Ordeal of the 20th Maine, 15th and 47th Alabama
(with minor mention of the 3rd and 4th Texas).
In Conclusion: I believe Tom has delivered a credible accounting of the
efforts and realism of the events of July 2nd and 3rd (BRT) of all units
mentioned as well as a real
discussion of whether there was any real value to the spot to begin with...
Add to this facts concerning Rosters of Participants, Numbers involved,
Recollections of
Various Participants, Casualties of the 20th Maine, 15th and 47th Alabama and
his own common sense down to Earth Notes and we have an authoritative update
to this small
part of the Battle to add to our libraries. I thoroughly enjoyed it...Work
well Done Tom!!
In Closing: I have made every effort not to spoil or detail to closely the
actual text so as to diminish any efforts by the members who will read this
book after reading this..yet I feel compelled to share
with all its merits.
If I have offended or mis-represented any person or group I do
apoligize...this is my first
attempt at Reviewing a Book...alas at 39 years young I still found myself
getting
emotional for both sides of the line...
Respectfully Submitted for Debate...
Ed...
Addendum: I would be greatly interested in discussing the book with anyone
wishing to do so as long as we do not spoil the work for those not having
read it yet. Then again maybe I am the last in the group to have read
it...that would be a crowning effort eh?
want
He takes a good deal of time describing as many participants as
possible...not totally focussing on JLC....
Ed,
Great book review. Ben Maryniak yanked me off my -then- current reading
of the Bachelder Papers vol 3 with his review of _Gettysburg July 1_ now I
am hankering to read 'Stand Firm'. The last 2 years many members of this
group have pondered the 20th Maine site during our annual pilgrimage. We
have speculated about positions and surging battle lines, cresting and
ebbing movements and so forth. I would very much like to see this
information laid out on the current version of Vincent's spur. I am also
very interested in the evolution of the terrain in this area and how it
affects interpretation of the action there, today. Sounds like another
digression from my still-waiting Bachelder book.
Terry
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 96 23:00:33 EST
From: Kenneth Miller
Subject: Re: test
To the GDG
In response to requests for posts, and in anticipation of the upcoming
discussion of "Stand Firm", I offer the following.
I just completed this book and enjoyed it greatly. It reads well from the
start, and does an excellent job of painting a picture of what really
happened on LRT. The chapter on BRT was a new one for me, for the role of
the "Big Hill' was never clear to me. I finally understand why Lee had no
option to the right on the 3rd; the 20th ME, 83rdPA, 44thNY had turned it
into the Gibraltar envisioned by Oates.
The thing about this book is the way it carries through w/o excessive detail.
We find out what happended to the men the day after and in the ensuing
decades. W/o spoiling the book for everyone, I was pleased to learn of JL
Chamberlain's role in the post-Ted Turner era.
One of our younger members has posted that JL Chamberlain was his hero. As I
get older I have often remarked how we have few heroes today. For all of his
post-war problems, JL Chamberlain certainly warrants the accolades being paid
to him today.
Thanks to Tom Dejardin for his work.
Ken Miller
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 06:57:44 EST
From: CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER)
Subject: Stand Firm by Tom Desjardin
I want to encourage everyone who has an interest in the 20th Maine and
the fight for Little Round Top to join in the discussion of Tom Desjardin's
book _Stand Firm Ye Boys From Maine_, when the book is up for discussion on
March 15. I just finished the book last night and this is not just another
rehash of Trulock and Wallace. With Tom's book you don't have to wade
through chapter after chapter of the fight before Fredericksburg and so on,
until you get to the 'good stuff'. We all know what that is... Little Round
Top. The subtitle of the book in fact is: The 20th Maine in the Gettysburg Campaign.
I was especially fortunate in the purchase of my copy of the book, as I
bought it this past saturday in the cyclorama building and was able to meet
Tom and talk to him extensively about the book. Tom's knowledge of the area
of Vincent's spur is exhaustive. If you have read his posts on the
discussion group you already know that he is very friendly and willing to
share his knowledge with others, but the important thing is Tom can and
does back up his conclusions with evidence. As an example, the book
contains the reunion photo of the 20th Maine and Chamberlain seated in
front of the 20th Maine monument. The photo was taken in 1889. Using this
picture, Tom was able to illustrate for me changes in the terrain of LRT,
such as the removal and repositioning of a stone wall, as well as changes
in the height of the ground. (Yes, Tom also can point out to you the rock
that Chamberlain is sittin on...)
Tom reveals much new information about the spur. He and Scott seem to be
hot on the trail of the Left Flank marker, and they have even found
evidence in the form of the mortar scar, of the exact place the flank
marker was mounted.
But the important thing about the book is it's readability. I have had
almost no time to read lately, but I was able to fit Tom's book in and
complete it in two mini-marathon sessions. It is terse. It is to the point.
It concentrates on the part of the 20th Maine saga that you want to know
about. Tom mentioned to me his philosphy that a scholarly work uses primary
sources and contains footnotes to allow the reader to follow up on the
information presented. I had to smile as I read the book and saw that every
single paragraph in the book ended with a footnote! Sheesh.
So even if you don't think you have time to read another book, especially
in time for a mid-march discussion, you may want to reconsider and pick up
this one. It is a quick yet pithy read, and it will DEFINITELY prime you
with questions and insights for Tom's tour of little round top at the muster!
Terry Moyer
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 10:41:58 -0500
From: Scott_Hartwig@nps.gov (Scott Hartwig)
Subject: Two points
I got caught up on our e-mail this morning and found two things I
wanted to add/substract multiply or divide...
"The Remake" - I have read lots of posts on this line and I assume
that folks are referring to the book by Michael Shaara's son Jeff
GODS AND GENERALS which will be released in a few months. This is
a prequel to Killer Angels which covers the lives of the major KA
character's from 1858 to Chancellorsville. In 4 or 5 years, Ron
Maxwell wants to make it into an 8 hour mini-series. This, at
least, is not a remake of GETTYSBURG, but rather a "Prequel" to
it. Shaara's book is apparently 500+ pages and unless he is a
literary genius I am strained to see how the lives of Chamberlain
et al. from 1858 to 1862 and a half can be exciting enough to fill
500 pages and 8 television hours.
Gettysburg was, in Shaara the elder's book, the supreme moment of
the lives of these people. How can a story, minus the supreme
moments, keep us interested for 8 hours?
Also, others who were there please correct me if I'm wrong, but
didn't Gabor Boritt say that Shaara had no contact with his
ex-wife and family in the last years of his life? This was at the
airing of the "Director's Cut" of Gettysburg at the CW Institute
in July 1993. If that's true, and again I could be corrected, does
it not seem strange that the son is now heir apparent?
"Welcome Traveller" - If the brother's Lawrence need to relive
some of their fond memories (sans boy scouts) at the "Happy
Traveller" as we affectionately call it, you can give me a call
when you're here. I live in the Park-owned house on the property
(NOT the trailer).
Tom Desjardin
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 12:55:58 -0500
From: Scott_Hartwig@nps.gov (Scott Hartwig)
Subject: Bachelder's History
Some time back the group inquired about the 8-volume history that
the War Department paid John Bachelder $85,000 to write and then
never published. Well, it seems the group that has been publishing
"The Bachelder Papers" (Ladd et al.) plans to edit and publish
this work. I have no idea of their schedule and time frame but I
am sure they would welcome inquiries. I believe that they plan to
edit out some redundancy to make it less, well, redundant.
Tom Desjardin
From: ajackson@oyez.law.upenn.edu (Anita Jackson-Wieck)
Subject: Book Review
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 19:09:23 -0500 (EST)
It was said of Douglas Southall Freeman that he wrote his epic
biography of R.E. Lee on bended knee. If that be the case, surely Emory
Thomas wrote his new bio of Lee in a fully prostrate position. It is
slavishly fawning, at times laughably so, and written in the sort of
prose one associates with bad romance novels. Consider:
"Then, once more Lee would have to recast his army, renew his
labors, and confront his foes in the face of longer odds against him.
Experience had taught him that such was the way of this imperfect world.
Fame was fleeting; reality was flawed; life involved making the best of
finite circumstances. Virtue consisted of bringing grace into adversity
and giving selflessly among the multitude of takers..."
(P286)
"Oh Lance," she breathed, as his hard cruel mouth pressed down
upon her quivering flesh..." (Well, almost.)
As for the brief chapter on the subject dearest to this group's
hearts, suffice it to say that Longstreet wears the goat horns, with
Stuart and Ewell close behind. Thomas starts out by saying, "It was all
his fault." But then come the finger-pointing, the innuendoes, and the
blatant misstatements:
"Blunders on the part of Lee's subordinates,
however, do mitigate Lee's guilt. Stuart rode off into nowhere with his
captured wagons and left Lee blind in the presence of his enemies (nice
Biblical touch in the phrasing there, I think). Ewell turned timid on
July 1 and chose to remain in Gettysburg rather than seize the commanding
ground on Cemetery Hill. Longstreet acted out his prolonged pout on July
2 and attacked Meade's left flank only after giving the Federals enough
time to accumulate and implant defenders. And someone, most likely
Longstreet, did not organize and order forward any supporting force to
augment Pickett's charge.
"Defeat at Gettysburg was Lee's fault - in part because he
decided to risk boldly and lost, but principally because of who Lee was.
He was a soldier who preferred to suggest rather than order, a general
who attempted to lead from consensus and shrank from confrontation. He
insisted upon making possible for others the freedom of thought and
action he sought for himself."
Did I mention that he dusts off the 9:00 AM attack story!
Gag. Hated it.
David Wieck
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:09:38 -0700
From: taylord@spot.Colorado.EDU (Deb Taylor)
Subject: Re: Book Review
Dear David:
May I gag along with you? I was equally disgusted by this "Saint Lee"
biography. To say that Lee's fault (count as 1) was basically choosing the
wrong subordinates--who did the wrong things--points to the worst kind of
empty-headed administrator (which I don't think Lee was). I grew a little
weary of the Thomas version of Freudian psychoanalysis of Lee as well,
which in some cases presented a downright alarming psychological picture of
Lee. I was led to speculate that had Lee been a General of the 90's, his
entire commanding staff would have been composed of women, his obvious
preference. And, needless to say, as die-hard Longstreet supporter, I
could not tolerate the sly re-kindling of the bonfire under "Old Pete"s"
long-dead toes.
--Deb
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:24:12 -0600
From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)
Subject: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Professor Miller wrote:
> From where I stand now, it seems that Coddington is extremely
>predjudiced on this, particularly WRT the countermarch. Yes, it was not
>the best thing to obey Lee's orders to the letter, but Longstreet was in
>unfamiliar territory and relied on Captain Johnston (who had been over the
>ground) to lead him.
Hi Ken,
The above caught me a little by suprise. Everytime I get into the details
and notes of Coddington, I am impressed by his even hand. To what
specifically are are you referring?
Bill
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 08:53:09 -0500
From: kgm@rci.rutgers.edu (Ken Miller)
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
p. 375 (softcover version),
"Longstreet's festering hostility to any
offensive move , and his annoyance with Lee..."
citing McLaws, who was in a position to observe, but not necessarily to
interpret the interplay between his boss and his boss's boss.
"Longstreet, still in a petulant mood, chose this moment to be more than
punctilious in complying with army protocol."
p. 378
no cite. Obviously Coddington is venting pure opinion and heresay. This
is the key to my statement about the countermarch.
he continues
"Longstreet decided to regard him (Captain Johnston) as Lee's special
representative who during the march possessed greater authority over these
troops than he."
again, editorial izing. This could be pure horse hockey. Longstreet
didn't know where in blazes he was, while Johnston did "to the delight of
Lee" (paraphrased, not direct quote from Coddington). Why shounldn't he
follow him as indicated by Lee?.
He now turns Longstreet's own word agin him:
"Through this questionable interpretation of Johnston's role [is this
impartial???], Longstreet termporarily relinquished his posistion as
commander of the corps.",p. 379
This is a twist on Longstreet's words
To quote Longstreet
"As I was relieved from the time for the march, I rode
near the middle of the Union line. General Lee rode with me for a mile or
more" ... "
p. 368, "From Manassas to Appomatox"
Lee obviously approved this arrangement.
"Under the conduct of the reconnotring officer, our march seemed slow-
there were some halts and coutnermarches. To save time, I ordered the rear
division to double on the front..."
p. 368, "From Manassas to Appomatox"
He took command once her realized that Johnston was in over his head (as
Johnstron freely admitted)
Bottom line: I think Coddington was unduly influenced in putting a negative
spin on Longstreet's role in the countermarch. Yes, he disagreed with Lee,
and did not like Lee's intervention with McClaws. But petulant?? This is
not demostrated.
Ken Miller kgm@rci.rutgers.edu
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 20:16:56 -0600
From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Ken,
I just don't have the time tonight to get into the details of this. Not
sure anyone wants to go through another countermarch debate but I don't
think I fault Coddington as much as you seem to. Of course a lot of this
stuff is his interpretation. I think he comes to the table as "evenhanded"
as they come but lot of folks are now in the position of having problems
with any criticism of Longstreet. I'll get into this with you in a few days.
Bill
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:43:05 -0500
From: kgm@rci.rutgers.edu (Ken Miller)
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Bill and the GDG:
I want to temper my hurried posts.
I first claimed that "Coddington is extremely predjudiced." I had only
read the few pages on the countermarch and did mean to impute his entire
contribution.
Though my second post was accurate in detail, it was filled with typos (I
wanted to reply ASAP to Bill's post)
I also must admit that have not completed the archived text on Longstreet.
Despite these shortcomings, I find this a very intriguing topic that goes
to the crux of the "petulant and punctilious" Longstreet and would like to
continue discussions on the countermarch.
BTW, for those new to this issue like me, there is a fairly good color map
on the GDG home page depicting the countermarch along with excellent posts
on Longstreet's 2nd day. My favorite of which is from Bob Lawrence, "Why
didn't Longstreet's column follow Alexander's wagon wheels that gave him a
yellow brick road avoiding dectection, instead of ordering the
countermarch?"
Kenneth G. Miller kgm@rci.rutgers.edu
From: DPowell334@aol.com
Date: Thu, 29 Feb 1996 17:02:03 -0500
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Ken,
I'd also look at the context of the time frame Coddington wrote those
passages. Accepted historical wisdom found much to fault Longstreet for, more
than Coddington includes, I think. Later scholarship has modified that
approach considerably, but much of that came 10-20 years after Coddington's
publication (1968.)
As I read various authors on this subject in chronological order, I'm struck
by how much opinion has evolved. For instance, had Robert Krick come along in
the 1950's, his take on Longstreet at GB would have seemed harsh but well
founded on historical fact. In the 1990's, however, it seems a throwback, and
scholarship like Garrett Piston's has done much to speed that evolution.
Like you, I'm less convinced that Longstreet was acting improperly than most
accounts accuse him of. On the whole, however, this is a best a minor
contention with Coddington - in fact I, like Bill C., regard the book as a
very fair and evenhanded piece of work overall.
Dave Powell
From: MBRADLEY@MSCC.CC.TN.US
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 14:04:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Thomas Bio of Lee
I am not afraid that I will have to speak in defense of Thomas, I am
pleased to do so. The Thomas bio of Lee is not well rounded but it does focus
on two important, central facts of Lee's personality. Lee was a man who
practiced strict control of himself and only on rare occasions allowed the
inner man to appear. Also, he was a man firmly committed to duty as he saw it.
Lee would have agreed fully with Stonewall that "Duty is the most sublime word
in the English language."
These characteristics of control and duty are a part of Lee's religious
and social heritage; these are the things a Gentleman did at that time and
place. These are characteristics promoted by the Calvinism by which Lee was
guided in his religious devotions. A quick note. Calvinism is not limited to
denominational lables such as Presbyterian. Nineteenth Century Episcopalians,
such as Lee, were generally of the low church, Calvinistic tradition.
Remember, Lee called himself an "evangelical Christian", a term which meant
"Calvinist" then, not what Pat Robertson would have it mean now.
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 14:28:02 -0600
From: jeff beckner
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Not to reopen this endless controversy, but it's worth noting again
Pfanz's excellent point, which no one seems to have thought of before
him. Longstreet, McLaws, their staffs, etc., weren't brain-damaged or
temporarily blinded. The reason is lost to history, but we have to
assume that they determined that there was SOME reason they thought they
would not be able to follow Alexander's tracks.
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 15:12:22 -0700
From: taylord@spot.Colorado.EDU (Deb Taylor)
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Jeff writes:
"Not to reopen this endless controversy, but it's worth noting again
Pfanz's excellent point, which no one seems to have thought of before
him. Longstreet, McLaws, their staffs, etc., weren't brain-damaged or
temporarily blinded. The reason is lost to history, but we have to
assume that they determined that there was SOME reason they thought they
would not be able to follow Alexander's tracks."
If we are still talking about the countermarch...and excuse me if we are
not, Longstreet needed to find a route for his troops that allowed them to
move unobserved by the enemy.
Deb
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 15:03:39 -0600
From: jeff beckner
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Deb Taylor wrote:
> If we are still talking about the countermarch...and excuse me if we are
> not, Longstreet needed to find a route for his troops that allowed them to
> move unobserved by the enemy.
Right -- but any earlier post wondered why Longstreet couldn't have
taken the same route that Alexander obviously had taken, since he
wouldn't have wanted to be observed any more than Longstreet. If it was
good enough for EPA, why wasn't it good enough for Peter? I'm saying
that we'll never know, but there must SOME reason.
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 16:14:23 -0500
From: kgm@rci.rutgers.edu (Ken Miller)
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Hello again on the cannon tracks issue.
Could Longstreet have known how large a movement went down the road ahead
of him?
Did he know that this movement was undetected?
The answer probably is, they saw the tracks and were still concerned that
the troops would be seen if they followed the tracks. I have not seen the
ground (except from the excellent photo on the home page). Is this
reasonable?
Kenneth G. Miller kgm@rci.rutgers.edu
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 15:40:13 -0700
From: taylord@spot.Colorado.EDU (Deb Taylor)
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
>Right -- but any earlier post wondered why Longstreet couldn't have
>taken the same route that Alexander obviously had taken, since he
>wouldn't have wanted to be observed any more than Longstreet. If it was
>good enough for EPA, why wasn't it good enough for Peter? I'm saying
>that we'll never know, but there must SOME reason.
Yes...we will never know.
I just assumed that things had changed by the time Longstreet had to move,
and perhaps, EPA and his limbers took advantage of a "window" that was not
available later.
Deb
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 17:29:22 -0600
From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Hi Ken,
Don't give up on Coddington, it is really a good book. One thing about
discussing these issues on the internet is that whatever you say will get
the scrutiny of over 200 folks who will be more than glad to show you the
error of your ways. Coddington may have had a few people read his drafts
but certainly it hasn't had the "pounding" that stuff here gets. Having
said that, I can't tell you the number of times I have gone to Coddington
and been amazed at his insight and balance. Coddington is using some
license when he talks about giving up command but I just rose to the
"extremely prejudiced" line.
As for the countermarch, it is really a fascinating subject, isn't it? As
you can see from the web page, we have been up and down this road (pun
intended) many times. I may be the last guy in this group who still thinks
Longstreet was not executing with alacrity during this phase of the battle.
I certainly don't believe that he "lost" the Battle of Gettysburg because of
it but I am still resisting what feels like a movement to the position where
Longstreet is not culpable for any of the mistakes made on the field. The
answer is usually in the middle. I note in some of the other posts by the
Longstreet fans on the cannon tracks issue that "we'll never know, but there
must SOME reason". [Jeff] We are really reaching to absolve Longstreet of
any culpability. The pendulum has really swung on this issue. Can we not
believe that the man might have made some mistakes on the field that day?
If Alexander could reconnoiter that route, there is a strong argument that
Longstreet (and/or his staff) could have done it. In fact, Alexander wrote
that he went back and showed the staff where he turned off for goodness
sakes. McLaws and Johnson rode around and then McLaws told Longstreet that
they would have to go back by countermarching. Longstreet agreed to it.
Longstreet was the Lieutenant General. Longstreet was in charge.
Longstreet was responsible. They missed an opportunity. Longstreet agreed
to a time consuming countermarch. I think he is as responsible for that as
anyone could be. Doesn't mean that he was the reason for the Confederate
loss at Gettysburg but why are we trying so hard to absolve him of
everything now?
I know who was on LRT observing and signalling and when and for how long
and I'm sure not aware of any "window that was not available later" [Deb].
How about a little research before we go grasping for straws. If we can
defend Longstreet with guesses now, I'm not to sure we should blame poor ole
Coddington if he makes a few assumptions. Ken, there are some pretty good
primary sources who thought Longstreet was not acting with his usual "fire".
G. Moxley Sorrel was a fan of Longstreet's. He was his Chief of Staff at
Gettysburg. We're not talking about Jubal Early here. Here is what
Longstreet's own Chief wrote, "As Longstreet was not to be made willing and
Lee refused to change or could not change [the plan, awc] the former failed
to conceal some anger. There was apparently apathy in his movements. They
lacked the fire and point of his usual bearing on the battlefield." Sorrel
goes on to state that he thought the loss of the campaign was due to the
absence of Stuart's cavalry but the point is that this loyal officer of
James Longstreet thought that he was moving with "apathy".
As usual, you make some good points in support of your argument but some
of them need a little work. Ole Pete wrote "Under the conduct of the
reconnoitering officer, our march seemed slow- there were some halts and
countermarches. To save time, I ordered the lead division to double on the
front..." and you wrote "He took command once he realized that Johnston was
in over his head (as Johnston freely admitted)". Longstreet moved Hood out of column much later
during the countermarch. They were not following Capt. Johnson at that
point. They were taking the route suggested by McLaws and McLaws was
leading because he asked to and Longstreet had agreed to it way back near
the Black Horse Tavern even though Longstreet had suggested that Hood lead
at that point. In one of your other posts you wrote "Longstreet was in
unfamiliar territory and relied on Captain Johnston (who had been over the
ground) to lead him. I think everyone agrees that Johnston didn't know
where he was going, however, I believe that Johnston had never been down by
Black Horse Tavern. It looks like that he went straight back to the
Seminary after he recrossed the Emmitsburg Road (for us folks who believe he
ever crossed it). Perhaps he should have but we don't know what Lee told
him to do. I'm not sure he was told to reconnoiter a route to get the Corps
around unobserved. I think he went over there looking for the enemy (agree
that he didn't do a very good job of it) but there is a difference.
However, Longstreet had his own Engineer Officer on that recon.
Consequently, I'm slow to blame all this mess on Johnson. Longstreet had an
opportunity to recon this route with his own assets and did not. Longstreet
was the Lieutenant General. Longstreet was... opps, I already said that
didn't I?
Bill
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 22:12:20 -0500
From: Susan & Eric Wittenberg
Subject: Re: Thomas Bio of Lee
At 02:04 PM 3/1/96 -0500, you wrote:
> I am not afraid that I will have to speak in defense of Thomas, I am
>pleased to do so. The Thomas bio of Lee is not well rounded but it does focus
>on two important, central facts of Lee's personality. Lee was a man who
>practiced strict control of himself and only on rare occasions allowed the
>inner man to appear. Also, he was a man firmly committed to duty as he saw
it.
>Lee would have agreed fully with Stonewall that "Duty is the most sublime word
>in the English language."
> These characteristics of control and duty are a part of Lee's religious
>and social heritage; these are the things a Gentleman did at that time and
>place. These are characteristics promoted by the Calvinism by which Lee was
>guided in his religious devotions. A quick note. Calvinism is not limited to
>denominational lables such as Presbyterian. Nineteenth Century Episcopalians,
>such as Lee, were generally of the low church, Calvinistic tradition.
>Remember, Lee called himself an "evangelical Christian", a term which meant
>"Calvinist" then, not what Pat Robertson would have it mean now.
I agree. The other thing that I liked about it, unlike the sainted
figure that Freeman created, is the fact that Thomas does a good job of
showing that Lee was a human being, who put his pants on one leg at a time,
that he had a sense of humor, and that he was a bit of a ladies' man. No
other biography of Lee that I have read, and I've read a few, including
Freeman's, have ever portrayed this human side of the man. As a biographer
myself of a man almost as guarded as Lee, I know from first-hand experience
how difficult this task can be. In my opinion, this makes the book worth
reading in and of itself.
Eric Wittenberg
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 22:07:18 -0500
From: Susan & Eric Wittenberg
Subject: Re: Coddington Extremely Predjudiced?
Dave Powell wrote:
>I'd also look at the context of the time frame Coddington wrote those
>passages. Accepted historical wisdom found much to fault Longstreet for, more
>than Coddington includes, I think. Later scholarship has modified that
>approach considerably, but much of that came 10-20 years after Coddington's
>publication (1968.)
>
>As I read various authors on this subject in chronological order, I'm struck
>by how much opinion has evolved. For instance, had Robert Krick come along in
>the 1950's, his take on Longstreet at GB would have seemed harsh but well
>founded on historical fact. In the 1990's, however, it seems a throwback, and
>scholarship like Garrett Piston's has done much to speed that evolution.
>
>Like you, I'm less convinced that Longstreet was acting improperly than most
>accounts accuse him of. On the whole, however, this is a best a minor
>contention with Coddington - in fact I, like Bill C., regard the book as a
>very fair and evenhanded piece of work overall.
>
>Dave Powell
>
>
I wholeheartedly agree with Dave. For example, if one wants to see
bias, read the Comte de Paris history. Or better still, read some of the
other primary source accounts, like Doubleday's. The only more objective
study of this battle that I have ever seen is Pfanz's work.
Eric Wittenberg
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 10:45:26 -0600
From: lawrence (Dennis Lawrence)
Subject: More Gburg Net Stuff
Greetings :
Someone wrote recently of petitioning C-Span to do Tom Desjardin's book,
_Stand Firm..._ Below is the c-span address for viewer suggestions.
viewer@c-span.org
Other Book related Net material:
Chapter one and table of contents from -
Emory Thomas' _Robert E. Lee:
http://www.psi.net:80/chapterone/cspan/browse/0-393-03730-4.html
David Herbert Donald's _Lincoln_
http://www.psi.net/chapterone/atlanticmonthly/browse/lincoln.html
Kent Gramm's _Gettysburg: A Meditation on War and Values_
http://www.psi.net:80/ChapterOne/upress/browse/meditation.html
Carl Von Clausewitz's _On War_
http://www.psi.net:80/ChapterOne/upress/browse/onwar.html
Member Jim Epperson's ongoing construction of documents relating to the
start of the Civil War.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
Some of you do not have the capability to surf the net. I have downloaded
each of the above book chapters and will gladly e-mail you text versions.
Dennis
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 09:49:25 -0800
From: steveha@ix.netcom.com (Steve Haas)
Subject: Re: Yikes!!
Hey, Bill, I have a question for you. I have a friend in the 33rd
Wisconsin whose premise is that Chamberlain and the 20th Maine would
have been nothing if it hadn't been for Shaara's book. Shaara built
their reputation, for reasons of his own?
I never really thought about this, but it seems right to me. There were
a lot of other actions in the battle with just as much drama. Why the
20th Maine? What do you think?
Steve Haas
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 15:16:41 -0600
From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)
Subject: Re: Yikes!!
Hi Steve,
Obviously, Shaara's book gave the tale a shot in the arm and his work is
responsible for the movie and the resulting current interest. However,
Chamberlain and the 20th Maine had quite a popularity long before Shaara. A
few examples are the fact that the 20th Maine is one of only two regiments
to have their own articles in the Gettysburg section of B&L. Capt. Judson,
in his regimental history of the 83rd Penn., spends almost as much time
talking about the 20th Maine in the Gettysburg chapter as he does the 83rd
Penn. (a real disappointment for me when I bought the book). Also, in my
copy of the 118th Penn. regimental history, I noticed that they had
Chamberlain do the introduction. Pullen's regimental history pre-dates the
Shaara book by several years.
But having said that, Shaara certainly had an impact on the way we see
Chamberlain. As a side note, the U.S. Army had the story of the 20th Maine
printed in their leadership manual for many years. I think it went in there
in the early 80's. I know I read it in 1984 when I was getting ready to
command my battalion. It was influenced by _Killer Angels_ but they used
Pullen's work as their main source. It was a VERY romanticized version. I
used to have to endure versions of this tale told by some pretty senior Army
leaders. The story just got better and better until they practically had
Chamberlain flying down the spur with his bayonet between his teeth.
However, it doesn't hurt to have heros.
Bill
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 15:24:08 -0600 (CST)
From: "James F. Epperson"
Subject: Re: Yikes!!
If I may offer my thoughts (not being Bill ) . . .
I suppose, insofar as the "popular" view is concerned, that Shaara's book
really did "create" the 20th Maine/Chamberlain image. However, Pullen's
book on the 20th Maine predates Shaara's novel by many years, and I
personally first became aware of Chamberlain when I read Bruce Catton's
GLORY ROAD in high school, which was a year I will not reveal here .
Suffice it to say that it also predated Shaara's book. Anyway, Catton's
prose describing the Oates-Chamberlain battle is some of his best (high
praise indeed) and it was here that I was hooked on Chamberlain. In
fact, if truth be known, I bought Shaara's book because I already knew
who Chamberlain was, and wanted to see how this novel developed his story.
Jim Epperson
Message-Id: <960303165706_159013148@emout06.mail.aol.com>
To: gettysburg@appsmiths.com
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 16:57:07 -0500
From: DZouave5@aol.com
Subject: Re: Yikes!!
Bill:
Yes indeed, Pullen's "Twentieth Maine" was really the commencement of the
current fascination with Chamberlain, fueled by Shaara and by the
"Gettysburg" film....
When all is said and done, it is, I think, Chamberlain's postwar writings,
his
vesting of those terrible events with an almost spiritual significance, that
is his
greatest, and perhaps most deserved claim to fame. You know, words such as
"In great deeds something abides" and his appeal to "Generations who know us
not and who we know not of" -- he seems at times to be speaking, or perhaps
preaching, to
those of us who feel drawn to that time, today.
The truth of what happened on LRT is only now emerging -- and if it lessens
Chamberlain's role as a great commander, or a tactical genius, it does not
detract from that other aspect of his life and thought.
Brian
Date: 03 Mar 96 17:18:26 EST
From: Graham.St.John@VALLEY.NET (Graham St. John)
Subject: Re: Yikes!!
I have to say I disagree with you that "The killer Angels" really made the
20th famous. Chamberlain is known, at least to the people I've spoken with as
the union hero of Gettysburg. Another factor, I think is Chamberlains
promotion to Major General by U.S. Grant after he was dying at Petersbur,g and
being the acceptor of the confederate surrender at Appomattox. I think that
Chamberlain himself not the book made the 20th famous.
Graham St. John
From: Dpowell334@aol.com
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 20:17:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Yikes!!
Steve,
I'd argue that Shaara revived an old issue, but he didn't invent it. Norton's
Attack and Defense has a lot to say about Vincent, Chamberlain, et. al.
In fact, however, from a tactical standpoint, Chamberlain's actions with the
20th Maine that afternoon are almost textbook examples of what to do right.
The army routinely focuses on successful small unit actions as learning
tools: actions such as the 20th's are bound to get noticed in that context.
Shaara certainly helped the action catch fire in the popular mind, however -
just as he did with Longstreet. That is, after all, the novelist's job - find
the drama and tell it well.
Dave Powell
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 96 22:38 EST
From: John Kelly
Subject: Re: Yikes!!
At 04:57 PM 3/3/96 -0600, Bill wrote:
>Brian wrote:
>
>>I think, Chamberlain's postwar writings, his vesting of those terrible
>events with an almost spiritual significance, that is his greatest, and
>perhaps most deserved claim to fame.
>
>Hi Brian,
>> Good point. The guy could write couldn't he? The paragraph headings in
>"Through Blood and Fire at Gettysburg" (THE COLORS STAND ALONE; MY LIFE
>HANGS ON AN IMPULSE; THE LAST CARTRIDGE AND BARE STEEL) are enough to make
>me want to stand at attention when I read it.
>Bill
>
>
To Bill and Brian,
It could also be that Chamberlain's action on LRT of extending and refusing
his flank under fire(forget the bayonet charge) was touted as a classic
light infantry maneuver by one of my ROTC instructing officers. If I'm not
mistaken, it is still used in the teaching of infantry tactics at West
Point. At least it was some years ago. The execution of this brilliant
tactic by a self-taught volunteer officer could also have helped his fame
grow in the popular mind. I know it impresses me!
Jack Kelly
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:01:07 -0500
From: thumphri@nafis.fp.trw.com (Thad Humphries)
Subject: Re: Yikes!!
Then US Grant must have read Shaara because he promoted Chamberlain to
brigadier--no brevet, but *real* brigadier--for bravery after Chamberlain
was seriously wounded leading a charge and refusing to leave the field
until he collapsed during (I think) Cold Harbor. Recovering when all
thought he would die, Chamberlain was later brevetted major general and
choosen to receive the surrender of the ANV at Appomattox.
No doubt in my mind that Lawernce and the 20th earned their place, with
or without Shaara. True other units fought bravely but that shouldn't
be used to detract from those with the additional luck of a colorfull
commander.
Thad Humphries
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 11:24:08 -0500
From: thumphri@nafis.fp.trw.com (Thad Humphries)
Subject: Re: Buford Article Posted
> Eric Wittenberg's article "John Buford and the Gettysburg Campaign" has
> been posted. It is accessible from the web site via the _Gettysburg
> Magazine_ link.
Thinking of Buford, I did a Web search on "John Buford" and found a short
bio by a current Buford under his "Great Bufords of History" page. Some
southern Bufords, too. See http://www.gate.net/~rbuford/g_j_buford.html
Thad Humphries
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 21:52 EST
From: John Kelly
Subject: Re: Fog of Battle
At 06:15 PM 3/4/96 +0000, you wrote:
>Norm wrote:
>>Why is a contemporary historian of considerable distinction so
>>determined to continue the rather silly vendettas of 125 years ago?
>
>I think I can answer that, Norm - because he has a lot of fun doing
>it. I've spent a lot of time around Bob Krick, enduring much ribbing
>about being both a North Carolinian and a lawyer (the butts of Bob's
>favorite jokes). He is a wonderful tour guide and an excellent writer,
>but I think he genuinely enjoys getting the Longstreet people riled
>up just for the sake of fun.
>
>Don't get me wrong; I think Bob honestly believes alot of the things
>he says about Longstreet. It's the intensity of his criticism that I
>often believe is done solely for effect. I think anyone who's ever
>met Bob on a tour would understand what I mean; sometimes he seems to
>be having too much fun to be completely serious...
>
This is my feeling, also. Much of the Longstreet bashing is done for effect
at the tours which I have attended with Bob Krick, probably a means of
getting the participants involved. Incidentally, he did the same thing with
Jeb Stuart when he found several members of one tour to be descendants of
the cavalry leader.
Jack Kelly
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 22:00:00 -0800
From: gwjchris@ix.netcom.com (Bill and Glenna Christen )
Subject: Gettysburg map
Ladies and gentlemen...
With much discussion on troop movement and locations I am suggestiing another
map source:
GMT Games has published a board game, "The Three Days of Gettysburg" by Richard
Berg. It is a regimental level simulation of your favorite three days in
history. Even if you have no intention of gaming, the beautifully executed 3' x
4' map (in three sections) will help bring some of our discussions off the tube
and right onto your diningroom table. This will have to do until you can get
out in the field.
The cartographer, Rick Barber, took the terrain data from a recent set of
topographic maps, and from a 1925 map lent to him by a battlefield guide (Dr,
Charles Fennell). The 1868/69 Warren Survey map was used to put in the details
of farmhouses and buildings, fences, and woods. He even had access to a
"triptik" drawn by Jed Hotchiss in the winter of 1863 for a proposed Lee/Jackson
tour. He also spent hundreds of hours roaming the battlefied checking lines of
sight, slopes, and trails. Mr. Barber's great-great uncle got to see the same
sights earlier with the 1st Brigade, 3rd Division, 11th Corps.
So for less than $50 you can get a good map and a bunch of little counters that
you can move around to see just where everybody was, or could have been going.
The set-ups for the different scenarios are a good tool to use to learn the
troop positions and organizations. Unfortunately, there are counters only for
the Brigade and above officers...Oates is left out again. There is a counter
for each regiment and battery. The maps may be available by themselves.
The "he-men" who come over to my house on Thursdays to play the game are into
the afternoon of the first day. The 1lth Corps decided to head straight for
Cemetery Hill and is digging breastworks in front of Culps Hill. While the 1st
Corps slowly retreats back to Cemetery Ridge. Ewell is is being "if
practicable."
Hope you haven't minded this short diversion from our excellent debates. The
address fot GMT is:
PO BOX 1308
Hanford, CA 93232
(800) 523-6111
gmt.games@aol.com
Anyone else playing the game may want to contact me privately.
Bill Christen
gwjchris@ix.netcom.com
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 09:24:06 -0500
From: Scott_Hartwig@nps.gov (Scott Hartwig)
Subject: Gods & Generals
I finally got a chance to sit down with an advance copy of Jeff
Shaara's GODS & GENERALS last night and if I can do this a few
more times and get through it I'll try and pass along some
insightful words. Having read the first 200 pages (out of 500) I
can only make a few comments...
The book stretches from 1858 through Chancellorsville and examines
the war through the experiences of four men - Lee, Jackson,
Chamberlain and Hancock. It attempts to recreate the style of
writing that Michael Shaara used in KILLER ANGELS. The publisher
plans a big send-off around the July 4th weekend but may release
it in time for father's day.
The first 200 pages (at least) is slow going. A good friend who is
quite a connoisseur of Civil War literature gave up at page 132
saying it was too dull. This is especially true of the pre-war
years where Shaara injects tremendously detail into mundane
events making the reader want to skip a dozen pages or so to get
to the exciting, or at least interesting, part.
Shaara does not understand the 19th Century. He uses phrases such
as "big-time" and mentions 20th century constructions such as
potholes. I almost expected the Chamberlains to share a
"high-five". The key to the success of a novel is that the reader
is drawn in to the story almost feeling as if they are there, but
Shaara fails to develop this illusion by missing the little
things. For example, everyone seems to ride everywhere by going to
the depot and taking a coach as if trains weren't invented yet or
were not the primary means of transportation.
Those who have criticized KILLER ANGELS for embellishing events -
i.e. making more of the Hancock and Armistead story than really
occured - will howl at some of GODS & GENERALS' inventions.
Where the elder Shaara took a kernel of truth from a story and
exaggerated it to paint a portrait, the younger Shaara simply
invents circumstances, such as a mythical hunting experience
involving Tom & Josh Chamberlain. Josh once wrote that he was
"unable to shoot a bird in the woods" but Shaara has him pulling
the trigger on a huge buck.
"The devil is in the details" and making a good historical novel
click means getting the small but significant details correct. But
Shaara misses many of these. For example (p. 105)...
"On April 20, the same day Lee sent his letter of resignation to
General Scott, the Virginia Convention, in response to the
President's call for troops voted overwhelmingly to secede from
the Union." The Virginia Convention voted on April 17, something
Lee was well aware of when he penned his resignation three days
later. This may seem a small matter, but given the enormous
amount of attention paid to these three days in Lee's life it
strains credibility to miss such a point.
In reference to Chamberlain (whom I know more of than the other
three main characters) Shaara obviously did not delve deeply, if
at all, into the relationships of the Maine people he writes of.
One example - he places Chamberlain in the governor's office
having to be introduced to Adj. Gen. Hodsdon, a man he had known
for years. This and other such faux pas show that the author did
little in the way of homework.
In short, the book (thus far at least) does not have the pull that
KILLER ANGELS had on its readers. Partly because it is about less
rivetting events and partly because the younger author failed to
understand the people, events, and atmosphere of which he writes.
When more time allows more reading I'll try to provide more
information.
Tom Desjardin
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 09:25:03 -0500
From: Scott_Hartwig@nps.gov (Scott Hartwig)
Subject: 4th Alabama Book
Jeff Stocker just walked in and presented his new book on the 4th
Alabama (Law's brigade). It is the memoirs of R.T. Coles, the
adjutant of the regiment.
Ed Bearss - "Coles's History, edited by Jeffrey Stocker, is a
fourfold barnburner. It is a story of one of the Confederacy's
premier fighting units. Coles was there, and his manuscript, never
before published, tells it like it was. Unlike too many post-Civil
War regimentals and reminiscences it is graceful, narrative
history at its best, while stocker's notes inform but do not
overwhelm."
I have read Coles' Gettysburg manuscript and found it VERY
interesting.
From Huntsville to Appomattox: R.T. Coles' History of the 4th
Regiment, Alabama Volunteer Regiment.
University of Tennessee Press (Voices of the CW series)
ISBN 0-87049-924-6 316 pages, photos, notes, index.
$32.95.
It is kind of a bright green color on the shelf.
Tom Desjardin
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 1996 11:54:26 -0500
From: thumphri@nafis.fp.trw.com (Thad Humphries)
Subject: To Hold This Ground
Here's a book recommendation for kids about 5th thru 8th grades: _To
Hold This Ground_ by Susan Provost Beller (in hard cover, Simon &
Schuster, 1995, ISBN 0-689-50621, about 90 pages). It tells about the
fight at Little Round Top between the 20th Maine and 15th Alabama. What
makes the book so good it that it alternates telling the story between
Chamberlain and Oates. It traces each officer's career before the war,
talks about how each regiment was raised, what the regiments did prior
to Gettysburg, the fight, then a brief looks at the rest of the war. It
ends with a look at both Chamberlain and Oates post-war lives. Very
good, very balanced. A fine tribute to all engaged.
Thad Humphries
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 23:14:26 EST
From: MS. EILEEN MURPHY
Subject: GETTYSBURG TRAILHEAD GRAPHICS MAP
TO ALL GDG MEMBERS....
I first became acquainted with a Trailhead Graphics Map on a trip to
Shiloh National Military Park about a year ago. I was so impressed by it,
that I wrote the company and asked if they had one on Gettysburg. I
received a cordial note in response informing me they planned to publish
their Gettysburg map in Summer of '95 (which they did) and a series of
16-18 similar type CW battlefield maps in the future. A wonderful feature
of these maps is that they are printed on a special waterproof, tear-proof
material. (Great for those slightly damp/torrential downpour days we
sometimes experience exploring the sacred ground!)
The Gettysburg map includes complete listings and locations of the
over 430 monuments and 410 markers and tablets on the field, the Order of
Battle, and detailed maps of Cemetery Ridge, the Valley of Death, Devil's
Den, the Wheatfield and the East Cavalry Battlefield.
You can order the Gettysburg map ($8.95 plus postage and handling) by
writing to:
Trailhead Graphics, Inc.
P.O. Box 472991
Aurora, CO 80047
(303) 766-7015
Other Trailhead CW battlefield maps currently available are:
#101 Kennesaw Mountain NBP $6.95
#102 Shiloh NMP $6.95
#103 Wilson's Creek NB $6.95
#104 Gettysburg NMP $8.95
(Fredericksburg was to be published early fall of '95).
Postage and handling (All maps shipped USPS) prices are:
1 map $1.00
2-4 maps $3.00
5-10 maps $4.00
11+ maps $5.00
I've also seen them being sold at The Horse Soldier and various other
shops in and around the Gettysburg area.
Eileen M. Murphy
From:
Hello group!
While on a trek to the big city I found a book at Borders on
Gettysburg written for children entitled "Thunder at
Gettysburg". The author is Patricia Lee Gauch and there
are many fine black and white illustrations by Stephen Gammell.
The book was originally published in 1974 and this paperback
edition was printed in 1994.
The book views the battle of Gettysburg through the eyes of a
young girl who,on July 1 is sent by her parents in the burg to
the nearby Weikert farm to escape the impending battle but finds
herself in the middle of the battle as it ranges around the
Weikert farm on July 2d
The book is very engrossing. My wife read it to our son and
daughter tonight and my wife (who is not a Gettysburg
afficiando(although she did cry at Picketts charge during the
movie)) got teary eyed.I had already read the book to the kids
before and they still loved it. I highly recommend it.
According to the author the book was based on the book written by
Tillie Pierce Alleman in 1889 entitled "At Gettysburg. Or What I
saw and heard at the Battle of Gettysburg". I presume that Ms.
Alleman along with many other civilians were in the house as the
battle raged on. Can any of our in-house (pardon the poor pun)
experts expound as to the fighting around the Weikert house and
the civilians inside?
One last note, in the book the author refers to:
" Soldiers were running down from the gap next to Little
Round Top - Rebel Soldiers."
Is the gap referred to part of the fiction or is there a gap? If
the latter,where is the gap located ? Maybe one of you could
point it out to me at 6am 6/1/96.
Thanks for your help.
Michael Gallagher
From:
Mike wrote:
One last note, in the book the author refers to:
" Soldiers were running down from the gap next to Little
Round Top - Rebel Soldiers."
Is the gap referred to part of the fiction or is there a gap? If
the latter, where is the gap located ? Maybe one of you could
point it out to me at 6am 6/1/96.
Thanks for your help.
Michael Gallagher
Mike, One can assume that she is talking about the "gap" between
the two Round Tops. Not sure "gap" is the best description but
it makes sense to me.
Bill
From:
At 09:49 AM 4/17/96 -0500, you wrote:
Brent D Gaddie says:
I am currently researching and writing a paper on the 20th
Maine's action at Gettysburg. I was wondering if anyone has any
information about where I could find a roster of combats and
casualties for the 20th during Gettysburg. Thank You.
You should start by reading Stand Firm Ye Boys from Maine - The
20th Maine and the Gettysburg Campaign by Thomas A. Desjardins
Gettysburg, Pa. (1995) 239 pages, photos, maps $28.00
You can obtain it from Thomas Publications, or from Guidon Books
( that's me)L
Gordon Dudley
Guidon Books
7117 West Main Street
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
(602) 945-8811
(602) 946-0521 Fax
http://www.guidon.com
Brent:
Also from the U. S. Civil War Center site there are two contacts
for some information on the 20th Maine. The e-mail address are:
ptamas@fnx.com (20th ME Infantry) or ENordfors@aol.com (20th ME
Inf'y Vols. Co.A and 20th ME Sharpshooters Co.B). These
individuals are listed under the regiments contact list. I have
not attempted contacting anyone on that list. Hope it helps.
Jess
From: "John A. Leo"
Does anyone know the history and relationships among the
Bachelder, Warren, and Cope Maps of the Battlefield? Were the
later two derived wholely or partially from the Bachelder map?
Are there disagreements among them? How critically have they
been examined for completeness and accuracy?
How does the Trailhead map compare with these three?
THANKS for the help and ideas.
John Leo
From:
John,
Frassanito in his new book Early Photography at Gettysburg
does for cartography of the Adams county/Gettysburg area, what he
has been doing for years for Gettysburg photos; ie he gives an
exhaustive in depth analysis of the various maps of Gettysburg.
He explains their origins, descent and relationships to earlier
maps, and their influence in the creation of later maps that
followed. I don't have time right now to specifically answer your
questions. If you don't want to buy the book or can't locate it
where you are, post back and I will excerpt the specific answers
you inquire about.
For now, let me give you specific citations:
Table of contents: "Early Cartography and the Gettysburg
Battlefield" (pg7-19)pg 10: Heading: Post-Battle Cartography,
Subheading: The 1863 Cope Map. pg 14: The Bachelder Isometrical
Map. pg 16: The Warren Map.
(a quick quote from the above to give you a 'taste' of the
information...from pg 17:)
"The potential afforded by the Warren map's unparalleled detail
and cartographic accuracy was fully appreciated by John B.
Bachelder, who in 1874 arranged with the War Department to
produce three reduced-scale versions of the map, one for each
day's fighting and incorporating Bachelder's extensive research
data concerning troop positions.
The publication of the latter project in 1876 would for all
practical purposes, signal the obsolescence of Bachelder's
"isometrical drawing" as the most uthoritative map of the
battlefield available to the public.'
Terry Moyer
From:
John, you wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to supply the info Terry. I'll find
and purchase the book. But how does this fellow COPE fit into
all this. By implication, he must have followed Warren's
work.
John Leo
I can understand your confusion regarding Emmor B. Cope and the
chronology of the maps of the Gettysburg battlefield. When the
Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association ceded their holdings
to the U.S. Government, a 3 man commission was appointed by the
War Department to oversee the development of the military Park.
In addition to the 3 man commission (one of the original
commissioners being John B. Bachelder) an appointment was also
made naming Cope as the official civil engineer of the park. To
quote Frassanito once again (pg 11):
"More than one of the detailed maps of the Gettysburg National
Military Park produced about the turn of the century wee rendered
under Cope's direct supervision, much of the work being done by
Cope personally."
Cope DID perform the first official U.S. Army survey of the
battlefield in 1863. I don't know what book you are studying
right now, which has apparently aroused your interest in the
subject of the cartography of the field. Whatever references you
are seeing in the book, that concern Cope, it is probably his
later (much later - circa 1893 until his death in 1927)
association with the Gettysburg Park Commission that is confusing
you about map chronologies.
Cope had a great influence on the construction of the park
"...designing and constructing the numerous government tablest,
bridges, towers, etc.,which to this day still adorn the
best-marked battlefield in the world."
Cope outlived the 3 commissioners and upon the death of the
last commissioner he became the first superintendent of the GNMP.
He died in 1927 and is buried in Evergreen Cemetery.
(For those taking the Cemetery tour at the muster, Copes grave
will be one of the stops; as well as the final resting place of
David Wills and John Burns)
At the battle of Gettysburg, Cope was part of Warren's staff
and according to Frassanito, he was assigned to make an official
survey of the Gettysburg Battlefield for the U.S. army. This is
the origin of the 1863 map.
Frassanito devotes almost 20 pages to outlining the pedigrees
of the various maps of the field. The topic, like the rest of
Frass' book is extremely interesting and enlightening. To explain
the relationships of Cope's, Warrens, and Bachelder's maps would
require typing in almost everything Frassanito has to say. I hope
what little I have outlined here will at least orient you a bit
to how the maps all fit together.
Warrens map was produced by an all new survey of the field,
commenced in 1868. There were some inaccuracies in the resulting
maps, involving tenants in houses at the time of the survey vs
during the battle. Also new construction was included on the
maps, etc. Bachelder used the Warren maps as the base maps for
his troop movement diagrams, and corrected some of the data on
the maps where the errors were known. Bachelders maps were
produced in 1876 and these are the ones that Morningside ships
with Volume 1 of the Bachelder Papers.
I can't recommend Frass' book Early Photograpy at Gettysburg
highly enough. It belongs on every Gburg afficianos'
bookshelf.
Terry Moyer
From:
>>>Please froward to any appropriate groups/e-mail addresses<<
The FRIENDS OF THE NATIONAL PARKS AT GETTYSBURG have funded a
project at the Gettysburg battlefield which will create detailed
topographical maps showing hour-by-hour troop positions and
movements. These maps will show period treelines, farms, and
fences, and will accompany a printed reference volume.
The projected completion date is September 1996.
These maps will aid the Park staff in interpreting the battle
while also aiding the FRIENDS and other preservation groups
by providing clear, concise, and useful information on the
land over which the first day was fought.
Anyone who can provide specific information that can help
identify positions and movements of troops, or any other
pertinent data may contact as below:
Library, Gettysburg National Park, Gettysburg, PA 17325
Your help will be greatly appreciated.
tomdesjardin@nps.gov
From:
Tom,
I am aware of many more signal stations than I have ever seen
located on any map. Are you interested in identifying the signal
stations? If so, I will be glad to provide that information.
There were several stations for day one and many more for the
other two days.
Bill
From:
Dear Thad and Ken,
Another Gettysburg book for children is from the "Great Battles"
series entitled "Gettysburg", authored by William West and
published by the World Publishing Company in 1966. The book
features many color and b/w photos of toy soldier and military
miniature dioramas. The Library of Congress catalog card # is
66-15989. The book is, unfortunatley, biased toward the Union,
as illustrated by the following photo caption:
"Buford's cavalry is made up of tough, hard- fighting men.
They will give these brazen Rebels the welcome they
deserve..."
Another book I have recently purchased for my children is "The
Battle of Gettysburg" authored by Niel Johnson which is
illustrated with photographs from the 125th anniversary
reenactment. The book was published by Simon and Schuster Books
for Young Readers in 1989.
For those of the group that might be interested in recreating
Gettysburg or other Civil War battles with their children, the
German toy company, Playmobil, makes a series of Civil War toy
soldiers including a Union Artillery set, a Confederate
artillery set, a union cavalry set and a confederate set "the
Virginia Mountain Boys" which includes a covered wagon. These
toys are multi colored hard plastic and come with many
interchargeable accesories and weapons. They are not exactly
historically accurate but they are very attractive and alot of
fun for the kids (and dad too). My son's favorite piece is a
union general which he has named General Buford, even though the
toy, with its gray beard, looks more like General Lee in a blue
uniform.
Michael Gallagher
From:
Thad wrote:
Sounds like a good idea for a open post discussion. I would
recommend two--for a abbreviated one, check the GB web pages.
They've one extracted from somewhere (I can't recall) but it's
very good, readable, and you can't beat the price (unless you try
to access it by cell phone while on the drive instead of printing
it). I take the Army War College's guide book with me (authors?).
It, and the one for Fredricksburg-Chancellorsville-Wilderness are
very nice. Clear directions, explainations, and excerpts from
battle reports. I wish they took their students more places so
they would write more books!
Thad,
I believe that Ken was talking about a "air burning" guide but
since you brought but the Army War College Guide, I can give you
some information about it. It was written by Professor Jay
Luvaas and Col. (later Brig. Gen.) Harold Nelson. There are
several other guides by the same two fellows.
Frededricksburg-Chancellorsville... (as you mentioned)
and South Mountain-Antietam. I know they were working on Atlanta
and another fellow was doing Shilo in the same format.
Both of these individuals are truly great Civil War
historians.
Jay recently retired and is living in Carlisle and I believe that
general Nelson just retired also. As a War College grad, I spent
a lot of time visiting the battlefields with these two gentlemen
and they are friends of mine. You can't do much better for a
detailed guide using first hand accounts.
Bill
From:
Pat -
There are two books which are good descriptions of the
hospitals and other aftermath events and issues.
1) A VAST SEA OF MISERY - re: hospitals
2) A STRANGE AND BLIGHTED LAND - re: aftermath as a whole
Both are by Greg Coco and both are available through Thomas
publications - 1-800-840-6782.
Tom
From:
In his 1987 Oxford U Press "Ghosts of the Confederacy" - a great
book - Gaines M Foster sees a specific role for B&L.
"The single most important series in the new journalistic homage
to the South appeared in The Century between 1884 & 1887. Its 'B
& L of the CW' presented a wide-ranging history of the conflict
in a series of articles by authors from both sides. 'No time
could be fitter,' the editors maintained in introducing the
series, 'for a publication of this kind than the present, when
the passions and prejudices of the CW have nearly faded out
of politics, and its heroic events are passing into our common
history where motives will be weighed without malice, and valor
praised without distinction of uniform.' The editors worked hard,
however, to ensure that the series engendered no passions or
prejudices of the war. They rejected the proposed title of 'Men &
Events' because 'events' might have suggested they 'were going
into, say, the condition and actions of the freedmen - the
Emancipation Proclamation - and other events not connected with
battles.' These "political questions" were the very questions
they wanted to avoid.
To promote reconciliation, the editors instead stressed 'the
contemplation of sacrifice, resourcefulness, and bravery in
foes.' They instructed authors to 'give the non-military reader a
vivid idea of the actual conflict of arms - of the picturesque
features of the battle, special incidents of gallant conflict, in
short the characteristics of the engagement - its color as well
as its form.' Everything, a cynic might add, but its cause and
its gore. In giving 'the characteristics of the engagement,' the
editors added, authors should avoid the 'official report style'
and 'give, as it were in fatigue dress, such facts as you would
be likely to state if you should set out to the tell the story of
the battle to your own family about your fireside.'
The articles in the two-year series, therefore, ignored or
soft-pedaled divisive issues and instead emphasized the
experience of battle itself. Southerners welcomed them for that
reason and because they provided additional testimony of northern
respect for southern military efforts.
Ben Maryniak
From:
On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, kgm@rci.rutgers.edu (Ken Miller) wrote:
kgm@rci.rutgers.edu (Ken Miller) says:
Dave Navarre <73613.1150@compuserve.com> says:
suzanne wrote:
"The stone was is there, in real life, now as we speak. I think
the vets of the battle erected it to show where there line
was..."
I understand that neither of the stone walls on Vincent's
Spur accurately reflect the line of the 20th Maine (see Tom's map
in the back of his book), and were erected by the caretakers of
the battlefield, not the vets (some of whom may have been miffed
by the impression that they had a nice three-foot wall to hide
behind and pick off Johnny Reb.)
Dave N
Hi Dave and Suzanne:
I believe Tom's book makes this point also. I was wondering
where Burns filmed the wall that appearred in series.
This is important in the sense that Burn's image is the only one
the average person will carry away about JLC and the 20th ME's
repulse, and they go away thinking the 20th Me was dug in
behind fat rocks on the high ground. It ain't true. The wall
was not there. Note howerver, that a wall was used by Co. B. They
fired at Oates treating men from the stone wall down the hill.
The one down by Co. B looked remarkably like the one in the
film.
Ken
Kenneth G. Miller kgm@rci.rutgers.edu
Professor of Geological Sciences
Wright Lab Room 246, Taylor Rd.
Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ 08855
ph 908 445 3622 fax 908 445 3374
http://www-rci.rutgers.edu/~geolweb/
"It isn't faith that makes good science, it is curiosity." The
Day the Earth Stood Still
Dave, Suzanne, Ken and Others in GDG,
It is important that you noted that "...Burn's image is the only
one the average person will carry away about JLC and the 20th
ME's repulse..." and it is unfortunately true. There are many
problems with Burns' Civil War series episode dealing with
Gettysburg. Many are noted in a relativelynew book edited
by Brent Toplin entitled Ken Burns's The Civil War, Historians
Respond. The use of out of context photography is noted and
discussed by several of the contributors. Of course Tom
Desjardin's Stand Firm points out in Chapter 6 that modern film
(via Shaara's Killer Angels) has contributed to perpetuating
two major myths about the 20th ME at LRT. First, Tom dispells the
myth that the charge of the 20th Maine was an orderly "parade
ground maneuver". Secondly, he shows that Chamberlain probably
never ordered a charge at least not as has been depicted. Not to
be overlooked either is Glenn LaFantasie's The Other Man which
focuses more on the actions of the 15th AL Regiment than on
the 20th ME.
Another work which deals with misconceptions about the popular
historical myths is Gettysburg, A Meditation on War & Values by
Kent Gramm. His chapter entitled 'The Round Tops' is
excellent.
None of these works point out that Burns misquoted Col. William
C. Oates, commander of the 15th Alabama Regiment. By quoting only
sentence fragments Burns and some other writers ignore that Oates
ordered a retreat that was simultaneous to the 'charge' of the
20th ME. In his book that accompanied the television series
Burns also misquoted Col. Oates. He not only repeated the
misquote regarding Oates' retreat order but 'manufactured'
another. Burns on page 221 'quotes' Oates as having said:
"Within half an hour I could convert Little Round Top (sic) into
a Gibraltar that I could hold against ten times the number of men
that I had"
It is difficult to know exactly where this quote was supposed to
have originated since Burns did not provide proper referencing.
However, Oates only published two accounts of his actions at LRT.
The first entitled Gettysburg- The Battle on the Right in 1878 in
the Southern Historical Society Papers. In that paper Oates noted
the potential value of BIG ROUND TOP as an artillery position.
Oates' other account of Gettysburg was in his The War Between
the Union and the Confederacy published in 1905. This seems to be
the source for Burns' 'quote' of Col. Oates. On page 212 Oates
says:
"Within half an hour I could convert it into a Gibraltar that I
could hold against ten times the number of men that I had, hence
in my judgement it should be held and occupied by artillery as
soon as possible, as it was higher than the other mountain and
would command the entire field."
Here Burns' misquoted by surgically deleting the portion of the
sentence that made it clear that Oates was talking about BIG
ROUND TOP. Burn's compounded that error by inserting the phrase
"Little Round Top" before he passes this off as a quotation.
Other examples of such 'quotes' are legion in the PBS Civil War
series. Indeed it is unfortunate that many will accept Burns'
work without further serious and obviously needed study.
Terry Jackson
From:
Greetings:
I think the erors in Burns series need to be addressed, but I
wouldn't want the value of the series to be equated with number
of errors found. The work is powerful statement of the way this
generation views the war - or is asked to view the war. I think
it is quite scholarly in that respect. Sometimes its
accessibility to a large audience overshadows this aspect.
The following is a brief bit of a review of a Jim Cullen's , THE
CIVIL WAR IN POPULAR CULTURE: A REUSABLE PAST. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1995. X, 253 pp. Notes and index.
$29.95. It was reviewed by Richard Lowry, College of William and
Mary,on H-CIVWAR.
Anyone desiring the entire review may e-mail me - it is rather
lengthy forposting.
Dennis
"Ken Burns was not simply describing the Civil War; he was also
using it to make statements about the present" (Cullen, p. 13).
In other words, on one level his documentary made a historical
event ideologically "usable": for instance, his largely
unromantic stress on the passions, loss, and social upheavals of
the Civil War spoke to an audience eager to put in the past an
equally traumatic, if materially less devastating, war in
Vietnam. On another level, what he was doing was "reusing" (to
appropriate the subtitle of the book) a Civil War that had
already been "used" by previous popular forms (i.e., "The
Twilight Zone") and of course making his version available to
future "users."
This is a very provocative idea for a number of reasons.
First, it offers a way to take seriously popular versions of
the past -- Cullen discusses novels like GONE WITH THE WIND,
films, rock music, and reenactors -- as culturally vital
historical interpretations. Second, as Cullen tries to
demonstrate, the idea of a reusable past applies equally well
to "professional" or "academic" historians: no matter how
carefully we (I put myself in this group) work toward accuracy
and objectivity, we still participate in the "myth-making," or
ideological, process of making the past into an image of the
present. In short, as cultural products, popular and scholarly
versions of the past are very closely related.
Take Care
Dennis
From:
Ashokan Farewell, the Ken Burns Civil War theme, was written by
the musician who recorded most of that soundtrack - I believe Jay
Ungar is his name. It's a little town next to a reservoir of the
same name in the Catskills near Kingston NY.
Ben Maryniak
