Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1

    Gettysburg on the front page

    Bravo to DBR for putting a diagram of Picketts charge on the front page. An important moment in American history!

    If you have not visited the battlefield in recent years, do anything in your power to get there. The Park Service has done AMAZING things in restoring the battlefield, rebuilding fences and replanting orchards and cutting down many trees that were not there at the time of the battle... you really can get a feel for the battle now, as opposed to some years ago when you might have found yourself wondering "Wait... I can't see the Round Tops, there are too many trees... why on earth would they do that?"

  2. #2
    Last time I was there, I remember commenting that it must have been difficult to fight around all the monuments scattered everywhere...
    "There can BE only one."

  3. #3
    I agree. But first, read Sharra's Gods and Generals. It makes the battlefield come to life.
    ~rthomas

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO.
    Quote Originally Posted by rthomas View Post
    I agree. But first, read Sharra's Gods and Generals. It makes the battlefield come to life.
    Wrong book. "Gods & Generals" is by Jeff Shaara and takes place before Gettysburg.

    I think you're referencing "The Killer Angels" by his father, Michael Shaara. That book is about Gettysburg, and is a great, quick read.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by rockymtn devil View Post
    Wrong book. "Gods & Generals" is by Jeff Shaara and takes place before Gettysburg.

    I think you're referencing "The Killer Angels" by his father, Michael Shaara. That book is about Gettysburg, and is a great, quick read.
    You are correct.
    ~rthomas

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    York, PA

    new visitors center

    Also, the park just opened a brand new visitors center which I hear is really awesome. If you were ever at the old one, you may remember the electric map. That's gone to storage somewhere although there's a group trying to raise money to reassemble and display it somewhere.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by rockymtn devil View Post
    Wrong book. "Gods & Generals" is by Jeff Shaara and takes place before Gettysburg.

    I think you're referencing "The Killer Angels" by his father, Michael Shaara. That book is about Gettysburg, and is a great, quick read.
    Does it matter which one you read first? I started with "Gods & Generals" though was so bored with it I put it down. Have seen more about the Civil War on the History Channel recently so thought about picking G&G back up again.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Denver, CO.
    Quote Originally Posted by TillyGalore View Post
    Does it matter which one you read first? I started with "Gods & Generals" though was so bored with it I put it down. Have seen more about the Civil War on the History Channel recently so thought about picking G&G back up again.
    I don't think it matters what order you read them in (there's a third called "The Last Full Measure", IIRC, that I haven't read). Michael Shaara is a better writer than Jeff, so "The Killer Angels" is a better book than "G&Gs". "The Killer Angels" is also less audacious--it tackles one battle as opposed to trying to keep you interested over the course of several that all end the same way.

    If you're interested in reading one of them, try "The Killer Angels". I think it won a Pulitzer for fiction and I know it was the basis for the movie "Gettysburg".

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by rockymtn devil View Post
    I don't think it matters what order you read them in (there's a third called "The Last Full Measure", IIRC, that I haven't read). Michael Shaara is a better writer than Jeff, so "The Killer Angels" is a better book than "G&Gs". "The Killer Angels" is also less audacious--it tackles one battle as opposed to trying to keep you interested over the course of several that all end the same way.

    If you're interested in reading one of them, try "The Killer Angels". I think it won a Pulitzer for fiction and I know it was the basis for the movie "Gettysburg".

    Thanks for the input, I'll pick up "TKA".

  10. #10

    Gettysburg and "The Charge"

    I enjoy the map on the main page showing the charge often referred to as "Pickett'sCharge". It is always a thrill to see the intersection of 2 of my passions...Duke basketball and Civil War history. I must take this opportunity to note that your caption, Pickett's Charge" is historically consistent, but not quite accurate and given my personal NC heritage, needs some explaining.

    Fact is, Pickett was one of 3 Division Commanders selected to advance on the Union line that day. (Pettigrew and Trimble were the others). The 3 Genrerals were assigned to Corps commander Longstreet for the attack. Only Pickett had been under Longstreet prior to this event. The other 2 had been under the now incapacitated Hill. Note that Pickett was not the superior officer on the field (Longstreet was) and the other Divion commanders reported to Longstreet also.

    Pickett led a largely Virginian force, while the other forces led NC, Miss, and other infantry from other states into battle. I am not certain, but I believe the Virginian contingent was less than a third of the total...the NC group may have been larger.

    After the battle, and indeed after the war, the southern press was dominated by Virginians. The lore they perpetuated was that Pickett was in charge, the attack was made by Virginians, and the "support" troops from other states did not do their job. Hence, the attack became known as Pickett's charge.

    Since it was an attack at a walk and not a charge, and Pickett commanded less than a third of the men, it might more appropriately be referred to as Longstreet's attack, or Pickett, Pettigrew and Trimble's advance.

    Therefore, in honor of the NC soldiers and leader who participated, (Now you know where Pettigrew street in Durham got its name), I beseech DBR to lead the journalistic "charge" to rectify this wrong. I ask that you continue displying such historical maps ...but lets rename this event!!


    Thanks!

    A Dukie and Durhamite!

  11. #11

    Gwtw

    Quote Originally Posted by Atldukie79 View Post
    I enjoy the map on the main page showing the charge often referred to as "Pickett'sCharge". It is always a thrill to see the intersection of 2 of my passions...Duke basketball and Civil War history. I must take this opportunity to note that your caption, Pickett's Charge" is historically consistent, but not quite accurate and given my personal NC heritage, needs some explaining.

    Fact is, Pickett was one of 3 Division Commanders selected to advance on the Union line that day. (Pettigrew and Trimble were the others). The 3 Genrerals were assigned to Corps commander Longstreet for the attack. Only Pickett had been under Longstreet prior to this event. The other 2 had been under the now incapacitated Hill. Note that Pickett was not the superior officer on the field (Longstreet was) and the other Divion commanders reported to Longstreet also.

    Pickett led a largely Virginian force, while the other forces led NC, Miss, and other infantry from other states into battle. I am not certain, but I believe the Virginian contingent was less than a third of the total...the NC group may have been larger.

    After the battle, and indeed after the war, the southern press was dominated by Virginians. The lore they perpetuated was that Pickett was in charge, the attack was made by Virginians, and the "support" troops from other states did not do their job. Hence, the attack became known as Pickett's charge.

    Since it was an attack at a walk and not a charge, and Pickett commanded less than a third of the men, it might more appropriately be referred to as Longstreet's attack, or Pickett, Pettigrew and Trimble's advance.

    Therefore, in honor of the NC soldiers and leader who participated, (Now you know where Pettigrew street in Durham got its name), I beseech DBR to lead the journalistic "charge" to rectify this wrong. I ask that you continue displying such historical maps ...but lets rename this event!!


    Thanks!

    A Dukie and Durhamite!
    As a southerner born and raised I don't like any mention of the civil war. I'll bet I have seen Gone With The Wind 100 times, and those damn yankees win every single time I watch it! Just once I want to see those carpet baggers get yanked off that carriage and get a foot stuck up their....mason dixon line!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Reading Killer Angels then visiting the battlefield is just an incredible experience. It really comes to life, sounds like the new work by the park service will enhance that even more.

    For Shaara family fans, the first book on the Revolutionary war period was pretty good as well. I also liked his book on the Mexican war, in part b/c it follows the early careers of people who will go on to play roles in the "period of Northern aggression."

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Durham, within a couple of miles of Cameron
    It may not be the most annotated article, but in this month's Our State magazine, there is a summary of the Gettysburg conflict of the North Carolina units' experience. Apparently 12,000 NC soldiers participated, and suffered 5,000 casualties. Also the 55th Regiment started Pickett's Charge with 120 men, and ended with only 40, some of whom actually made it to the wall and past it, allowing NC to claim to be the 'farthest at Gettysburg'. Oh well.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio

    Insight from a participant

    My gg-grandfather was a Confederate cavalry trooper (16th Virginia Cavalry) who fought in the Cavalry battle that took place at the same time as Pickett's Charge - 2 or 3 miles away if I remember correctly.

    A few years back I received an email from someone who stumbled across the picture I have of my gg-grandfather on my website - he's the elderly gentleman that's seated in this photo:

    http://www.glengallagher.com/labantfam.htm

    The man that contacted told me that his father - then 90+ years old - remembered by gg-grandfather very well. He said "Old Man Thompson" stayed in their home in Missouri in the 1920's when he was visiting in the area.

    I asked him if he would talk to his father to find out what my gg-grandfather might have discussed regarding his Civil War activities.

    Turns out that 90+ year old man remembered quite well what happened whenever the subject of the Civil War came up.

    He said that "Old Man Thompson" was never willing to talk about his experience in the War.

    So just like you quite often hear from the veterans of our contemporary wars, there's really not any easy way to communicate the actual experience to someone who was not there.

    Glen

  15. #15

    "Lee's charge"

    Quote Originally Posted by Atldukie79 View Post
    I enjoy the map on the main page showing the charge often referred to as "Pickett'sCharge". It is always a thrill to see the intersection of 2 of my passions...Duke basketball and Civil War history. I must take this opportunity to note that your caption, Pickett's Charge" is historically consistent, but not quite accurate and given my personal NC heritage, needs some explaining.

    Fact is, Pickett was one of 3 Division Commanders selected to advance on the Union line that day. (Pettigrew and Trimble were the others). The 3 Genrerals were assigned to Corps commander Longstreet for the attack. Only Pickett had been under Longstreet prior to this event. The other 2 had been under the now incapacitated Hill. Note that Pickett was not the superior officer on the field (Longstreet was) and the other Divion commanders reported to Longstreet also.

    Pickett led a largely Virginian force, while the other forces led NC, Miss, and other infantry from other states into battle. I am not certain, but I believe the Virginian contingent was less than a third of the total...the NC group may have been larger.

    After the battle, and indeed after the war, the southern press was dominated by Virginians. The lore they perpetuated was that Pickett was in charge, the attack was made by Virginians, and the "support" troops from other states did not do their job. Hence, the attack became known as Pickett's charge.

    Since it was an attack at a walk and not a charge, and Pickett commanded less than a third of the men, it might more appropriately be referred to as Longstreet's attack, or Pickett, Pettigrew and Trimble's advance.

    Therefore, in honor of the NC soldiers and leader who participated, (Now you know where Pettigrew street in Durham got its name), I beseech DBR to lead the journalistic "charge" to rectify this wrong. I ask that you continue displying such historical maps ...but lets rename this event!!


    Thanks!

    A Dukie and Durhamite!


    Great summary. The only quibble I would have would be the suggestion that since Longstreet was in overall command of the three divisions that attacked Cemetary Ridge that afternoon, it maybe should be termed "Longstreet's charge."

    Longstreet strenuously objected to Lee's order to mount the attack, but was overruled by Lee, who insisted that he assault the middle of the line (Lee believing that the previous days attack on the Union left -- Little Round Top and the Peach Orchard -- and the previous night's battle on the Union right -- Culp's Hill -- would weaken the Union center). Longstreet objected to the entire battle, arguing instead that the Confederate Army should find a vital position somewhere between the Union Army and Washington and invite an attack. He had come to realize that in the age of rifled muskets, the side on the tactical defensive had a huge advantage over the side on the tactical offensive. Before the entire campaign, he and Lee had met and agreed (so Longstreet thought) that the Army of Northern Virginia would act on the strategic offensive and the tactical defensive. When Lee ordered a frontal assault over a mile of open ground against the unbroken Union line, Longstreet was aghast and did everything he could to protest his orders.

    Obviously, Longstreet was right and Lee was wrong. To his credit, Lee accepted reponsibility, apologized to his surviving troops and wrote in his own post-war account that he was guilty of the hubris of believing that his troops could sweep all before them.

    Okay, the problem comes from postwar politics. Lee is the sainted martyr of the Southern Cause, while Longstreet, in an effort to heal the wounds of the war, joins the Republican Party and becomes a traitor in the eyes of the "Lost Cause" mythologists (led by Jubal Early). They can't admit that in the pivotal moment of the war, their hero is disastrously wrong, while the man they hate with a passion was absolutely right. So we get a massive attempt to re-write the battle and blame Longsteet for all manners of failures and mistakes at Gettysburg.

    I guess my point is that we should not compound that mythology by labeling the charge he fought so passionately as "Longstreet's Charge." If anything, it ought to be "Lee's Charge" since he was the man who conceived it and ordered it.

    As for Pettigrew, he was a proud graduate of the University of North Carolina. And, yes, North Carolina soldiers did penetrate farther than any other troops in the battle, which led to the motto of the North Carolina National Guard, "First at Bethel, Fartherest at Gettysburg, Last at Appomattax."

  16. #16

    The Charge

    Great comments Olympic Fan.

    On one level, I simply wished to point out that NC has been slighted by the Virginian press and the assumption that the glorious charge was theirs. The irony is that such a dismal failure should be assigned to favored sons (as Pickett was) as opposed to traitors to the cause (Longstreet). Clearly you are right that Longstreet did not want the charge to happen and probably argued against it more than any other order he received.

    In any event, he was the commander on the field and it certainly wasn't Pickett's charge.

    Which begs the question, to whom do you associate other great ( or dismal) military events?

    Gallipoli is associated with Churchill--the one who conceived and ordered the invasion.
    The Charge of the Light Brigade is recollected by the unit that made the charge. ( does anyone recall the commander?)
    The German invasion of France is often associated with the creator of the plan (von Schlieffen (spelling?))
    D-day is probably mre associated with Ike, the Supreme Commander.
    Midway is not usually associated with an individual, though Nimitz gets some nods.

    So, I guess therre are no fast rules on how to label an event. I suppose it is not fair to label the attack at Gettysburg with Pickett or Longstreet.

    Perhaps we could go sentimental (fitting for the times) and call it "The Fateful Charge"...or go modern with PTP (Pettigrew,Trimble, Pickett)
    charge. (apologies to Dickie V)

    Aw heck, mostly, the NC folks deserve a little recognition!

  17. #17
    Poor Longstreet.

    Lemme ask; has anyone here had the pleasure of walking the charge? It is not hard to do; the only problem is that if you walk it one way, you have to walk it back.

  18. #18

    who gets the blame

    Quote Originally Posted by Atldukie79 View Post
    Great comments Olympic Fan.

    Which begs the question, to whom do you associate other great (or dismal) military events?

    Gallipoli is associated with Churchill--the one who conceived and ordered the invasion.
    The Charge of the Light Brigade is recollected by the unit that made the charge. ( does anyone recall the commander?)
    The German invasion of France is often associated with the creator of the plan (von Schlieffen (spelling?))
    D-day is probably mre associated with Ike, the Supreme Commander.
    Midway is not usually associated with an individual, though Nimitz gets some nods.

    So, I guess therre are no fast rules on how to label an event. I suppose it is not fair to label the attack at Gettysburg with Pickett or Longstreet.

    Perhaps we could go sentimental (fitting for the times) and call it "The Fateful Charge"...or go modern with PTP (Pettigrew,Trimble, Pickett)
    charge. (apologies to Dickie V)
    (1) Gallipoli ... Although the effort to force the Dardanelles and knock Turkey out of the war was conceived by Churchill and strongly advocated by him, he was never in a position to "order" it -- he was First Lord of the Admiralty and the effort had to be approved by the Cabinet as a whole. The initial all-naval effort that he advocated came within an inch of success on March 18, 1915, but when the British battleship Irresistable struck a mine -- just as the fleet was emerging from the last Turkish minefield. Admiral de Robeck lost his nerve and withdrew his fleet (losing two more capital ships as his retreated). The fact is, if the Allied Fleet had been commanded by a Farragutt (Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!) Churchill's plan would have worked, Turkey would have been knocked out of the war in the spring of 1915 and Gallopoli never would have happened.

    The plan to land an army on the Gallipoli peninsula belonged to Kitchner and was executed (AFTER Churchill's resignation) by Kitchner's protege Hamilton, who was the incompetent idiot who botched everything. Churchill, who had advocated and advanced a purely naval assault, became the scapegoat for the bloodbath that followed.

    (2) The Charge of the Light Brigade was ordered by the overall British commander in Crimea, Lord Raglan. Most historials believe that his order to the imbecile Lord Cardigan, commanding the Light Brigade, was misunderstood or confused because Raglan sent two dispatches -- but the officer carrying what was supposed to be the second order passed the one carrying the first order which confused Cardigan, who was a blithering idiot who almost certainly deserves a large share of the blame for what was a useless and bloody attack.

    (2) The Von Schlieffen plan was conceived around the turn of the century by Alfred, Graf von Schlieffen, chief of the German General staff from 1893 to 1905. His plan was designed in reaction to the French alliance with Russia. Faced with a two-front war, von Schlieffen decided to deliver a knockout blow in the West, before the slow-moving Russians could attack in the East. Needing a quick win, he had to avoid the line of French fortifications that stretched along the French-German border. As a result, he devised a huge right hook, through Belgium and into the north of France. As he planned it, over 90 percent of the German Army would take part in the wide right hook around the French left. However, he retired before the War and was succeeded by von Moltke (called "the younger" or sometimes "the lessor") the nephew of the great general who commanded the Prussian armies in the wars of unification. Von Schlieffen always said that if the French attacked in the middle and drove into Lorraine, so much the better -- that would remove them from the left wing where he planned to win victory. Moltke worried about the middle and began shifting forces from the right wing to the middle. When war broke out in 1914, the German right wing represented barely 40 percent of the German strength in the West -- and even at that, it came within an inch of success.

    Blame von Moltke for its failure -- and German's failure to win the war in the first six weeks.

    (3) The original D-Day planning was done by a British general named Frederick Morgan, who first identified Normandy as the target of the invasion. However, he and his Allied planning team were working under the assumption that it would be a two-division attack. When Montgomery was brought back from Italy and given tactical command of the attack, he immediately demanded a bigger initial wave. I know Montgomery gets a bad rap in the United States (a lot of it deserved), but the ultimate tactical plan for D-Day was his and he should get credit for it. Ike's two great contributions to victory were his risky decision to order the invasion in chancy weather ... and his refusal to cancel the airborne assault (as British Air Marshal Tedder suggested). If you're looking for one man to credit for the success of D-Day, I'd suggest General George Marshall -- he convinced FDR to force the invasion down the British throats, dragging a reluctant Churchill (kicking and screaming for an invasion in the Balkans) along against his better judgement.

    (4) Nimitz does deserve a lot of credit for Midway. So does Joe Rochefort, who headed the codebreaking team that warned of the coming attack and the Enterprise dive bomber commander Wade McClusky, who made the right turn (by that, I mean the correct turn, which was the right turn) when he got to the point the Japanese carriers were supposed to be ... and weren't. His counterpart, leading the Hornet's dive bombers, turned the wrong way and never got in the battle. McClusky's men found the Japanese and in five minutes, inflicted fatal damage on two carriers (and by happy coincidence, the Yorktown bombers arrived at the exact same moment and killed a third Japanese carrier).

    But, overall, I'd give the main credit for Midway to Ray Spruance -- a crusier commander filling in for the ailing Bill Halsey, Spruance was subordinate to Frank Jack Fletcher. But it was Spruance who -- on his own -- launched his two deckloads at exactly the right moment -- at extreme range and with a shaky target location, but timed to catch the Japanese carriers with the decks full of armed and fueled planes (the reason two squadrons of dive bombers could sink three carriers). Several hours later, after a followup strike destroyed the fourth (and last) big Japanese carrier, Spruance ordered his task force to turn East and steam AWAY from the Japanese until midnight. His staff (actually Halsey's staff) was livid and accused him of stupidity and cowardice). It was only after the war that we learned that in response to their carrier losses, the Japanese had raced two battleships, four cruisers and a destroyer flotilla east at high speed ... and without Spruance's withdrawal, they would have hit the Americans just before midnight in a night action that almost certainly would have reversed the outcome of the daylight air battle. After the war, a War College staff analysis called Spruance's controversial decision "the finest command decision of the war."

Similar Threads

  1. Front Page Picture
    By Channing in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-28-2008, 10:02 PM
  2. On the front-page photo...
    By Mike Corey in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-23-2008, 02:34 PM
  3. Pic on front page
    By HaveFunExpectToWin in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-17-2008, 11:07 AM
  4. Front Page picture
    By mehmattski in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 12:12 AM
  5. Front page - The Shot
    By Karl Beem in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 05:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •