Individuals at Gettysburg

These archived discussions are still open for comment. Last Updated 6/8/96 To join in write gettysburg@arthes.com

From: DPowell334@aol.com

Subject: Re: News Flash - Reynolds not killed by Sharpshooter! (or was he?)

Bill,

I believe either Martin or the Shue book I mentioned argues convinvingly that a sharpshooter was unlikely to have been able to shoot Reynolds, and attributes his death to a stray bullet from Archer's brigade.

As for Morningside - they get far too much of my money already. Another catalogue could be crippling...

Dave Powell

From: BTMM58A@prodigy.com (MR CRAIG L DUNN)

Subject: Reynolds' Death

To declare that Reynolds' death came from a stray shot as opposed to a sharpshooter's bullet may be another didactic exercize, but I will throw in my two cents. In researching Iron Men: Iron Will, Reynolds' death was mentioned in several sources. At the same time as Reynolds fell, many other men dropped at the same time. A particularly heavy toll was taken on the flag bearers which would give an indication that Archer's men concentrated their volleys in that direction. Would being killed by a bullet from a Confederate volley constitute being killed by a stray bullet? I don't think so. Being killed by a sharpshooter conjures up a mental image of a single gunman with rifle rested on a rock or limb taking slow aim. I tend to believe that Reynolds died from one of the blasts of a well aimed volley by Archer's men.

Craig Dunn

From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)

Craig, I'll leave the discussion as to the difference between a stray bullet and ;a well aimed volley; to you and Dave, however, Sanders' article in GBM quotes a number of primary sources and basically concludes that it didn't come from a sharpshooter. He discusses the possibility that Reynolds fell ;right after the 2nd Wisconsin had exchanged volleys with the 7th Tennessee ;. He discusses a number of other possibilities to include friendly fire (I hate that term, ain't nothing friendly about it). It looks like a well researched article and I can't do it justice in a short post.

Welcome aboard. I saw your note when you first logged on but nothing since. Glad to have you here. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. I see that your book is listed by Morningside. How about telling us some more about it. Where did you do your research and how did the publishing process work?

Bill

From: DPowell334@aol.com

Ah hah, time for six pages detailing the differences between aimed fire and stray rounds.:)

Actually, I was just repeating what I recalled in passing. I recall some discussion that Reynolds was out of line of sight of Archer's troops, and speculation that it was hence a stray bullet that caught him. A volley from one of Archer's regiments works just as well for me, however.

Dave Powell

Anyway, if Reynolds was shot, I believe you said, "most likely", by the 7th Tennessee, during a volley? I got to thinking, and hope you, or other members could help out? How many effectives were in place in the 7th Tennessee at the time of this volley? 100? 200? 300 guns? Was Reynolds on horseback or standing on the ground at the time of his being shot? Were any members of his staff with him, and were they on horseback or standing? Was Reynolds just caught between the lines when this volley was leveled, or was the 7th Tennessee shooting specifically at Reynolds? Was Reynolds, at the time of the volley, standing directly in front of the 7th Tennessee, or off to one of their flanks? Were there any other regiments to the right or left of the 7th Tennessee, thus covering their flanks, that could also have been shooting in the direction of Reynolds, or was the 7th out alone, with their left and right uncovered? Was it only one bullet that pierced Reynolds body, or was his body riddled from this volley? If he did have staff with him at the time of his being shot, were any of them hit?

Sorry if I rambled, but Jim's response has, as mentioned, made me curious, and if I have been believing a myth all these years with regards to Reynolds death, I would at least like to know the truth. Are the questions I asked above addressed in the reference material listed in your response to John Leo? If yes, then I can dig out my Coddington's, and my Gettysburg magazine, but would appreciate, if practicable the info from the other sources, though as mentioned, based on the reviews I have seen, the Shue book may be suspect.

I appreciate the assistance.

Regards,

Jeff

Hi Jim,

Well, now I am even more perplexed. I did dig out my issue of Gettysburg magazine, and while I have Coddington's, I was not able, at least last evening, to look through 30 some odd packed boxes to find it, and I am leaving this evening for Virginia, and will not have that opportunity for over a week. Also, as previously mentioned, I do not own the other two books you mentioned; Shue's and D. Martin's.

However, upon rereading the Gettysburg article, I found the following: ( I do not have the article with me, as I am at work)

Sanders' conclusion is most interesting with regards to this issue, for while in the 1st paragraph it is stated, "it is almost impossible to determine what actually transpired that fateful July morning." continuing on to indicate that he can correct that using actual reports, his conclusion would indicate that he really does not know, and that alot of his article is speculation. Also use of the word almost in the above sentence, I believe only allows for him to propose his theories on this subject, and really should not be used upon reading his conclusion, and much of the text.

These, if not verbatim, are close to what he states in the conclusion:

"It is at this moment the record becomes confused, making it impossible to determine exactly where Reynolds was when he rec'd his fatal wound" he adds to this that "Possibly his horse dragged him"

An even more telling statement:

"The greater likelihood is that "he was felled" near East McPherson Ridge, shortly after the 2nd Wisconsin had exchanged volleys with the 7th Tennessee."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ IMHO, this statement is not a ringing endorsement that it was the 7th Tennessee who necessarily killed Reynolds, mainly because of the words, SHORTLY AFTER. I read from this, the volley has already taken place, and it is after the volley that he is felled. Would not the words, "he was felled near McPherson Ridge, AS A RESULT OF, a volley exchange between the 2nd Wisconsin and the 7th Tennessee" be a stronger statement for his conclusion. Since it is shortly after, as Sanders states, and not as a result of the volley, could not a lone gunmen have killed Reynolds? I know one of the reference materials he uses, mentions that it was a specific soldier of the 7th Tennessee who killed Reynolds, as reported in a Confederate publication? Well, if it was during a volley, how would any one soldier know he killed this officer? If it was this gentleman, could not he have fired after the volley, striking the general down? If yes, then could not it then be believed that a sharpshooter in fact killed him? I believe that by Sanders using the words, "shortly after', instead of a strong stance, or statement such as, "as the direct result of" or "as the result of" weakens his position on this issue. Also, if it was the result of a volley, how come only one bullet hit him? Why did none hit his horse? What of Sgt. Veil? Why was he not hit? Nor his horse?

Another telling portion of his conclusion:

"it was "Probably" enemy fire which killed him, but it seems equally plausible

^^^^^^^^ that it was "Friendly fire""

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, this adds a new twist to the puzzle? Could create a whole new myth? This only further muddy's what he's trying to say. Does he believe or have concrete proof who killed Reynolds, or how Reynolds was killed? From as best as I can tell, he does not, and his conclusion confirms this. And once again, his use of words, "probably", would indicate that he is not sure, does more harm, than enhance this article. would not "definitely" ben a better word, and that would eliminate the "friendly fire" issue. But, since he chose "Probably" then questions should continue to be raised.

He uses in his text, alot of officers reports, many who were not there to show how the "myth" grew. Many of the accounts came after the war. It appears from his text, only Sgt. Veil, who was allegedly with the general produced anything during the conflict, and if I recall, he does not say anything in either case, whether it was a full volley, or a lone gunmen who killed him, but tells of being with him, and removing him from the field.

Anyway, in lieu of the above three statements, I've quoted, or attempted to quote from Sanders' conclusion, I do not think he presents a strong case on the killing of Reynolds. His conclusion shows IMHO, alot of speculation as to what really happened, and I do not see where he actually pins this honor on the 7th Tennessee?

I know during the article, one of Sanders' strongest statements for believing it was not a sharpshooter who killed him is the lack of an autopsy to determine the trajectory of a bullet. However, two issues with this, is that he is really only rebuking the thought that the sharpshooter was stationed in a tree shooting down. He does not make a ny stance on the possibility that the sharpshooter could be elsewhere? Also, lack of an autopsy does not prove anything, nor does it disprove anything. Sanders needs that autopsy to strengthen his statement that the sharpshooter was not in a tree, but the lack of an autopsy does not automatically disspell the possibility of a sharpshooter, it just opens up for argument the possible angle of the bullet. Also, because there is no mention of an autopsy, does not mean one was not performed? Records do get lost, destroyed, etc. Anybody have a good background on medicine at that time? Were autopsy's routinely performed, even if someone perhaps knew the cause of death? If yes, then it's commonality to the times may be why no mention was made?

I guess I will have to dig out my Coddington's. But as best as i can tell, this article is not a strong affirmation that Reynolds was not killed by a sharpshooter. If I am reading this wrong, please, someone let me know. I am just trying to get this straight, for if the sharpshooter story is a myth, I along with others would like that info. IMHO however, this article does not go far enough to dispell that notion.

Regards,

Jeff

From: Douglas M Macomber"
Subject: Weed and Hazlett

As you all know of Weed and Hazlett both died together at the same spot, but I can't help but wonder what relation did Hazlett have to Weed? Was he a realitive,a former subordinate or just a friend?

From: Bill Cameron
Subject: Weed and Hazlett

Weed was an artilleryman in the 5th Corps prior to being appointed Brig. Gen. He was promoted to captain of the 5th Artillery on May 14, 1861. He commanded a battery during the Peninsular Campaign. He was given command of all of the artillery in the 5th corps during Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. On June 6, 1861 he was promoted from Captain to Brig. Gen and given command of his brigade. Hazlett served under weed during his command of the 5th Corps Artillery. I am uncertain if they were ever in the same battery but I am looking at it. My impression is that they were also friends.

Bill Cameron

From: a.cameron4@genie.geis.com
Subject: Additional Info

For Paul Macomber

Actually Paul, Weed lived for a few hours. He was removed to a field hospital were he died. Lt. Rittenhouse (replaced Hazlett as the battery commander) went to him first where Weed said "I am cut in two, I want to see Hazlett." Later when Weed's adjutant told him that he would be alright, Weed responded "By sundown I will be as dead as Julius Caesar." The source for this is Benjamin F. Rittenhouse, "The Battle of Gettysburg as seen from Little Round Top", M.O.L.L.U.S., District of Columbia, no. 3.

Paul, I have a ton of information on the Gettysburg Campaign. I'll be glad to help you anyway I can. See in information on the Gettysburg bibliography in the last paragraph of this email.

Merritt was in reserve on the 1st, scouting around what is now Thurmont, Md., but was engaged on the field on the 3rd. Merritt wrote in this report "On the 29th ultimo, we marched, by order, through Frederick City, and encamped near Mechanicstown, Md. [now Thurmont]. At this point the brigade was engaged for two days picketing, scouting, and patrolling the roads through the mountains.

Detachments visited Hagerestown, Cavetown, and other important jpoints, keeping headquarters informed as to the movements of the enemy in those localities.

On the 2d instant, we marched to Emmitsburg, where Lieutenant Thompson was killed...

On the 3d instant, in compliance with orders received from corps headquarters, I marched with the brigade about 12 m. to attack the enemy's right and rear, and annoy him, while the battle was progression on the right. I marched on the Gettysburg road about 4 miles, where my advance and skirmishers were engaged. Here the brigade drove the enemy more than a mile..." [O.R., 27, 1, p.943]

On the Cavalry engagements prior to Gettysburg, I would start by reading the Cavalry commander's reports in the O.R. After that, the best Gettysburg Bibliography I have seen is published the the Military History Institute at Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013. It gives all of the references held by MHI and lists them by each part of the battle.

Bill Cameron

From: bennettb@sgenva.cc.geneseo.edu (Brian Bennett)
Subject: The many burials of O'Rorke

Dennis wrote:

It is my understanding that O'Rorke's widow exhumed his body fromthe Burg and buried it in Rochester, New York. After the funeral services she entered the Convent of the Order of The Sacred Heart of Jesus.

O'Rorke's body did a lot of traveling. It was originally carried by four members of Company A to the regiment's surgical station on the reverse slope of Little Round Top and subsequently taken to the division hospital behind the hill, on the farm of Jacob Weikert. After the day's fighting ended Lt. Porter Farley traveled to the hospital to view the body. The path of the bullet that had ended O'Rorke's life was traced by a "bloody froth on each side of his neck." Farley, who later in life became a practicing physician, would then judge that the ball "probably pierced the spine at the base of the neck, and he sank to the ground with every muscle relaxed - dead on the instant."

The bodies of O'Rorke, Weed and Hazlett were placed side-by-side on the porch of Weikert's farmhouse and covered with sheets. Artillery Lieutenant Malbone F. Watson was later brought in wounded and carried onto the porch. A gust of wind pulled the sheets away, revealing the three corpses. Weed was Watson's former commander, Hazlett his classmate at West Point and O'Rorke a year his junior. The shock of seeing the bodies "almost killed him," he would later tell a fellow artillerymen.

A grave for Hazlett was dug in Weikert's garden, but the bodies of O'Rorke and Weed were moved to another hospital on the farm of Lewis Bushman. There they were buried by Sgt. Major James Campbell of the 140th and Lt. William Crennell, quartermaster of the 140th, who served as an aide to Weed during the battle. (It was to Crennell that Weed made his famous "I'm as dead a man as Julius Caesar" quote.) Crennell noted that the interrment was a "very perplexing job" on account of the lack of material for suitable coffins. The pair were placed in the ground in rear of the Bushman house "on the west side of the first apple tree," with Weed's body closest to the tree. The two men marked the spot in case the families wished to recover the bodies.

Escorted by a Mr. Putnam, O'Rorke's wife Clara arrived in Washington on July 7 and received a military pass to travel to Gettysburg through Baltimore to recover the body. It is unclear as to whether or not the pair made it to Gettysburg, or if they or someone else exhumed the body from the Bushman farm. At some point Capt. Thomas Bishop (Clara's brother; an officer in the 25th N.Y.) arrived, as a member of the 140th reported that officer as having charge of O'Rorke's body in Baltimore on the 10th of July.

O'Rorke's body, along with the corpse of Company K's 1st. Lt. Hugh McGraw arrived in Rochester via train on July 14. O'Rorke's funeral took place the next day, with his body buried in St. Patrick's Cemetery on Rochester's Pinnacle Hill.

The original plot was near the summit of the hill and as his widowed mother made daily trips, it became more difficult for her to make the walk, so at some point the body was moved to a point lower on the hill. By 1871 the cemetery was starting to fill up, so the Catholic Diocese purchased a new tract of land for burials. By 1879 St. Patrick's had the look of abandonment, but it was another eight years before a new plot for the O'Rorke family could be purchased in the new cemetery (Holy Sepulchre) and the bodies moved.

The graves of O'Rorke, his mother (who died in 1881) and Col. George Ryan, who succeeded O'Rorke in command of the 140th, all have matching stylized Maltese Cross headstones. Ryan, who was not from Rochester or even New York, was also buried and move four different times. He was killed at Laurel Hill on May 8, 1864 (the first collision in the fight for Spotsylvania) and buried on the field. Almost a year to the day later, as the 140th was marching north to Washington after the surrender at Appomattox, the regiment was the vicinity and exhumed the bodies of Ryan and Major Milo Starks, who had also been killed at Laurel Hill. Starks' body was sent home to Brockport (same county as Rochester) and Ryan to his parents' home in Decatur, Illinois.

In 1870 a group of 140th veterans sought to have the remains of their two colonels reunited. After receiving permission from Ryan's family to move the body, 49 veterans traveled by private railcar to nearby Chicago. The remains were brought back to Rochester, and after elaborate and widely-attended ceremonies and processions, buried next to O'Rorke's grave in St. Patrick's Cemetery. Ryan then made the move with O'Rorke to Holy Sepulchre.

O'Rorke's young widow Clara entered the novitiate of the Society of the Sacred Heart and in 1871 took her final vows. She subsequently became Mother Superior of her order in Detroit for two different periods, during which she oversaw the building of the convent at Grosse Point, Michigan. She subsequently returned to New York when she moved to Kenwood Convent in Albany, one of the largest novitiate houses of the order in the country. Her final assignment was at Elmhurst, in Providence, Rhode Island, where under her leadership the academy was enlarged and "what is said to be one of the most beaituful church in this country" was built. She died in February 1893 at the age of 56. Along with her many accomplishments she was acknowledged as being an excellent musician and a "particularly strong" teacher of math and chemistry."

As far as the O'Rorke Memorial Society (of which I am a member), its goals were very similar - trying to get some public acclamation here in Rochester of O'Rorke's service and sacrifice. Our end product was more modest, but we were equally successful. The final form of the O'Rorke memorial is larger than life bronze bust of O'Rorke. The bust is mounted on a pedestal and accompanied by two museum-type 4' x 5' information panels (with illustrations) outlining the part played in the war by Rochester and Monroe County. The first panel details the happenings on the homefront (including info on well-known Rochesterians Frederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony); the second panel includes info on O'Rorke, along with info on the Rochester/Monroe County regiments that found in the war.

The memorial was unveiled in the Visitors Center at High Falls, an urban museum located in the downtown Rochester Browns Race Historical District, a restored area above the Genesee River's Middle Falls, which played a large role in Rochester's milling past. During the summer, a nightly laser show is projected on the walls of the gorge below the falls. The memorial was originally intended to be a temporary exhibit (in space intended for such materials) but the center liked it so much it expressed an interest in keeping it. At the time the committee had no alternative site, so it allowed the exhibit to remain, although the new exhibit area is well out of the way of the visitors, and in our opinion, not very acceptable.

However the city of Rochester has been planning, over the past 5-6 years, to expand its downtown library and groundbreaking was just done, with the expansion to be completed (hopefully) by March 1997. We have contacted the library about moving the exhibit to the new part of the library, possibly the local history area, and they are interested.

Some two years ago a founding member of the commitee commissioned a local artist to do a painting of O'Rorke and the 140th on Little Round Top. That may also go to the library for permanent display. The painting turned out extremely well (I think) - it's not a Troiani (but what is, other than a Troiani). It is also historically accurate (I was asked to provide the specifics) and include portraits from photographs of O'Rorke, Capt. Milo Starks, Sgt. Major James Campbell and Lt. Porter Farley. The artist received permission to produce prints and is selling for $100. E-mail me privately if anyone is interested in information on the prints - I could send a full-color flyer.

I would be happy to answer any further questions as to the Col. Patrick O'Rorke Memorial Society.

Brian Bennett

Hi everyone!

I just finished reading "At GB, or what a girl saw and heard of the battle", by Mrs. Tillie Pierce Alleman. In her book, Tillie discusses the death of Weed, whom she insists died at the Weikert's house. Now, I have heard the story where he was killed on LRT, and how Hazlett was bending over him to hear if he had any dying words, and then Hazlett was killed. Is Tillie's story accurate?

The intro to the book is by Wm. Frassanito, whom of course is well known in his own right. The only thing he disputes in her book is her account that she was able to witness the charge of the Pa Reserves on July 2 on the other side of LRT. So did Weed die at the Weikert's house?

Paula

It seems that Gen. Weed was not instantly killed. Shot through the body, possibly severing the spinal column, he sent for Lt. Hazlett, and was giving him some last messages when Hazlett was shot in the head and killed (or died very soon thereafter).

-- Hazlett by the way was wearing a light colored hat, according to his West Point chum Col. Martin D. Hardin -- who advised him to take it off as it would make a target. Apparently Hazlett did not....

In any case there is some debate over the location of Weed's death. Gregory Coco discusses this in his book "A Vast Sea of Misery." Tillie Pierce, among others, describes him dying in the Jacob Weikert farm, while Porter Farley of the 140th NY has him being taken to the Lewis A. Bushman farm. Yet another of the enduring questions of that battle.

Brian Pohanka

Paula's original post asked about Stephen Weed's wounding and death and if Tillie Pierce's remembrances of seeing Weed at the Weikert house could have been accurate. Brian Pohanka noted the discrepancies in different reports, and since I had most of the relevant materials on hand, here is the long version, from the pens of the participants:

best against Hazlett's gunners, and it was while standing among them that Weed received a mortal wound. Believing that he was about to die he was in the very act of committing his last messages to his friend Hazlett, who stooped over him, when there came the whiz and thud of another bullet as it sunk into Hazlett's brain, and that brave artilleryman fell a corpse across the body of his dying friend.

"...The general was carried at once behind the shelter of a rock, and was soon taken in an ambulance to the farmhouse of Louis A. Bushman, which, as well as his barn and outhouses, had been taken possession of and was being used as our division hospital. Weed suffered intensely, but for some time after he was hurt was entirely conscious and able to communicate the messages which he had begun to give to Hazlett. This he did to Lieutenant William H. Crennell, quartermaster of our regiment, who with the other quartermasters of our brigade had served during this campaign as Weed's aides. Among other things, Weed asked that when he was dead the ring which he wore might be taken from his finger, and with the pocketbook containing his private letters, be carried to the young lady to whom he was engaged to be married. As the father of that young lady had for many years been a public character it may not be inappropriate to state that she was the daughter of Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania.

"Weed's bravery even unto death, and his bluff, outspoken manner, were well exemplified by the clearness with which he made his dying requests, well knowing they were such, and by the emphasis with which he spoke, particularly in a reply which almost epitomizes the character of the man, made to Crennell when he said to him, "General, I hope you are not so very badly hurt." Said Weed, "I'm as dead a man as Julius Caesar." He soon became delirious and died at about 9 o'clock that evening."

Note: In this source Farley also discusses going back to the Bushman Farm to view O'Rorke's body. Farley remained with the 140th until well after the fighting on Little Round Top, and since he apparently traveled directly to the Bushman Farm, probably did not know of the first stop at the Weikert Farm. His descriptions of Weed's preparations for death most likely came through conversation with Crennell.

Relevant excerpts from Lt. William Crennell's diary (Crennell was the quartermaster of the 140th NY and served as an aide to Weed during the battle):

July 2: "...about six o'clock General Weed was hit Captain Hazlett was killed while receiving his last words... wrote down what he wanted done he died at 5 minutes after 9."

July 3: "Rose very early after sleeping about three hours.... Got orders in regard to disposing of the remains of Col O'Rorke and General Weed. Burried them on the Bushman place. A very perplexing job on account of the lack of material etc for the coffins.

A. Bushman, Gettysburg Adams Co. Cumberland Township. The bodies of General Weed and Col O'Rorke are burried in rear of his house on the west side of the first apple tree in rear of his house. The Generals body being placed nearest that tree."

Sunday July 5: "Wrote General Weeds Brother"

Crennell was assisted in the burial by one man from the 140th NY, most likely Sgt. Major James Rennick Campbell. From a letter written by "J.R.C." comes the line: "Quartermaster and myself were the only men from the Regiment who were at the burial of Col. O'Rourke and Gen. Weed. We marked the spot, so that if the folks would like to have the bodies sent home they can easily find them."

Rittenhouse:

"In a few moments Corporal Taylor, chief of the piece just placed by Lieutenant Hazlett, called me, "General Weed is wounded." He was lying on the rocks along, and near Taylor's piece. I ran to his assistance. He said "I am cut in two." I replied, "Not so bad as that I think, General," and unbuttoned his coat. A ball had passed through his spine and paralyzed the lower part of his body. He asked me to send for Hazlett. I sent one of the men for him, for he was on the left at the time. He rode up and dismounted, and knelt beside the General. General Weed intrusted him with some messages, and then drew him closer to say something confidential, when a ball pieced dear Hazlett's brain, and Corporal Taylor caught him in his arms.... We carried Hazlett below the crest. I gave the bugler orders to take him to the hospital and remain with him as long as he lived, and then report to me..."

Wounded artillery Lieutenant Malbone F. Watson was carried to the Weikert house where he saw "some bodies on the porch covered with sheets; as he got on the porch the wind blew the sheets off, and then he saw his captain, General Weed, and his intimate friends and classmates, Colonel O'Rourke and Lieutenant Hazlett, cold in death. He said, "the shock almost killed him."

In "A Vast Sea of Misery" by Greg Coco, he quotes a letter from Dr. Clinton Wagner, surgeon-in-chief of the Fifth Corps' Second (Ayres') Division, in which Wagner describes selecting the Weikert farm as a hospital, and also writes:

"On the porch of his house [Weikert's], the bodies of three valiant soldier lay during the night of Thursday, all of whom were killed in the struggle on the summit of 'Little Round Top;' they were General S.M. Weed, Col. O'Rourke, 140th N.Y. Vol., and Lieut. Hazlitt.

"General Weed was not killed instantly as many accounts of the battle state. I was riding to the front when I met the stretcher bearers carrying him... I dismounted; he begged me not to stop for him, 'he said I could do nothing for him;' I examined and found he was right... he was taken to the far house and survived about an hour or two."

Coco notes that the officers were first brought to the Weikert farm, which was behind Little Round Top, but were moved to the Bushman farm, farther east, due to shelling from Confederate artillery.

In terms of Hazlett's interment, Coco quotes from a letter from Captain Robert G. Carter, 22nd Mass., in which Carter states that Hazlett "was temporarily buried at the east end of Weikert's garden."

(Personal note: in referring to both my regimental history of the 140th and my biography of O'Rorke, I was appalled to find that I did not properly cite Coco for his information on Hazlett's burial site as well as Wagner's letter, which pegged the three dead bodies as lying on Weikert's porch (Rittenhouse's article did not identify the farm at which Malbone Watson saw the bodies). My apologies to Greg and to readers of either book.)

It would appear then, that O'Rorke (dead), Hazlett (probably dead) and Weed (mortally wounded) were all taken first to the Weikert Farm. As two men remembered seeing all three men dead and covered with a sheet here, Weed must have died here, as Pierce recalled. What's more interesting is why Hazlett was buried here, but Weed and O'Rorke were taken farther back to the Bushman Farm. Weed died at 9:05 p.m. according to Crennell's diary, so Hazlett's burial took place later that night and it is doubtful that shelling would have disrupted any work that night. It seems pretty clear from Crennell's detailed description of the burial spot of Weed and O'Rorke, that the pair were indeed buried on the Bushman Farm.

Brian Bennett

Original Query from MICHAEL E HARTENSTINE
Subject: General George A. Custer

Weeks before the battle of Gettysburg George A. Custer was made Brigidier General. From writings I have read, Custer was just a lieutenant.If this is true? What did he do which was considered above and beyond to be promoted this high rank? I don't think this was commissioned rank just brevet.At his death at Little Big Horn I think his stone has down Lieutenant colonel as his rank. Am I wrong let me know.

Reply from James Epperson

A clarification: his promotion in June of 1863 was to Brigadier General, United States *Volunteers*, and therefore was not a promotion within the Regular Army. For most officers, their Regular Army rank lagged behind their Volunteer rank. When the war ended, they all reverted to their Regular Army rank, hence Custer became a Lt. Col.

I think it was John Gibbon who told US Grant that the toughest change in rank for an officer was *not* when he was promoted from 2nd to 1st Lieutenant, as was commonly thought, but when he went from Major General (USV) to Captain (USRA)! (Although I think and *hope* that Gibbon's RA rank was higher than that at war's end.)

Reply from Benedict R Maryniak

This is a long answer to Mike's question about George "the-Indians-finished-Trevilian-Station" Custer, but it's my favorite Buford anecdote. It appears in a number of resources, but I recall it is definitely in Starr's three-volume set on the Union cavalry.

While General Buford's division marched north towards Gettysburg, his men caught a spy near Frederick. A drumhead court-martial condemned the man to death and the sentence was carried out immediately. A committee of indignant citizens confronted Buford regarding the matter, and the General stated he had been afraid to send the prisoner to Washington because he knew the authorities would make him a brigadier-general.

It took a while for me to grasp the full relevance of Buford's alleged jibe - he was expessing his displeasure at the June 29,1863, transformation of three cavalry captains into brigadier generals -

* "Temporary Captain" George Armstrong Custer was made Brigadier Genl of US Volunteers on June 29 of 1863 at age 23. He rose to Major Genl a week after Appomattox.

* 2nd US Cavalry Captain Wesley Merritt was made Brigadier Genl of US Volunteers on June 29 of 1863 at age 29. He rose to Major Genl on April 1, 1865.

* Captain & Aide-de-Camp Elon John Farnsworth was made Brigadier Genl of US Volunteers on June 29 of 1863 at age 36. Genl Pleasonton reportedly had to lend him a coat with brigadier shoulder straps upon receiving the surprise notice about his promotion. Farnsworth was killed July 3 charging Longstreet's right flank at Gettysburg.

Ben Maryniak

Subject: Kemper Digest

Original query from MICHAEL E HARTENSTINE

Wasn't Brig. Gen James Kemper taken prisoner by the federal army? After he was wounded leading his brigade during Picketts charge. The movie "Gettysburg" depicts him of being retrieved by his own men.

Reply from Dave

Subject: Re: Gen.Kemper

Gen Kemper was retrieved by his men after the attack, but because of his serious wounds, they had to leave him to the mercy of the enemy during the retreat. He fell into Federal hands on July 6, 1863. -Dave

Reply from Bryan Meyer

You are correct...the movie "Gettysburg" has another flaw. I was wondering about this myself after reading Gettysburg: Battle & Battlefield by W.C. Storrick. He mentions Kemper's medical situation in the medical field hospital after the battle. He was captured, but was so seriously wounded, that he could not be moved.

According to the Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War (Patricia L. Faust, Editor), here is a quote of Kemper's situation: "Encountering severe flanking fire, it (Kemper's Brigade) was eventually repelled, and withdrew with the battered remnants of that fateful charge. Its commander remained on the field, desperately wounded and a captive of the Union forces."

It also says: "In 1864 Kemper was exchanged and returned to Richmond, where he served in a staff position. He was promoted to major general Sept. 19, 1864, and commanded the defense of Richmond after its evacuation at the end of the war."

Reply from Dennis

Dave and Bryan are both correct, but that does not preclude the movie scene from also being correct. I cannot find a report from Kemper, but here are the few sources I could find.

Stuart recounts the conversation almost as exactly as does the movie on page 257 of _Pickett's Charge_

"Some men came by, bearing the wounded Kemper. Lee turned to him, 'General Kemper, I hope you are not very seriously wounded.'
'I am struck in the groin and the ball has ranged upward; they tell me it is mortal.'
'I hope it will not prove so. Is there something I can do for you?'
'Yes, General Lee, do full justice to this division for the work it did today.'
'I will.'"

Stuart cites as his source R.A. Bright 's article "Pickett's Charge" SHSP, xxxi, 228.

Sergeant David Johnston, 7th Va., details Kemper's location after his wounding in Richard Rollins' _Pickett's Charge: Eyewitness Accounts_ page 93.

"About dark I was placed in an ambulance and carried some few miles from the battle field whither General Kemper was also removed and placed in the barn... It was thought General Kemper would not live during the night his sufferings were so great --- almost beyond endurance."

GEO. G. MEADE, recants the capture of Trimble and Kemper in a letter he wrote to Halleck on July 6, 1863-8 p.m.

" General [J. L. ] Kemper was found mortally wounded on the road to Fairfield, and a large number of wounded, estimated as several thousand. " OR page81 ; Chapter XXXIX , THE GETTYSBURG CAMPAIGN.

R. E. LEE wrote to Jefferson Davis on the status of several Confederate officers. July 4, 1863.

"Generals Garnett and Armistead are missing a prisoner . Generals Pender and Trimble are wounded in the leg, General Hood in the arm , and General Heth slightly in the head . general Kemper , . it is feared , is mortally wounded."

OR ; Page299, Chapter XXXIX. THE GETTYSBURG CAMPAIGN.

Kemper returned to politics and campaigned for Greeley for President. He was elected Governor of Virginia in 1873. He practiced law until his death in 1895 in Orange County, Va. where he is buried.

Dennis

From: "Douglas M Macomber" (dmacomb@cello.gina.calstate.edu)

Subject: Hancock and Howard

When Hancock arrived around midafternoon, after the eleventh corps had been routed. He went straight to General O.O Howard, some sources say Howard refused Hancocks assumption of command. Yet, other scources say Howard split command with Hancock, dividing command between them. I cannot tell exactly which is right. Since, I am working on that book I was telling you about which is where I am about now, I need an answer to be fairly accurate.

Greetings,

In response to the question of Hancock and Howard. Pfanz in his book Gettysburg: Culps Hill and Cemetary Ridge comments on page 101 that they met near the crest of Cemetary Hill where Howard was putting his men into position where Hancock presented his order from Meade, which Howard did not look at ( H. Osborn, Trials p. 97). Howard wrote later that he told Hancock to take the left of the Pike and he would work the right. Hancock took issue with this later and said he was in full command (W.S. Hancock, Gettysburg, pp. 823-824). After his arrival (Hancock), Howard gave orders to only 11th Corps.

Don't for a moment take this as a slap at Hancock, but I think Tucker overstates the impact of his arrival. Buford, the much-maligned Howard and the already-deceased Reynolds deserve more credit than Tucker gives them here. They chose the ground and placed the troops. Certainly Howard had viewed Cemetery Hill as the fall-back position - witness Von Steinwehr, the 2000 troops, and the three batteries of artillery Howard left there before moving the XI Corps forward.

What Hancock found there was not of his doing; what he did with them, perhaps, was. But even then...the whole business of whether Howard or Hancock was in charge at the time of the latter's arrival has at least one thing upon which all seem to agree - there was no disagreement as to how to place the troops.

Further, unless Ewell was psychic, he couldn't have known that Hancock had arrived nor assessed his impact upon the troops on Cemetery Hill. His decision not to attack would have been based on what he saw (artillery and thousands of massed troops) and not who was in charge. Even if he did know who the generals on the scene were, he would have assumed Howard was in command (the senior officer) since he could hardly have known of Meade's orders to Hancock.

Hoping to head off a barrage of "god-like" Hancock posts...

David Wieck

From: "MICHAEL E HARTENSTINE" Subject: general hancock

I just read from historical society encyclopedia of civil war, that General Hancock was sent home to his native home of Norristown Pennsylvania, after receiving his wound at Gettysburg. I thought from common knowledge that he almost died in a field hospital, which he finally recuperated from his wounds. Then given command of II corps again by the end of the year of 1863. Thank You for any help that can be given.

From: Dan Szepesi (nitehawk@wam.umd.edu)

Subject: general hancock (fwd)

I was just in Norristown this past weekend and was given a grand tour of Montgomery Cemetary where Hancock is buried. It is an old cemetary that is no longer maintained by the state or by a church, so it is frequently vandalized and falling into disrepair. The friends of Montgomery cemetary do a great job keeping it up, considering everything, and they recently have saved the cemetary from being plowed over and converted to townhomes !!! I think it is up for sheriffs sale soon...

The friends are planning a large living history / dedication of Hancock's tomb there on Oct. 7 (?). This will include a parade through town, a ceremony at the recently restored tomb, and a living history event there. I have a good friend in my re-enactment unit who is a large fan of 'Hancock the Superb' and I can forward your address & phone number to him if you are interested.

BTW, there are also upwards of 400 cw vets buried in the cemetary, most of them from PA units such as the 51st PA, but there is actually one Confederate buried there as well.

I am enclosing this draft of research on my GGGF:

John Jackson Griffin
Private, Co. I, 50th Georgia Volunteer Infantry
By John Alfred Griffin, a great great grandson
John Jackson Griffin, born in Irwin County Georgia 18 April 1832. He was the son of Benjamin Daniel Griffin and Sarah (Henderson) Griffin. He first married Martha Giddens. Martha died on 2 July 1860. Two years to the day, John Jackson would be fighting for his life in Gettysburg. Griffin enlisted as a Private in Company I, 50th Georgia Volunteer Infantry, Confederate States of America on 22 August 1862 at Calhoun, Georgia by Major J. Dunwody. This was only 8 months after his second marriage to a Martha Mathis.

On the Company Muster Roll for 31 August 1862 we find him as a member of the regiment. His enlistment was for a three year period or the end of the war, whichever came first.

The 50th Georgia Volunteer Infantry also known as the Berrien Light Infantry. Most of the 50th was made up of men from the South Georgia area. The original commander was Col. W. R. Manning. The 50th fit into the Military Organization, Department of Georgia, CSA on 30 Apr 1862 as follows: Major General, JC Pemberton Commander of South Carolina , Georgia, and Florida, Brigader General Alexander Lawton Commander of Georgia, Brigader General H.W. Mercer 2nd Brigade.

In this Brigade along with the 50th were 1st, 13th, 25th, 26th, 29th, Georgia Infantry Regiments, 3rd Georgia Cavalry, 8th and 11th Georgia Battalions, Savannah Guards, Chatham Light Horsemen, Effingham Hussars, Hardwich Mounted Rifles, Georgia Artillery Company D, and Stanton Hill Virginia Artillery.

John Jackson Griffin received training beginning in Calhoun. The 50th was then later sent to the Savannah area. On 17 July 1862 Major General J.C. Pemberton ordered Manning and the 50th from Savannah via railroad to Richmond to join forces with Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia. When the 50th arrived in Richmond they fit into the Organization of the Army of Northern Virginia under command of Robert E. Lee, General James Longstreet's 1st Corps, Major General David R. Jones Division, Brigader General Thomas F. Drayton's Brigade. At this time Drayton's Brigade was made up of the 50th & 51st Ga, 15th SC, and Phillip's Legion. They were in the first Maryland campaign, serving at the Second Battle of Manassas. The 50th battled at Boonesborough-South Mountain, Crampton Gap, Harpers Ferry, Sharpsburg-Antietam, and Sheperdstown Ford. On 26 Nov 1862, the 50th was re-assigned to the brigade of Brig General Paul J. Semes, along with the 10th, 51st, and 53rd Georgia Regiments by order of General Robert E Lee. This brigade was included in the division of Major General Lafayette McLaws of General James Longstreet's 1st Corps.

John Jackson Griffin is found on the Clothing Receipt roll for the 4th quarter of 1862 (Oct-Dec). January-February 1863 Payroll by Major JE Davis QM through Dec 31 1862. Receipt Roll for Clothing, 1st Quarter 1863 date of issue 11 March 1863. A notation was made that he was absent, sick when returns made.

The men of the 50th were now on line for the Second Maryland campaign and next battled at Fredericksburg and later Chancellorsville.

2 July1863 finds John Jackson Griffin fighting with his regiment in the Wheat field area in Gettysburg. A union musket ball hits him slightly above the left knee, shattering the lower femur bone. This is 2 years to the day of the anniversary of the death of his beloved first wife. It is not known for certain, but it is believed that he was brought to a field surgeon by Confederates. His wound required that the left leg be amputated above the knee. From the research I have, it appears that he was left behind with the sick and wounded and was taken as a prisoner of war by union troops on 5 July 1865. One entry I have found states 2nd of July as capture date. Since two researched entries are in conflict of each other the exact date can not now be determined. If the July 2nd date could be verified, it would indicate that his leg may have been amputated by Union surgeons.

Griffin appears on a roster of sick and wounded in hospitals in and about Gettysburg, Pa. after the battle of July 1-3, 1863. Complaint listed as leg amputated; remarks secondary hemorrhage occurred 20 times between July and August, checked by phosphate of Iron. On Pennsylvania Register 556 Gettysburg page 28.

Appearing on a roll of prisoners of war at Seminary Hospital, Gettysburg Pa, 10 Aug 1863, Griffin is listed as captured at Gettysburg 5 July 1863, remarks state amputation of right leg (mistake made by recorder as it was the left leg.) He is later transferred as we find him on a hospital entrance admission to Camp Letterman US Army General Hospital in Gettysburg Pa, admitted 4 Sept 1863, complaints listed wounds above left knee, amputation at thigh, Sent to General Hospital 14 Oct 1863.

He next appears on a Roll of Prisoners of War in Hospitals in and about Gettysburg, captured July 1-3 in Gettysburg County, remarks, transferred to General Hospital Baltimore, 3 Nov 1863. A Letter accompanying this roll is dated 2 Dec 1863.

John Jackson Griffin was paroled by the Federals on 17 Nov 1863 and appears on a Roll of Prisoners of War at Wests Buildings Hospital Baltimore Maryland 12 Nov 1863 transferred to City Point, Virginia Hospital, with where captured listed as Gettysburg 2 July 1863. The Rolls endorsed "received City Point, Va, 17 Nov 1863 of Major John E, Mulford, 2nd Inf. NY Vol, comander under flag of truce. On these rolls 350 parolled confederate prisoners of war, less one dead.

He also appears as admitted to 2nd Division General Hospital, Camp Winder, Richmond, Va. 18 Nov 1863, When furloughed 28 Nov 1863 Time says 60 days for furlough remarks marked P.P. (paroled prisoner) and on a Hospital muster roll of sick and injured 2nd Division General Hospital, Camp Winder, Richmond, Va. Nov 1863 and on a recipet roll for clothing 2nd Division General Hospital, Camp Winder, Richmond, Va., 19-20 Nov 1863 listed as a paroled prisoner granted furlough until exchanged.

On the Company Muster Roll John Jackson Griffin is listed on Feb 29-Aug 31 1864 last paid by H Hegan though June 30 1863, as absent-sick, wounded, Sept Oct 1864 last paid by H Hegan thoro June 30 1863, as absent-sick, wounded, Nov-Dec 1864 last paid by H Hegan though June 30 1863, as absent-sick, wounded and Jan-Feb 1865 last paid-Unknown, was absent-sick, wounded.

John Jackson Griffin returns to Berrien Co, Ga. dies in 1889. He is burried next to his father & mother and first wife Martha Giddens Griffin, at the old Ben Griffin Cemetry, on the Lax-Ocilla Road.

I would appreciate any of you who know more about Gettysburg, the battle where the 50th was at, the hospitols, exchanges, ect. to share your information with me so I can update this draft. If you know of additional resources for me to check or other information, please email me. I am particularling interested in finding out for sure if he was administered first by confederates and then left behind to be taken POW or if he was removed from the battlefield by Union troops and treated at a Union facility first.

Any information, recommendations, comments are welcome.

John Griffin

Jgriffin@esd.105.wednet.edu
Halliz@aol.com

From: syouhn@NCCSLINK.NAVY.MIL (SUSAN YOUHN)

John,

Did some digging the past few days and have found very little specifically about where the 50th GA field hospital may be. In general, the CSA division hospitals were situated along Marsh Creek and stretched from South Emmitsburg Rd. to Chambersburg Pike. I might be able to narrow it down some if you could give me the name of the division the 50th GA served with as my maps relate to divisions. There were also CSA hospitals along Huntertown Rd for Johnsons Division.

Since you say he was taken to the Seminary Hospital, I would assume he was on the west side (Marsh Creek). However, since he became a POW, it is possible that he was treated at a Federal aid station and then transferred to the Seminary and never was treated by the CSA medical.

It is interesting to me that he was paroled and held at City Point in Nov. '63. City Point POW camp was nothing more than a corral to hold temporary POWs and really was not considered a camp until the late was. More than likely he was just put on a steamer to City Point and processed at the point of departure. Most of the POWs were let off at CP and told to find their own way to Richmond. CP was just the closest dock to Richmond.

He was also lucky to be paroled. Most CSA prisoners were taken to Point Lookout in So. Md. which was created to handle the tremendous amount of POWs from Gburg. A quick check of the POW lists at Point Lookout found a William Benifield from Co. I, 50th GA who was detained as a POW and died at Point Lookout. Hope this helps.

From: DPowell334@aol.com
Subject: Our buddy Warren

(This discussion is an offshoot of the Lee Retreat - Meade Pursuit" file. Moderator's Note)

Bill Wrote:

On another issue, from reading Warren's testimony, my opinion of Warren continues to be just a tad lukewarm. Be interesting to know what you, Jim and others think about it. Not withstanding his actions on LRT, he criticizes Sykes for being slow (who gave him a brigade when no one else would), tells Congress Meade should have attacked (as he should have if he thought that but it still figures into the equation), and blows his own horn when describing the need to conduct a reconnaissance after the battle. Yet earlier, he did not accept Meade's offer (request?) to be the acting Chief of Staff. Meade would have had a LOT less problems if Butterfield had not been Chief during GB. The truth is, I think Warren's description of what he did on LRT, written nine years after the battle, is a bit self serving. He did it, but I think the description was romanticized by Warren. I'm probably the one person alive who feels this way.

Actually, I agree with you about Warren as well. The problem with both his testimony and his account of LRT is that they are both highly self-serving. Warren was looking for a field command (and, sadly, got Sykes' at the latter's expense) after the battle, and then once in command of V corps, was not a great performer. Given that he was all but summarily relieved by Sheridan at the end, his reputation was in need of polishing. Taken in that context, his motives for 'enhancing' his role in events is much more clear.

Warren did OK as a brigade commander on the Peninsula and 2nd Manassas. he was far too cautious as a Corps commander, and his proformance with the V Corps in the Wilderness was very wanting - pipe in any time here, Mr. Epperson, as I recall you have words on Warren at the Wilderness:) - On the whole, I think the reason he didn't take Chief of staff was that he didn't know if Meade would succeed, and didn't want to hitch his wagon to a failure. Hardly a noble reason.

Dave Powell

From: "James F. Epperson" (epperson@s10.math.uah.edu)
Subject: Re: Our buddy Warren

Well, Dave, if you insist ;-)
Yes, I have my reservations about Warren as well. This is not based on any micro-knowledge of what he did at LRT. I am willing to give him some credit there, although perhaps he did embellish his role; I simply don't know. But as a corps commander he was atrocious, to be polite. Along with the cavalry officer JH Wilson, he was probably the man most responsible for Wilderness turning out the way it did -- I could go on at great length here, but it is Christmas morning and besides, it is off topic.

An interesting thread that ran for a short while on alt.war.civil.usa concerned Warren and Humphreys. I have long thought that Meade made a major mistake in not making Warren his chief of staff and putting Humphreys in charge of V Corps. Humphreys had more, more recent, and larger, command experience than Warren. I know Brooks Simpson now lurks here and his thoughts on this would be good for all to hear. Brian Pohanka lurks on alt.war.civil.usa, and he did sort of disagree with me.

Jim Epperson

From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)
Subject: Re: Our buddy Warren

Dave,
We're probably going to get some hate mail on this one. I previously posted the business about Capt. Hall trying to convince Warren that there were Confederates in the woods. I believe that Warren had Smith fire a shot, but he gives absolutely not credit to the signallers for giving him any information and clearly they did. His account reads like he went down there and figured it out on his own. Some of the secondary accounts are even worse. He did a great job of getting troops on the hill, I just have a problem with the self serving stuff. To me, the testimony just confirms my feeling that he was not particularly loyal or a "team player". The truth is, he certainly wasn't the only GB participant with an agenda but you sure don't read anything about it, least, I haven't.

The fellow I really respect, is Gibbon. Gibbon flat tells on himself in his book. It is intellectually honest. He admits to a lot of human frailty. I really admire him. He may have screwed up in the Wilderness, but they all screwed up at some point in time. I also admire his loyalty to Meade and even when he was "duking it out" with Hancock, he was a gentleman about it.

You're right, Sykes got the shaft. I think ole George did a pretty slick job getting forces to contact. He stood up to Sickles' attempts to shanghai his corps and responded immediately to Mackenzie's request for a brigade.

We all look at this stuff differently. I can't help relating some of it to my own experiences. I always looked for loyalty and gave it. I simply can't imagine what Meade must have went through with all the newspaper articles, congressional testimony, and intriguing going on among his officers. It must have been fun. :(

Bill

Jim,
I am much less qualified than yourself to comment on Warren's performance as a corps commander, but from what I do know, I agree. I also agree on the chief of staff issue. Warren should have accepted it prior to Gettysburg. When a brand new army commander wants you to be on his team, you should say "thanks". I think Dave is right about Warren's motives for not taking the chief position. The truth is, I know gosh darn well he is. Take a look at this letter from Warren to his wife.

Middletown, Md. July 9
Dear Emily:
I am very well. I am not chief of staff, as the papers announce with so many compliments to me. I did not want it, so do not feel disappointed. I SHALL DO BETTER, I HOPE, IN THE END. (emphasis is mine, awc :) ) We are on the march. The enemy is cornered, and we shall have another battle. May God continue to prosper our cause, and peace will soon smile on the land.

Yours [?]
G.K.W.

Boy, I love to see this stuff in black and white. Sounds like he wanted a Corps, doesn't it?

Bill

From: "James F. Epperson" (epperson@s10.math.uah.edu)
Subject: Re: Our buddy Warren

On Mon, 25 Dec 1995, Alexander Cameron wrote:
> Jim,
> I am much less qualified than yourself to comment on Warren's performance
> as a corps commander, but from what I do know, I agree.

My research on Warren was more macro than micro, so you (as the letter you typed in indicates) could well be aware of things I haven't seen.

Something I came across which really soured me on Warren was that, at the moment he heard that Sedgwick had been shot, he was in the process of writing up a letter to Meade lambasting the performance of all the other corps commanders in the Wilderness. He had the good grace not to finish or send off the letter, but the fact that he was writing it says something very ugly about having him as a subordinate. (And what the hell could he find fault with Hancock over?)

Your comments regarding Gibbon also struck a chord with me. There has been some discussion of the Buford bio. Has anyone done a Gibbon bio? I've read his book and agree heartily with your assessment, both of him and the book. (Except I am not sure he screwed up in the Wilderness; I think the staff man did.) To merge this with the thread about pursuing Lee, Gibbon is precisely the kind of man I would want to put in Lee to try and cut him off, not that it is a practical suggestion given that he had been shot a few days previous. But anyway, I would =love= to read a good biography of the man.

BTW, Gibbon's loss may have been more serious during the pursuit than many realize. With Hancock gone, Gibbon is the man Meade would have put in charge of Second Corps, but with both of them gone the corps command devolved on William Hays, of whom history has dutifully recorded very little. But this meant that Second Corps was under very shaky leadership during the pursuit.

Jim Epperson

From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)
Subject: Gibbon

Jim,
I am not aware of a current book on Gibbon. However, there is an article on him in the most recent issue of GB mag. It is co-authored by Steven J. Wright who is the curator of the Civil War Library and Museum in Philly. According to the "about the author" blurb, Wright is working on a book based on the Gibbon and Hancock papers dealing with Reams Station. Wright has access to both sets of papers and I am under the impression that there is a LOT of information there. The article is about both Gibbon and the monument recently erected to him at GB. The portion about the man is a broad brush bio. He does not mention the Wilderness episode but it looks like he is going to concentrate on Reams Station.

I have never met Mr. Wright, but I have corresponded with him several times and he has some diaries there that I want to review. He certainly is in the position to do a good job.

As far as the incident in the Wilderness, let me confess that I have not looked at it hard. I read Gibbon's account and several secondary source accounts some time ago. I just tossed it out there to show some balance. Maybe I should reach back in and get it. :)

Anyway, I am a big fan of Gibbon. I just loved the incident where he took over the gun at Antietam and fixed the elevation. Now I believe that. Every darn word of it. He also has the gift of telling it in a manner so that you don't come away thinking he is a braggart.

Bill

General:

1. Emerson Gifford Taylor, GOUVERNEUR KEMBLE WARREN: LIFE AND LETTERS OF AN AMERICAN SOLDIER, Boston: Hooughton Miffin Company, 1932.
2. William Powell, THE FIFTH ARMY CORPS, Dayton, Morningside, 1984
3. Ezra J. Warner, GENERALS IN BLUE, Baton Rouge, Louisiana State University Press, 1964
Gettysburg specific:

4. O.O. Norton, THE ATTACK AND DEFENSE OF LITTLE ROUND TOP, Dayton, Morningside, 1983
5. Warren testimony, REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR, Washington, GPO 1863, Part I, p. 376-388
6. Bill Cameron, "The Saviors of Little Round Top" GETTYBURG MAGAZINE, vol 8
Hope this helps.

Subject: Pettigrew's wounds

The following information is from "Carolina Cavalier" by Clyde N. Wilson

At the battle of Seven Pines Gen. Pettigrew received a rifle ball through the throat. It grazed his windpipe, severed an artery and tore the bone and muscle in his right shoulder. His men helped him to dismount and laid him on the field. Gen Pettigrew later said "I refused to allow myself to be taken to the rear....I thought the wound to be fatal; it was useless to take men from the field, under any circumstances for that purpose."

Lying on the battlefield, Gen. Pettigrew received a gunshot wound to his left arm and was bayonetted in the leg. He was taken prisoner by the 20th Massachusetts and received at a Union field hospital. The Union doctors determined that the arm wound was minor. The bayonet wound was more serious and it was some time before Gen. Pettigrew regained the use of his leg. The wound in his neck caused the damage to his right arm rendering it useless.

Judith

From: JMRobbins1@aol.com

>From the Bachelder Papers, Vol 2 p. 921:

Letter from Maj. Gen Issac R. Trimble to J. B. Bachelder dated Feb. 8th, 1883:

J. B. Bachelder
Dear Sir:
I enclose you a brief account of what I saw and what I did at Gettysburg -the 1st and 3rd day.

On reporting to General Hill for orders the 3d day, I read General Lee's order of Battle, and give it to you almost word for word -this- "General Longstreet will make a vigorous attack on our right, Genl. Ewell will make a demonstration on our left; to be converted into a vigorous attack if circumstances justify it. general Hill will hold the center at all hazards."

R. E. Lee

If you have not obtained this order, it may be of value.

Yours
I.R. Trimble

(footnote 153: Original letter in file ends here. Balance of this report is from typed transcript attached to Trimble's letter. Writer not identified and original version not in the file) The following is extracted from the narrative on p930ff:)

As nothing in Gen'l Ewell's department indicated a design to advance against the enemy, Gen'l Trimble remembering Gen'l Lee's impressive words a few days before to "crush the advance of the enemy and attack him vigorously in detail", or words t to that effect, he approached Gen'l Ewell and said, "General don't you intend t to pursue our sweep and push the enemy vigorously?" His reply as "No, I have orders form Gen' Lee not to bring on a general engagement." to which Gen'l Trimble rejoined, "But Gen'l that order cannot have reference to the present situation, for we have had a general engagement and gained a great victory, and by all military rules we ought to follow up our success, and we are losing golden moments," to which appeal there was no reply. Gen'l Ewell turned and walked slowly about, his whole manner indicating [ir]resolution and that kind of impatience which springs from mutual indecision, or a feeling that three was a momentous crisis, and he did not see clearly what course t to take. His manner separated him from his staff and the approach of others.

NOTE: (Gen' Lee had issued orders to Gen'l Ewell about June 26th when directed him to march into Penn. "not to bring on a general engagement with the Federal army, with his corps.")

Deeply regretting the indecision of Gen'l Ewell, Gen'l Trimble left him, and rode around the outskirts of the city on the northern and north eastern side to learn the topography of the security. ..... Returning in half an hour he spoke t Gen'l Ewell and said, "Gen'l if you have decided not to advance against the enemy and we are only to hold our ground, I want to advise that you send a brigade with artillery to take possession of that hill (Culp's Hill). It commands Gettysburg and Cemetery Hill." "How do you know that?" said he. "I have been round there," was the reply, "and you know I am not often mistaken in judging of topography, and if we don't hold that hill, the enemy will certainly occupy it, as it is the key to the whole position about here and I beg you to send a force at once to secure it. "When I need advice from a junior officer, I generally ask it, " was Gen'l Ewell's ungracious reply. when Gen'l Trimble terminated the interview by saying, "Gen'l Ewell I am sorry you don't appreciate my suggestions, you will regret it as long as you live."

(Footnote 166: The following is from the original letter.) [as continued on page 932]

Gettysburg When the contest was ended, the first day, about 3:30; I and others urged Gen. Ewell to pursue our success and attack the enemy. This he did not do, on the plea that his troops were not in a condition to do so. Now Rhodes' division, which was the only one that began the fight on our left, had not been seriously injured and was in the finest spirits at the end of the fight. Early's div. came into action late in the contest on our extreme left, and was hardly injured at all; Johnson's division was but a few miles off, and came up about sundown.

Then, on the maxim of war, that "a routed enemy should be pursued, it seemed plain, that Ewell should have pressed forward, informing Gen. Lee and Gen Hill that he intended to pursue the enemy, and send express to Johnson to hasten forward, and follow him.

Whether successful or not; that, was the game play and Ewell ought to have taken the responsibility.

Finding he did not intend to do so, I strongly advised the occupation of Culps Hill at once. This was about half past 3 o'clock, not later than 4 o'clock I am sure. I said to him "that is the key of the position on Cemetery Hill." He answered, "How do you know," I said "I have been round, to north of the town and can see plainly that it commands Cemetery hill - and ought to be occupied by us, or the enemy as soon as possible" - General Ewell did not take any steps to occupy the hill, at once, and on after reflection decided not to attempt it. I think from reports of Federal Officers, Culp Hill was not occupied by any force of Meade's until about 5 to 5:30 P.M.

Jerry, Penfield, NY

From: Willowreed@aol.com

ok..I have a question that builds on the above subject. what would motivate a woman to disguise herself to be a male soldier..and to go out there and fight.

there was one (maybe more) confederate soldiers (dead :( ) found at gettysburg..

any info, opinions?

were there any women fighting that battle in the union ranks? (don't beat me, but...) in the Maine 20th?

suzanne

From: benedict@ns.moran.com (Benedict R Maryniak)

Regarding females passing as male soldiers - "An Uncommon Soldier" is a slim but interesting book that came out recently and is a collection of letters written by a young woman who passed as a soldier in a NY regiment. She died of disease (in Louisiana I think) and is buried where she died in a Natl Cemetery under her male name. Lauren Burgess (I'm still without my books so forgive an error in spelling) put the book together (the lady who dragged Antietam NMP into court for not letting her reenact a female passing as a male soldier) and Natl Archive staffer DeAnne Blanton helped out with research. I'm a friend of DeAnne's and we've talked a lot about the whole subject. Beyond this book and Tom Lowry's "Sex in the CW", other books that deal with this subject are all rip-offs which repeat the same old stories.

In times of peace during the 19th Century, women frequently passed for men in order to earn better money and/or to simply get out from under "the woman as a vessel" attitude of the times that imprisoned women in ivory towers. The Uncommon Soldier subject was, in fact, working a male job (Erie Canal-related, I think) when the war came and she joined along with the rest of the boys. It was that simple. Neighbors at home knew of her charade and played along, but her fellow soldiers were completely fooled during most of her time in the regiment.

There were many more impersonations than you'd suspect. My personal opinion is that most went into the army with a loved one. As officer-of-the-day, Adrian Root came upon a New Jersey unit on picket and one of the "men" was giving birth. He took it pretty calmly and thought it funny that the mother was enlisted as a "nine-month man."

And here I am, strayed far from the topic.

Ben Maryniak

From: Dave Navarre (73613.1150@compuserve.com)

While discussing Lee, Norm wrote: "try Oliver Howard, commander of the XI Corps., AoP. He wasn't even that bad as a general!!"

I'm not too familiar with OO Howard, but if memory serves, his Corps did collapse through Gettysburg and I've heard he is a sort of "Teflon General" (none of the bad things that happened around him affected his reputation).

Anyone have some references that can clarify this issue in my snow-enfeebled mind?

Dave N

From: mosby@nando.net

Howard's Eleventh Corps was also the one that collapsed at Chancellorsville, but I'm not certain how much of the blame should rest with Howard, as he inherited the largely German corps from the less-than-mediocre Franz Sigel, I believe. However, I think your point is well taken that, while Howard may be somewhat underappreciated, he had his problems, too. Hell, McClellan was a great humanitarian, too, when it came to the lives of his troops!

From: thumphri@nafis.fp.trw.com (Thad Humphries)

MBRADLEY@MSCC1.MSCC.CC.TN.US writes

Stonewall Jackson would agree that Howard was a "good" general. The failure of Howard to guard his right flank made Chancellorsville possible. The "good" general Howard was later sent to Sherman and did do an adequate job in the Atlanta Campaign. After the War he became associated with the Freedmens Bureau and his service there made him a favorite of the Radical Republicans. Much of his favorable standing today rests on that service. His major memorial is, of course, Howard University.

Sherman's memoirs portray Howard favorably. Sherman says Howard was the unanimous choice to lead the Army of the Tenn. after McPherson was killed-- Logan was a politican while Howard a West Pointer. Logan did leave for a while to campaign for Lincoln in the '64 election.

_Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee_ by Dee Brown also gives O.O. Howard a good shake for his treatment of the Indians. Not that he was great but better than other whites and, according to Brown, would have done better in Washington allowed.

Thad Humphries

For a recent, fresh view of Genl Howard's postwar endeavors, I recommend "A Friend to God's Poor - Edward Parmelee Smith" by Wm H Armstrong. (The University of Georgia Press, Athens GA 30602 - 518 pages - $50 plus postage & handling.) This is another superbly researched, definitive biography from the author of "Warrior in Two Camps - Ely S Parker, Union General and Seneca Chief."

EP Smith, a Congregational minister born in Connecticut, ran the western department of the United States Christian Commission from 1863 through war's end and then served as a field secretary into 1867. He became US Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1873 and president of Howard University, Washington DC, during 1876.

Although not exclusively about Howard, he shows up a great deal in this book.

Ben Maryniak

From: Paul Esposito (pp000709@pop3.interramp.com)
Subject: Kemper's Wounding
Recently while on a trip to my in-laws house in Mass., my mother-in-law handed over some Gettysburg related info.

Well to make a long story short. My mather-in-law is into genealogy. She handed me a copy of her family history. In it a member of her family makes a claim to be the man that shot Kemper during Pickett's charge.

Myron Jameson was a member of Company C 14th Vermont Volunteers under General Stannard at Gettysburg. He was with the 14th from August 1862 until mustered out on July 30 1863. He died in Vermont from Typhoid fever in May 1865. The quote below is from a family friend who served with Myron at Gettysburg.

The following is taken from the History of the Jameson Family: (spelling is theirs)

"We herd the wild cries of the enemy bearin apon us, chargin fast, runnin and yellin like all hell broke. Smoke billowed from our guns as we were rushed by the enemy, but as we fired they fell from our heavy fire. As they dropped, we continued to advance and then engaged their men. Then Myron yelled saying that he shot the grey on the horse, but I couldn't say as we were all busy firing, and reloading, and firing. We learned later that it was Brig. General Kemper who was shot and led the charge against us."

Is anyone aware of any other folks claiming to be the person who wounded/shot Kemper?

From: MattR78@aol.com

Please send me the complete citation of the source for this quote: author of the book, full title, place published, publisher, and date of publication, page number. I appreciate it. I have seen no other claims for the wounding of Kemper

From: jblair@roanoke.infi.net (John Blair)
Subject: Lee's condition at Gettysburg

This was sent several days ago but I have not seen it echoed back. If this is a repost - my appologies.

Here are a couple of things from Glen Tucker's "High Tide at Gettysburg" regarding Lee's physical condition.

On page 49 (June 27) he says

In Maryland and Pennsylvania Lee apparently made the mistake of eating an abundance of fresh fruit. The entire army indulged in the cherries. On his earlier invasion of Maryland a lad named Leighton Parks had met him and now Parks returned with a quantity of raspberries for the General. Fresh raw fruit undoubtedly was the cause of Lee's partial indisposition on the second day of the battle of Gettysburg.

Later on page 88 (June 29) Tucker is discussing Lee's aggravation regarding the missing Stewart.

Lee's apprehension extending almost to physical agony, impressed itself forcibly on Dr. J. L. Suesserott, one of Chambersurg's leading physicians, although the doctor did not understand its cause. He went to Lee on Monday, June 29, to obtain an exemption of his neighbor's blind mare form seizure. While Lee had the paper prepared, the doctor studied the features and movements of the noted commander. He said he had never seen so much emotion depicted on a human countenance as on Lee's. "With his hands at time clutching his hair, and with con- tracted brow, he would walk with rapid strides for a few rods and then, as if he bethought himself of his actions, he would with a sudden jerk produce an entire change in his features and demeanor and cast an in- quiring gaze on me, only to be followed in a moment by the same con- tortions of face and agitation of person" Even if allowance is made for some exaggeration, it is clear that Lee was deeply disturbed or Physically unwell.

Imagine that Lee is so distracted that he momentarily forgets that there is another man in the tent with him. He paces, turns and realizes now that he is not alone. He is focused on, or perhaps obsessed with Stewart's whereabouts. Now re-read the Dr's quote. He (Lee) sees that he is not alone. He "casts an inquiring gaze" and may be about to ask, "Can you tell me where Stewart is?", or some such. Before he speaks he knows that his guest will know nothing about Stewart and begins his pacing anew. As I read the Dr's words I see Lee repeating this behaviour over and over again. The commander of the Army of Northern Virginia probably has an upset stomach with diarrhea, may be mentally unbalanced, is certainly distracted at this moment atleast, and probably was suffering the effects of a heart condition. Now the question is not whether Sheen did justice to Lee, the question is, how the HELL did Lee manage to do so well at Gettysburg? ('scuze me, ladies) This raises another question. If Lee had decided to temporarily relieve himself from command, who would he have placed in his stead, (my guess is Longstreet), and how would the new commander have behaved differently than Lee? (or is it "differently from"?)

One of my facinations with history is how fragile, for lack of a better word, the reality is. What tiny events can conspire to change all of history. The famous three cigars of Sharpsburg, for instance. If the two enlistedmen had taken a break just 10 yards distant from those cigars....... If Lee had not had a couple of handsfulls of probably not quite ripe rasspberries..... If it had not been foggy on the Gulf of Tonkin -- yea, I know, Johnson would have found another excuse - the ba@#$^^! But I digress.

John Blair

From: "LMM136@psuvm.psu.edu 'Lisa Mucha'" (LMM136@psuvm.psu.edu) Subject: Ghosts

Hello!
Re: Ghosts of Gburg

The entire "ghosts of gburg" phenomenon started (it seems to me) after Mark Nesbitt published his first tewo ghost story books. They are pretty good, but I must say I am rather disappointed with the new third one. I have the highest respect for Mark Nesbitt ... he did the LRT portion of a tour I was on once... but I thought the third book had weak stories (I did not buy a lot of them) and too many references to Nesbitt's other books (as in 'buy these,too').

A friend of mine went on one of the tours operated out of the building Greystone is in on Steinwehr Ave (I think). She said the information was pretty good, but they overbooked the tour and it was packed. So if you are looking for ghosts, they ain't going to show up next to a gaggle of tourists (sorry, if I sound crabby...I spent the morning on an archeological dig to excavate my car from the snow 8-P ).

In addition, the battlefield was full of more than the usual tourists the one time I was there in the dark last summer. People were driving past Devil's Den and also walking through that area looking for ghosts. It seems to me that this is not so bad 'cause the presence of extra tourists may keep some of the recent vandalism down during the night.

Anyway, I would recommend the first two Nesbitt books, but when you get to Gburg and see all the ghost stuff, please view it with a touristy grain of salt! 8-)

Lisa Mucha
LMM136@psuvm.psu.edu

From: Marc73@aol.com
Subject: Weir's Battery C 5th US

Hello GDG

I have quickly reviewed the Bachelder Papers all 3 vols and I find the vols extremely useful. I have just one question for our group.

In Vol 2 a few letters deal with the abandoment of Weir's guns on the second day near the Wheatfield etc. I am at my office and do not have the exact pages handy etc. I can furnish if necessary.

It appears some have accused Weir of being a coward etc.

I have not read of this incident before, can some of our more knowledgable members shed some light on this incident or direct me to a better source on the matter.

Marc Riddell
Cooper's Battery B 1st Pa Light Artillery

From: CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER) Subject: Re: Weir's Battery C 5th US Marc,
The letters written by Hancock to Bachelder concerning Weir and the 2d days incident with his battery are very interesting aren't they? After I read about Weir I became interested in the incident also and did a little investigating. Since the 19th Maine was originally assigned to guard the battery I went to Maine at Gettysburg for an account of the incident from that regiments point of view. The regimental sketch spoke of the fighting which led to the abandonment of the guns of Weir's battery. Fortunately Maine at Gettysburg has been reprinted and is available for $45 in Gburg. I can get the name of the publisher for you if you are interested. The 13th Vt recovered the guns of the battery. I have in my collection a speech entitled: Vermont at Gettysburgh, which was given before the Vt Historical Society, July 6, 1870, bu George Scott, 1st Sgt of Co. G, 13th Vt. Here is an excerpt from that speech dealing with the recovery of the guns:

"As Hancock saw Randall he said 'Colonel where is your regiment'? 'Close at hand' said Randall. 'Good,' said Hancock, 'the enemy are pressing me hard - they have just captured that battery yonder (a battery about 20 rods in front) and are dragging it from the field. Can you retake it'? 'I can, and pretty damn quick too, if you will let me.'

At that moment they both observed a rebel brigade deploying from the woods to the left (codori thicket - twm) and making for the guns. In a moment Randall was at the head of his regiment ... He led us into the gap. We were now in front of the enemy who was dragging off our guns. They did not await us; many fled, others threw themselves into the grass, we passed over them, and they were picked up by other regiments in the rear. They doubtless supposed from the steadiness and rapidity of our movements that we were fresh troops and much more numerous than we were. We deployed in line of battle, discharged our muskets into the enemy and gave three cheers, and then at the command 'Charge'! bayonets bore down upon the enemy. We retook the guns and dragged them to the rear. The artillerymen to whom they belonged came up with horses, took them from us and thanked us for recapturing them. This was battery 'C' of the fifth regular artillery"

Perhaps tomorrow I can drag out the account of the 19th Maine and excerpt it for you.

I noticed as I was reading the Hancock correspondence that he would be visiting the field along with Weir and a number of other personages to tour the area with Bachelder. It so happens that Hancock, Bachelder and the entire tour group was photographed during this visit, once in front of the High Water mark (before the iron fence was in place, as I recall) and once in front of the site where Hancock was wounded. At least one of these photos appear in the Gburg magazine article about Bachelder by Sauers, entitled something along the lines of "John B Bachelder Gov't Historian of the Battle of Gettysburg" the issue number I think is 3, though as you can tell I have none of this material close at hand to check right now. Although Weir is not identified in the photo caption in this article (nor in other sources where I have seen this photograph) he certainly must be one of the members of this group. I tried to pick out the tortured soul who must be Weir, but couldn't come up with any candidate who would obviously be Weir.

(According to the Ladd's, Weir could not stand the shame of abandoning his guns on the 2d day of the battle, and eventually committed suicide by shooting himself. When you read his letters in the Bachelder volumes you can see the turmoil in his soul.)

Terry Moyer

From: John Kelly (jkelly@argo.net)
Harry Pfanz wrote a short section about Gulian Weir who was placed near the Codori barn on the right of Humphreys (III Corps)almost at the Emmitsburg Road. Weir's fight is described in Pfanz's book GETTYSBURG-THE SECOND DAY pp377-378. Weir did indeed lose three guns, and never got over it. He finally shot himself in 1886 at Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn NY. I have also seen something else about Weir in another source, but I do not remember the title, unfortunately, and am not able to find it in the disorder I call an office.

Regards, Jack Kelly

From: CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER)
Subject: Re: Weir's Battery C 5th US

Marc and GDG,
Another place that you would want to look to find information would be regimental histories for the 19th Maine or 13th Vt (if they exist - Ben Maryniak would know about that).

John Kelly brought up Pfanz's 2d Day book. At least that source is easy to locate!

Here is Randall's account:
Series 1, Vol 27 Pt 1, Page 351-353
Report of Col. Francis V. Randall, Thirteenth Vermont Infantry,
CAMP NEAR MIDDLETOWN, MD. ,
July 10, 1863.

GENERAL: In compliance with your request, I make the following report of the part taken by my regiment (Thirteenth Vermont) July 1, 2, and 3 instant: ... The brigade then marched to Gettysburg, arriving there on July 1, at about 5 p. m. My regiment, with the Fourteenth and Sixteenth, took position on Cemetery Hill, in rear of our line of battle, made up of the first and Eleventh Corps.
On the morning of the 2d, we occupied substantially the same position until about 2 p. m. , when I was ordered to advance five of my companies, under Lieutenant-Colonel Munson, to support a battery on our front. Soon after this, I was ordered to advance the balance of my regiment a little to the front and to the left of our former position, which brought us nearly in rear of the right of the Second Corps. This took me entirely out of the line occupied by the rest of our brigade, and I received no further orders from our brigade headquarters during the remainder of that day. A heavy fight was going on in wi received some injury from the artillery fire of the rebels without being able to engage in the fight. At this time an officer, whom I did not know at the moment, but who proved to be General Doubleday, came galloping over the hill from General Hancock's position, and approached my regiment. After having found what regiment we were, and making a few inspiring remarks to my men, he directed and report to General Hancock, whom I would find there, and hard it before I could get there, I started, riding in advance of my regiment to meet General Hancock and find where I was needed, so as to be able to place my men in position without exposing them too long under fire. As I reached the ridge or highest ground between the cemetery and Little Round Top Mountain, I met General Hancock, who was encouraging and rallying his men to hold on to the position. He told me the rebels had captured a battery he had there, and pointed out to me the way they had gone with it, and asked me if I could retake it. I told him I thought I could, and that I was willing to try. He said it would be a hazardous job, and he would not order it, but, if I thought I could do it, I might try. By this time my regiment had come up, and I moved them to the front far enough so that when I deployed them in line of battle they would leave Hancock's men in their rear. They were now in column by division, and I gave the order to deploy in line, instructing each captain as to what we were to do as they came on to the line, and, taking my position to lead them, gave the order to advance. At this time my horse was killed, and I fell to the ground with him. While on the ground, I discovered a rebel line debouching from the woods on our left, and forming substantially across our track about 40 rods on ourfront. We received one volley from them, which did us very little injury, when my men sprang forward with the bayonet with so much precipitancy that they appeared to be taken wholly by surprise, and threw themselves in the grass, surrendering, and we passed over them. General Hancock followed up the movement, and told me to press on for the guns and he would take care of the prisoners, which he did, and we continued our pursuit of the guns, which we overtook about half way to the Emmitsburg road, and recaptured them, with some prisoners. These guns, as I am told, belong to the Fifth U. S. Regulars, Lieutenant Weir. There were four of them. We were now very near the Emmitsburg road, and I advanced my line to the road, and sent my adjutant (James S. Peck) back to inform General Hancock of our position. While he was gone, the rebels advanced two pieces of artillery into the road about 100 rods to the south of us, and commenced to shell us down the road, whereupon I detached one company, and advanced them under cover of the road, dug way, and fences, with instructions to charge upon and seize those guns, which they did most gallantly. We also captured the rebel picket reserve, consisting of 3 officers and 80 men, who had concealed themselves in a house near by. In pursuance of orders from General Hancock, we now slowly fell back to the main line of battle. It was dark, and no further operation took place on our part that night.

Same source, pages 879-88-

Report of Lieutenant Gulian V. Weir, Battery C, Fifth U. S. Artillery,
First Regular Brigade.
CAMP OF BATTERY C, FIFTH U. S. ARTILLERY,

September 20, 1863.
SIR: I have the honor to report the part Battery C, Fifth U. S. Artillery, took during the engagements of July 2 and 3, at the battle of Gettysburg. July 2. - Left camp near Taneytown, Md. , and marched to within a mile and a half of Gettysburg, Pa. , and went into park. After remaining here until the afternoon, moved to the front, by order of General Tyler. About 4 o'clock was ordered by Major-General Hancock to take up a position about 500 yards to the right and front, with orders to watch my front, as our troops were falling back on the left at the time. I was ordered by General Gibbon to open fire to the left with solid shot at 4 degrees elevation. In a short time the enemy showed themselves in front, and, in their advance toward the battery, met with no opposition whatever from our infantry, who were posted on my right and front. I opened with solid shot and spherical case, and as they continued to advance, I opened with canister. Soon it was reported to me that we were out of canister. The enemy being within a few rods of us, I immediately limbered up, and was about to retire when a regiment of infantry took position on my left and rear, and opened fire. I immediately came into battery again, hoping that our infantry would drive the enemy back, as their force seemed to be small and much scattered. The enemy were too close. I endeavored to get my guns off the field; succeeded in getting off but three, as some of the drivers and horses were disabled while in the act of limbering up. My horse was shot at this time, and, as I was rising from the ground I was struck with a spent ball, and everything seemed to be very much confused. I hastened off with the remaining guns. After the enemy had been driven back by the infantry, the other guns were brought off ...
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G. V WEIR,
First Lieutenant Fifth Artillery, Commanding Battery.

If this large post didn't "Weir" you out, I can probably excerpt a somewhat smaller account from the Maine at Gettysburg tonight. If I see a flurry of "unsubscribe" messages this afternoon, I will take the hint and desist...

Terry Moyer

From: DPowell334@aol.com
Subject: Re: Weir's Battery C 5th US

In a message dated 96-01-30 14:14:16 EST, you write:

I usually study Gettysburg and the Artillery as my 2 favorite CW subjects. An artilleryman did not want to lose his guns at any cost and I can understand where Gulian Weir was upset with himself to the point of committing suicide in 1886.

The cannoners themselves were originally only issued artillery sabers as the army wanted the men to protect the guns at all costs. Only officers and NCOs had pistols at the beginning, but many men acquired pistols on their own. The gun was like an arm to the artilleryman and to lose one to the enemy was not on their list of things to happen.

Marc Riddell

Cooper's Battery B

Marc,

As an aside, virtually any of the batteries that lost guns at Gettysburg had similar contretemps in the post-battle liturature to a greater or lesser degree. Weir's example was extreme, but not that far from common.

Dave Powell

From: ENordfors@aol.com
Subject: Barlow...boy general...
Greetings all:
Jim: I agree...he has a most interesting history....he was known as one of the 'boy generals' not because of his age but because he was clean shave, gentlemanly manners, and well kept as a soldier...not untidy.... During GB he was a Brig Gen. in the XI Corps....he did however come back from his wound and serve under US Grant as a Division Commander in the II Corps... he had a rather good run of victories under Grant including "Mule Shoe' spotsylvania, bloody angle..captured 3000 Confrd. 20 guns and 30 reg. colors., Saylers Creek, and Farmville...sometime after Gen Lee surrenders Barlow was commissioned Maj Gen I think on 25 May 65... When he returned home he entered the NY politic arena as you know and you are going to have to help me with this...he was involved in breaking up a major ring of ____ something and I can not remember what...but it made him famous for the time....

All in All quite an admirable history...we should all be so lucky eh?

Humbly..
Ed...

From: "James F. Epperson" (epperson@s10.math.uah.edu)
Subject: Barlow

I confess to being a Barlow fan, even if he was (a) a lawyer, (c) from New York, and (c) something of a snob with regard to his German troops. Despite this, there is something appealing about a man who works his way up from private to general as quickly as he did. He also was eccentric, which the AoP needed more of, compared to the ANV. I mean, wearing that flannel shirt all the time and beating on stragglers with his cavalry saber. The famous II Corps picture from spring, 1864, showing Gibbon, Birney, Barlow, and Hancock, is one of my favorites. If memory serves, Gettysburg was his first battle as a division commander, so I am willing to excuse his failures on that account, somewhat.

So, what is the consensus? Is Epperson being a hopeless romantic, or is Barlow really a decent officer who had a bad day at Gettysburg? (Inquiring minds want to know . . . )

Jim Epperson

From: ENordfors@aol.com
Subject: Barlow/boy general/Correction/Question
In a message dated 96-02-02 03:33:35 EST, Mr Ed the talking Horse wrote:

During GB he was a Brig Gen. in the XI Corps.
Humbliest of Apologies to all... Altho the Good Gen was indeed a Brig Gen. in the XI Corp he was indeed a Division Commander as well....this is my first lasting impression of conflicting information between sources...why I did not use Coddington first I may never know...
>From the "Historical Times, Illustrated, Encylopedia of the Civil War" I pulled the fact that he was a Brig Gen and Brigade Commander...upon my good friend Paul's watchful eye fell this mis-information...in grabbing my Coddingtons and checking the Official Rosters under the XI Corps...bigger than life...Brig Gen Barlow, First Division Commander...XI Corp....sorry for this...all remaining information is fine... And now I find another good Mainer steps in when Barlow goes down...must be very, very famous (this is for Eric (g)) Brig Gen Adelbert Ames.. hmm upon reading his history he was somewhat decorated...6 brevet ranks..Medal of Honour...all this said I do not have an opinion of his Command abilities and given Howards unique abilities for getting recognition I will not assume Ames to be anything until I read further...

Question: related (sort of)...
Does anyone have handy the dates of death of W.S. Hancock and F.C. Barlow.. I have early 1886 on Hancock and Jan 1896 on Barlow...but I would like to pinpoint the dates if available...
Thanks ahead of time for the help...
One last Question for today...I promise (as my noses starts growing): Can anyone elaborate on the care given Barlow by Gordon and how Barlow was ableto re-join the USA under Grant...Barlow was not considered a POW.?? I realize he was left for dead...I guess I need further light....References only are perfectly fine...I just need to understand this situation?

E-mail me at ENordfors@aol.com...yup I paid my bill this month..is OK...(vbg)

Humbly
Ed..

From: benedict@ns.moran.com (Benedict R Maryniak)
Subject: RIP, Arabella G Barlow

Barlow married Arabella Griffith April 20 1861, the day before he marched off with the 12th NYSM as a private. Arabella joined the US Sanitary Commission in the summer of 1862, although she would probably have spent most of her time in hospitals because her husband seemed to be recovering from wounds through most of the war. She indeed died 7-27-1864 in Washington DC of a fever contracted in her hospital work. Frannie then married into the Shaw family (as in Robert G Shaw) and was a co-founder of the American Bar Assn .

From: benedict@ns.moran.com (Benedict R Maryniak)
Subject: Wilkeson
To answer Doug M's question about Sam Wilkeson.

The best resources for Sam Wilkeson would be Louis M Starr's "Bohemian Brigade - Newsmen In Action" (1954), J Cutler Andrews' "The North Reports The CW" (1955), and me.

"Judge" Samuel Wilkeson was newspaperman Sam Wilkeson's father. Though he was dead by 1849, he was a founder of Buffalo (having talked DeWitt Clinton into ending the Erie Canal there) and of the American Colonization Socty. The Wilkesons were big-time wealthy - shipping, iron foundries, etc - and nextdoor neighbors of Millard Fillmore. The Judge's politics influenced his grandsons when the CW came. In addition to Sam's son Bayard, eight other grandsons were in the Union army and many not even 18. There was a 78th NYV Major, a Lieut killed with the 100th NYV, Col of the 11th NY Cav, pvt in 15th PA Cav, Lieut in the 21st NYV, Lieut in 1st Pa Btn, and Bayard's brother Frank who eventually took his place in Battery G.

In command of Battery G, 4th US Artillery, on July 1, First Lieutenant Bayard Wilkeson took his Napoleon guns twelve miles on the Emmitsburg Road to reach Gettysburg that morning. Passing directly through the village, he reported to General Francis C Barlow whose XI Corps division was engaged north of town. Having noted Confederate activity on his right, Barlow dispatched Wilkeson to an elevation that would later be dubbed "Barlow's Knoll." Wilkeson initially deployed along a ridge on which the county poorhouse stood, ahead of federal infantry. Leapfrogging to the knoll's summit, Wilkeson's battery quickly drew fire from artillery battalions under Lieutenant Colonels Hilary P Jones and Thomas H Carter. Wilkeson went down "almost at first fire," wounded in his right leg. Eleventh Corps artillery chief Major Thomas W Osborn met Bayard being carried to the rear. "One leg had been cut off at the knee by a cannon shot," he recalled, "I knew at a glance that the wound was fatal." When XI Corps fled their field, Wilkeson was left behind at the poorhouse.
New York Times correspondent Samuel Wilkeson reached Meade's headquarters that night, learning only that his son had been wounded and captured. Sam found out about Bayard's death and recovered his body after federal forces regained the battlefield. Before returning to Buffalo with the remains, "Samuel Wilkeson's Thrilling Word Picture Of Gettysburgh" was filed.

"

Who can write the history of a battle whose eyes are immovably fastened upon a central figure of transcendingly important interest - the dead body of an oldest born, crushed by a shell in a position where a battery should never have been sent, and abandoned to death in a building where surgeons dared not to stay?

The battle of Gettysburgh. I am told that it commenced on the 1st of July, a mile north of the town, between two weak brigades of infantry and some doomed artillery and the whole force of the rebel army. Among other costs of this error was the death of Reynolds. Its value was priceless, however, though priceless was the young and the old blood with which it was bought . . . the marvelous outspread upon the board of death of dead soldiers and dead animals - of dead soldiers in blue, and dead soldiers in grey - more marvelous to me than anything I have ever seen in war - are a ghastly and shocking testimony to the terrible fight . . .

Oh, you dead, who at Gettysburgh have baptized with your blood the second birth of Freedom in America, how you are to be envied! I rise from a grave whose wet clay I have passionately kissed, and I look up and see Christ spanning this battlefield with his feet and reaching fraternally and lovingly up to heaven. His right hand opens the gates of Paradise - with his left he beckons to these mutilated, bloody, swollen forms to ascend."

Sam brought Bayard's body home to Buffalo and it was buried without military overtones, though his marker is an upturned Napoleon tube. His son Frank ran off and joined the army soon after, and the frantic father spent weeks hunting for him. But that's another story. The entire Wilkeson clan is planted on a knoll in Buffalo's Forest Lawn Cemetery. Every so often I go up there and think about how, one of these days, I'll write the article on Bayard et al that I owe the CW Society's Bill Miller.

PS -A&E's Civil War Journal contacted me about Wilkeson, gladly took my stuff, and then didn't list me in those credits that fly by at the end of each episode. But I'm in good company. They did that recent thing on the Lincoln assasination and left out Jim Getty's name even though he did Lincoln's voice.

Ben Maryniak

From: JMRobbins1@aol.com
Subject: Re: Wilkeson

Ben; Thanks for the grea post on Wilkeson.

Can you shed some light on the Wilkeson "myth". I first heard the story from a GB guide a few years ago as to how, after receiving the shot, Bayard cut off his loosely hanging leg with his pocket knife and crawled on hands and knees to a house over a mile away (probably all up hill too).

After hearing this story, I began looking for references to it in print. The oldest one I found in William C. Oates "Battle of Gettysburg" essay from his "Lost Opportunities..." work. Oates goes one step further and says Wilkeson was offered water but gave the canteen to someone more needy, then expired. What great romantic stuff!!

Jerry

From: benedict@ns.moran.com (Benedict R Maryniak)
Subject: Wilkeson

Jerry asked about Bayard's battlefield legends.

Although the leg-lopping is probably accurate (the Time-Life Gburg volume shows the actual knife from someone's collection!), it has obscured much of the less-sensational aspects of Bayard's story. My worst nightmare would be to have a gung-ho kid like him as a commander. Imagine you're satisfied with three squares, etc, in the US Regulars and here comes this teenager who gallops the battery when everyone else trots, who rushes out ahead of the Corps to deploy, who cuts away his own leg 'cause it's in his way, and then orders the men who carry him to the almshouse back to their posts! But, then, many battery commanders were pistols - Alonzo Cushing, Hubert Dilger, Pelham, Pegram, etc.

Ben Maryniak

Ben Maryniak, Buffalo CWRT