150 Years Ago Today: Gettysburg
Today is the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of Gettysburg.
The battle would rage for three days. It is generally regarded as one of the turning points in the US Civil War. Indeed, many historians regard it as the turning point after which Confederate independence was no longer possible.
Gettysburg was a classic meeting engagement; it was never intended to be fought at all. It was enabled by the absence of much of the Confederate cavalry from Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia, whose commander – “Jeb” Stuart – had gone on his famous but foolish “ride around the Union army”. This act deprived Lee of reconnaissance assets that would have alerted him to the close presence of the enemy.
The battle began when Confederate troops of Harry Heth’s division approached Gettysburg (according to Heth’s memoirs, looking for supplies – particularly shoes). They were discovered by Union cavalry under John Buford screening the Chambersburg Pike northwest of Gettysburg. Buford recognized the critical value of the high ground south Gettysburg (Cemetery Ridge), and – with no support and no guidance – on his own initiative decisively deployed his troops to delay the Confederate advance.
This act, which could easily have destroyed his command, was in retrospect likely the event that both ensured the battle and the Union’s victory. Union troops under John Reynolds, Abner Doubleday, and Oliver Howard arrived in time to relieve Buford and prevent the destruction of his command (a very near thing) – and to fight a delaying action keeping Cemetery Ridge in Union hands.
Reynolds was killed by a Confederate sharpshooter shortly after arriving. He would be among the first of many to die during the battle.
Units from both sides arrived piecemeal during the day, and went into battle as they did. Confederate forces seized Gettysburg and the high ground east of town – Seminary Ridge. But the Union held possession of the critical ground at Cemetery Ridge at the end of the day.
Confederate forces would never possess Cemetery Ridge. Lee would nearly break his army attempting to seize it from them.
Lee failed. With that failure, in the opinion of many historians the Confederacy’s chances of independence also failed.
Wickipedia’s article on the Battle of Gettysburg is actually a rather good overview of the battle’s events. If you have some time today and need or want a refresher, it’s worthwhile – as are the articles describing Day 1, Day 2, and other specific actions occurring as part of the battle (Little Round Top, Cemetery Hill, Culp’s Hill, Pickett’s Charge, Third Day Cavalry Battles ) in more detail.
And while you’re reading it – or otherwise going about your daily business – also take a moment to remember the heroism and sacrifice that occurred 150 years ago today over the three day period beginning at about 7:30 AM.
Category: Historical, Real Soldiers
I have been fortunate to have been able to visit Gettysburg a couple of times, and you can almost feel the presence of those who fought there.
Amazing acts of heroism on both sides of that battle.
History Channel is commemorating some of the biggest battles of the Civil War, for one week.
Hondo-I am here for the anniversary, staying in Frederick, Maryland. Monocacy last night, Antietam and Harper’s Ferry today, Gettysburg tomorrow and Wednesday and into D.C. on the 4th. The Frederick paper has all kinds of civil war stuff on the front page. Also I saw a link to the Harrisonburg, PA paper which is reprinting it’s stories and editorials from the time (with a decided Copperhead bent). Speaking of which, the new movie bearing that title is playing at the Gettysburg theater and I’m going to see it if I get the chance-this is the perfect history geek getaway.
BTW-it’s “Stuart”, not Stewart for James Ewell Brown (“Jeb”).
68W58: thanks for catching that error; it’s now fixed.
Spell check doesn’t help if you interchange homophones.
But let us remember why the civil war was fought, as Jefferson Davis said in his inauguration, “all we want is to be left alone”.
If you have never been to Gettysburgh, PA, you must. The size and scope of the battle is quite unbelievable. The monuments abound and it can bring the strongest of men to tears when you contemplate the loss, courage and how and why the battle was fought!
The movie “Gettysburg” has long been one of my favorites. Call me nostalgic, but the quote from General Buford (Sam Elliot) gave me the desire to be a soldier and cavalryman;
“You know whats going to happen here in the morning? The whole damn reb army is going to be here. They’ll move through this town, occupy these hills on the other side and when our people get here Lee will have the high ground. There will be the devil to pay! The high ground! Meade will come in slowly, cautiously. New to command. They’ll be on his back in Washington. Wire hot with messages ‘Attack! Attack!’. So he will set up a ring around these hills. And when Lee’s army is nicely entrenched behind fat rocks on the high ground, Meade will finally attack, if he can coordinate the army. Straight up the hillside, out in the open, in that gorgeous field of fire. We will charge valiantly… and be butchered valiantly! And afterwards men in tall hats and gold watch fobs will thump their chest and say what a brave charge it was. Devin, I’ve led a soldier’s life, and I’ve never seen anything as brutally clear as this.”
IMO, BG John Buford is indeed the unsung hero of Gettysburg on the Union side. Had he not blocked Heth’s division NW of Gettysburg, fighting outnumbered and risking destruction, the battle would very likely have turned out precisely as noted in comment 8. This action bought the Army of the Potomac a critical few hours and kept the key terrain of the battlefield – Cemetery Ridge – in Union hands.
Sadly, John Buford never really received his due. He served in later campaigns in 1863, but in Dec became deathly ill. He died on 16 Dec, having been promoted from Brigadier General to Major General on his last day.
@8, I love that movie. I get chills every time I hear Jeff Daniels yell “fix bayonets”.
Good article by Ralph Peters.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_hero_of_pWV5Jk81PHW48jHMYLYf7H
One other thing. Start your tour of Gettysburgh downtown, the southern rebels were in town days before the battle and as HONDO indicated above, held high ground in the north west just a short distance from town. The rebels drank, raped, and robbed their way through town before the fighting began. Much of the town looks the same as it did 150 years ago. Former President GEN Dwight D. Eisenhower resided in Gettysburgh on the western side of the battlefield. His home is now a National Park … from NPS web site: “Fifty years ago during the centennial of the Civil War, an old soldier, one who had served as both a general and commander in chief, regularly toured the Gettysburg Battlefield. He first toured it as a West Point cadet forty eight years before. But now that he harbored his own experiences of war, the battlefield took on a different meaning and evoked a wider range of feelings. That old soldier, Dwight D. Eisenhower, devoted a lot of thought to the Civil War. It was a war that wove like a thread through his life, even though he was born 25 years after the Confederate surrender. Growing up in Abilene, Kansas in the 1890s, “Ike” sat and listened to the old men in town share their stories about “the war.” He visited a Civil War battlefield for the first time when his West Point class came to Gettysburg to study the battle in 1915. He later returned in 1918 to assume command of Camp Colt, the US Tank Training Center, where his men trained for the Great War on another war’s battlefield; eating, sleeping, and drilling on the same fields Pickett’s men died. After a thirty year military career, Ike and his wife, Mamie, bought the first and only home they ever owned – a Gettysburg farm on which Confederate troops had camped before moving up to the front lines. A Confederate body was found buried in the backyard during reconstruction and landscaping of the farmhouse and grounds. The General liked to sit on his porch and muse how… Read more »
Breitbart TV is live streaming events on July 3rd and 7th, including the reenactment of Pickett’s Charge with 20,000 reenactors. They had lots of interviews yesterday with historians and people like Ron Maxwell and Jeff Shaara.
Brighter minds than my own might have a different opinion, but it always seemed to me that the outcome at Gettysburg hinged on a relatively small set of interesting circumstances.
#9 Hondo – Buford was an unusual cavalry commander for his time in that he evidently saw his troopers more in the role of mounted infantry instead of just recon or the shock value saber charge. By digging in and blocking Heth’s division, with the rest of the Army of Northern Virginia in line-of-column behind it, at the chokepoint on the Chambersburg Pike, Buford was effectively putting a temporary cork in a bottle.
#10 Twist – The circumstances of the bayonet charge on the second day were that the 20th Maine under Joshua Chamberlain were hung way out on the left flank of Union lines at Little Round Top– and out of ammunition. Instead of pulling back to reduce his ammo supply line, Chamberlain ordered the charge which resulted in a rout of the Confederate opposition. It kinda makes you wonder what would have happened if the charge hadn’t worked, or if the resistance was such to allow the Confederates to reform for a counter-attack.
It might also be mentioned that the Confederates had lost Stonewall Jackson only two months prior at Chancellorsville. Some historians argue that if Jackson had still been around for Gettysburg it’s likely he, and not Ewell, who would have been in command of the Confederate troops facing the Union right flank; Jackson would not have missed the opportunity, as Ewell did, to roll up that same right flank.
Something that’s never made sense to me is why Lee would order Pickett’s charge on the third day against the advice of James Longstreet, although Lee thinking Longstreet was too cautious is one explanation. As a matter of pure speculation, an interesting question is what might have happened if Jackson had still been around, and both Jackson and Longstreet had said to Lee: We’ve got a really bad feeling about this one, Bob.
At this page: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/ check the Civil War & Brady-Handy Collections for a lot of images. The Detroit Photo Co and Harris & Ewing Collections also have more recent images of Civil War sites. Search using “Gettysburg” and you’ll have an afternoon’s worth of viewing. Lots under “Antietam” as well.
For #10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9OcF1q4RGs
It gets to me too…….
I challenge MCPO above to support his claim that the Confederates “drank, raped and robbed” their way through Gettysburg. That is contrary to the historical record and I would appreciate a cite.
This account, for example, discusses drunkenness on the part the Federals- but only mentions the Rebs getting drunk in preparation for the assault on the third day.
Lee had issued orders for his soldiers to be on their best behavior and I seriously doubt there was much raping that can be blamed on the boys in gray.
Perry Gaskill: the absence of Jackson certainly hurt. But there’s no real guarantee that Jackson would have done better than Ewell at Gettysburg. Jackson didn’t exactly cover himself with glory during the Seven Day’s Battles in 1862. A number of theories have been advanced as to why Lee ordered Pickett’s charge in spite of Longstreet’s opposition. Some I’ve seen were: a. Hubris (personal and institutional) – he simply felt his army could do the job and that he was a better battlefield commander than anyone else in the war. (He’d also been inordinately lucky and faced unusually cautious and/or incompetent opposing Army commanders prior to Gettysburg.) The history of the Civil War to that point would support both of those theses. Afterwards, maybe not so much. b. Advancing heart disease had reminded Lee of his own mortality, and that he had a limited amount of time left in which to secure the Confederacy’s independence. Reputedly Lee’s heart disease first manifested earlier in 1863. This caused him to be more prone to take risks he might otherwise not have. c. He knew the Union position would grow stronger over time, and was thus convinced that this offered the best chance he’d get to destroy the Army of the Potomac – even if it was not a particularly good option. d. He feared the result on his Army’s morale of departing the battlefield without victory. This course of action was reportedly urged on Lee after Day 1 by Longstreet, who counseled disengagement, maneuver towards Washington (threatening both the Union Army’s supply lines and the Union capital), finding suitable defensive ground, and letting the Union army come to them. e. He saw Longstreet’s reluctance as an oblique resumption of the previous-day’s argument, and dismissed it due to that reason. f. He realized the Confederacy’s strategic position was poor, and that it was likely “now or never” – and opted for “now”. g. Lee, being older than most of his senior subordinates, didn’t completely grasp the change in lethality of that era’s battlefield weapons vis-a-vis those of his youth. He assumed what would work… Read more »
68W58: in fairness, I do believe that the historical record shows that the Confederates did “requisition” a fair amount amount of supplies from the town of Gettysburg some days prior to the battle. However, I’d also like to see reputable documentation of widespread bad behavior (raping/looting/etc . . . ) by the Confederates. Lee had indeed given orders that the civilian population of PA was to be treated respectfully, and everything I’ve seen indicated that those orders were for the most part obeyed.
I’m certain there were some isolated incidents from miscreants in both armies. But I don’t believe either army at Gettysburg was a ravening, pillaging horde.
Hondo-first, thanks for fixing that link. Second, I agree that the Rebs foraged and took supplies from the civilian population, Shelby Foote said that one of the reasons for the Pennsylvania campaign was to draw the Union away from the Shenandoah so that farmers there could have an uninterrupted growing season, so doing a little living off the land in the North seems like fair play.
I don’t think there was widespread misbehavior though (heck, there was only one civilian killed during the battle-and that was by accident).
Its easy to Monday Morning Quarterback Lee’s decision to proceed with his assault on July 3rd. His plan was fairly solid, it just too long to get put in motion. It was delayed 4 hours, and the Confederate Artillery was completely ineffective in reducing or suppressing the Union Artillery .
Lee Didn’t have the communications, intelligence and staff of today, so there wasn’t a lot of flexibility. If you sent something in motion the chances are that you couldn’t stop it within a 4 hour window.
In my humble opinion the fall of Vicksburg was more important than Gettysburg. While a solid victory for the North, it really only kept the Status Quo going on in the East. Lee Still had the Rappahannock line and his Army was as confident as ever.
In my opinion the Turning Point in beating Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia came in May of 1864 after the battle of the Wilderness.
Lee had just stopped the Army of the Potomac cold in their attempt to advance through the wooded area west of Fredericksburg and severely mauled several divisions.
As the Union Troops came back from the fighting Grant didn’t order them North to regroup and lick their wounds. He ordered them East to get around Lee’s Right flank. The Union troops cheered. No one else had had the confidence in them that they could take on Lee so soon. Grant was a Pit Bull, Once he got a hold of Lee’s Army he wouldn’t break contact. He would butt heads, take his losses them push around a flank and do it again. He realized that he was hurting Lee just as bad or worse as far as percentages of losses. He pinned Lee against Richmond and beat him in 11 months.
Here’s an animated historical version of the battle. Good stuff.
http://www.historyanimated.com/Gettysburgh.html
Just an Old Dog-yes, Grant-whatever his other faults-knew what was necessary for victory. His move east was crucial to eventual Union victory.
One more thing-with regards to the editorial posted by Detvun, much respect to the under appreciated Meade.
@ 16 68W58 … are you calling me out?
Good … I need that sometimes.
OK … both the north and south did drink, rape, and rob their ways hither to and forth.
Rape in 19th century terms was rampant (again on both sides) and mostly unreported. In addition, the definition of rape was most probably different as well as compared to more contemporary terms.
Much has been written about this subject (rape) and I need not cite any source.
The military accounts of the Battle at Gettysburg don’t nearly scratch the surface of the untold horrors experienced by the civilian population. That reporting came later and again was trumped by the military exploits.
Just a few footnotes:
1. The shoe factory … ha … what shoe factory?
2. The Rebels in Gettysburg Square before the Battle (there is even a plaque in the square stating what they did). They (them pesky rebels) occupied the town before the battle began (although it was a small band of pesky rebels).
3. I have no dog in this fight. My family came to this country from Ireland in 1947 after fighting in their revolution and civil war.
4. “A reporter for the Philadelphia Public Ledger, one of the first to visit the town after the battle, wrote on July 5th: The people here are starving, the rebels having robbed them of everything, and the farmers cannot bring in provisions because their horses are either stolen or removed out of the way of thieves. It is expected by to-morrow or next day some relief will arrive. At present the people suffer, and some of our wounded have not eaten since the 1st or 2nd instant; the women and children have been living in the cellars of their homes and are just beginning to emerge from their dismal hiding places”. [Letter From the Battlefield,” Philadelphia Public Ledger, July 10, 1863].
i find the idea of wide spread misbehavior on the part of the rebels to be rather uneducated. in the south, you use sir and ma’am when adressing anyone. it doesnt matter if they are older or younger, it is propper respect. manners are still taught in the south, as well as respect of your elders/parents. anyone that has ever traveled the south can testify to the hospitality, respect, and manners of the south.
on the flip side, every time i travl to the north, i find myself struggeling not to cry. children are out of control, there is no concept of respect to others, hospitality is unheard of.
this isnt a new trend, yankees have always been rude, the south has always been known for its hospitality. which side do you think more likely to be pilageing and raping en mass?
hell, yankees even celebrate their rapists and pilagers. anyone know what a Jay Hawk is?
Smitty … I agree. I just returned from the South … most polite.
I was addressing what happened in 1863 not 2013.
BTW … I say Rebels only because I don’t know better as I am technically a Yankee!
Interesting:
Lee’s GEN ORD 72: http://explorepahistory.com/displayimage.php?imgId=1-2-842
Lee’s GEN ORD 73:
http://www.sewanee.edu/faculty/willis/Civil_War/documents/LeeGenOrders73.html
Just an Old Dog: I’d agree that Gettysburg and Vicksburg were two of the three battles in 1863 that – collectively – doomed the Confederacy’s chances for independence. The third IMO was Chickamauga.
Chickamauga IMO offered the Confederacy one last hope at a negotiated political settlement of the war including Confederate independence. It was fought due to a strategic change; rather than threaten the DC/Philadelphia/New York corridor, the Confederacy instead looked to the midwest. A fair number of folks in Ohio/Indiana/points west were completely fed up with the war, and were willing to throw in the towel (“Copperheads”). The movement was particularly strong in the Ohio valley.
The strategy, proposed by Longstreet, was for his corps from the Army of Northern Virginia to move south, link up with Bragg’s Army of Tennessee, defeat the Union forces in the Tennessee/Ohio valley area, and invade Ohio. The remainder of the Army of Northern Virginia would remain on the strategic defensive in the East.
Rosencrans – commander of the Union forces – blundered terribly twice before and during the battle of Chickamauga. First, he dividing his Army into multiple smaller element rendered by terrain incapable of mutual support in the face of an enemy that was, unknown to him, stronger. His second error occurred during the battle, where he responded to a false report of a gap in his lines by moving units and creating an actual major gap in his lines. The first error placed his army at risk; the second error nearly caused the destruction of his army. Only resolute defense by Thomas – the “Rock of Chickamauga” – allowed the Union army to survive to withdraw from the battlefield vice being annihilated.
As at Gettysburg, the Confederates nearly achieved a strategic triumph at Chickamauga; unlike Gettysburg, the Chickamauga battle was a Confederate victory. However, the Union was able to preserve its forces intact and continue the war. What the Confederacy needed at Chickamauga was a Cannae-style battle of annihilation. Instead, they got a one-sided victory where their foe – though badly beaten – lived to fight another day.
MCPO-I’ll look for the plaque tomorrow when I am there. As to the newspaper account, I am not inclined to give it much credit. Newspapers then, as now, were little more than propaganda organs for a particular viewpoint (they make “the crazy crazier and the ignorant more ignorant” as one wag said). There are many more academic accounts of the battle and I would think that at least a few would have mentioned such atrocities, but I’ve never seen any.
68W58 … have fun in Gettysburg. Truly a great American town. Chech out: http://www.garryowenirishpub.net/
I would reccomend the book “The Killer Angels” to any who would like to study the motivations and actions taken by each side. The author, Michael Shaara, relied heavily on correspondence from the various participants to create his account. Great book.
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/killer-angels-michael-shaara/1100009080?ean=9780345348104
150 years ago, the south still taught manners and respect. southerners raised propper gentlemen and ladies.
Bubblehead Ray: two other excellent books that give insight into the command relationships, primarily on the Confederate side, are High Tide at Gettysburg and Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg, both by Glenn Tucker. These date from the 1950s/1960s and were among the first works written by a Southern historian concerning Gettysburg that weren’t “Lost Cause” advocacy hit pieces blaming Lee’s errors at Gettysburg on Longstreet.
Tucker did extensive research using surviving primary source documentation in preparing these works. I’d tend to trust his conclusions.
150 years ago today, my Ggggrandfather was on the field as 4th Corporal, Co I, 5th Alabama Infantry Reg’t, Rodes’ Brigade. From the 09JUL1863 report of COL J.M. Hall, commanding the 5th Alabama Inf Reg’t at that time: The regiment reached Gettysburg, Pa., by way of Petersburg from Carlisle, Pa., July 1, where the enemy was actually encountered for the first time at the battle of Gettysburg. The brigade was moved in line of battle, the movement commencing about 2 miles from the town, the right resting nearer to and in the direction of the enemy. The brigade moved 1 1/2 miles at a right wheel; hence the Fifth Alabama Regiment, being on the left of the brigade, was compelled to move very rapidly—frequently at a run. It is but just to state that the ground was very rough. In places the regiment moved through full-grown wheat, in others over plowed ground, through orchards, gardens, over wood and stone fences, which, with the rapidity of the march, fatigued the men, causing many of them to faint from exhaustion. When within 500 yards of the enemy, the four regiments on my right were ordered forward, and the Fifth Alabama Regiment was halted in reserve, to protect the right flank of General Doles and the left flank of that part of Rodes’ brigade which was then advancing. After resting in this position a half hour, orders were sent to me to advance on the enemy, composed of two heavy lines of infantry in front and a line of sharpshooters, supported by infantry and artillery, on my left flank. The enemy in front was engaged by the right wing, the left having been thrown back at right angles with the rest of the line, to engage the flanking party. The regiment fought in this position until I was informed that the troops on the right were falling back, when I ordered a retrograde movement to the position I previously occupied. This was done the more conscientiously because the odds opposed were very great, and my command was under a front and enfilading fire,… Read more »
MCPO-thanks for the tip. Hondo-I’ve mentioned Pickett’s Charge in History and Memory on here before, it’s a really great book on understanding how history gets written.
Also, Stars in their Courses which is the Gettysburg extract from Shelby Foote’s classic Civil War trilogy.
@33 Thanks Hondo, I’ll check those out. 🙂
There’s a number of reasons why the south failed under Lee one was his not taking the time to analyze the terrain more before committing his forces. He should have withdrawn for a more suitable position.
Just a FWIW – Go to Little Round Top, and find that slab of granite that says “20th Maine Inf”….and realize that the stone marks the end of the line, and that a man was awarded the MOH based on his actions in that very spot.
‘Humbling’ does not begin to describe it.
@11 Devtun: Thanks for the link. According to the family genealogy, George Gordon Meade was my grandmother’s mother’s uncle, so I admit I am a bit biased in his favor.
The academics and amateur historians have been debating this and that about the Battle of Gettysburg since, I suppose, the day after the battle ended. And that’s fine. But give me a fine Fall day alone so that I can walk the fields and hillsides slowly and delicately, and that is enough for me.
You know, the Battle was not so long ago. Let’s say an 18-year old (born 1845) who survived it had a child at age 40 (i.e., in 1885). If that child had a child (the Veteran’s grandchild) at age 42, that grandchild would have been born in 1927. That would mean, the grandchild of the Veteran would be 87 or 88 TODAY! It also means that there must be many great grandchildren of Civil War Veterans around, since, under this scenario, they would have been born in the 1940’s and 1950s. Like I said, the Battle was not so long ago.