Chapter III: Part 3

Gen. Doubleday in writing to ask permission to make use of the pamphlet in a history he was then preparing, suggested only one alteration, and that was in regard to Stannard’s Vermont brigade, which had fought only the day before, and not the two days as the pamphlet had it.

[Sidenote: UNION SENTIMENT IN NORTH CAROLINA.]

On the retreat Kilpatrick attacked our ambulance train and captured many wounded officers of Ewell’s corps. Among them was one from my brigade who, when in hospital, was asked by a Federal surgeon if the well-known Union sentiment in North Carolina had anything to do with the large proportion of wounded men from that State. Being young and inexperienced in the ways of the world he indignantly answered, “No.”

[Sidenote: HUMBUGGERY OF HISTORY.]

Early in the war the best troops in the army of Northern Virginia could not have fighting enough. At that time they were simple enough to believe that there was some connection between fame and bravery. After a while they learned that a dapper little clerk of the quartermaster’s department, if he had the ear of the editor of the Richmond “Examiner,” had more to do with their reputation than their own courage. When this fact became known there was “no more spoiling for a fight,” but it was very often felt to be a hardship when they were called upon to do more than their proper share of fighting.

[Sidenote: BROCKENBOROUGH’S VIRGINIA BRIGADE.]

The 40th, 47th and 55th Virginia regiments and 22nd Virginia battalion composed this brigade. Up to the reorganization of the army after Jackson’s death, it formed a part of A. P. Hill’s famous light division. That it did not sustain its reputation at Gettysburg had no effect upon the general result of that battle. Their loss was 25 killed and 143 wounded.

[Sidenote: LONGSTREET’S MEN.]

If any searcher after the truth of the matter consults the records and other sources of reliable information, paying no attention to the clap-traps of Virginia writers, he will find, to say the least, that the troops of Ewell’s and Hill’s corps were the peers of the best and the superiors of a large part of the soldiers of Longstreet’s corps. In the battle of the second day if the four brigades of McLaw’s division had fought as well as did Wright’s and Wilcox’s of the third corps, we would have undoubtedly gained a victory at Gettysburg. Hood’s was the best division, but it was defeated at Wauhatchie, Tenn., by troops that the men of the second and third corps had often met and never failed to drive. As to Pickett’s “writing division:” From Malvern Hill to Gettysburg was exactly one year, and in this time the four great battles of Second Manassas, Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, and twice as many of less prominence were fought by the army or parts of the army. In these battles Lane’s North Carolina, Scales’ North Carolina and Archer’s mixed brigade of Tennesseeans and Alabamians had three thousand six hundred and ten men killed and wounded. In the same period Armistead’s Virginia, Kemper’s Virginia and Garnett’s Virginia had seven hundred and seventy-two killed and wounded.

[Sidenote: SCALES’ BRIGADE.]

At Gettysburg where it had 102 killed and 322 wounded it was a small brigade, as at Chancellorsville only two months before it had met with a loss of nearly seven hundred. In the third day’s assault, General Scales having been wounded, it was commanded by Col. Lowrence, who was also wounded as was every field officer and nearly every company officer in the brigade. This gallant little organization consisted of the 13th, 16th, 22nd, 34th and 38th North Carolina. Its first commander was Pettigrew, who was severely wounded and captured at Seven Pines. Then came Pender, then Scales, late Governor of North Carolina. At Gettysburg it and Lane’s were the only troops who were required to fight every day.

Mr. W. H. Swallow, of Maryland, a Confederate soldier and a writer of some note, was wounded at Gettysburg, and in one of his articles descriptive of the battle, says: “Gen. Trimble, who commanded Pender’s division and lost a leg in the assault, lay wounded with the writer at Gettysburg for several weeks after the battle, related the fact to the writer (Swallow) that when Gen. Lee was inspecting the column in front of Scales’ brigade, which had been fearfully cut up in the first day’s conflict, having lost very heavily, including all of its regimental officers with its gallant commander, and noticing many of Scales’ men with their heads and hands bandaged, he said to Gen. Trimble: ‘Many of these poor boys should go to the rear; they are not able for duty.’ Passing his eyes searchingly along the weakened ranks of Scales’ brigade he turned to Gen. Trimble and touchingly added, ‘I miss in this brigade the faces of many dear friends.’ * * * * * In a few weeks some of us were removed from the town to a grove near the wall that Longstreet had assaulted. As the ambulances passed the fences on the Emmittsburg road, the slabs were so completely perforated with bullet holes that you could scarcely place a half inch between them. One inch and a quarter board was indeed a curiosity. It was sixteen feet long and fourteen inches wide and was perforated with eight hundred and thirty-six musket balls. I learned afterwards that the board was taken possession of by an agent of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. This board was on that part of the fence where Scales’ brave little brigade crossed it.”

[Sidenote: STEUART’S BRIGADE.]

This brigade was composed of the 10th, 23rd and 37th Virginia, the Maryland battalion and the 1st and 3rd North Carolina. When Gen. Ed. Johnson, supported by two of Rodes’ brigades, made his attack on the morning of the third day, this brigade displayed conspicuous gallantry. Had Gen. Longstreet moved forward at the same time, the story of Gettysburg might have been written very differently. There was not an indifferent company in this brigade. All were choice troops. The 3rd North Carolina possessed in a pre-eminent degree the mental obtuseness peculiar to so many North Carolina troops. Try as they would, they never could master the art of assaulting entrenchments or fighting all day in an open field without having somebody hurt. In the Sharpsburg campaign it had more men killed and wounded than any regiment in the army. At Chancellorsville there were only three--all North Carolina--whose casualties were greater, and at Gettysburg (losing fifty per cent.) it headed the list for its division. The 1st North Carolina, a somewhat smaller regiment, in number of casualties always followed close behind the Third, except at Mechanicsville, when it went far ahead. It was indeed also one of those fool regiments which could never learn the all-important lesson which so many of their more brilliant comrades found no difficulty in acquiring.

Col. Fox in his “Regimental Losses,” says: “To all this some may sneer and some may say, ‘Cui Bono?’ If so let it be remembered that there are other reasons than money or patriotism which induce men to risk life and limb in war. There is the love of glory and the expectation of honorable recognition; but the private in the ranks expects neither; his identity is merged in that of his regiment; to him the regiment and its name is everything; he does not expect to see his own name appear upon the page of history, and is content with the proper recognition of the old command in which he fought. But he is jealous of the record of his regiment and demands credit for every shot it faced and every grave it filled. The bloody laurels for which a regiment contends will always be awarded to the one with the longest roll of honor. Scars are the true evidence of wounds, and regimental scars can be seen only in its record of casualties.”

[Sidenote: DEFEAT WITH HONOR.]

How much punishment must a body of troops receive before they can, without discredit to themselves, confess that they have been defeated? In answer it may be stated that in front of Marye’s Hill at Fredericksburg, Maegher’s and Zook’s brigades lost in killed and wounded, respectively, thirty-six and twenty-six per cent., and that the killed and wounded of the fifteen Pennsylvania regiments, constituting Meade’s division, which broke through Jackson’s line, was 36 per cent. This division was not only repulsed but routed, and yet they were deservedly considered amongst the very best troops in their army. Ordinarily it may be safely said that a loss of twenty-five per cent. satisfies all the requirements of military honor. Ordinarily is said advisedly, for in our army very much depended upon knowing from what State the regiment or brigade hailed before it could be decided whether or not it was justified in retreating. When on the afternoon of the third day of July, 1863, Pettigrew’s, Trimble’s and Pickett’s divisions marched into that ever-to-be remembered slaughter pen, there was one regiment in the first named division, the 11th Mississippi, which entered the assault fresh, carrying in 325 officers and men. After losing 202 killed and wounded, it with its brigade, left the field in disorder. Correspondents of Virginia newspapers witnessing their defeat accused them of bad behavior. Virginian historians repeated their story and the slander of brave men, who had lost sixty per cent. before retreating, lives to this day. In the spring of 1862 an army, consisting of ten regiments of infantry, one of cavalry and two batteries of artillery, was defeated in the valley and the loss in killed and wounded was four hundred and fifty-five. In the summer of 1863 there were eight regiments in the same division who took part in a certain battle and were defeated; but they did not confess themselves beaten ’till the number of their killed and wounded amounted to two thousand and two (2,002)--a loss so great that it never was before or afterwards equalled in our army or in any American army. In the first instance all of the troops were from Virginia and as consolation for their defeat they received a vote of thanks from the Confederate Congress. In the second case five of the regiments were from North Carolina and three from Mississippi. Did our Congress thank them for such unprecedented display of endurance? No, indeed! Corrupted as it was by Richmond flattery and dominated by Virginian opinion; the only wonder is that it refrained from a vote of censure.

[Sidenote: WESTERN ARMY.]

Four North Carolina infantry regiments, 29th, 39th, 58th and 60th, and one of cavalry, served in the Western army and did so with credit to themselves and State.

[Sidenote: COOK’S BRIGADE.]

The 15th, 27th, 46th and 48th regiments composed this brigade. It met with its greatest losses at Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg, Bristoe Station and the Wilderness. The 15th, while in Cobb’s brigade, suffered great loss at Malvern Hill in addition to above. The 48th fought at Oak Grove June 25th, the first of the seven days’ battles, and suffered severely. The 27th was probably more praised for its conduct at Sharpsburg than any regiment in the army.

[Sidenote: RANSOM’S BRIGADE.]

The 24th, 25th, 35th, 49th and 56th made up this brigade. It probably met with its greatest loss at Malvern Hill. The 24th of this brigade and the 14th of Geo. B. Anderson’s both claim that after this battle their dead were found nearest to where the enemy’s artillery had stood. The brigade also displayed conspicuous gallantry at Sharpsburg, Fredericksburg and Drury’s Bluff.

[Sidenote: JUNIOR RESERVES.]

Gov. Vance called them his “seed wheat.” There were four regiments and one battalion of these troops. They were used for the most part to guard bridges from raiders, but a large part of them fought at Wise’s Fork, below Kinston, and at Bentonville, where they acquitted themselves creditably. A witness has told the writer of having seen one of these children who a few days before had lost both eyes by a musket ball. He said it was the “saddest sight of a sad, sad war.”

[Sidenote: “RED LEG” INFANTRY.]

After the fall of Fort Fisher several battalions of heavy artillery which had been occupying the other forts near the mouth of the Cape Fear, were withdrawn and armed as infantry, joined Johnston’s army. No troops ever fought better than they did at Kinston and Bentonville. At the latter battle one of these battalions was commanded by Lt. Col. Jno. D. Taylor, who lost an arm on that occasion.

[Sidenote: THE CRITICS.]

While the notices of the pamphlet have been generally favorable, it was not to be expected that all would be so. There are those who see no need for reopening the question herein discussed. While confessing that a part of our troops have been directly wronged by slanderous words and all them wronged by implication, they assert that time only is required to make all things even, and that the dead past should be allowed to bury its dead. Peace loving souls they deprecate controversy, believing that from it will result only needless heart burnings.

Then again there are others who object not only to the tone and temper of the article, but to the mere statement of indisputable facts. There should be, they say, a feeling of true comradeship among all who have served in the same army, especially in such an army as ours. That comrades should assist and defend each other in person and reputation, and under no circumstances should anything be done or said to wound or offend. To admit that there has been provocation in one direction does not justify provocation in another, for two wrongs never yet made a right. That to write of anything to the discredit of a part of the army of Northern Virginia is to a certain extent to injure the reputation of the whole army, and that a sentiment of loyalty to that army and love for its head should prompt its veterans to place its honor above all other considerations. Some old soldiers within and some without the limits of the State have expressed these opinions. Many others may entertain them. It may be they are right. It may be they are wrong. Who can tell? However, letters never printed show that there are many who think when once an effort in behalf of justice is begun it should be continued ’till that end is attained, and be it remembered that the justice demanded is for the dead who cannot defend themselves.

[Sidenote: KIRKLAND’S BRIGADE.]

The 17th, 42nd, 50th and 66th North Carolina composed this brigade, and it was first commanded by Gen. Jas. Martin. It was not sent to Virginia ’till the spring of 1864, when it was placed in a division made up for Gen. Hoke. It was hotly engaged in the battle of Drury’s Bluff where Lt. Col. Lamb, of the 17th, was mortally wounded, at Cold Harbor where Col. Moore, the boy commander of the 66th, was killed, at Bentonville, Kinston, etc. But it is probable that the hardships endured in the trenches at Petersburg were responsible for more deaths than all the bullets of the enemy.

[Sidenote: ARTILLERY.]

Seven North Carolina batteries served in Virginia. All of them were very efficient, but three of them were so remarkably fine that it is a temptation to name them.

[Sidenote: CAVALRY.]

We had five regiments and one battalion of cavalry to serve in Virginia. They were the 9th, 19th, 41st, 59th and 63rd North Carolina troops; but generally known as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th cavalry and the 16th battalion. If space permitted, incidents worth mentioning connected with each of these organizations could be told. As it is, only two, which may interest North Carolinians generally, and citizens of Halifax county in particular, will be mentioned. In the summer of 1864 when General Butler came so near capturing Petersburg, at that time defenseless, the 16th North Carolina battalion was picketing the road by which the Federals were approaching. It was then that this battalion, assisted by two light field guns, acted with so much spirit that the advance of Butler’s men was so delayed that time was given for troops from Lee’s army to arrive and man the fortifications. Prominent among the heroes on this occasion was a Halifax boy--Lt. W. F. Parker. On the disastrous field of Five Forks our cavalry was not only holding its own, but was driving that of the enemy when the infantry gave way. This success of the cavalry on their part of the line was very nearly the last ever gained by any portion of our army. They had been fighting by squadrons and that composed of the Onslow and Halifax companies of the 3rd regiment had just made a successful charge, when, looking to the left, they saw the infantry retreating in disorder. The squadron on this occasion was commanded and led by a Scotland Neck mounted Rifleman, the late Norfleet Smith--a brave officer, a good citizen and a loyal friend. Dear old “Boots” of other days! Lightly lie the sod above your honored head.

“Earth has no such soldiers now,
Such true friends are not found.”

[Sidenote: THIRTY-SIXTH N. C. TROOPS.]

This was a heavy artillery regiment stationed at Fort Fisher when the final attack was made upon this fort. After the fire from the ships had dismounted their big guns and the assault by land was being made, they snatched up their muskets and showed the enemy how well they could use them. It is now generally conceded that not in the whole war did a body of soldiers ever struggle so long and so desperately against the inevitable. From traverse to traverse, from gun-chamber to gun-chamber for several hours the hopeless struggle went on. Capt. Hunter’s Halifax company had 58 men killed and wounded out of 80 present. A letter from a gallant member of the company, says:

“There never was a formal surrender. It (the fort) was taken by piece-meal--that is, one gun-chamber at a time.” When the capture of this place was announced in Richmond and before any of the facts regarding it were known, the abuse and vilification heaped upon its devoted garrison was something astonishing even for that very censorious city.

[Sidenote: CLINGMAN’S BRIGADE.]

This brigade was composed of the 8th, 31st, 51st and 61st North Carolina. It served in South Carolina a great part of the war, and for the gallant conduct of the 51st in the defense of Fort Wagner, this regiment was complimented in orders. The brigade took a prominent part in the brilliant capture of Plymouth. It was engaged at Goldsboro, Batchelor Creek--where Colonel Henry Shaw, of the 8th, was killed--and at other points in North Carolina, before it went to Virginia, which it did early in 1864. There it became a part of the command of Major-General Hoke. After having heroically borne all the privations and dangers which fell to the lot of this “splendid division,” as styled by General Joe Johnston, it surrendered with it at Greensboro.

[Sidenote: NUMBER OF N. C. TROOPS.]

The compiler of our Roster adds up the number of names printed in the four volumes, and makes a total of 104,498; but to arrive at an approximation of the real number many subtractions, and very many more additions, will have to be made.

The First Volunteers was a six months regiment (twelve companies) and was disbanded when its term of enlistment expired. All of its companies re-enlisted, and thus these men were counted twice, eight of these companies, with the addition of two new ones, becoming the famous Eleventh regiment. Many officers were counted three, four, and sometimes five times in cases where they had been successively promoted. There were a great many transfers from one regiment to another, and in nearly every instance the individual transferred would be counted with both regiments. The Fourth cavalry battalion was incorporated in a regiment, and its 271 names are counted twice. The Seventh battalion (detailed artisans) contains the names of 402 men who were detailed from regiments in active service, and of course they were counted twice. All of these repetitions would probably reduce the number given by the compiler of the State Roster by 3,600 and make it about 100,900. On the other hand this number should probably be increased by 9,100. One entire regiment (the 68th), which carried upon its rolls at least 1,000 names, is not counted, for none of its rolls could be found. In many regiments the rolls printed were those in use the last year of the war, when they had been reduced to skeletons. For instance, in the 60th regiment the rolls of only nine companies could be found, which carried upon them only 467 names. The surviving officers of the missing company getting together, made out a roll from memory embracing the whole war, and the number of names was 114. So it is certain that this regiment should have had more than twice as many names as it is credited with. The fighting 27th is only allowed 802 officers and men, when the 26th and 28th are both given considerably more than 1,800. The 37th is credited with 1,928 names, while the 54th has only 663. Both of these regiments served in the army of Northern Virginia, and it is a fair presumption that they both received about the same number of conscripts. Basing his calculations upon our Roster, and some other sources of information, the writer has arrived at the conclusion that the number of soldiers furnished by North Carolina to the Confederacy was about 110,000. Of course hundreds of this number shortly after enlisting were discharged as unfit for service. Many more should have been discharged and were not, but were required to undergo hardships that they were physically unable to bear, and the consequence was that they died by thousands.

Of the number furnished, nineteen thousand six hundred and seventy-three are known to have been killed outright or died of wounds. Other thousands lost legs and arms, or were otherwise mutilated for life. Twenty thousand six hundred and two are known to have died of disease; and very many of these deaths are directly attributable either to the ignorance of our surgeons or the misdirected zeal that prompted them to retain in the service men who were unfit for its duties, many of them being little better than confirmed invalids.

The great statistician, Colonel Fox, says: “The phrase, ‘Military population,’ as used in the eighth census, represents the white males between the ages of 18 and 45, and included all who were unfit for military duty on account of physical or mental infirmities. These exempts--which include also all cases of minor defects--constitute in every country one-fifth of the military population.” Taking one-fifth from our military population we should have furnished to the Confederate armies ninety-two thousand two hundred and ninety-seven soldiers. But as said above we did send to the front about one hundred and ten thousand, thirty-six per cent. of whom died.

APPENDIX.

EAST LAS VEGAS, N. M.

Enclosed please find 25c. in stamps in payment for Pettigrew’s Charge. I have read it with much interest. I think you have made a good case and that you are right. I was at Vicksburg the same day--the Adjt. 81st Ills. Vols. Infty.

I am yours truly,
J. J. FITZGERALD,
Post Dept. Comd’r Dept. N. M. G. A. R.

* * * * *

ABBEVILLE, S. C., July 1st, 1896.

Dear Sir:--I enclose 25c. in stamps for which be kind enough to send me your pamphlet entitled, “Pickett or Pettigrew?” if you have any copies on hand. I recently saw a copy in Charleston. You agree with me about Pettigrew and Pickett. I was Sergt. Major of Orr’s Rifles, McGowan’s brigade, Wilcox’s division. Some years ago I was looking at the cyclorama of Gettysburg in Philadelphia. The Yankee who explained the battle said that A. P. Hill’s men advanced further than Pickett’s, and pointed out to the crowd where a number of North Carolinians fell at the extreme front.

Yours truly,
ROBT. R. HEMPHILL.

* * * * *

“JUSTICE FOR OUR DEAD IS ALL WE WANT.”

WASHINGTON, D. C., Dec. 29th, 1888.

My Dear Sir:--Circumstances here have caused me to be so very busy of late that I have not had time sooner to acknowledge your courtesy in sending me the pamphlet on the battle of Gettysburg. I seize the occasion of the holidays to do so. The pamphlet was read by every member of my family with the keenest interest. I have to thank you from my heart for writing it. No living man suffers more from these mean and jealous attempts to deprive North Carolina of her proper honor than I do. I sometimes almost get sick over them. I have always regarded the effort of some Virginians, not all, thank God, to deprecate the North Carolina troops in the battle of Gettysburg as simply a damnable and dastardly outrage. * * * * * * * * *

But let us take courage. The simple truth will ultimately prevail--simple justice is all we want for our dead.

Your friend and fellow North Carolinian. ----

[The above was written by one who loved North Carolina and one whom North Carolina loved to honor.]

* * * * *

A WISE JUDGE.

The following is an extract from a letter written by a resident of Chicago, Major Chas. A. Hale, who has the honor of having served in the Fifth New Hampshire, a regiment which fought gallantly at Gettysburg, and is distinguished for having sustained the greatest losses in battle of any infantry or cavalry regiment in the whole Union army:

“There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind but that the sons of North Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi carved on the tablets of history equal laurels with the sons of Virginia in the great events of that supreme attempt to gain victory on Cemetery Ridge. Pettigrew and Trimble deserve equal honors with Pickett, and if we weigh with judicial exactness more, for impartial evidence proves that they suffered in a greater degree, and forced their way nearer the lines where pitiless fate barred their entrance. The nearest point reached by any troops was Bryan’s barn; this is made conclusive by evidence on both sides. If there were a thousand Confederates inside the stone wall at the angle more than two-thirds of that number must have been Pettigrew’s men.”

* * * * *

HOW PICKETT’S DIVISION ‘ABSQUATULATED.’

Pickett’s division of the army of Northern Virginia is rarely heard of either before or after Gettysburg. No body of troops during the last war made as much reputation on so little fighting. Newspaper men did the work by printer’s ink and the casualties were small.

Fourteen hundred and ninety-nine were captured at Gettysburg. More than this number “absquated” when Petersburg fell and there was a probability of leaving Virginia. Pickett’s division made a poor show at the surrender at Appomattox.--Abbeville, (S. C.) Medium.

* * * * *

ÆSOP’S FABLE--THE DOG AND THE BONE.

“They digged a pit.
They digged it deep.
They digged it for their brothers;
But it so fell out that they fell in
The pit that was digged for t’others.”

* * * * *

An interesting contribution to the history of the battle of Gettysburg is afforded in a pamphlet essay entitled “Pickett or Pettigrew?” by Capt. W. R. Bond, a Confederate staff officer in the army of Northern Virginia. Capt. Bond’s desire is to correct the commonly received accounts of the parts taken in that battle by the troops commanded by Gens. Pickett and Pettigrew. * * * * * * * Gen. Longstreet, according to Capt. Bond, is largely responsible for the current misrepresentation of the Southern side of the story of Gettysburg, and he tells in detail a curious story of the favoritism displayed all through the war towards everything Virginian at the expense of the soldiers from the other Southern States.--Springfield Republican.

* * * * *

We have read with much interest a pamphlet by Capt. W. R. Bond, entitled “Pickett or Pettigrew?” in which the writer, a North Carolinian, proposed to show, and does show very conclusively, that the losses of Pettigrew’s North Carolina brigade in this charge were greater than those sustained by Pickett or, indeed, by any command in the army. He claims that the twenty-sixth regiment of this brigade suffered greater loss than that of any command in modern times. The fate of one company in this regiment recalls Thermopylæ; it was literally wiped out--every man in it was either killed or wounded. This pamphlet makes a glorious showing for the resolute courage and intrepidity of the North Carolina troops, but it is endorsed by the brave boys here who fought by their side. It also pays a high tribute to the Tennesseeans engaged in that bloody fight, according them the place they occupied in it and the meed of praise they justly won.--Gallatin (Tenn.) Examiner.

* * * * *

It contains some interesting statements from the Southern, and especially from North Carolina, point of view, the object of its author being to show that undue credit has been given to Pickett’s Virginia brigades at the expense of the brigade of Pettigrew from North Carolina. The author contends that undue prominence has been given to the part taken by Virginia troops in the war of the rebellion, owing to the leading part taken by Virginia newspapers and Virginia historians in reporting the events of the war. He shows that North Carolina leads in the report given in Col. Fox’s paper on the “Chances of Being Hit in Battle.” Of the troops losing the most men Mississippi comes next, and Virginia does not appear at all. He has suggestive reference also to the possibility of Gen. Longstreet being of Gascon descent. Altogether, his little pamphlet is lively reading.--Army and Navy Journal.

* * * * *

A review of this pamphlet ought to and shall be carefully written. * * * His reference to Gen. Pettigrew is in admirable taste and will evoke new sorrow for the untimely death of that cultivated gentleman and splendid soldier; but the dedication to Hill’s corps is marred by a spirit which no provocation can justify. An author who loses his temper always breaks the force of his argument and weakens his cause. And so in the present case some salient facts which Capt. Bond presents lose most of their strength and effect by the spirit in which he clothes them. * * * And suppose the charge of Pickett was given undue prominence in the general history of the war, (and we do not dispute it), was it kind or proper on that account to make a systematic attempt to vitiate the record of all the service rendered by Virginia to the Confederate arms? * * * And it is a worthy duty to resurrect those brave deeds from oblivion, a duty which Capt. Bond is well competent to discharge, and in the discharge of which every Confederate Virginian would bid him “God speed.” But he will pardon us for saying that the task, to serve any good purpose, must be approached in a different tone and temper than that displayed in his recent pamphlet, for we have passed by much of insinuation and allegation his work contains, hoping that a calmer frame of mind will lead the author to vindicate in another edition the name and fame of the gallant Carolinians without seeking to pluck one laurel from the wreath with which friend and foe have crowned the Virginia charge at Gettysburg.--Petersburg Index-Appeal.

* * * * *

After an inexplicable silence of nearly twenty-five years, the North Carolinians are beginning to assert themselves in regard to the charge on the third day at Gettysburg. Every student of the history of the war knows that it was not Pickett, of Virginia, but Pettigrew, of North Carolina, who was entitled to the principal credit for the charge. Pickett started out in command of the charging column, but stopped when within half a mile of our line, while Pettigrew went on with his North Carolinians and reached the farthest point attained by any rebel troops.--National Tribune.

* * * * *

Hall and Sledge are the publishers of this remarkable pamphlet, which not only disparages Virginia and Virginia papers as they were during the war between the States, but even Pickett’s Virginians. The world has passed upon all these matters, and its verdict will not be changed.--Richmond Dispatch.

* * * * *

W. W. Owen, of New Orleans, late Lt. Colonel of Washington artillery, A. N. V., writes: “I have just seen a newspaper account of ‘Pickett’s charge,’ by Capt. W. R. Bond, and am anxious to obtain a copy. I was at the battle of Gettysburg and I think his account of it will agree with my idea about it, at least as far as Pickett was concerned.” This little book is well written and the author corrects a number of errors which have been published about certain battles of the late unpleasantness. It is worth reading.--Tallahassee Floridian.

* * * * *

The Wilmington Star noticing an article in the Richmond Times:

“We see from the Richmond Times that a reply is preparing to Captain W. R. Bond’s stinging pamphlet on the battle of Gettysburg. The Virginians do not intend to have it go down to history that North Carolinians did as well at Gettysburg, or better, than the much trumpeted division of Pickett. North Carolinians must see to it that the brave men who made such a splendid record at Gettysburg are neither defamed nor robbed.”

* * * * *

T. Blyler, Captain in the 12th New Jersey, writes: “Your division (meaning Pettigrew’s) advanced in our front and we bear willing testimony to your bravery and to penetrating farther than Pickett.”

W. H. Shaver, of Kingston, Pa., who belonged to the Philadelphia brigade, writes: “If convenient, say to Capt. Bond that I have read his pamphlet with very great interest as well as astonishment, for we of the North know of no other soldiers in the charge but ‘Pickett and his Virginians.’ It is a well written article and will cause history to be re-written.”

J. D. Vautier, of Philadelphia, Historian of the 88th Regiment of Penn. Vols., writes: “I think it an excellent treatise, it appears to be the impression that the Virginians did about all the fighting on the Southern side during the war. To be a Virginian was to be all that was good. The record shows that the North Carolinians were away up head.”

W. E. Potter, Colonel of the 12th New Jersey, writes: “In an address delivered by myself at Gettysburg May, 1886, I called attention to the gallant conduct of the North Carolina troops and the extent of their losses when compared with Pickett’s. So far as I know my speech was the first publication to point out the fact that the troops of Pickett constituted the minor portion of the assaulting column.”

Col. George Meade, of Philadelphia, the son of Gen. Meade, who commanded the Federal forces in this battle, writes: “I am glad to find in it certain facts that confirm what has been my own impression as to the important part taken by the North Carolina troops in the assault at Gettysburg on the afternoon of the 3rd of July. I must congratulate you on having presented your case so strongly.”

* * * * *

Captain W. R. Bond, a North Carolinian and a Confederate soldier, who agrees with Col. Batchelder, of Massachusetts, the Government historian of the battle of Gettysburg, that the brilliant military exploit popularly known as ‘Pickett’s charge’ should be called ‘Longstreet’s assault,’ has written a pamphlet to call attention to the fact that Pettigrew’s division of North Carolina troops in this charge went further and stayed longer and had more men killed than Pickett’s division of Virginians. Captain Bond presents some interesting statements in the course of his narrative.

It may be added that the North Carolinians also lost, by one of the frequent mischances that govern the direction of popular praise, their share of the glory that their bravery should have gained, and which Pickett’s division gathered in for itself.--Philadelphia Press.

* * * * *

GEN. ULYSSES DOUBLEDAY.

Capt. Bond’s pamphlet showing that Pettigrew and not Pickett is entitled to the glory that graced the Confederate banners at the battle of Gettysburg, is bearing fruit. It is bound to convince any fair-minded man who will read it. A private letter to the author from Asheville, says that the writer had a long conversation with Gen. Doubleday, a Federal officer and brother of the Gen. Doubleday mentioned in the pamphlet. “Gen. Doubleday contended,” continues the letter, “that Pickett’s men did as so-called history says they did, and reaped all the glory.” I asked him as a personal favor to read the essay, “Pickett or Pettigrew?” He has just finished telling his opinion. Said he: “It opened my eyes. Your brave men have been slandered. Capt. Bond gives chapter and verse. It is a fine essay.”--Weldon News.

* * * * *

Mr. O. W. Blacknall, of Kittrells, in a letter to the News and Observer concerning the ceremonies at Winchester last Friday, pays a high compliment to Capt. W. R. Bond’s book, “Pickett or Pettigrew.” Mr. Blacknall mentions Capt. Bond’s book as being one of the documents placed in the pocket of the corner stone, and adds:

“I will say in passing that the scholarly and profound brochure of Capt. Bond--‘Pickett or Pettigrew’--has never received the acknowledgment so eminently its due. Therein he clearly shows the manner in which history was shaped to North Carolina’s detriment. The Richmond papers seeking to please their patrons, chiefly Virginians, to put it mildly, laid great stress on the services of Virginia troops and little on their failures. They killed and made alive the reputations of men as they saw fit. Pollard and other historians writing from the Southern stand-point followed largely the Richmond papers, and thus history was miswritten to our apparently irretrievable harm. Capt. Bond’s pamphlet should be widely read and its substance preserved in history.”--Scotland Neck Commonwealth.

* * * * *

LONGSTREET AND N. C. SOLDIERS.

We copy a brief communication that will serve as an eye-opener to Longstreet’s real claim upon North Carolina sympathizers. Our correspondent writes:

“There are some old soldiers from North Carolina, who have always liked and admired Gen. Longstreet and they regret to see the strictures upon him in a recently published pamphlet. If they will read carefully the following facts from the official records relating to the Sharpsburg campaign, they may feel that their partiality has been misplaced.

“General Longstreet had in this campaign nine North Carolina regiments, whose killed and wounded averaged one hundred and four. In his corps there were eighty regiments from other States and their average was sixty-four. In the eighty there were twenty-two Virginia regiments and their average was thirty-two. The 48th North Carolina had more men killed and wounded than any regiment of its corps. The 3rd North Carolina, of Jackson’s corps, had more men killed and wounded than any regiment in the army. In fact, more than the entire brigades of Generals Armistead and Garnett combined. At the conclusion of his report of the operations of this campaign, General Longstreet mentions the names of thirty-eight officers, who had distinguished themselves for gallantry. In this number there is not one brigade or regiment commander from North Carolina.”--Messenger.

* * * * *

REGIMENTAL LOSSES.

A study of regimental actions shows clearly that the battalions which faced musketry the steadiest, the longest and the oftenest, were the ones whose aggregate loss during the war was greatest. Fighting regiments leave a bloody wake behind them; retreating regiments lose few men. At Chancellorsville the heaviest losses were in the corps that stood--not in the one that broke.--Fox.

* * * * *

W. R. B., in Wilmington Messenger:

I write you a letter, as I wish to tell you about certain conversations I lately had with an old Confederate--an officer of high rank, and one who, after the war, was on intimate terms with Gen. Lee. It will also contain a copy of a letter received by me some two months ago from a member of Gen. Lee’s staff, and some other things which I think will interest your old soldier readers. In one of the conversations referred to mention was made of the letters of General Cobb (who was killed at Fredericksburg) which have lately been published. In one of these letters General Cobb says that Mr. Davis and General Lee thought there was only one State in the Confederacy, and that was Virginia. In referring to it I remarked that, allowing a little for exaggeration, I did not think he was very far wrong; that I supposed it was much the same in the other States, and that I knew of the persistent injustice, and sometimes even cruelty, with which North Carolina and her troops were treated. He at once came to the defence of General Lee, and said he knew positively that he was not responsible for much of the injustice of which I complained; that in the matter of appointing and promoting officers General Lee often had very little influence. For instance, after Jackson’s death, when the army was reorganized and the two corps made into three, he was bitterly opposed to having A. P. Hill and Ewell for corps commanders. He wished to have Rodes--an Alabamian--to command one of them, and also wished to give a division to Pettigrew and he always said if his divisions and corps had been commanded at Gettysburg by officers of his choice he would have gained that battle. But, said General ----, as the secretary of war was a Virginian, and the influence of Virginia politicians was so all-powerful, both in the executive mansion and the halls of our congress, his wishes were not considered. Though a Virginian, he spoke at length of this baneful influence which festered for four years in Richmond. And just here it may be remarked that probably the most humiliating thing connected with our struggle for independence--more humiliating even than defeat--was the fact that North Carolinians and other free born men should ever have allowed themselves to be at all dominated by a public opinion, which was made by a sorry lot of ignoble bomb-proof hunters. On one occasion I told General ---- about the letter I had received from Col. Venable, and how lie happened to write it. That I had heard reports as to General Pickett, while the assault was being made, which reflected upon his courage, and was disposed to doubt them, as I had heard that he had acted very bravely in his vain attempt to rally his division when routed at Five Forks. I do not think I succeeded in convincing him of this, for I think he believes yet that General Pickett never went near his troops on this the day of their last battle.

Wishing to know if there were any grounds for these reports, I wrote to Colonel Venable, asking him how far into the field General Pickett advanced with his division, and how near he was to it when it was repulsed, and the following is his answer:

“Remington, Fauquier County, Va.

“Dear Sir:--It has been settled by officers of the United States
army, that both Pettigrew’s and Pickett’s men went to high water
mark--that is, equally far in the charge at Gettysburg. The Federal
government has caused marks to be placed at different points on the
field with great care.

“The charge should even be called the charge of Pettigrew’s and
Pickett’s men.

“Yours respectfully,
“CHAS. S. VENABLE.

“General Pettigrew was every inch a soldier and a very great loss
to the grand old army of northern Virginia.

C. S. V.”

It will be seen that no attention is paid to my question, as there is no connection between it and the intended answer. This may signify something or it may not. My letter may have been mislaid and contents forgotten. The time has been when the reception of this letter would have greatly gratified me, but since I have made a study of the records and other authorities I have become convinced that, with one exception, there was not a brigade in Trimble’s or Pettigrew’s divisions which did not only equal but really surpass any of General Pickett’s in all soldierly qualities on that occasion.

And now for a few of the figures you some time ago expressed the wish to see. For the whole battle the fifteen Virginia regiments on the right had in killed and wounded 1,360. Amongst those on the left were the five North Carolina and three Mississippi regiments, which constituted Pettigrew’s and Davis’ brigades, and their loss in killed and wounded was 2,002.

What part of this latter loss was incurred on the third day will never be accurately known; but we know from the Federals that the artillery fire was largely concentrated upon these two brigades, and we also know from the testimony of Federal officers, one of whom was Colonel Morgan, General Hancock’s chief of staff, that the dead lay thicker on the ground over which these troops had passed than upon any other part of the field, and if we did not know these two facts the case of one regiment furnishes a key to the per centage of killed and wounded in its own brigade and that of the one immediately on its right. This regiment, the Eleventh Mississippi, did no fighting on the first day, as it was on detached service and consequently met with all its loss in the fight of the third. We know how many it carried in, and Dr. Guild’s report informs us of the loss, and, knowing these numbers, we know that its per centage of killed and wounded was more than sixty--a per centage so high that not one Virginia regiment ever made it, and not a great many others. This and its companion regiment--the Second Mississippi--were old troops--veterans in fact as well as in name--had fought often and always well. By referring to the Sharpsburg Campaign Series 1, Vol. xix. of the records, a comparison can be readily drawn between the conduct of these two regiments in this campaign and that of several which were afterwards at Gettysburg with Pickett. A comparison that were it not so pitiful would be amusing.

If Pickett’s troops carried in no more than claimed their per centage of killed and wounded was twenty-eight. But in order that their per centage might appear as high as possible, it is probable their numbers were always represented as smaller than they were. Their fifteen regiments probably averaged 400. If they did not, they should have done so, for they did not often have anybody hurt--that is, compared with the troops in the army from the other States. In the period from the close of the Richmond fighting to Gettysburg--one year--twelve battles were fought by the whole or part of the army, and in these battles Archer’s Tennessee, Lane’s North Carolina and Scales’ North Carolina had 3,610 killed and wounded. Kemper’s Virginia, Armistead’s Virginia and Garnett’s Virginia had 772. We can understand why these people were handled so tenderly, for were they not made of better clay than the fighters of the army? Fine porcelain from the province of Quang Tong were they--things of beauty, but fragile.

In the assault Davis’ brigade had about sixty per cent. killed and wounded. It is probable that Pettigrew’s brigade had even a higher per centage, as they were somewhat longer under fire. It is possible that Pickett’s was twenty-five. But whatever it was, after all, their pretty wheelings and lovely drum major’s airs, that the enemy should have been so ungrateful as to shoot at them, so wounded their feelings that they had to be sent out of the army and they did not re-join it for nearly a year afterwards.

If a line of good soldiers can be formed in rushing distance, almost anything can be carried. But if a wide and open field has to be passed and there is to be a loss from twenty-five to seventy per cent. and the consequent disorganization, nothing but useless bloodshed can be expected. This would appear to be a truth so self-evident that the merest tyro could comprehend it. But yet Burnside and Hancock (’till too late) do not appear to have done so at Fredericksburg. General Lee did not at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg, and, in ignorance of this law, the gallant Schobelef sacrificed the best division of the Russian army at Plevna.

Bodies in motion, by their momentum, advance in the direction of least resistance. A body of soldiers making an attack forms no exception to this law of physics. When the Philadelphia brigade of Gibbon’s division, which had been roughly handled the day before, gave way as our men got in charging distance, this point of least resistance was filled by Confederates--a disorganized mob of about 1,000--in which several brigades had representatives, and this is very foolishly called the “high water mark of the Confederacy.” Why, there was not a fresh regiment in the Federal army which could not have defeated this body, and there was a whole corps of fresh regiments at hand. The Sixth, which by many was considered the best in the army had hardly fired a shot. If there was any high water mark connected with this battle it was reached the afternoon before, while McLaws, Hood and Anderson were doing their fighting--and the precise time was when Wright’s brigade, of the last named division, having driven the enemy before them, had carried a battery of twenty guns. Shortly afterwards one of McLaws’ brigades gave way, and with its defeat went our fortunes. Every shot fired by us the next day was one more nail in the coffin of the Confederacy.--Scotland Neck Commonwealth.

Transcriber’s Notes

Punctuation and spelling were made consistent when a predominant preference was found in this book; otherwise they were not changed.

Simple typographical errors were corrected; occasional unbalanced quotation marks retained.

Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained; occurrences of inconsistent hyphenation have not been changed.

Inconsistent possessive forms of Proper names have been made consistent, using a government Roster of Commanders to resolve ambiguities. In particular, General J. D. Daniel’s surname often was misprinted as “Daniels” or “Daniels’”.

In the original book, omitted names were indicated by a series of periods. In this eBook, four dashes (or a long em-dash) are used.

Page 51: “Christie” was misprinted as “Chirstie”; corrected here.