Civil War History - Gettysburg ForumGettysburg! It's not just a National Park. It's a Civil War Battlefield. For some it's historic and storied past are almost an obsession! All related discussions are welcome here!
Here's something I want to discuss. I just got this book, and from what I hear it's pretty good. Have you read and what do you think of Edwin B. Coddington's <U>The Gettysburg Campaign</U>? I'd like to read this book next and I'd like to know what I'm in for....
Coddington is a "must read",in my opinion, for any ACW student. For years this was considered a bible, of sorts, for Licensed Battlefield Guides and such. Whether this holds true anymore I am uncertain - so many works have been written.
I like it because it is a treatment of the battle like I believe it should be. That is, a study of the campaign - roughly from June 1st to, say, July 31st, 1863. This is very important.
The only critisism I have heard of the work comes from, mainly Southerners who, with justifiable merit (in my view), challange whether it speaks adequately enough of Southern valor and determination. Also very important.
Pay attention to the beginning "acknowledgements" to a Col. John B. Bachelder as a primary resource to whom the author relies heavily. Bachelder was a civilian and a colonel in "name" only who followed the AoP during it's campaigns but was strangely absent from the battle itself (if I was a civilian, I'd probably high-tail it too, lol).
Bachelder's papers were found at the New Hampshire Historical Society. He was a native of New Hampshire. He reached the battlefield a few days after and stayed there for about three months, interviewing thousands of wounded of both armies around the countryside and taking notes on what they said. Seems like he made a career out of it until he sort of disappeared into obscurity after his death in 1894.
Bachelder was a artist and amateur historian. After hearing about the Battle of Getts, he immediately headed for the battlefield. He spent several wks doing a extensive survey of the fields and interviewed hundreds of wounded soldiers at various hospitals.
In the fall of 1863 he had prepared a isometric map showing the positions of every regiment and battery. During the winter he spent time with the Army of the Potomac doing more interviews.
Aspiring to write a history on the battle, he carried on extensive correspondence with the veteran.
He also commissioned artist James Walker to do a large painting titled "The Repulse of Longstreet's Assault at the battle of Gettysburg" (WOW, what a title).
The showing of this painting generated more letters between Bachelder and Union battle veterans. By the 1870s he reputation as historian of the battle had spread to the Confederates and, because they felt he would treat them fairly, started telling their side of the story.
This time it included not just the officers but everyone, from private up, telling their side.
By the time of his death he had dedicated 31 years to the study of Gettysburg.
I have the 3 vol. set of Bachelder Papers, and the maps that come with them are very nice indeed. As the the books, they also are interesting. Especially the fights between some of veterans, trying to justify their actions or position on the fields.
Chuck in Il.
Actually I haven't found the time to read Coddington's book yet. I've been pretty busy. I have been reading Stackpole's "They Met at Gettysburg", and it's quite an enjoyable read. When I'm finished I'm hoping to find the time to pick Coddington's book off my bookshelf and dust it off
Coddington's book is viewed by many as the bible for Gettysburg. I think it's a great book and a must read. The one thing you must be careful about is when he discusses Meade. Coddington let his own prejudices ooze into his writing there, and he tends to go very easy on Meade. So be forewarned.
Another thing to remember about the book. The subtitle is A Study in Command. After you finish this, to get into deeper detail you need to read other books by authors such as Pfanz previous books, especially his Culps Hill. His last one, Gettysburg Day 1, doesn't cover a lot of new ground, but for someone not reading any other studies of Day 1, it is very informative.
Wert's Gettysburg Day Three has also received good reviews in the online Gettysburg Discussion Group.
Another great source of well written articles
is The Gettysburg Magazine, a bi-anual publication by Morningside Press. So far I've managed to aquire all 25 issues, which today can be very difficult as some issues are out of print and not likely to be reprinted. Some articles from the mag. can be found online at http://www.morningsidebooks.com/.
I believe the same articles are at posted at http://www.gdg.org. (None of the pictures or excellent maps in the Mag.) This is another excellent site with articles written by members, a disscussion board, a online discussion group that post tons of usefull sites.
Chuck in Il.
I would say that Coddington is a good Gettysburg read and recommend it.
However, I have not run into any historian who gives any serious fault to Lee's plan.
Logistical shortages made the trek to Pennsylvania very, very, difficult for the Army of Northern Virginia. Rain was a serious hinderance to Lee before the battle of Gettysburg. Rain and high water on the Potomac meant no supplies could come from Virginia. Lee stretched his army to the breaking point. Many will fault Ewell on July 1, but few will note that Ewell lacked one of his divisions and his reserve artillery was late on July 1.
One Confederate officer, years after the battle noted that the worst thing that happened at Gettysburg was Ewell arriving in time to save Heth and Hill. If only Ewell did not arrive in time, Hill had retreated and Lee withdrew to Virginia.
Like getting drawn in the classic trap of ambush, the Confederates thought victory was certain. Ambush victims usually get that feeling, when they think they are really pushing the enemy.
Taking a public whack at Lee's Gettysburg plans would earn a historian a label saying "Biased. Don't buy this book."
Although Lee didn't know exactly what he was getting into, the Federals certainly hadn't laid out an ambush for him. Other than that, "ambush" if an apt description.
I hold the opinion that Lee ambushed himself. His supply line was stretched so far that, if he didn't keep his army moving, his options were limited. Making a battle on the second day was a calculated risk. On the third .....?
Ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
