The Copse of Trees

tlyne

Private
Joined
Apr 25, 2016
Location
Cambridge, OH
Where the Rebels were headed...

image_zpsgzbwwtxq.jpg
 

Attachments

  • image_zpsgzbwwtxq.jpg
    image_zpsgzbwwtxq.jpg
    149.3 KB · Views: 185
The spot where this is taken is near the center/right of the 20th Massachusetts on the afternoon of July 2, according to my calculations. This day they were in the second line and were not directly engaged against Wright's Georgians, yet lost 10-11 men killed or wounded from artillery fire, including their Colonel, Paul J. Revere, grandson of the Revolutionary War hero. Col. Revere was mortally wounded, reportedly by a bursting round of canister.
 
How long are people going to accept the tired old 'copse of trees' tale. Why, even tour guides have a real problem with THAT- that is, if they are familiar with Gettysburg circa 1863!!
The truth is, that that purported copse of trees were mere saplings at the time of battle- and NOBODY can deny that. Across at near a mile, and over a great swale, that 'copse' could scarcely be seen. And commanding more than 20-30,000 troops, in the smoke and confusion, you are gonna focus on less than an acre wooded swatch??!!
The goal of the attack was there then- but not now- Zieglers Grove. THAT- or at least the right extreme of it- was the goal of the Pickett-Pettigrew attack.If the battlefield existed as it did at time of battle, you would see the true aim of battle. In addition, you would see the genius of Lee's plan- to split the Union center, and render the broken halves inable to mutually assist each other, and require a most-disorderable retreat.
But no, we are led to believe the 'copse of trees' myth, that at the end of the funnel were pumped hundreds of troops who 'held the line'- what a load!!
Walk the ground, as I have, and you will see the unenable position that the 'copse of trees' fools continue to hold. From an early age, I was told that "sayin dont make it so". Unfortunately, the older the lies, the easier they are accepted.


PS. My great uncle shot down 'The Red Baron"...that doesnt make me a pilot.
 
How long are people going to accept the tired old 'copse of trees' tale. Why, even tour guides have a real problem with THAT- that is, if they are familiar with Gettysburg circa 1863!!
The truth is, that that purported copse of trees were mere saplings at the time of battle- and NOBODY can deny that. Across at near a mile, and over a great swale, that 'copse' could scarcely be seen. And commanding more than 20-30,000 troops, in the smoke and confusion, you are gonna focus on less than an acre wooded swatch??!!
The goal of the attack was there then- but not now- Zieglers Grove. THAT- or at least the right extreme of it- was the goal of the Pickett-Pettigrew attack.If the battlefield existed as it did at time of battle, you would see the true aim of battle. In addition, you would see the genius of Lee's plan- to split the Union center, and render the broken halves inable to mutually assist each other, and require a most-disorderable retreat.
But no, we are led to believe the 'copse of trees' myth, that at the end of the funnel were pumped hundreds of troops who 'held the line'- what a load!!
Walk the ground, as I have, and you will see the unenable position that the 'copse of trees' fools continue to hold. From an early age, I was told that "sayin dont make it so". Unfortunately, the older the lies, the easier they are accepted.


PS. My great uncle shot down 'The Red Baron"...that doesnt make me a pilot.
Like the red baron reference.
 
How long are people going to accept the tired old 'copse of trees' tale. Why, even tour guides have a real problem with THAT- that is, if they are familiar with Gettysburg circa 1863!!
The truth is, that that purported copse of trees were mere saplings at the time of battle- and NOBODY can deny that. Across at near a mile, and over a great swale, that 'copse' could scarcely be seen. And commanding more than 20-30,000 troops, in the smoke and confusion, you are gonna focus on less than an acre wooded swatch??!!
The goal of the attack was there then- but not now- Zieglers Grove. THAT- or at least the right extreme of it- was the goal of the Pickett-Pettigrew attack.If the battlefield existed as it did at time of battle, you would see the true aim of battle. In addition, you would see the genius of Lee's plan- to split the Union center, and render the broken halves inable to mutually assist each other, and require a most-disorderable retreat.
But no, we are led to believe the 'copse of trees' myth, that at the end of the funnel were pumped hundreds of troops who 'held the line'- what a load!!
Walk the ground, as I have, and you will see the unenable position that the 'copse of trees' fools continue to hold. From an early age, I was told that "sayin dont make it so". Unfortunately, the older the lies, the easier they are accepted.

Don't tell John Bachelder that.:sneaky:

I have walked the ground extensively, and I know that you can't see the copse from the edge of the Spangler woods, thanks to the swales. Even taking into consideration that, thanks to the various WWI installations on the Pickett-Pettigrew field, the field has changed since 1863, you are correct that the trees we consider the copse were saplings during the battle, and that the wood lot of Ziegler's Grove was much more visible from Seminary Ridge. The notion of the High Water Mark--and the fact that it was at the copse--was mostly Bachelder's.

As for the "genius" of Lee's plan--there's been much debate about that over the last 153 years, too. That's a whole other thread.
 
The goal of the attack was there then- but not now- Zieglers Grove. .

Maybe for part of the Carolinians (or the left of the Confederate line that actually ended a bit South of the Federal line/Ziegler's grove.) But there are zero contemporary Confederate references to support that, and the Left of the line (Brockenbrough) kinda went half way there and back.

All (but one) contemporary primary Confederate references say that the target was "the enemy line". Just makes too much sense that it will not be a landmark, esp. since all those landmarks were about invisible. The Right line of the Confederates was just North of Sherfy's; a pretty unfortunate arrangement if you target Ziegler's grove :wink:

Despite all the stories, there is some actual data about Pickett's charge: Federal recipients of the Medal of Honor for capturing particular flags. I am not going to get into the whole data, but some of it is fascinating. For example, the flag of the 18th VA (Garnett's brigade) that was the seventh from the right regiment and legend has it that it went across to the North of the Codori farm, with those obliques (another fun suburban legend,) had its flag captured by someone from 1st MN. Contemporary testimonies by a couple 1st MN soldiers say that they stayed were they were the day before (i.e. right where their monument is.) Unless you believe in teleportation or some magic converging rush of anyone towards the CoT, you got to believe in a pretty much parallel to Emmitsburg Rd single line Kemper-Garnet-Fry-Marshal-Davis attack, attacking from Ziegler's Grove to the S of the PA monument...
 
Maybe for part of the Carolinians (or the left of the Confederate line that actually ended a bit South of the Federal line/Ziegler's grove.) But there are zero contemporary Confederate references to support that, and the Left of the line (Brockenbrough) kinda went half way there and back.

All (but one) contemporary primary Confederate references say that the target was "the enemy line". Just makes too much sense that it will not be a landmark, esp. since all those landmarks were about invisible. The Right line of the Confederates was just North of Sherfy's; a pretty unfortunate arrangement if you target Ziegler's grove :wink:

Despite all the stories, there is some actual data about Pickett's charge: Federal recipients of the Medal of Honor for capturing particular flags. I am not going to get into the whole data, but some of it is fascinating. For example, the flag of the 18th VA (Garnett's brigade) that was the seventh from the right regiment and legend has it that it went across to the North of the Codori farm, with those obliques (another fun suburban legend,) had its flag captured by someone from 1st MN. Contemporary testimonies by a couple 1st MN soldiers say that they stayed were they were the day before (i.e. right where their monument is.) Unless you believe in teleportation or some magic converging rush of anyone towards the CoT, you got to believe in a pretty much parallel to Emmitsburg Rd single line Kemper-Garnet-Fry-Marshal-Davis attack, attacking from Ziegler's Grove to the S of the PA monument...

I actually found several references from Confederate officers about making left obliques during the advance (Colonel Joseph Mayo, Captain John Smith of the 11th Virginia, and Captain Henry Owen of the 18th Virginia).

As for the 1st Minnesota, contemporary evidence indicates that they moved by the right flank as the Confederates approached the Angle, firing as they moved. Evidence suggests that they were one of the units that counterattacked against Armistead's breakthrough. Garnett's flags were almost certainly captured somewhere along the wall between the Angle and the copse.

R
 
I actually found several references from Confederate officers about making left obliques during the advance (Colonel Joseph Mayo, Captain John Smith of the 11th Virginia, and Captain Henry Owen of the 18th Virginia).

As for the 1st Minnesota, contemporary evidence indicates that they moved by the right flank as the Confederates approached the Angle, firing as they moved. Evidence suggests that they were one of the units that counterattacked against Armistead's breakthrough. Garnett's flags were almost certainly captured somewhere along the wall between the Angle and the copse.

R

Contemporary is the operating word for references. I know the references regarding the obliques, but those are not contemporary. The only account I know from Mayo, for example is second hand and from 1906. Owen's papers were published in the 20th century as well, and here are their contents. His Gettysburg manuscripts are from 1881, thus not contemporary (plus I'd throw out everything after 1879 because they are tainted by the Bachelder Fantasy.) And his account is bizarre: He (like several Federal, but not Confederate, accounts) says that the attack was in column and not line formation... John Holmes Smith's account is also 20th Century (1904)

As far as 1st MN goes, I know of 2 contemporary sources (letter and diary) saying that they did not move. Might need to dig them.

I am just looking at the whole thing based on evidence, weighing the closest to 1863 more than others and throwing away anything published after the Bachelder papers were published, including their content (which is not that much about Pickett's Charge from the Confederate point of view.)
 
Contemporary is the operating word for references. I know the references regarding the obliques, but those are not contemporary. The only account I know from Mayo, for example is second hand and from 1906. Owen's papers were published in the 20th century as well, and here are their contents. His Gettysburg manuscripts are from 1881, thus not contemporary (plus I'd throw out everything after 1879 because they are tainted by the Bachelder Fantasy.) And his account is bizarre: He (like several Federal, but not Confederate, accounts) says that the attack was in column and not line formation... John Holmes Smith's account is also 20th Century (1904)

As far as 1st MN goes, I know of 2 contemporary sources (letter and diary) saying that they did not move. Might need to dig them.

I am just looking at the whole thing based on evidence, weighing the closest to 1863 more than others and throwing away anything published after the Bachelder papers were published, including their content (which is not that much about Pickett's Charge from the Confederate point of view.)

The two accounts I saw for the 1st Minnesota are contemporary to the battle (the official reports by Captain Coates) and a private letter from about a week later, IIRC).

Although Coates' report does suggest that the movement may have been more of a spurious of the moment thing rather than being directed so I could see most of the regiment moving to the right with some men staying at their posts, firing into the mass.

R
 
There is also Col. Hall's map that shows the oblique movement.

IMO, even if there were no orders to left oblique (the evidence for both the pro and con positions is shaky, IMHO), there is evidence that some of the movements resulted in a practical oblique. For example, several accounts talk about forming to the left which would appear and move similarly to an oblique.

R
 
IMO, even if there were no orders to left oblique (the evidence for both the pro and con positions is shaky, IMHO), there is evidence that some of the movements resulted in a practical oblique. For example, several accounts talk about forming to the left which would appear and move similarly to an oblique.

R
Hall's map only deals with what the man saw. Just a witness putting down what he saw on that day with nothing to gain or loose either way.
 
Hall's map only deals with what the man saw. Just a witness putting down what he saw on that day with nothing to gain or loose either way.

Norman Hall's map is so wrong in so many ways :smile:

here:

hallimage1.gif


Not sure what actually is correct in that map...
 

Attachments

  • hallimage1.gif
    hallimage1.gif
    31.4 KB · Views: 43
Back
Top