27th Connecticut advance

[infomanpa]

On July 2, the 27th CT, along with the rest of Brooke's brigade, advanced across the Wheatfield, entered Rose Woods and successfully drove back the Confederates who occupied those woods. Along a ridge on Brooke Ave. there are monuments to each of the regiments of Brooke's brigade, including the 27th, marking their advanced position. While walking in Rose Woods, I discovered a tablet about 50 feet from the monument of the 27th CT. It's hidden and not easy to find. This tablet claims that it marks the advanced position of this regiment, which seems to contradict the same claim that is engraved on the main monument. So which is correct? You can read it for yourself in the below pictures:

Main monument on Brooke Ave.

Tablet which is located 50 feet down the hill. If you look, closely, right above the tablet, you can see the top of the main monument.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Winthrop D. Sheldon's "The Twenty Seventh," A Regimental History (New Haven: Morris & Benham, 1866), pp. 74-82, describes it: "The men with much difficulty clambered up the rocky steep, but as they appeared upon the crest of the hill, the enemy, drawn up in readiness just beyond, within pistol range, opened upon them a withering fire. Planting the colors upon the top, the men loaded their pieces upon shelter of the brow of the hill, then rising up, delivered their fire." Sheldon was a Lieutenant in Company H.

Sheldon implies that the men dropped back to obtain cover just under the brow to load their weapons. I suppose the tablet more accurately reflects their predominant fighting position, although they initially reached a point close to where the main monument stands. (Only two companies with no more than 75 men comprised the regiment at the outset of the battle - they had lost heavily at Chancellorsville).

 

[infomanpa]

I suppose the tablet more accurately reflects their predominant fighting position, although they initially reached a point close to where the main monument stands.

That appears to be the only explanation. Thanks, Tom.