Baxter on Oak Ridge?

[infomanpa]

I need the opinions of some of you that have studied the First Day of the battle. I am currently reading Pfanz's book on the subject and ran into something that helps explain something that I never understood. I am one, who in order to understand troop placements, likes to superimpose battle maps on to current day satellite images. My problem is that the position of Baxter's and Paul's brigade do not match up with the alignment of Doubleday Ave, which follows the crest of Oak Ridge. I've always thought that the battle maps were wrong, until I started reading Pfanz. He believes that the location of Baxter/Paul was actually angled off Doubleday Ave and did not follow the crest! I can't understand to what advantage being at a location behind the crest would have had. Pfanz never explains this. They certainly would not have been able to see Iverson's charge coming at them. Phil Laino draws his map in the belief that the 12th MA. responding to the charge, came forward to a position on a more forward wall on the crest, but I can't find any evidence to support this. I've included Laino's map below, superimposed on a Google Earth satellite image. So then, why was Doubleday Ave placed where it's at? And did the veterans of these brigades place their monuments in the wrong place just to be on Doubleday Ave?

 

[cash]

The stone wall was actually further to the east than where it is today. Baxter's men were behind the wall almost on the back end of the ridge.

 

[infomanpa]

The stone wall was actually further to the east than where it is today. Baxter's men were behind the wall almost on the back end of the ridge.

Yes...that is what Pfanz says and that you can see from the superimposed battle map that I posted. I just can't figure why they would be placed where they couldn't see ahead, especially in light of the Iverson attack.

 

[Andy Cardinal]

Thank you for bringing this up, I've wondered the same thing.

 

[Hawkeye Brehm]

View attachment 172361

I need the opinions of some of you that have studied the First Day of the battle. I am currently reading Pfanz's book on the subject and ran into something that helps explain something that I never understood. I am one, who in order to understand troop placements, likes to superimpose battle maps on to current day satellite images. My problem is that the position of Baxter's and Paul's brigade do not match up with the alignment of Doubleday Ave, which follows the crest of Oak Ridge. I've always thought that the battle maps were wrong, until I started reading Pfanz. He believes that the location of Baxter/Paul was actually angled off Doubleday Ave and did not follow the crest! I can't understand to what advantage being at a location behind the crest would have had. Pfanz never explains this. They certainly would not have been able to see Iverson's charge coming at them. Phil Laino draws his map in the belief that the 12th MA. responding to the charge, came forward to a position on a more forward wall on the crest, but I can't find any evidence to support this. I've included Laino's map below, superimposed on a Google Earth satellite image. So then, why was Doubleday Ave placed where it's at? And did the veterans of these brigades place their monuments in the wrong place just to be on Doubleday Ave?

Interesting question. I just might have to dig Pfanz's book out of my boxes and give it a look.

Did you by any chance look at Martin's book on Day One? It's a lot more detailed in comparison to Pfanz's.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Hall's History of the Ninety Seventh New York attempts to explain the location of the walls at the time of the battle and changes made after the war. Troop movements as reported are confusing to understand and apparently contradictory at times. Only Baxter's brigade (then Cutler came up to help) repulsed Iverson, but most of the brigade was facing north as Iverson approached (having just repulsed O'Neal's first disjointed advance from that direction) and then hurriedly changed direction to the west, just in time to confront Iverson. My best estimate of the location of the walls and woods, and timing, is attached. By the way, the portion of the wall that ran north along the crest to the road evidently had some screening shrubbery, at least in some spots near its northern end. (These are my rough drafts, from which Hal Jespersen made finished maps.) I have found it helpful to think of the fighting here as two separate battles, one east and one west of the ridge. Oh, the 90th Pennsylvania did not move initially and occupied the same position at 1405 as at 1400, but by 1415 was on the right of the 12th Massachusetts, facing west.

 

[Wallyfish]

Great question and discussion. How high was the original stone wall that Baxter's men hid behind prior to Iverson's ill fated charge? I have walked that part of the field many times and I always questioned the height of the wall required to keep that many men hidden from Iverson's troops view. I assume the July 1863 stone wall was considerably taller than today's wall.

Tom, any idea on how much screening shrubbery was along that wall? If enough, maybe that was a key factor in keeping Baxter's men out of view.

 

[cash]

Hall's History of the Ninety Seventh New York attempts to explain the location of the walls at the time of the battle and changes made after the war. Troop movements as reported are confusing to understand and apparently contradictory at times. Only Baxter's brigade (then Cutler came up to help) repulsed Iverson, but most of the brigade was facing north as Iverson approached (having just repulsed O'Neal's first disjointed advance from that direction) and then hurriedly changed direction to the west, just in time to confront Iverson. My best estimate of the location of the walls and woods, and timing, is attached. By the way, the portion of the wall that ran north along the crest to the road evidently had some screening shrubbery, at least in some spots near its northern end. (These are my rough drafts, from which Hal Jespersen made finished maps.) I have found it helpful to think of the fighting here as two separate battles, one east and one west of the ridge. Oh, the 90th Pennsylvania did not move initially and occupied the same position at 1405 as at 1400, but by 1415 was on the right of the 12th Massachusetts, facing west.
View attachment 172423 View attachment 172424

Paul came up to join Baxter.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Great question and discussion. How high was the original stone wall that Baxter's men hid behind prior to Iverson's ill fated charge? I have walked that part of the field many times and I always questioned the height of the wall required to keep that many men hidden from Iverson's troops view. I assume the July 1863 stone wall was considerably taller than today's wall.

Tom, any idea on how much screening shrubbery was along that wall? If enough, maybe that was a key factor in keeping Baxter's men out of view.

In Hall's book, he quotes from an 1884 interview with John S. Forney, who said, "a tumble-down stone wall or fence extended north and south along his east line ..." Immediately in front of the 97th New York at this time, Hall wrote, "This wall was what is termed a single wall, built of boulders, and had gaps in it where it had tumbled down. ... there was a jog to the west - of about 20 yards in Forney's east line. From this point - west of the jog - another wall began and extended north to the road." That jog, or gap is depicted on my map. I reasoned that the north-south wall lined up with a rail fence that continued north of the road. Hall states that the wall in front of the 88th Pennsylvania monument was built after the battle.

I have to hunt up the source(s) for the shrubbery, but if I recall correctly, when Baxter's initial regiments arrived, Confederate skirmishers who were posted near the wall, probably close to the Mummasburg road, were screened by vegetation. Forney also mentioned "bushes and saplings" in that general vicinity.

Based on timing, I deduce that Paul was sent for when Iverson was approaching, with Paul's lead regiments (104th New York and 13th Massachusetts) taking position by 1425 (2:25), just in time to repulse O'Neal's main attack, assisted by the right wing of the 90th Pennsylvania bent back to face north, some men from the 12th Massachusetts, and the 45th New York of the Eleventh Corps on the other flank. At that moment, 1425, most of Baxter's men were in the field to the west gathering up prisoners taken from Iverson.

 

[infomanpa]

My best estimate of the location of the walls and woods, and timing, is attached.

Very interesting, Tom. Your map is unique. It better explains how Baxter would have defended against Iverson. I've compared a superimposed image of your map below with Laino's map. You both believe in a more forward northern wall that aligns with Doubleday Ave. However, you do not seem to believe as Pfanz and Laino do that the main (southern) wall angled down northeastward from the ridge, instead electing to believe that it pretty much follows today's avenue. I noticed that Bachelder's map shows that the troops lined up right on today's Doubleday Avenue. Perhaps, that is why the monuments are there, today.

Elmore map:

Laino map:

 

[mkyzzzrdet]

Yes...that is what Pfanz says and that you can see from the superimposed battle map that I posted. I just can't figure why they would be placed where they couldn't see ahead, especially in light of the Iverson attack.

To to protect against enemy artillery fire? They would have observers up front to check on enemy movements - when the enemy started advancing, the main body of troops could be brought up at the point when the enemy artillery could not fire on them without endangering their own men. Sort of like why troops did not stay on the "military crest" of a hill, but rather back behind it where enemy artillery would not be as much a threat. They would move up when the enemy started getting closer. I think you can see this at Kenesaw Mountain ?

 

[Scholarly_v]

This is awesome! Exactly what I've wanted. I feel like despite an inordinate amount of weed-diving there's a point where it's both difficult to find sources for sources - aka, what and who to read next - and this, this: this is what I'm talking about.
Hells yeah.

 

[Hawkeye Brehm]

This is awesome! Exactly what I've wanted. I feel like despite an inordinate amount of weed-diving there's a point where it's both difficult to find sources for sources - aka, what and who to read next - and this, this: this is what I'm talking about.
Hells yeah.

I think we're going to get along just fine.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Lt. Col. Benjamin F. Cook, in his History of the Twelfth Massachusetts Volunteers, says that when the regiment changed front to confront Iverson they were able to deliver a "destructive enfilading fire" into the advancing lines of the enemy at short range. Afterwards, according to a statement by Adjutant Charles G. Wehrum (in James Beale's The Statements of Time on July 1 ...), part of the Twelfth Massachusetts changed front again to face O'Neal's attack from the north.

In the 1880s, a heated exchanged played out in the pages of the National Tribune between Wehrum and Capt. Hall of the 97th New York. It's amusing to me, because it appears the two men are trying to reconcile differences in their accounts, but they are actually describing separate fights with Iverson and Baxter. Hall is evidently under the impression that the Twelfth was next to his regiment at the time, when in fact I think two other regiments were between them. Wehrum talks about the McClean barn, and, as I recall, Hall assumes he is referring to the Forney buildings, and then the accusations start flying.

Back to my point, it seems clear that the Twelfth Massachusetts reached a position to partially enfilade the 5th North Carolina as the latter regiment came closer. I can't help thinking of the similarity of the position of the opposing forces in this fight compared to the armies on July 2 and 3. It took time for Iverson to wheel right and approach Oak Ridge, but only a minute or two for the Federal regiments to react by changing front to confront him. The slight delay in O'Neal's attack enabled the Federals to again quickly adjust by shifting their forces. However, later in the day, the ability of Ramseur to mount a coordinated simultaneous attack from the north and west did the trick.

I have attached my draft map of 1425 (2:25 p.m.) to show O'Neal's attack. A few Confederates actually crossed the road, but what cannot be clearly depicted is that a bluff screened the 90th Pennsylvania from the 26th Alabama. Quite a number of Confederates (from the 26th and 6th) remained at the road, protected by the terrain, for another half hour until the 104th New York and 13th Massachusetts charged and brought them in as prisoners.

 

[James N.]

Interesting question. I just might have to dig Pfanz's book out of my boxes and give it a look.

Did you by any chance look at Martin's book on Day One? It's a lot more detailed in comparison to Pfanz's.

Interesting comment; I haven't read Pfanz' book yet but last year I DID read Martin's and I remember he went into a lot of detail regarding the action in this area, especially regarding the shifting around of Paul's units.

 

[Hawkeye Brehm]

Interesting comment; I haven't read Pfanz' book yet but last year I DID read Martin's and I remember he went into a lot of detail regarding the action in this area, especially regarding the shifting around of Paul's units.

Martin's is my go-to for Day One. I think Pfanz was "winding down" by the time he wrote his book, which would explain why it's not as detailed as his other two on Gettysburg. Still, both are definite must-reads, and go great in conjunction with one another.

 

[infomanpa]

Martin's is my go-to for Day One. I think Pfanz was "winding down" by the time he wrote his book, which would explain why it's not as detailed as his other two on Gettysburg. Still, both are definite must-reads, and go great in conjunction with one another.

I was not even aware of Martin's book until you mentioned it. Reviews of it are good!

 

[Hawkeye Brehm]

I was not even aware of Martin's book until you mentioned it. Reviews of it are good!

I've read it four times, and I'm on my second copy. I highly recommend it.

 

[rpkennedy]

I was not even aware of Martin's book until you mentioned it. Reviews of it are good!

If possible, get one of the later editions. The first edition was riddled with misspellings and editing errors that were corrected in later versions.

Ryan

 

[Hawkeye Brehm]

If possible, get one of the later editions. The first edition was riddled with misspellings and editing errors that were corrected in later versions.

Ryan

If you get it in paperback off Amazon, you're good.