Chamberlain gets too much credit...again!

infomanpa

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Pennsylvania
While at the site of the Battle of Upperville, Virginia, I came upon an interpretive sign that made me do a double take.

First, the text credits Chamberlain and the 20th Maine infantry with taking the bridge at Goose Creek. From battle maps that I have seen, it was mainly the other regiments of Vincent's brigade (16th Michigan and 83rd Pennsylvania) who successfully attacked the bridge. Was the 20th Maine even involved? Also, I seem to remember that Chamberlain was ill and not in command during this time.

Second, the text promulgates the myth that by making the decision to hold Little Round Top at Gettysburg, Chamberlain won the battle of Gettysburg and sealed the fate of the war.

I found this sign to be troubling especially since it appears on a sign partially sponsored by the Civil War Trust. C'mon guys, we can do better!

20200608_160753.jpg
 
Perhaps Chamberlain is mentioned as he is well known from the movie Gettysburg and the novel "Killer Angels" and the CWT is using him to gain attention. Sadly we are losing the younger generation to protests and disinterest in American history both good and bad.
Regards
David
 
Let's repurpose a Grant quote about Lee. (underlined and italicized parts are of my creation.)

Oh, I am heartily tired of hearing about what Chamberlain did or maybe did. Some of you always seem to think he is suddenly going to turn a double somersault, and land in our rear and on both of our flanks at the same time, or be gallant in battles he may not even have been in. Go back to your book or website, and try to think of who else we can possibly give credit to, instead of what Chamberlain might or might not have done.

Seriously though, if we are still going to use the power of Chamberlain in Burn's The Civil War, Killer Angels and Gettysburg to exaggerate or retell partially or mostly fictionally....hopefully it is done for good and convinces people to learn more about the Civil War era, American History and History in general.
 
Just an opinion of course, but I think Chamberlin gets a lot of attention because he pushes more modern P C buttons than any other Civil War commander I can think of. A college professor and an ardent abolitionist.

However, and it's just another opinion of course, I don't think it should be necessary to knowingly exaggerate his accomplishments.

John
 
Many more might credit Warren for wanting to hold Little Round Top on July 2, but it seems Hancock was the first to decide the hill should be held, late on the afternoon of July 1, and he dispatched part of the Twelfth Corps to secure it. However, "sealing the fate of the war" is so outrageous a claim that it appears comical. Good catch.
 
At LRT, Chamberlain was given a job to do, and he and his regiment did it very well indeed. Both deserve full credit for that. That some have made exaggerated claims as to the overarching importance of their actions should not be used to belittle them.

BTW: Chamberlain was not an "ardent abolitionist" until Michael Shaara made him one. He considered abolitionists to be part of the problem -- nor did he show much interest in the postwar plight of the freedmen.
 
Last edited:
Many more might credit Warren for wanting to hold Little Round Top on July 2, but it seems Hancock was the first to decide the hill should be held, late on the afternoon of July 1, and he dispatched part of the Twelfth Corps to secure it.

I am not familiar with that episode. Were troops sent to LRT on July 1, and if so, why were they not there when the Confederates attacked on the 2d? Were they reassigned to someplace considered more urgent? Were they supposed to be relieved by other units (3d Corps? 5th?) and rejoin their corps? Thanks for any info.
 
I am not familiar with that episode. Were troops sent to LRT on July 1, and if so, why were they not there when the Confederates attacked on the 2d? Were they reassigned to someplace considered more urgent? Were they supposed to be relieved by other units (3d Corps? 5th?) and rejoin their corps? Thanks for any info.

Tough to give short answers to these questions. There was only a signal station placed on LRT before July 2. No infantry occupied the heights until Warren made an effort to secure them right before the Confederate attack on July 2.
 
While at the site of the Battle of Upperville, Virginia, I came upon an interpretive sign that made me do a double take.

First, the text credits Chamberlain and the 20th Maine infantry with taking the bridge at Goose Creek. From battle maps that I have seen, it was mainly the other regiments of Vincent's brigade (16th Michigan and 83rd Pennsylvania) who successfully attacked the bridge. Was the 20th Maine even involved? Also, I seem to remember that Chamberlain was ill and not in command during this time.

Second, the text promulgates the myth that by making the decision to hold Little Round Top at Gettysburg, Chamberlain won the battle of Gettysburg and sealed the fate of the war.

I found this sign to be troubling especially since it appears on a sign partially sponsored by the Civil War Trust. C'mon guys, we can do better!
Perhaps a call or email to that battlefield could persuade them to change the sign?
 
DSC05217.JPG

Perhaps a call or email to that battlefield could persuade them to change the sign?
Here are a couple of photos of the Goose Creek Bridge in question from a visit there in 2017. It's not on a battlefield or recognized historic site though it is now privately owned and protected. As you can see by the barricade across it in the second photo it's no longer open to auto traffic either, only foot or bike traffic. Another modern bridge has replaced it for the highway only a short distance away from which the first photo was taken using the telescoping feature on my camera.

1592847404738.png
 
Last edited:
What general who wrote a memoir didn't? They all want to influence how their story is remembered.

Not necessarily.

For every glory hound there's an offended, angered soul who sets out to set the record straight as they remember it.

One should never take one memoir or record for the gospel, but compare them all. In the middle somewhere lies the truth, and the reactions are always a good indicator of what direction to go in order to find that middle ground where the truth rests.
 
I am not familiar with that episode. Were troops sent to LRT on July 1, and if so, why were they not there when the Confederates attacked on the 2d? Were they reassigned to someplace considered more urgent? Were they supposed to be relieved by other units (3d Corps? 5th?) and rejoin their corps? Thanks for any info.

Brigadier General John Geary's Twelfth Corps division was sent off to the area around LRT (it's not entirely clear if his men were on the heights themselves or the lower slopes to the north and northwest of the hill proper) on the evening of July 1. They were ordered back to the rest of the corps which was posted on and around Culp's Hill early in the morning of July 2 and left the area around 5 am on July 2 (which explains why Captain Samuel Johnston's reconnaissance spotted no troops on the hill about an hour or so later).

Ryan
 
I do like Chamberlain, however, I have a major problem with him. The problem I have is that the Civil War produced few men who were as self-congratulatory, self-promoting and self-aggrandizating as he was.

The way Chamberlain tells the tale, there is a Holy Northern Trinity that did the most for the immediate reconciliation. Lincoln, Grant and himself. Lincoln for wanting Grant and his officers to go easily on the South, Grant for offering generous terms and Chamberlain by showing that he and his men respected their conquered foe during the Surrender Ceremony.

However, modern scholarship has called into question whether he was even present in the vicinity of the surrender ceremony period. It's only corroborating evidence came from Gordon, who wrote his account after Chamberlain did and it either happened or he was willing to accept the better picture it painted of his attitude of surrendering, which included him having to be forced to do the surrender ceremony twice, the first time because he decided to basically throw a tantrum and have his troops toss down their weapons in a deserted field.

He came up with a daring plan to save the Union at Gettysburg......except had the other regiments of Vincent's brigade collapsed which they came close to, he would be a footnote at the very least. However, Captain Spears says that Chamberlain never issued such an order, that the color guard went out to retrieve a few wounded and the men mistook it for a charge. If that's the case, Chamberlain is taking credit post-event.

I won't say that there is no truth in these things happening. They may indeed have. However, the lack of a Chamberlain monument on Little Round Top is a clue to how the men of the time actually considered him and his role.

Again, not saying I don't like him, he's a fascinating individual. Yet that doesn't mean that I will green-light all his claims.
 
Back
Top