Golden Thread Copse of Trees or Ziegler Grove

Your opinion. I've read it twice now and it does bring up some interesting questions.

Without question, one of THE worst pieces of academic fraud ever perpetrated.

http://civilwarcavalry.com/?p=5

There's also a 6500 word essay that's an appendix to the second edition of my Protecting the Flank that refutes his outrageous fraudulent nonsense.

Go to McDonald's. Buy a happy meal. It's a far better use of money.
 
I agree that the whole east cavalry claim is probably completely wrong But, there's always a but, I believe he is probably a lot closer to the truth on day 2. I don't have to agree with his whole thesis to think that parts of it are worth looking at. I also don't really care to be told who I should or shouldn't give a hearing too. I treat history much like I treat the mouthings of politicians. Never rely on a single source and don't believe everything even original sources say.
In short a lot of what he wrote was pretty flimsy but some of it just makes sense.
 
I agree that the whole east cavalry claim is probably completely wrong But, there's always a but, I believe he is probably a lot closer to the truth on day 2. I don't have to agree with his whole thesis to think that parts of it are worth looking at. I also don't really care to be told who I should or shouldn't give a hearing too. I treat history much like I treat the mouthings of politicians. Never rely on a single source and don't believe everything even original sources say.
In short a lot of what he wrote was pretty flimsy but some of it just makes sense.

Hey, if you enjoy reading works of academic fraud and God-awful books, more power to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bee
Do not read Carhart's book. It's not worth the paper it's printed on. Check out Earl Hess' Pickett's Charge: The Last Attack at Gettysburg. Except for the disappointing title, it is a good book. Or check out George Stewart's older book Pickett's Charge.

Ryan
Thanks for your response.
Can you offer specific criticism of Carhart? For example, do you agree/disagree with his basic assertion, that Longstreet's assault was just part of a general plan that included assault of Culp's Hill and the eastern slope of Cemetery Ridge by Stuart?
 
We know from history it was supposed to be the Copse of trees...After the first shot ....Battle plans go into the circular file.... does any one know for sure it was Zieglers Grove or the now famous Copse of trees that was their focal point........(just my opinion)
I will be interested to know how "we know from history it was supposed to be the Copse of trees."
So far as I know, there is no contemporary source stating the "Copse of Trees" was an objective. Further, the "Copse of Trees" was not visible from the step-off point of the assault. If any trees were meant to be the objective, it must have been the much larger and more visible mature trees of Ziegler Grove.
There is a misleading tendency in all historical events to 'work backwards'. Thus, in recalling July 2, 1863, we tend to think that because there was severe fighting on the slopes of Little Round Top that it- a rather prominent but militarily useless point- was the objective. Likewise, on July 3, 1863, since so much fighting was done near the "Copse of Trees", we assume it must obviously have been the objective.
 
Last edited:
That is true. IMO, his analysis is so flawed that it renders his entire argument inane. Just ask @Eric Wittenberg about his thoughts of Carhart's work. :wink:

Ryan
I believe Mr. Wittenberg is a member of our Forum: perhaps he would like to join in the discussion....
 
Tom Carhart? Thanks,but,no thanks.
Thanks for your response.
Can you offer specific criticism of Carhart? For example, do you agree/disagree with his basic assertion, that Longstreet's assault was just part of a general plan that included assault of Culp's Hill and the eastern slope of Cemetery Ridge by Stuart?
 
Thanks for your response.
Can you offer specific criticism of Carhart? For example, do you agree/disagree with his basic assertion, that Longstreet's assault was just part of a general plan that included assault of Culp's Hill and the eastern slope of Cemetery Ridge by Stuart?

There is not a single shred--not one bit--of evidence to support the idea that Stuart's role was anything more than guarding the flank, and then, if, and only if, the opportunity presented itself, to try to make some mischief in Meade's rear. The rest of it is science fiction invented by Carhart. Read the blog post that I linked earlier.
 
I believe Mr. Wittenberg is a member of our Forum: perhaps he would like to join in the discussion....

I already have. Read the thread.

As mentioned, I have written a 6500 word essay that blows his fictional nonsense out of the water that is an appendix to the second edition of my Protecting the Flank at Gettysburg in addition to that blog post that I linked earlier.
 
I already have. Read the thread.

As mentioned, I have written a 6500 word essay that blows his fictional nonsense out of the water that is an appendix to the second edition of my Protecting the Flank at Gettysburg in addition to that blog post that I linked earlier.
Thanks for your response and for the links.
Sorry I failed to note the earlier response- "Hey, if you enjoy reading works of academic fraud and God-awful books, more power to you."- was yours.
While I have you, thanks for the excellent book, "The Devil's to Pay": John Buford at Gettysburg....
 
Thanks for your response and for the links.
Sorry I failed to note the earlier response- "Hey, if you enjoy reading works of academic fraud and God-awful books, more power to you."- was yours.
While I have you, thanks for the excellent book, "The Devil's to Pay": John Buford at Gettysburg....

Glad you enjoyed it! Thank you for the kind words.
 
Thanks for your response.
Can you offer specific criticism of Carhart? For example, do you agree/disagree with his basic assertion, that Longstreet's assault was just part of a general plan that included assault of Culp's Hill and the eastern slope of Cemetery Ridge by Stuart?

If we're talking about Lee on the night of July 2nd, I would agree. Lee would write:

The result of this day's operations induced the belief that, with proper concert of action, and with the increased support that the positions gained on the right would enable the artillery to render the assaulting columns, we should ultimately succeed, and it was accordingly determined to continue that attack. The general plan was unchanged. Longstreet, re-enforced by Pickett's three brigades, which arrived near the battle-field during the afternoon of the 2d, was ordered to attack the next morning, and General Ewell was directed to assail the enemy's right at the same time. The latter, during the night, re-enforced General Johnson with two brigades from Rodes' and one from Early's division.

General Longstreet's dispositions were not completed as early as was expected, but before notice could be sent to General Ewell, General Johnson had already become engaged, and it was too late to recall him.

By the morning of the 3rd, the plan was simply not feasible. Lee may have intended for an attack against the flanks again but the Yankees took that out of his hands at first light. Therefore, Lee had to come up with something else which changed the overall situation meaning that Longstreet's Assault on the 3rd wasn't part of a pre-planned greater attack plan.

And, as @Eric Wittenberg pointed out, there simply is no evidence that Stuart was part of this grand plan of attack.

Ryan
 
Last edited:
I will be interested to know how "we know from history it was supposed to be the Copse of trees."
So far as I know, there is no contemporary source stating the "Copse of Trees" was an objective. Further, the "Copse of Trees" was not visible from the step-off point of the assault. If any trees were meant to be the objective, it must have been the much larger and more visible mature trees of Ziegler Grove.
There is a misleading tendency in all historical events to 'work backwards'. Thus, in recalling July 2, 1863, we tend to think that because there was severe fighting on the slopes of Little Round Top that it- a rather prominent but militarily useless point- was the objective. Likewise, on July 3, 1863, since so much fighting was done near the "Copse of Trees", we assume it must obviously have been the objective.

I think that you have this exactly right. Since the divisions of Pettigrew and Pickett ultimately converged on the Angle (for a number of reasons, none of which seem intentional), everyone assumes that that was the target of the attack. It's putting the cart before the horse. Especially considering that there are no contemporary sources that indicate that there was any specific point that was designated as THE target.

Ryan
 
I think that you have this exactly right. Since the divisions of Pettigrew and Pickett ultimately converged on the Angle (for a number of reasons, none of which seem intentional), everyone assumes that that was the target of the attack. It's putting the cart before the horse. Especially considering that there are no contemporary sources that indicate that there was any specific point that was designated as THE target.

Ryan
No. It's real simple. They (Fry,Garnett,Etal)got where they were going.....The Angle and the Copse of trees....The approximate center of the Union line......July 3,1863 is contemporary.
 
No. It's real simple. They (Fry,Garnett,Etal)got where they were going.....The Angle and the Copse of trees....The approximate center of the Union line......July 3,1863 is contemporary.

Just because they ended up there doesn't mean that that was the target. They got there due to a variety of reasons including how the terrain forced them to conform their line, casualties in both divisions had them drift a bit as they closed up, etc.

Ryan
 
No. It's real simple. They (Fry,Garnett,Etal)got where they were going.....The Angle and the Copse of trees....The approximate center of the Union line......July 3,1863 is contemporary.

Evidence?

The only confederate "targets" mentioned in contemporary confederate sources were "the enemy" and "the enemy line". The Union line was attacked from about the State of VT memorial S to about Bryan's barn N (and if a certain General did not take his whole VA brigade back after going less than half-way, the N attack point was supposed to be even more N.)
 
Evidence?

The only confederate "targets" mentioned in contemporary confederate sources were "the enemy" and "the enemy line". The Union line was attacked from about the State of VT memorial S to about Bryan's barn N (and if a certain General did not take his whole VA brigade back after going less than half-way, the N attack point was supposed to be even more N.)
I think EP Alexander would disagree with you, there were 18 guns firing from Cemetery Ridge and Alexander's job was to silence them. At one point over 110 Confederate guns converged their fire on that point according to after battle accounts. The Federal batteries went silent on the ridge, at Meade's order to conserve ammunition and guns being knocked out. Alexander stated that he waited 5 minutes to see if they were being replaced and then sent word that if the attack was to take place it must be now. The only guns firing at that time were Hazzard's II Corps batteries, because Hancock wanted to bolster the morale of his infantry. The Copse just happened to be the center of the Union line and that was the target of both artillery and infantry.

The idea that the Copse was not visible from the right of the Confederate artillery line is pure BS, I was there Friday and took pictures from the Klingle house and then from Cushing and Arnold's batteries to the Klingle house. Very visible sitting in a car without the aide of binoculars or a glass.
Despite the fact that several photographic teams were in Gettysburg in the days and weeks after the battle, the significance of the Angle and Copse of Trees was apparently not understood at the time since no images were recorded of this area until years after the battle. However, thanks to the super hi resoulution digital versions now available for downloading, it is possible to see the Copse of Trees in a Brady image taken from Little Round Top on July 15th, 1863. The small umbrella shaped copse is clearly seen in the detail below which contrasts significantly with the much larger Ziegler Grove. You may be aware that there are many who believe that Ziegler Grove was the true target of Pickett's Charge. Viewed from the Confederate position on Seminary Ridge, the Copse is dwarfed by the large grove as seen in the photo. I will include a photo that I took to demonstrate the modern view. Remember that Ziegler Grove was larger in 1863.
View attachment 91110

View attachment 91111
Keep in mind that the Copse was significantly reduced in size by the farmer who owned the land a few years after the battle. Basil Biggs was cutting the trees for fence rails when John Bachelder was riding the field in 68/69 and tried to get Basil to desist. When that didn't work, he told him that the value of the trees was much more than just the rails and that they should be preserved for their future monetary value. Bachelder convinced the government to buy 7 acres of Mr. Biggs property including the area around the Copse in 1881.
 
I think EP Alexander would disagree with you, there were 18 guns firing from Cemetery Ridge and Alexander's job was to silence them. At one point over 110 Confederate guns converged their fire on that point according to after battle accounts.

"After battle accounts" is the key here. Bachelderean mythology. Alexander's writings were published in the next century 44 years after the fact and were influenced by a lot of garbage, including Bachelder's. There were Federal guns all over which needed to be silenced, and based on contemporary sources, the only ones that were not attacked were the ones at the LRT to the left of the Federal line, which ended up to be a pain in Garnett's (and assume Kemper's) neck during the charge. This is a great map, btw:

civilwarmapospickettschargeartillerypositions1to3.jpg
 
Keep in mind that the Copse was significantly reduced in size by the farmer who owned the land a few years after the battle. Basil Biggs was cutting the trees for fence rails when John Bachelder was riding the field in 68/69 and tried to get Basil to desist. When that didn't work, he told him that the value of the trees was much more than just the rails and that they should be preserved for their future monetary value. Bachelder convinced the government to buy 7 acres of Mr. Biggs property including the area around the Copse in 1881.

That meeting likely happened in Bachelder's fantasy, given the facts that a. he approximated the meeting to have happened around 1868 or so and b. Biggs's property was at the other side of the seminary ridge, since it was a Confederate Hospital during the battle and after he returned he put in for some serious reimbursement for damages. Thus, it is unlikely that a few years later he would be chopping someone else's woods. Unless it was not Biggs and Bachelder was confused... Not that unlikely.
 
Back
Top