Follow Up to "Dead in Tree" Thread

[Gettysburg Greg]

Edwin Forbes was a sketch artist traveling with the Army of the Potomac in 1863. He did not witness the fight for Culp's Hill on July 2nd and 3rd, but he was present on the 4th and questioned many of the participants in the fight before first sketching what would become his most famous Gettysburg sketch depicting the attack on the hill from the Confederate perspective. Included in the sketch was the rock formation on the side of the hill used for protection by the Confederates that we now know as "Forbes Rock". Forbes was well known for his accuracy and attention to detail in his sketches so he placed not one or two, but four Confederate sharpshooters, known as "tree frogs" up in the trees firing on the Union line behind the breastworks on the military crest of the hill. In my opinion, there is no way that Forbes fabricated the tree frogs out of thin air. In response to the questioning of the "Dead in a Tree" post validity, it should be clear that the claim was made by Eric Dorr, the owner and curator of the Gettysburg Museum of History. His ancestors were farmers in Gettysburg in 1863 and the story came from his gg-grandfather who was a prolific gatherer of battlefield artifacts. IMHO, there is no reason to suspect Eric is not being honest. I have also read a civilian account seeing of remains falling from a tree on Culp's Hill in the months after the battle. Below is Forbes original sketch with the four tree frogs shown more closely in the magnified crop on the bottom.

 

[Lubliner]

Up in the air like that I would guess it would take a good amount of time before the sinews and tendons and ligaments deteriorated to the point of falling 'limbs' especially being clothed. Feet first, then maybe the tibia and fibula, and finally the femur bones. Cleaning the battlefield most of those people would be looking at terra firma and not up into the trees. I believe.
Lubliner.

 

[Doug5861]

Edwin Forbes was a sketch artist traveling with the Army of the Potomac in 1863. He did not witness the fight for Culp's Hill on July 2nd and 3rd, but he was present on the 4th and questioned many of the participants in the fight before first sketching what would become his most famous Gettysburg sketch depicting the attack on the hill from the Confederate perspective. Included in the sketch was the rock formation on the side of the hill used for protection by the Confederates that we now know as "Forbes Rock". Forbes was well known for his accuracy and attention to detail in his sketches so he placed not one or two, but four Confederate sharpshooters, known as "tree frogs" up in the trees firing on the Union line behind the breastworks on the military crest of the hill. In my opinion, there is no way that Forbes fabricated the tree frogs out of thin air. In response to the questioning of the "Dead in a Tree" post validity, it should be clear that the claim was made by Eric Dorr, the owner and curator of the Gettysburg Museum of History. His ancestors were farmers in Gettysburg in 1863 and the story came from his gg-grandfather who was a prolific gatherer of battlefield artifacts. IMHO, there is no reason to suspect Eric is not being honest. I have also read a civilian account seeing of remains falling from a tree on Culp's Hill in the months after the battle. Below is Forbes original sketch with the four tree frogs shown more closely in the magnified crop on the bottom.
View attachment 473513

Eric is partnered wih the youtube channel "The History Underground" so alot of his families relics and his museum pieces get featured there.

 

[Lincoln56]

Edwin Forbes was a sketch artist traveling with the Army of the Potomac in 1863. He did not witness the fight for Culp's Hill on July 2nd and 3rd, but he was present on the 4th and questioned many of the participants in the fight before first sketching what would become his most famous Gettysburg sketch depicting the attack on the hill from the Confederate perspective. Included in the sketch was the rock formation on the side of the hill used for protection by the Confederates that we now know as "Forbes Rock". Forbes was well known for his accuracy and attention to detail in his sketches so he placed not one or two, but four Confederate sharpshooters, known as "tree frogs" up in the trees firing on the Union line behind the breastworks on the military crest of the hill. In my opinion, there is no way that Forbes fabricated the tree frogs out of thin air. In response to the questioning of the "Dead in a Tree" post validity, it should be clear that the claim was made by Eric Dorr, the owner and curator of the Gettysburg Museum of History. His ancestors were farmers in Gettysburg in 1863 and the story came from his gg-grandfather who was a prolific gatherer of battlefield artifacts. IMHO, there is no reason to suspect Eric is not being honest. I have also read a civilian account seeing of remains falling from a tree on Culp's Hill in the months after the battle. Below is Forbes original sketch with the four tree frogs shown more closely in the magnified crop on the bottom.
View attachment 473513

Thanks so much for this - in the dozens of times I've viewed this iconic sketch, had never spotted the "tree frogs".

 

[Nathan Stuart]

It's beyond doubt that some Confederate sharpshooters adopted firing positions high in trees at Gettysburg and were quite effective. (These marksmen were known as 'tree frogs').

There were various reports of tree frogs operating at various parts of the battlefield. As the below accounts reveal, they were particularly active in the southern area of the field.

The regimental historian of Berdan's Sharpshooters gave the following description of the elimination of a tree frog by a Federal marksman of the unit, who was near the Plum Run.

…"One of Company E's men (Second Regiment) Eli A. Willard, of Vermont, a crack shot, failing to discover a rebel sharpshooter, a dangerous customer, came to Gen. Stannard, requesting the loan of his field glass, saying as he took it: …'I guess now, I'll find that fellow'…. He soon reported back; …'I've found him'…, pointing to a tree near the Emmitsburg Road. Willard then went out in front of a large bowlder, took careful aim and fired – there was no further annoyance from that quarter."…

[Source – 'Berdan's United States Sharpshooters' by Capt. C. A. Stevens (1892) at pp 336-7]

Marksmen from the 3rd. Battalion, Georgia Sharpshooters, were known to have climbed into high branches in the Rose Woods and fired from these treetops , killing and wounding several members of the 139th. PA on the eastern side of the Wheatfield. Pvte. Samuel Shroyer of the 139th. PA commented, …"We were compelled to lie prone on the ground to escape the balls of the annoying sharpshooters of the enemy, who were perched in every corner and nook of that rocky Devil's Den yonder to the left and in the high trees that stood in our front."…

There is another account provided by the Adjutant of the 2nd. PA Reserves, of shooting tree frogs in the Rose Woods:

…"One scamp got up a tree and succeeded in killing several men, when his locality was discovered; two of the boys started after him, and got under the tree before he saw them. He immediately cried out he would come down, to which they replied, they knew that very well, and they rattled him through the branches a few moments afterward. Another individual whom they afterwards discovered doing an extensive business in the same style, they left hanging in the crotches of a tree with his head and feet towards the ground. The boys never showed any mercy to these tree frogs."…

[Source – 'Our Campaigns' (1865) by Evan Woodward, at page 271]

Think there were definitely tree frogs in action at Culp's Hill too. But thought the topography and troop movements at Culp's Hill, in contrast to at Big Round Top, were more conducive to the operations of elevated marksmen perched in trees. Culp's Hill appeared less densely timbered with less underbrush than Big Round Top, which meant clearer visibility and more exposure of targets for tree frogs. Additionally, combat movements at Culp's Hill were up and down the slope, against fixed defensive constructed earthworks (offering a clearer focus for tree frogs), unlike what occurred at Big Round Top.

It would also be interesting to read any civilian account of seeing remains falling from a tree in Culp's Hill in the months after the battle.

 

[KianGaf]

Would John Reynolds have been killed by a sharpshooter in a tree on day one ? Did the CSA have a sharpshooter regiment like Berdans US Sharpshooters.

 

[rpkennedy]

Would John Reynolds have been killed by a sharpshooter in a tree on day one ? Did the CSA have a sharpshooter regiment like Berdans US Sharpshooters.

It's not likely that Reynolds was hit by someone in a tree. The Confederates that he and the Iron Brigade faced were advancing quickly and, IMO, there doesn't appear to have been time to scramble up a tree.

The Confederates did create sharpshooter battalions in 1863 with a couple serving in the AoNV at Gettysburg.

Ryan

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Would John Reynolds have been killed by a sharpshooter in a tree on day one ? Did the CSA have a sharpshooter regiment like Berdans US Sharpshooters.

Personally doubt that a tree frog shot Reynolds, as some claim.

Believe that the General was likely shot from his horse by an infantry soldier in Archer's advancing Brigade (comprising 13 AL, 1 TN, 14 TN & 7 TN), who was probably a skirmisher on foot.

Thought the most plausible explanation and credible account of who killed Reynolds was provided by Dr. William Moon, who at the time served as a color guard on the left of the color bearer of the 13th. AL. (At the relevant time, the 13th. AL on the right of Archer's line, skirted around the southern edge of the Herbst woods, then was ordered to left wheel so as to cross fire on the Federals in front of the Tennesseans – see map below).

After the war, Moon met Capt. James Simpson of Co. F, 13 AL, at Gettysburg in 1913. Simpson pinpointed to him the exact spot where he ordered one of his soldiers (probably a skirmisher), belonging to the 13th. AL, to shoot the mounted Reynolds from his horse at a distance of about 30 yards away. According to Moon, Co. F at the time was positioned on the left of the 13th. AL line, and joined a TN regiment, which placed them in much closer contact range to the Federals than the right of his line).

This account was published in 'The Confederate Veteran', Vol. 33, at pp 449-50.

 

[John Winn]

I don't think Mr. Dorr is lying but, rather, simply relaying family lore. I also don't deny that there were men in trees during the battle. What I doubt is that a mostly intact skeleton would have remained in the limbs of a tree for as long as claimed, only one bone having dropped to the ground, the rest of the remains supposedly then retrieved and buried. The body would have mostly decayed in something like three weeks - and likely been at least partly eaten - and gravity always wins in the end. And if Mr. Forbes was truly accurate in his detail one can certainly see that there just wasn't enough to support any of those frogs' bodies should they have been killed. Just don't buy it.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

In response to the questioning of the "Dead in a Tree" post validity, it should be clear that the claim was made by Eric Dorr, the owner and curator of the Gettysburg Museum of History. His ancestors were farmers in Gettysburg in 1863 and the story came from his gg-grandfather who was a prolific gatherer of battlefield artifacts. IMHO, there is no reason to suspect Eric is not being honest.

Thought it always prudent when evaluating modern-day story-tellers of distant past events, especially where a possible commercial interest might be involved, to also consider it from the purveyor's perspective and any possible agendas (at least as a factor to take into account). For example, innkeepers at an historic site could exaggerate the occurrence of localized paranormal activities in an attempt to encourage tourism interest.

Here, though, there is little personal doubt that that this presenter of battlefield artifacts firmly believes in the story told.

Another factor to consider in such circumstances is the risk that elements of the original scene described (without even questioning the accuracy of the original interpretation of the scene) were changed, no matter how subtly, in the transmission of the story across successive generations – i.e. to what extent does the real truth get distorted or lost in multiple relays of information through time.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

What I doubt is that a mostly intact skeleton would have remained in the limbs of a tree for as long as claimed, only one bone having dropped to the ground, the rest of the remains supposedly then retrieved and buried. The body would have mostly decayed in something like three weeks - and likely been at least partly eaten - and gravity always wins in the end.

Am no expert in anatomical structures or human decomposition but thought the gravity factor is a salient point made here. Also thought the ensuing hotter and more humid weather in the mid-year period might have been a significant factor affecting the rate of decomposition. (Apparently, the artifacts were reportedly found in the months after the battle, possibly in the fall or early winter due to observations of the surrounding fallen leaves).

 

[R. Porter]

A dead soldier in a tree would immediately begin to attrect the attention of insects. There would probably also be interested birds and squirrels. Within several hours rigor would set in. That might help keep it from slumping due to insect and animal activity and other aspects of decay for up to four days. Bacteria inside the body would produce gases which might even rupture the skin allowing some awful smells to get out and attract more scavengers. A heavy rain storm might saturate the clothing adding substantial weight to the remains so that when brisk winds blew as part of the front moving through the area, they may be strong enough to shake the body out of the tree. I could see a body tumbling out of a tree after 3 or 4 days and hitting the ground still intact and then get stripped by scavengers. Perhaps in relating the tale the days were stretched into weeks, or maybe the body fell down mostly still together but did not have its skeleton dispersed because there were more than enough other remains to keep the woodland creatures satisfied without having to explore where the sniper came to rest. Then the insects could finish the job and leave a clean skeleton still wearing its uniform. You would have to consult a forensic somebody-ologist to see if this scenario is likely or if some other sequence of events would have taken place.

 

[Gettysburg Greg]

Thanks so much for this - in the dozens of times I've viewed this iconic sketch, had never spotted the "tree frogs".

There may be an explanation for that. Forbes made different versions of the sketch, in one he only shows two men in the trees and in his final oil painting based on the sketch, he shows no tree snipers at all. So depending on which version you saw is probably what you remember. I'll attach the completed painting.

 

[DixieRifles]

Quoting the Monkees: "Im a believer."

 

[Lincoln56]

There may be an explanation for that. Forbes made different versions of the sketch, in one he only shows two men in the trees and in his final oil painting based on the sketch, he shows no tree snipers at all. So depending on which version you saw is probably what you remember. I'll attach the completed painting.
View attachment 473588

Yes sir, this rendition is the one I've seen more often, though I've seen the original posted picture several times.

Interesting Forbes chose to not show the 'tree frogs' in this rendition.

Thanks for helping to reassure that, in this case at least, I'm not missing detail or having a 'Where's Waldo' experience.

Will add that, for several pictures and photos you've posted here which I've viewed in other sources, you point out objects that get a 'I never spotted that before in the picture!' moment. Always appreciate your identifying detail that I might otherwise overlook.

 

[Gettysburg Greg]

Yes sir, this rendition is the one I've seen more often, though I've seen the original posted picture several times.

Interesting Forbes chose to not show the 'tree frogs' in this rendition.

Thanks for helping to reassure that, in this case at least, I'm not missing detail or having a 'Where's Waldo' experience.

Will add that, for several pictures and photos you've posted here which I've viewed in other sources, you point out objects that get a 'I never spotted that before in the picture!' moment. Always appreciate your identifying detail that I might otherwise overlook.

Thank you for the kind words. I really enjoy sharing my passion for Gettysburg photography with all interested. I, too, love finding all the detail now visible under high magnification in the now downloadable hi res versions of most of the iconic Gettysburg images you are familiar with.

 

[R. Porter]

Thank you for the kind words. I really enjoy sharing my passion for Gettysburg photography with all interested. I, too, love finding all the detail now visible under high magnification in the now downloadable hi res versions of most of the iconic Gettysburg images you are familiar with.

Have the art historians ever attempted to see if the artist had an earlier version that was painted over by using an x-ray to see beneath the surface?

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

This is not a complete skeleton by any means but one of the nurses at Gettysburg, attached by the Sanitary Commission, talked about "the horror" that was in the tree/branches that they had to pass. Now, she didn't differentiate if it was sniper or a blown up artillery case or what - but it was there for a number of days and she had to pass it. Oddly, she never mentioned it when it was taken down or fell down.

 

[Tom Elmore]

Christian Benner's son: My people lived in a small stone house, just across Rock Creek from Culp's Hill. ... At the house next to ours on the road [Daniel Lady's place?], a Rebel sharpshooter had climbed a tree in the yard and fastened himself in place with his belt. He died and was left hanging in the tree. (Battleground Adventures by Clifton Johnson)

 

[Poorlaggedman]

From the November 15th, 1862 Harper's weekly.

I could see a corpse staying in a tree for quite a bit but not for long as a totally complete skeleton. Even incomplete parts of people I've seen recent evidence of them staying hanging in trees for a while in the Russo-Ukraine war.

Didn't Buford hang a guy and mandate his corpse staying up for a certain time? Bodies don't just split entirely apart in short order. All the muscles, tendons, and clothing makes a sturdy base.

Would John Reynolds have been killed by a sharpshooter in a tree on day one ? Did the CSA have a sharpshooter regiment like Berdans US Sharpshooters.

No chance, but I think some of the mythology comes partly from uncertain verbiage. Someone can be "in trees" and even "up in trees" (on higher ground) but not physically up in a tree. So when people describe where a shot comes from it get's muddled in that regard.

The Confederates to Reynolds' front didn't even have a skirmisher screen after they passed Willoughby's Run, they were just bum rushing the Cavalry who ran like hell. Hence why Calef's center section, posted by "Reynolds woods" was scrambling to get away and why nearby troops were rushed forward. The Confederates were advancing too rapidly and the confrontation was far too quick to allow for tree climbing. Pretty much all the eye witnesses allude to it coming from a volley and the one who doesn't say it specifically came from a volley goes out of his way to discredit the tree theory based off the foliage and the lack of time.

Presumably the real soldier who fired the shot took the time to aim. In some folks' minds that makes him a sharpshooter. But definitely not up in a tree.

So many people tried to worm their way into the noteworthiness of firing the shot, the real guy probably didn't know he did it and very well could have died during the war, if not on July 1st or July 3rd then elsewhere. A whole lot of Archer's guys died in prison in 1863, it's uncanny to look at their fates in "Confederate Casualties at Gettysburg" by Busey. It's interesting to consider that some others took the oath of allegiance and switched sides.