Here you go SamGrant.
History Restored
Myth no more:
Proof of the Gordon/Barlow story of Gettysburg
It seems in recent years there has been a movement afoot to rewrite history. Many long-standing beliefs, stories and even legends have been questioned to the point where the story will be completely negated.
Case in point is the well known and much loved Gordon/Barlow story of Gettysburg. Confederate General John B. Gordon tells in his lecture “Last Days of the Confederacy” and book Reminiscences of the Civil War a story of coming across Union General Francis C. Barlow wounded on the battlefield that hot July 1st 1863. Though the story has been embellished over the years the least elaborate still remains Gordon’s own version from his book. Gordon tells of stopping to inquire as to Gen. Barlow’s wounds and having him removed to the Confederate rear. At that time Gen. Gordon believed Gen. Barlow’s wounds to be fatal. Barlow, however, recovered and returned to service with the Army of the Potomac. Gen. Barlow later read of a Gen. J. B. Gordon being killed and believed this to be the Gen. Gordon who had succored him at Gettysburg. In truth the deceased General was James B. Gordon, a kinsman of John B. Gordon. During John Gordon’s second term in the U.S. Senate (almost fifteen years after Gettysburg) Gordon and Barlow attended the same dinner party at Rep. Clarkson Potter’s house and discovered their mutual resurrections. Gordon used the story as the centerpiece of his lectures, illuminating it like a beacon to light the way to reconciliation between North and South.
The Gordon/Barlow story stood unchallenged for more than a century.
In May of 1985 Civil War Times Illustrated carried a story written by William Hanna titled “A Gettysburg Myth Exploded”. This story claimed to debunk the Gordon/Barlow story, stating that General Gordon never came in contact with General Barlow. Mr. Hanna writes, “After careful examination of all verifiable facts, the story cannot stand up under the weight of the evidence against it.” The article does not display “Evidence against” but a lack of evidence supporting the story. Good investigation requires an opposing point of view, seeking out any evidence for, instead of a lack of evidence supporting a story.
To accumulate facts showing the story to be more likely true than false would have nullified the “Myth Exploded” article all together. Mr. Hanna states, “There is no evidence, incidentally, that General Barlow, who died in 1896 ever knew of the legend.” By using the same sources quoted by Mr. Hanna, along with others readily available to him at the time, we will show the high likelihood of the story being true. As a scale for weighing the evidence let us use the same determining factors that apply in civil court cases. To prove a case, what must be displayed is a preponderance of the evidence. The Rosetta Stone for unraveling the Gordon/Barlow story rests mainly on Barlow’s own letter (which Hanna admits is missing some pages) written to his mother on July 7th 1863. He uses this not as proof, but as lack of evidence because Gordon is not mentioned (in reading the letter I found no mention of Mrs. Barlow being present in Gettysburg, but by July 7th she most assuredly was). In a court of law this would be known as trying to prove a negative and would be swiftly thrown out of the courtroom. The following items are based on fact:
(1) Gordon first delivered “Last Days of the Confederacy” at the Tabernacle of Brooklyn in New York City on November 17, 1893. The lecture was so well received that Gordon was persuaded to repeat it a week later at Carnegie Music Hall. The tale was retold in periodicals like The New Haven Evening Register; McClure’s Magazine and the book Campfires and Battlefields. This shows that the Gordon/Barlow story was not only heard, but also seen in print in New York as early as November of 1893.
(2) In the May 1894 issue of Confederate Veteran magazine there is an interesting quote. “Gen. Miller, the Department Commander of the Grand Army of the Republic of Alabama, who was there with a token of regard for Gen. Gordon, who saved the life of Gen. Francis C. Barlow. Commander Miller presented, in the typical manner of an American soldier, a cane cut from the place which is known as Barlow’s Hill, to Gen. Gordon.” Confederate Veteran magazine was the official publication of the United Confederate Veterans (UCV). Commander Miller was a member of the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR), a Union veteran’s organization. This demonstrates that Union and Confederate veterans alike knew the story.
(3) The book Warrior Generals gives us some insight into Barlow’s life after the war;
(a) Secretary of State for New York
(b) U.S. Marshal for the Southern District of New York
(c) Practiced law in New York City
(e) Helped found the New York Bar Association
(f) New York State Attorney General.
(Barlow’s greatest achievement in that capacity was the prosecution and conviction of William M. “BOSS” Tweed of Tammany Hall.)
(g) Francis C. Barlow died in New York City in 1896.
These facts clearly show that Barlow was a very well known figure both in New York City and New York State.
Gordon gave his lecture in one of the nation’s greatest forums, Carnegie Hall, in New York City long before Barlow’s death in 1896. If he were spouting lies he would have been called on it long before 1985. We see no possible way that Barlow himself, and his family members or friends could have remained ignorant to the fact of General Gordon’s inclusion of the Gettysburg story in his speech. These facts tilt the scales of justice in favor of the story being true, but we will not settle for a slight tilt.
Hanna writes of Barlow, “The only Confederate officer credited with helping him on the field was a “Major Pitzera”. In this he alluded to Lieutenant A. L. Pitzer, General Early’s aide at Gettysburg and throughout the war.” Barlow had the name correct, for if you read the letter you can see where a typographical error has been made. The ‘a’ is misplaced after Pitzer’s name. The statement should read, Major Pitzer, ‘a’ staff officer of Gen. Early. Gordon writes “I summoned several soldiers who were looking after the wounded, and directed them to place him (Barlow) upon a litter and carry him to the shade in the rear”. Could not Major Pitzer have been one of these soldiers? Just because Pitzer was there it is not an indication that Gordon was not.
Looking deeper into Barlow’s letter of July 7th, we find what may well be some of the strongest evidence for Gen. Gordon coming in actual physical contact with Gen. Barlow. In his letter Barlow tells of being shot once in the left side and later as he was being helped from the field struck a second time by a spent ball in the back “which made quite a bruise”. Doctors probed the wound in his side and found that the ball had entered and then “passed downward”. Gordon wrote that when he checked Barlow’s wound on the battlefield he found “the ball had entered his body in front and passed out near the spinal cord,” General Gordon was wrong in his assessment of Barlow’s wound; what he took for one wound was, in reality, two. A spent ball powerful enough to make “quite a bruise” as Barlow put it, would also be capable of making quite a welt. This lump may have been mistaken by Gordon as an exit wound. The likelihood of Gordon knowing about this damage to Barlow’s back without being there is highly remote.
At the time of the attack on Blocher’s Knoll (as it was known before the battle) Gen. Gordon was riding a beautiful black horse named “Milroy”. “He was an immense horse of unusually fine proportions, and had behaved very well under the cannonading; but as we drew nearer the blue lines in front, and their musketry sent the bullets whistling around his ears, he wheeled and fled at such a rate of speed that I was powerless to check him until he had carried me more than a hundred yards to the rear. Fortunately, some of the artillerymen aided me in dismounting, and promptly gave me a more reliable steed, on whose back I rapidly returned in time to redeem my reputation.” General Gordon did not mention in his book to which battle this horse reacted so poorly. The question is answered in Robert Stiles’s book Four Years Under Marse Robert. Stiles paints a glorious picture of Gen. Gordon astride Milroy as they rode off into battle at Gettysburg. There is a footnote that points to a story in Scribner’s Magazine for June 1903. The article included Gordon’s telling of Milroy’s flight to the rear. This article prompted Stiles to write in regard to Milroy, “I am glad I did not witness this disgraceful fall. Nothing could have been more superb than his bearing so long as he was under my eye.” This tale of the horse (pardon the pun) is mentioned because it shows that Gordon was bringing up the rear rather than being in his usual position among his troops. The incident with the horse may have afforded Gen. Gordon the opportunity to observe the wounded Gen. Barlow. This, coupled with the successful push of the Union troops by Gordon’s men, could have allotted him time to stop and render momentary aid to a stricken Union general.
It was a was a real stroke of luck to come across the book
Blood is Thicker Than Water: a few days among Our Southern Brethren by Henry M. Field. To recap from Chapter 9; During the evenings festivities in Atlanta the speakers were being most kind to their northern visitors. Dr. Field seized the opportunity to convey a story of compassion on the battlefield. He leads into the story by speaking of General Grant’s funeral in New York at which he represented the Presbyterians. The following lead-in to Dr. Field story is copied just as Dr. Field wrote it even the Italics are his.
“In the procession of that day rode a Southern officer, of whom (as his home is here in Atlanta) it seems not inappropriate to tell a story in harmony with the spirit of the hour. As it has been related to me by both the actors in the scene described, I can vouch for its literal accuracy. I give it as nearly as I can in the very words of that gallant soldier of Georgia, General John B. Gordon:” Dr Field went on to tell the Gordon/Barlow story as quoted in the earlier or in Chapter 9.
At President Grant’s funeral Gen. Gordon rode to the right of Union General Winfield S. Hancock. Gen. Gordon describes an unexpected event.
It will be remembered that General Hancock was commander of the Department of the East (United States army) at the time of General Grant’s death, and was, by reason of his military rank, the chief marshal of that stupendous and most impressive pageant witnessed in New York at General Grant’s obsequies. I was included among those ex-Confederate officers who had been specially invited to participate in the honors to be paid to the dead soldier and former President. General Hancock had requested that I should ride with him at the head of the mighty procession, and he had playfully said to the staff that each of us should take his place according to rank. Of course I had no thought of claiming any rank, and I took my place in the rear of the regular staff. General Hancock sent one after another of his immediate staff to request me to ride up to the front, with the message that I must obey orders and report to him at once at the head of the column. When I reached the head of the column General Hancock directed the staff to compare dates and ascertain the ranking officer who should ride on his right. My rank as a Confederate general was higher than that of any other member of his staff and he ordered that I should take the place of honor, As I could not gracefully resist this assignment any longer, I accepted it, saying to the Union generals, who also served on General Hancock’s staff, that they had overwhelmed me some twenty-odd years before, but that I had them down now. General Fitzhugh Lee was similarly honored.
(From Remembrances of Civil War, Gordon 35-36)
continue......