Chamberlain Joshua Chamberlain, Little Round Top, and the Memorial That Never Was

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
I could use some help figuring out what exactly the park commissions rules were on placing monuments to soldiers under the rank of General. Park rangers have given me so many different answers that my head is spinning. Some actual documents might help to clear it.
I am under the impression at the moment that the 83rd PA could not place Vincent on their monument due to a rule set up by Pennsylvania for their monuments. However I have also heard it said that the park commission had a rule that limited monuments to generals and above. Has anyone heard of such a rule? If there was it doesn't seem to have come up as a problem in the correspondence about the Chamberlain monument. I do see however a rule in 1910 that would allow monuments to "officers and soldiers who for a conspicuous and exceptional act of heroism may be deemed by the Secretary of War entitled to special commemoration."
http://books.google.com/books?id=GAESAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA301#v=onepage&q&f=false
To answer my own question there was no rule, park rangers seem to be confused because the Vincent monument was not allowed, but that was a PA rule.
A statue was put up to Major William Wells:
http://gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/monuments-to-individuals/william-wells/
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
It is most definitely still a thing. We've been watching Gettysburg in bits and pieces...LRT today.
Well if any student writes a paper on Chamberlain, they can blow away their teachers at their ability to find primary sources, as long as the teacher doesn't know about my site.
Do tell your kids about his stutter, it was a great motivator to me as a learning disabled child to see him having overcome it so well.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
Well if any student writes a paper on Chamberlain, they can blow away their teachers at their ability to find primary sources, as long as the teacher doesn't know about my site.
Do tell your kids about his stutter, it was a great motivator to me as a learning disabled child to see him having overcome it so well.
I will absolutely tell them today.
 

History36

Private
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
It's interesting how the film, 'Gettysburg' made Chamberlain essentially a household name + changed the 'interpretation' & perspective of the battle itself.

Not to go off topic here, but I just finished a book that is still to this day a key source to study in order to become a Gettysburg Licensed Battlefield Tour Guide. Ironically, it was written back in the 1950s & the author mentioned the name 'Chamberlain' only once - and it was merely in passing too (almost as if an after-thought). Instead, the author focused his attention on O'Rourke & *especially* Col. Strong Vincent as the true hero of Little Round Top. Hence, one can clearly see how the tides have turned & the difference of interpretations (popularity) in the pre-1993 Gettysburg film vs. the post-1993 Gettysburg film era has evolved in which we now live in.

Not to criticize Chamberlain's role & actions at Gettysburg, but, in reading this book among many others, the author(s) noted numerous colonels & regiments that had done virtually the exact same thing that Chamberlain had done. Some of which were even more amazing - the only difference was that a movie wasn't made about all of those other regiments. In fact, immediately after the battle, many of the soldiers didn't think too much in how it ultimately would become known as the "high tide of the Confederacy" til' a span of time afterwards & all of a sudden monuments would begin springing up like mushrooms.

As cool as it would be to see a monument of Chamberlain made & placed on Little Round Top, I wouldn't necessarily support it. There's one at Freedom Park of Brewer, Maine & another one in front of Bowdoin College. Reason being, would the monument be to memorialize the actions of 'Joshua Chamberlain' the historical figure or to Hollywood *actor* Jeff Daniels? When you dig, and I mean truly research, through the history - you will learn of two totally different versions. I, for one, support the Oats' monument being built as it's been in the making long enough as it is & we should be wanting to recognize other great leaders, regiments, & historical events who's unsung voices have been unheard for far too long - not being confused with 'Hollywood' actors.

In closing, again not bashing Chamberlain, but you owe it to yourself to read the new post-revisionist book titled, 'Joshua Chamberlain; His Supposed Charge at Petersburg.' This book helps to distinguish myth from truth as just one of many examples...
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
It's interesting how the film, 'Gettysburg' made Chamberlain essentially a household name + changed the 'interpretation' & perspective of the battle itself.

Not to go off topic here, but I just finished a book that is still to this day a key source to study in order to become a Gettysburg Licensed Battlefield Tour Guide. Ironically, it was written back in the 1950s & the author mentioned the name 'Chamberlain' only once - and it was merely in passing too (almost as if an after-thought). Instead, the author focused his attention on O'Rourke & *especially* Col. Strong Vincent as the true hero of Little Round Top. Hence, one can clearly see how the tides have turned & the difference of interpretations (popularity) in the pre-1993 Gettysburg film vs. the post-1993 Gettysburg film era has evolved in which we now live in.

Not to criticize Chamberlain's role & actions at Gettysburg, but, in reading this book among many others, the author(s) noted numerous colonels & regiments that had done virtually the exact same thing that Chamberlain had done. Some of which were even more amazing - the only difference was that a movie wasn't made about all of those other regiments. In fact, immediately after the battle, many of the soldiers didn't think too much in how it ultimately would become known as the "high tide of the Confederacy" til' a span of time afterwards & all of a sudden monuments would begin springing up like mushrooms.

As cool as it would be to see a monument of Chamberlain made & placed on Little Round Top, I wouldn't necessarily support it. There's one at Freedom Park of Brewer, Maine & another one in front of Bowdoin College. Reason being, would the monument be to memorialize the actions of 'Joshua Chamberlain' the historical figure or to Hollywood *actor* Jeff Daniels? When you dig, and I mean truly research, through the history - you will learn of two totally different versions. I, for one, support the Oats' monument being built as it's been in the making long enough as it is & we should be wanting to recognize other great leaders, regiments, & historical events who's unsung voices have been unheard for far too long - not being confused with 'Hollywood' actors.

In closing, again not bashing Chamberlain, but you owe it to yourself to read the new post-revisionist book titled, 'Joshua Chamberlain; His Supposed Charge at Petersburg.' This book helps to distinguish myth from truth as just one of many examples...
The Oates monument is against the rules and that was his problem from the beginning. It also makes no sense to not want to emphasize the small area of LRT that held Oates and Chamberlain over the rest of LRT, but to then want an Oates monument. His fellow Southerners who fought on that hill didn't want him placing his monument away from theirs that were all along Confederate Ave as they didn't think Oates should get all the glory.

And yes I know of this new book. If you look at the maps they are ridiculous, the author thinks [in my opinion] the whole army ignored the safety of their flanks and just exposed themselves to the enemy so they could all march over to the area of the Crater and have a fight over there instead of where they were. By talking about it at all I run the risk of being sued, so I hate to do it. I have my argument on my website.
 
Last edited:

History36

Private
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
...actually, my perspective (and the viewpoint from many others who feel similarly whom I've talked to on this point) makes a lot of sense. In my agreement with Chamberlain, if a small 15th Alabama monument was placed in the 'historically correct' location then they should be recognized for their heroic actions. A regiment (North or South) that marches over 20 miles on very little sleep in 90 degree heat, no water, takes the 'Gibraltar' of Big Round Top, then very nearly takes Little Round Top against Federal troops who rested all day certainly deserves recognition. Unfortunately, in this politically correct charged era in which we now live in, I don't see it happening. But, there is also another problem - no one could quite agree on the 'correct spot' to begin with. A hundred years ago, veterans were fighting over monuments much as historians still do today.

To readers of this thread, you owe it to yourself to read Tom DeJardin's excellent book titled, 'Stand Firm Ye Boys From Maine.' It's a relatively short book and it's so amazingly written, argued, and balanced you won't be able to put it down and you'll finish it in like two days. The most important thing that you'll take away from the book is that it is FAR from how Chamberlain's charge was depicted in either the film Gettysburg or Ken Burns reputable mini-series, The Civil War. For instance, there was no perfect 'textbook maneuver' regarding the charge and even Chamberlain contradicted himself at various points in post-battle reports. Want to learn more? Trust me, read the book. Anyhow, I'm getting off-topic here. But to address the heart of our discussion here, I feel that yet 'another' monument / statue to Chamberlain is pure overkill for so many reasons:

- I live near Gettysburg and I frequent Little Round Top often. This site is among the most populated sites to the battlefield - the mini roads and pathways are literally choked with tours, school field trips, and normal excess of visitors coming to see where the 20th Maine fought. Trust me, you don't need another monument as people are WELL aware where the 20th Maine monument and battle site are. Besides, there are already 3 markers present, why another one? There is the larger monument that everyone can clearly see near where the color bearer was during the battle, two path markers, and a National Park Service sign on your left as you drive up the road that actually points to your right that reads, "20th Maine Monument." You can't miss any of them. It's not a big area, yet another monument to Chamberlain and the 20th Maine is yet another monument to trip over and it's sheer overkill. Everyone and anyone can easily find this site and learn of what happened there.
- When visitors come to the battle site, some actually wouldn't mind trying to visualize how the landscape looked during the battle. That area has already been cleared and defaced as historic boulders were blown up during construction of the road and 'Chamberlain Avenue' that meanders around the hill. Sometimes it's just nice sitting and listening (*trying* to anyway) the quiet and visualizing the original appearance of the hill. Another monument to Chamberlain and the 20th Maine 'really' needed? Again, not to sound contradictory, but if there was a monument to Oats' 15th Alabama (if ever permitted) it will draw far less attraction than to yet another new monument to Chamberlain. I'm not saying that ANY monument is needed back there to begin with (there are enough markers and monuments enough as it is), but if I had to choose - then I would certainly opt for the 15th and 47th Alabama as preference and I would donate both my time and monetary gift to its placement over that of Chamberlain indeed. Sometimes LESS monuments tell the story better than a 1,000 monuments could ever do. Try visiting Petersburg, Va. or Yorktown, Va. There are far less monuments there and the battlefield itself serves as a greater monument in that it speaks volumes. My friend, I commend your enthusiasm for trying to bestow honor, but you may be doing more harm than good in doing so.
- You mentioned that, "fellow Southerners who fought on that hill didn't want him (Oats) placing his monument away from theirs that were all along Confederate Ave as they didn't think Oates should get all the glory." The Battle of Gettysburg was fought 154 years ago. I don't think that you'll have that problem today in 2017.
- But, if a Federal monument is to be placed, why not give recognition to either Lieutenants Holman Melcher James Nichols of the 20th Maine, they clearly helped to initiate the charge to begin with? And, why not Captain Ellis Spear? If he hadn't taken it upon himself to ensure that both the left and right wing were properly linked throughout the entire battle, the rebels very well may have punctured through. And, it was him and his men who not only lined the two wings together and KEPT them together, but also helped to begin the charge which prodded the right wing to advance. Hence, 'the charge.' As Chamberlain said in his own hand, although he ordered the bayonet "the charge happened almost entirely on it's own."
- I actually own an original pair of late-war used boots previously owned by Chamberlain (they're currently on display at the Appomattox Historical Park). I also own other artifacts once owned by Chamberlain including his signature. When I took many of these items to be displayed as a 'collage,' all they wanted was the boots. Reason being, those museums and parks were careful not to draw too much attention to any one man - but, rather, to an event that encompasses the event as whole. That's teamwork because it gives credit to the whole 'team' and not just to any one man. The same can be said about yet another monument. Share the love in other words, lol.
- And, that takes me back to my previous post: "Would the monument be to memorialize the actions of 'Joshua Chamberlain' the historical figure or to Hollywood *actor* Jeff Daniels? When you dig, and I mean truly research, through the history - you will learn of two totally different versions. Recognize other great leaders, regiments, & historical events who's unsung voices have been unheard for far too long - not being confused with 'Hollywood' actors." Though I can't speak for Chamberlain, I feel, personally, that is what he would want too. In agreement with the NPS, please be careful not to focus all of our attention to just one man to semi-divine / idolatry - but, give recognition to others. If you were a soldier, wouldn't you enjoy some recognition?

In closing, Dr. Rasbach's book, 'Chamberlain and his Supposed Charge at Petersburg' is just one example of the types of books that are needed MORE in the field of historic scholarship. They are post-revisionist - meaning that they step back and do a birds-eye perspective analysis of the research years later without any passion or bias to allow the facts to speak for themselves. Not to get off topic, but I commend this work and Dr. Rasbach's book. Keep in mind that the author did not bash Chamberlain. If anything, he was very delicate, careful, and respectful - all signs of an author with integrity. But, why shouldn't he (or anyone) question / debate the facts? Interesting enough, if one chooses to read this book the material has gained the respect of historians nationwide. I highly recommend this book to anyone for in only 200 pages or less, the author drew to light 15 key points that disputes Chamberlain's account. For example, why or how in the world would have Chamberlain spoken directly to Gen. Grant, who was 5 miles away located at City Point, without the presence of a telegraph out in the middle of the field? You agree that Chamberlain completely bypassed his superior officers when trying to speak with Grant, too? And, that he also carefully wrote a 2 page letter to Grant with bullets and shells dropping all round him? Hmmm. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Chamberlain's account simply coincides against the actual events of the battle, the primary source written accounts of both the Confederates and his OWN men, as well as the actual layout of the battlefield itself. And yes, the maps may be more accurate than you realize. For instance, Chamberlain noted that he was shot having just crossed a boggy swampy marsh. Nowhere on the battlefield is there such a piece of terrain other than where Dr. Rasbach indicated, which is also exactly where Chamberlain's commanding officer's placed him to be (and certainly NOT a mile ahead of the whole army, as Chamberlain stated). Again, allow the battlefield to speak for itself. Fellow historians, Dr. Rasbach's respected book is certainly well worth the time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as much a Chamberlain admirer here as anyone. The fact that I have several of his artifacts in my personal collection, such as his actual boots, should say something. Heck, I even share Chamberlain's first name (Joshua) and birthday (September 8th). So, it's not that I am at odds with Chamberlain; I'm just trying to keep things grounded and within reason without running away with sheer passion...
 
Last edited:

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
...actually, my perspective (and the viewpoint from many others who feel similarly whom I've talked to on this point) makes a lot of sense. In my agreement with Chamberlain, if a small 15th Alabama monument was placed in the 'historically correct' location then they should be recognized for their heroic actions. A regiment (North or South) that marches over 20 miles on very little sleep in 90 degree heat, no water, takes the 'Gibraltar' of Big Round Top, then very nearly takes Little Round Top against Federal troops who rested all day certainly deserves recognition. Unfortunately, in this politically correct charged era in which we now live in, I don't see it happening. But, there is also another problem - no one could quite agree on the 'correct spot' to begin with. A hundred years ago, veterans were fighting over monuments much as historians still do today.

To readers of this thread, you owe it to yourself to read Tom DeJardin's excellent book titled, 'Stand Firm Ye Boys From Maine.' It's a relatively short book and it's so amazingly written, argued, and balanced you won't be able to put it down and you'll finish it in like two days. The most important thing that you'll take away from the book is that it is FAR from how Chamberlain's charge was depicted in either the film Gettysburg or Ken Burns reputable mini-series, The Civil War. For instance, there was no perfect 'textbook maneuver' regarding the charge and even Chamberlain contradicted himself at various points in post-battle reports. Want to learn more? Trust me, read the book. Anyhow, I'm getting off-topic here. But to address the heart of our discussion here, I feel that yet 'another' monument / statue to Chamberlain is pure overkill for so many reasons:

- I live near Gettysburg and I frequent Little Round Top often. This site is among the most populated sites to the battlefield - the mini roads and pathways are literally choked with tours, school field trips, and normal excess of visitors coming to see where the 20th Maine fought. Trust me, you don't need another monument as people are WELL aware where the 20th Maine monument and battle site are. Besides, there are already 3 markers present, why another one? There is the larger monument that everyone can clearly see near where the color bearer was during the battle, two path markers, and a National Park Service sign on your left as you drive up the road that actually points to your right that reads, "20th Maine Monument." You can't miss any of them. It's not a big area, yet another monument to Chamberlain and the 20th Maine is yet another monument to trip over and it's sheer overkill. Everyone and anyone can easily find this site and learn of what happened there.
- When visitors come to the battle site, some actually wouldn't mind trying to visualize how the landscape looked during the battle. That area has already been cleared and defaced as historic boulders were blown up during construction of the road and 'Chamberlain Avenue' that meanders around the hill. Sometimes it's just nice sitting and listening (*trying* to anyway) the quiet and visualizing the original appearance of the hill. Another monument to Chamberlain and the 20th Maine 'really' needed? Again, not to sound contradictory, but if there was a monument to Oats' 15th Alabama (if ever permitted) it will draw far less attraction than to yet another new monument to Chamberlain. I'm not saying that ANY monument is needed back there to begin with (there are enough markers and monuments enough as it is), but if I had to choose - then I would certainly opt for the 15th and 47th Alabama as preference and I would donate both my time and monetary gift to its placement over that of Chamberlain indeed. Sometimes LESS monuments tell the story better than a 1,000 monuments could ever do. Try visiting Petersburg, Va. or Yorktown, Va. There are far less monuments there and the battlefield itself serves as a greater monument in that it speaks volumes. My friend, I commend your enthusiasm for trying to bestow honor, but you may be doing more harm than good in doing so.
- You mentioned that, "fellow Southerners who fought on that hill didn't want him (Oats) placing his monument away from theirs that were all along Confederate Ave as they didn't think Oates should get all the glory." The Battle of Gettysburg was fought 154 years ago. I don't think that you'll have that problem today in 2017.
- But, if a Federal monument is to be placed, why not give recognition to either Lieutenants Holman Melcher James Nichols of the 20th Maine, they clearly helped to initiate the charge to begin with? And, why not Captain Ellis Spear? If he hadn't taken it upon himself to ensure that both the left and right wing were properly linked throughout the entire battle, the rebels very well may have punctured through. And, it was him and his men who not only lined the two wings together and KEPT them together, but also helped to begin the charge which prodded the right wing to advance. Hence, 'the charge.' As Chamberlain said in his own hand, although he ordered the bayonet "the charge happened almost entirely on it's own."
- I actually own an original pair of late-war used boots previously owned by Chamberlain (they're currently on display at the Appomattox Historical Park). I also own other artifacts once owned by Chamberlain including his signature. When I took many of these items to be displayed as a 'collage,' all they wanted was the boots. Reason being, those museums and parks were careful not to draw too much attention to any one man - but, rather, to an event that encompasses the event as whole. That's teamwork because it gives credit to the whole 'team' and not just to any one man. The same can be said about yet another monument. Share the love in other words, lol.
- And, that takes me back to my previous post: "Would the monument be to memorialize the actions of 'Joshua Chamberlain' the historical figure or to Hollywood *actor* Jeff Daniels? When you dig, and I mean truly research, through the history - you will learn of two totally different versions. Recognize other great leaders, regiments, & historical events who's unsung voices have been unheard for far too long - not being confused with 'Hollywood' actors." Though I can't speak for Chamberlain, I feel, personally, that is what he would want too. In agreement with the NPS, please be careful not to focus all of our attention to just one man to semi-divine / idolatry - but, give recognition to others. If you were a soldier, wouldn't you enjoy some recognition?

In closing, Dr. Rasbach's book, 'Chamberlain and his Supposed Charge at Petersburg' is just one example of the types of books that are needed MORE in the field of historic scholarship. They are post-revisionist - meaning that they step back and do a birds-eye perspective analysis of the research years later without any passion or bias to allow the facts to speak for themselves. Not to get off topic, but I commend this work and Dr. Rasbach's book. Keep in mind that the author did not bash Chamberlain. If anything, he was very delicate, careful, and respectful - all signs of an author with integrity. But, why shouldn't he (or anyone) question / debate the facts? Interesting enough, if one chooses to read this book the material has gained the respect of historians nationwide. I highly recommend this book to anyone for in only 200 pages or less, the author drew to light 15 key points that disputes Chamberlain's account. For example, why or how in the world would have Chamberlain spoken directly to Gen. Grant, who was 5 miles away located at City Point, without the presence of a telegraph out in the middle of the field? You agree that Chamberlain completely bypassed his superior officers when trying to speak with Grant, too? And, that he also carefully wrote a 2 page letter to Grant with bullets and shells dropping all round him? Hmmm. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Chamberlain's account simply coincides against the actual events of the battle, the primary source written accounts of both the Confederates and his OWN men, as well as the actual layout of the battlefield itself. And yes, the maps may be more accurate than you realize. For instance, Chamberlain noted that he was shot having just crossed a boggy swampy marsh. Nowhere on the battlefield is there such a piece of terrain other than where Dr. Rasbach indicated, which is also exactly where Chamberlain's commanding officer's placed him to be (and certainly NOT a mile ahead of the whole army, as Chamberlain stated). Again, allow the battlefield to speak for itself. Fellow historians, Dr. Rasbach's respected book is certainly well worth the time.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as much a Chamberlain admirer here as anyone. The fact that I have several of his artifacts in my personal collection, such as his actual boots, should say something. Heck, I even share Chamberlain's first name (Joshua) and birthday (September 8th). So, it's not that I am at odds with Chamberlain; I'm just trying to keep things grounded and within reason without running away with sheer passion...
You suggest that the placement of monuments should be left to modern people and the wishes of those there ignored. Thats all well and good except I believe that there is a rule that no new monuments can be placed and the only way Longstreet got arround it was it was already approved. Im not sure how far along in the approval process the Chamberlain monument was and if it was far enough along to allow the monument to move forward, Maine sent blue prints to the secretary of war and the park commisioners approved them. What final permissions look like and if they were given I do not yet know.

As to Chamberlain talking to Grant at Petersburg, if you mean the wording on the newly placed monument I am sorry for it, they told me too late and they could not change it once I protested. He was informed that Grant was going to promote him, but you are right Grant was not there.
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
At least they put quotes around it.

"Joshua L. Chamberlain—Promoted “on the spot”
In this vicinity on 18 June 1864 Col. Joshua L. Chamberlain received a near-fatal wound while leading a Union brigade in a charge against Confederate works defending Petersburg. Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant promoted him to Brig. Gen. of Vols. “on the spot” for “gallant conduct.” Chamberlain returned to duty in November and was wounded again in March 1865. On 12 April at Appomattox he commanded the ceremony at which the Army of Northern Virginia formally surrendered its arms. He was governor of Maine from 1867 to 1871 and received the Medal of Honor in 1893."​
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
- But, if a Federal monument is to be placed, why not give recognition to either Lieutenants Holman Melcher James Nichols of the 20th Maine, they clearly helped to initiate the charge to begin with? And, why not Captain Ellis Spear? If he hadn't taken it upon himself to ensure that both the left and right wing were properly linked throughout the entire battle, the rebels very well may have punctured through. And, it was him and his men who not only lined the two wings together and KEPT them together, but also helped to begin the charge which prodded the right wing to advance. Hence, 'the charge.' As Chamberlain said in his own hand, although he ordered the bayonet "the charge happened almost entirely on it's own."
You cant have your cake and eat it too, either you only want higher ranking officers like Vincent to be recognized or you want everyone that helped a little to have a monument. You cant just say everyone who isnt Chamberlain because its all his fault he was featured in a movie. Or that's what I gather you are getting at.
 

Jimklag

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Location
Chicagoland
One of my favorite myths relating to the battle of Gettysburg was that Vincent's brigade "saved" the entire Union position by their defense of LRT. What they saved was only Little Round Top. On the opposite side of the hill was half the 5th Corps and all the 6th Corps. What would one Confederate brigade be able to do with them? Had they captured the hill they would surely have been obliged to give it back.
 

History36

Private
Joined
Jul 5, 2016
"You suggest that the placement of monuments should be left to modern people and the wishes of those there ignored." I have no idea what you may be referring to based on this statement. If anything, Oats 'wanted' a monument placed on LRT, Gettysburg. Seeing how Oats was there at Gettysburg as a proven fact (and obviously, he's not alive here in the 21st century), then how am I ignoring people who were actually there and wanted it placed in the first place? I feel like I am talking in circles...

As for Gen. Grant, please read my previous message as I'm not about to re-type it all out again. Because you dislike Dr. Rasbach's book, I was simply referring to the recent uncovered historical material drawing into question how Chamberlain supposedly wrote Grant a two page paper WHILE bullets, artillery shells, and fellow soldiers falling around him, Chamberlain's placement on the battlefield, the contradictions, etc. Again, please reread:

"For example, why or how in the world would have Chamberlain (on the battlefield) spoken directly to Gen. Grant, who was 5 miles away located at City Point, without the presence of a telegraph out in the middle of the field? You agree that Chamberlain completely bypassed his superior officers when trying to speak with Grant, too? And, that he also carefully wrote a 2 page letter to Grant with bullets and shells dropping all round him? Hmmm. I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but Chamberlain's account simply coincides against the actual events of the battle, the primary source written accounts of both the Confederates and his OWN men, as well as the actual layout of the battlefield itself. And yes, the maps may be more accurate than you realize. For instance, Chamberlain noted that he was shot having just crossed a boggy swampy marsh. Nowhere on the battlefield is there such a piece of terrain other than where Dr. Rasbach indicated, which is also exactly where Chamberlain's commanding officer's placed him to be (and certainly NOT a mile ahead of the whole army, as Chamberlain stated). Again, allow the battlefield to speak for itself."

I am simply referring to the REGIMENT - any regiment for that matter - instead of making a false 'god' out of one single man. In this case, Chamberlain. By all means, if Chamberlain fell in with a particular regiment, yes, include him. If there were countless regiments, officers, and key figures who did the same - they should be entitled to same blessing. But, let me ask you (or anyone) this - if there was no movie ever made about Gettysburg that featured Joshua Chamberlain, would folks like yourself be so fired up and anxious to begin erecting boundless statues of him? Again, please re-read:

"I actually own an original pair of late-war used boots previously owned by Chamberlain (they're currently on display at the Appomattox Historical Park). I also own other artifacts once owned by Chamberlain including his signature. When I took many of these items to be displayed as a 'collage,' all they wanted was the boots. Reason being, those museums and parks were careful not to draw too much attention to any one man - but, rather, to an event that encompasses the event as whole. That's teamwork because it gives credit to the whole 'team' and not just to any one man. The same can be said about yet another monument."

In short, folks such as myself don't see the need for another statue of him when there are so many already and as my previous posting already stated in greater detail backing up those very same points...
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
One of my favorite myths relating to the battle of Gettysburg was that Vincent's brigade "saved" the entire Union position by their defense of LRT. What they saved was only Little Round Top. On the opposite side of the hill was half the 5th Corps and all the 6th Corps. What would one Confederate brigade be able to do with them? Had they captured the hill they would surely have been obliged to give it back.
That's Gary Adelman's whole shtick, some folks over here were thinking otherwise. It all starts getting into counterfactual history quickly these kinds of things https://civilwartalk.com/threads/little-round-top-august-1863-t-n.135013/
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
"You suggest that the placement of monuments should be left to modern people and the wishes of those there ignored." I have no idea what you may be referring to based on this statement. If anything, Oats 'wanted' a monument placed on LRT, Gettysburg. Seeing how Oats was there at Gettysburg as a proven fact (and obviously, he's not alive here in the 21st century), then how am I ignoring people who were actually there and wanted it placed in the first place? I feel like I am talking in circles...

I was refering to this statment if yours,
"- You mentioned that, "fellow Southerners who fought on that hill didn't want him (Oats) placing his monument away from theirs that were all along Confederate Ave as they didn't think Oates should get all the glory." The Battle of Gettysburg was fought 154 years ago. I don't think that you'll have that problem today in 2017."​
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
As for Gen. Grant, please read my previous message as I'm not about to re-type it all out again. Because you dislike Dr. Rasbach's book, I was simply referring to the recent uncovered historical material drawing into question how Chamberlain supposedly wrote Grant a two page paper WHILE bullets, artillery shells, and fellow soldiers falling around him, Chamberlain's placement on the battlefield, the contradictions, etc. Again, please reread:
What was recently uncovered? Did Rasbach attribute the messenger who came to Chamberlain as being from Grant? That would be odd if he did because all historians gernerally think it was from Meade. Give me a page in Rasbach and I will look into it.
 

Dom71

Sergeant
Joined
May 12, 2017
Location
Long Island, NY
History 36
" A regiment (North or South) that marches over 20 miles on very little sleep in 90 degree heat, no water, takes the 'Gibraltar' of Big Round Top, then very nearly takes Little Round Top against Federal troops who rested all day certainly deserves recognition."
Yes they certainly do, however the 5th corps. arrived on the field at 8a.m on the 2nd after Marching all the previous day to get to Gettysburg, after being shifted around the field several times they were ordered to the left of the Union position, where Vincent brought his brigade to the LRT position I would hardly call them "rested".
 

Jimklag

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Location
Chicagoland
History 36
" A regiment (North or South) that marches over 20 miles on very little sleep in 90 degree heat, no water, takes the 'Gibraltar' of Big Round Top, then very nearly takes Little Round Top against Federal troops who rested all day certainly deserves recognition."
Yes they certainly do, however the 5th corps. arrived on the field at 8a.m on the 2nd after Marching all the previous day to get to Gettysburg, after being shifted around the field several times they were ordered to the left of the Union position, where Vincent brought his brigade to the LRT position I would hardly call them "rested".
Amen
 

suzenatale

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 25, 2013
Indeed. I only know what troop position maps say. 5th and 6th Corps were immediately north of the hill.
I knew I made some kind of meme
Counterfactual history
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJy2_YlmNr89eowuS2AhP_e7kN8xX8Z4rVQWMgiHJbC6_Hogqe0Q.jpg

"Don't worry too much about holding this ground.
We've got a bunch of reinforcements coming who are totally expendable.
You're better off saving your own hide, that's what I say."
 
Top