I think you should read those pages again because Trulock does a great job in showing how unreliable Spear's testimony was and how it changed from what he said previously. She also shows how other members of the regiment back up Chamberlain's account.
And, I think you should re-read Trulock's account again in how even she, yes she as in Trulock, mentioned that Chamberlain's account differed with the men themselves at times. Why should Spear's account be counted as any less significant? Probably because he wasn't one of the 'stars' or key leading actors in the film Gettysburg as Jeff Daniels was, perhaps? Is that your reasoning? And, what about the men themselves? They *themselves* disputed Chamberlain just as Spear had done. Are you going to dismiss all of those men too?? So many times the common man / soldier is easily overlooked and dismissed even though they are the ones in the trenches and have a better grasp of the situation(s). Again, her (Trulock) quote states, "there was a story among the men that Chamberlain never gave the order (to charge), but they (the men) spontaneously charged when men in Company K shouted to advance and recover some downed men (prompted by Lt. Melcher); the left wing followed when ordered by Spear after he heard the 'shout' and the whole line started to move...contrary to Chamberlain's official report and Spear's report after the battle (pg. 443)." One other key component that you seem unwilling to accept is that Chamberlain's account also changed. For instance, one report states that he ordered a charge while another report states that he only ordered the bayonet. Which is it? Is it black or is white? Yes or no? So, you see that's a contradictory statement for you to make against Spear because Chamberlain's own account changed just as much, as well! And, I've personally spoken with numerous historians today who feel that following the film, Gettysburg - a lot of authors wanted to jump on the band-wagon and write about Chamberlain for the first time since his death in 1914. If the film didn't come out on the big screen, I often wonder if there would be as many books on Chamberlain as there are today. Those authors, including Trulock, decide to write because they have a high interest in their subject and therefore are prone to writing about them in a very positive light in an almost defensive / glowing perspective. However, the quote above was retrieved from the end notes much to my respect of Trulock when she could have easily left that part out of her book. And, I feel that's part of the reason why I also highly respect Dr. Rasbach. I've personally met this gentleman and he is facing a mountain of controversy for going 'against the grain' of Saint Chamberlain proponents despite what truth may be uncovered. He's a doctor and doesn't need this aggravation from another field. Yet, because he's a 'doctor' and not a university trained historian prone to showing a potential and passionate bias as some of these authors may do, he simply states the truth as they happened with a genuine sense of objectiveness. If anything, we need MORE post-revisionist books like these. For example, in doing my family genealogy, I learned that my direct line came over from Ireland and England through Jamestown, Va. in the 1620s as mere indentured servants (the first form of slavery in America). Now, I could easily and boastfully tell folks that I was directly descended from William the Conqueror himself with my head held high. I don't know about y'all, but I'd rather know and share the truth vs. making history what I want it to be with my head still held high if you get what I'm saying.
Getting back to the common soldier - are you aware of a primary source quote describing a scenario that happened during one of Bowdoin College's commencement ceremonies following the war? If not, the account goes as follows: as Chamberlain and his college colleagues walked in procession line in between the seated students, one of the students stated, "there goes the hero of Little Round top." Having heard that, Chamberlain quickly turned around and snapped, "yes, I took it and I held it!" To this day, historians still feel that Chamberlain's comment was out of place, unnecessary, and in poor-taste for the simple reason that he not only blatantly failed to appropriately acknowledge either the soldiers (who 'really' held Little Round Top), but also he did not give recognition to the commanding officers, such as Warren, *Vincent,* etc. who initially helped to place him there in the first place. Again, did Chamberlain hold the whole mountain by himself? And, with the sheer roar of battle completely engulfing them, how could just one man be heard to orchestrate a perfect textbook maneuver according to Hollywood drama? As I mentioned in a previous post, "seeing how most of the leading Union commanding officers were killed, Chamberlain was an exception to tell his experience however he wished to do because there was no other higher ranking commanding officer to dispute him who survived. And, if you look at pre-1993 film Gettysburg written pieces, most give credit to Col. Strong Vincent."
Your account above is dizzying, company K commanded by Nichols shouted the advance, but they got the idea from Melcher?[/QUOTE] If you had read Dr. Desjardin's book (among others), you would have already known that Melcher didn't 'formerly' initiate the charge (news flash, no one did) - he went forward to help aid those soldiers who were wounded (friends, brothers, fathers, etc.) and caught in the cross fire between the Alabamians and Mainers. How would anyone here feel if that was your brother, your father, your friend, your neighbor, etc. crying out to you for help? Melcher went forward to help collect those wounded and between the right and left flank, the charge practically happened on its own. Also too, the original Federal line wasn't originally where it rests today. In fact, it began down by the modern-day road that runs between the Round Tops. With each wave of Confederates, the Federal line was pushed further and further back up the hill - leaving the wounded behind. Melcher was one of many heroes, such as Spear, who helped to make the charge what we *think* it was according to the film. Plus too to keep in mind, those soldiers on the right flank and those on the left flank fought almost two different battles (the left was charged upon repeatedly in trying to protect that flank). Don't like the history? Hey, contact Dr. Desjardin and take it up with him and authors like him today conducting better research than Michael Shaara's work of historical fiction.
"Thanks for letting us know, but I think you will find the folks on this forum are more intelligent than your estimations of them." Excuse me? Where do you get such fantasies? Why even write that in the first place? Of course everyone on this forum is highly intelligent and is that the best defense / response you could come up with when someone doesn't agree with you that another Chamberlain statue should be built? The historical material was simply to help educate and to encourage others to examine perspectives other than 'Saint Chamberlain's' and to state that it's okay, truly, to consider the possibility that the film Gettysburg just maybe wasn't 100% accurate after all. And, I never dissed anyone's intelligence, but the mere fact that you and I have been talking in circles on the very same points repeatedly makes me wonder whether we could even hold an intelligent conversation at all.