The new book on Pickett's Charge by Phillip Thomas Tucker taught me one thing

Agreed. Even taking the lowest number of troops I've read of on Cemetery Ridge (3000) Lee would have to have had more than twice ss many men as actually began the charge. Then subtract the casualties suffeted on the way across that 3/4 mile. How could he approach any local numerical advantage bigger than 2:1.
 
About this Stuart and Copse of Trees fantasy (and I cannot believe that it even needs discussion.) Here are 1000 words. Click to enlarge and ignore the highway (15) and the subdivision by the filled mine.

33142017901_e77fcb216a_o.jpg
 
Back to Phillip Tucker Thomas.... I read a book by him about Burnside's Bridge that I thought was not too bad. I have since noticed that was his shortest book and each once after gets longer and longer. Based on the Burnside's Bridge book, I bought Barksdale's Charge and a book about Washington's crossing the Delaware. I waded my way through the Barksdale's book with difficulty and got about 16 pages into the Washington book before I gave it up -- which is rare for me. I will not be buying a new look at Pickett's Charge.
 
Back to Phillip Tucker Thomas.... I read a book by him about Burnside's Bridge that I thought was not too bad. I have since noticed that was his shortest book and each once after gets longer and longer. Based on the Burnside's Bridge book, I bought Barksdale's Charge and a book about Washington's crossing the Delaware. I waded my way through the Barksdale's book with difficulty and got about 16 pages into the Washington book before I gave it up -- which is rare for me. I will not be buying a new look at Pickett's Charge.

If you want a modern interpretation about Pickett's Charge, try Earl Hess' book.

Ryan
 
Has anyone read a book titled "Canister At Ten Yards" by a guy named Schultz. It's about Union artillery during Pickett's Charge. I might like to buy it.

“Double Canister at Ten Yards”: The Federal Artillery and the Repulse of Pickett’s Charge, July 3, 1863

It is a very good book for a very specific subject: the preparations of the Union Artillery on the night of July 2nd and the use of the Union Artillery on July 3rd. About 120 pages. Probably the best resource on the subject, but it covers only a smidgen of Pickett's Charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WJC
“Double Canister at Ten Yards”: The Federal Artillery and the Repulse of Pickett’s Charge, July 3, 1863

It is a very good book for a very specific subject: the preparations of the Union Artillery on the night of July 2nd and the use of the Union Artillery on July 3rd. About 120 pages. Probably the best resource on the subject, but it covers only a smidgen of Pickett's Charge.
Many thanks, amigo.
 
We've been talking about a crappy book about Pickett's Charge. Recently I have been going back and rereading some of the old tried and true histories and biographies. I cannot say why I re-read it, but I just finished (at last) the last volume of Allan Nevins' "Ordeal Of The Union". The point is that a buddy of mine recently asked me what was my favorite book on the war. For thirty years The Killer Angels, The Army Of The Potomac trilogy and Lee's Lieutenants have had the primo spots in my library and after some re-reading I have found no reason to change that. What is your favorite Civil War read? Not necessarily the highest quality or most accurate. Just what is the book you had the most pleasure reading?
 
For thirty years The Killer Angels, The Army Of The Potomac trilogy and Lee's Lieutenants have had the primo spots in my library and after some re-reading I have found no reason to change that.

You're an Illinoisan, I suggest you start reading about the war in the West, about the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Cumberland. About how Illinois and the other states of the Old Northwest won the war. A good place to start is "Illinois in the Civil War" by Victor Hicken.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0252061659/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
 
You're an Illinoisan, I suggest you start reading about the war in the West, about the Army of the Tennessee and the Army of the Cumberland. About how Illinois and the other states of the Old Northwest won the war. A good place to start is "Illinois in the Civil War" by Victor Hicken.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0252061659/?tag=civilwartalkc-20
Sorry, I wasn't asking for suggestions. I read most of what you mentioned. I was just asking what was your favorite read.
 
We've been talking about a crappy book about Pickett's Charge. Recently I have been going back and rereading some of the old tried and true histories and biographies. I cannot say why I re-read it, but I just finished (at last) the last volume of Allan Nevins' "Ordeal Of The Union". The point is that a buddy of mine recently asked me what was my favorite book on the war. For thirty years The Killer Angels, The Army Of The Potomac trilogy and Lee's Lieutenants have had the primo spots in my library and after some re-reading I have found no reason to change that. What is your favorite Civil War read? Not necessarily the highest quality or most accurate. Just what is the book you had the most pleasure reading?

There is already a thread on this subject with lots of responses :smile:
 
Thi
There are errors and there are errors. Some are factual, like the one about Stuart being able to see the Copse of Trees from the West, that an editor cannot catch, but some of them even a copy editor should catch. Here:

28939852870_3b9b817085_b.jpg


He has Reynolds killed at 10:30 AM and then somehow resurrected (zombified ?) and at 12:15 pm is determined to keep Cemetery Hill. Maybe in spirit. Maybe because he does not want to give Howard or Hancock or someone alive credit. Who knows?

A copy editor should have caught that. Heck a 9th grader could have caught that. Sticks out like a sore thumb.
This is a prelude to the walking dead, I believe
 
My point of disagreement is that the move isn't tactically feasable altho strategically desirable. I doubt Lee would have ordered that order. I do think he wished Stuart to put himself to the east of the aop along the rail line. imho

Let's remember that on the afternoon of July 2, four brigades of Union cavalry--fully half of the Army of the Potomac's Cavalry Corps--were operating either at Brinkerhoff's Ridge on Lee's far left flank (two of Gregg's three brigades), or at Hunterstown (both of Kilpatrick's)--BEYOND Lee's left flank. Given those operative facts, is it really some giant surprise that Lee would send Stuart to cover that flank? Or that Lee would order Imboden's brigade to take a position behind his center so that he would have a large force of cavalry available in case the Union cavalry got around his flank and into his rear?

It really is THAT simple.

Think Occam's Razor--the simplest explanation is usually the right one. Reading anything more into Stuart's being assigned to cover that flank defies logic, it defies the facts as Lee knew them, and it simply is not feasible.
 
Back
Top