East Las Vegas, N.M.

Enclosed please find 25c. in stamps in payment for Pettigrew’s Charge. I have read it with much interest. I think you have made a good case and that you are right. I was at Vicksburg the same day—the Adjt. 81st Ills. Vols. Infty.

I am yours truly,
J.J. Fitzgerald,
Post Dept. Comd’r Dept. N.M.G.A.R.

Abbeville, S.C., July 1st, 1896.

Dear Sir:—I enclose 25c. in stamps for which be kind enough to send me your pamphlet entitled, “Pickett or Pettigrew?” if you have any copies on hand. I recently saw a copy in Charleston. You agree with me about Pettigrew and Pickett. I was Sergt. Major of Orr’s Rifles, McGowan’s brigade, Wilcox’s division. Some years ago I was looking at the cyclorama of Gettysburg in Philadelphia. The Yankee who explained the battle said that A.P. Hill’s men advanced further than Pickett’s, and pointed out to the crowd where a number of North Carolinians fell at the extreme front.

Yours truly,
Robt. R. Hemphill.

“JUSTICE FOR OUR DEAD IS ALL WE WANT.”

Washington, D.C., Dec. 29th, 1888.

My Dear Sir:—Circumstances here have caused me to be so very busy of late that I have not had time sooner to acknowledge your courtesy in sending me the pamphlet on the battle of Gettysburg. I seize the occasion of the holidays to do so. The pamphlet was read by every member of my family with the keenest interest. I have to thank you from my heart for writing it. No living man suffers more from these mean and jealous attempts to deprive North Carolina of her proper honor than I do. I sometimes almost get sick over them. I have always regarded the effort of some Virginians, not all, thank God, to deprecate the North Carolina troops in the battle of Gettysburg as simply a damnable and dastardly outrage. *********

But let us take courage. The simple truth will ultimately prevail—simple justice is all we want for our dead.

Your friend and fellow North Carolinian. ——

[The above was written by one who loved North Carolina and one whom North Carolina loved to honor.]

A WISE JUDGE.

The following is an extract from a letter written by a resident of Chicago, Major Chas. A. Hale, who has the honor of having served in the Fifth New Hampshire, a regiment which fought gallantly at Gettysburg, and is distinguished for having sustained the greatest losses in battle of any infantry or cavalry regiment in the whole Union army:

“There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind but that the sons of North Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi carved on the tablets of history equal laurels with the sons of Virginia in the great events of that supreme attempt to gain victory on Cemetery Ridge. Pettigrew and Trimble deserve equal honors with Pickett, and if we weigh with judicial exactness more, for impartial evidence proves that they suffered in a greater degree, and forced their way nearer the lines where pitiless fate barred their entrance. The nearest point reached by any troops was Bryan’s barn; this is made conclusive by evidence on both sides. If there were a thousand Confederates inside the stone wall at the angle more than two-thirds of that number must have been Pettigrew’s men.”

HOW PICKETT’S DIVISION ‘ABSQUATULATED.’

Pickett’s division of the army of Northern Virginia is rarely heard of either before or after Gettysburg. No body of troops during the last war made as much reputation on so little fighting. Newspaper men did the work by printer’s ink and the casualties were small.

Fourteen hundred and ninety-nine were captured at Gettysburg. More than this number “absquated” when Petersburg fell and there was a probability of leaving Virginia. Pickett’s division made a poor show at the surrender at Appomattox.—Abbeville, (S.C.) Medium.

ÆSOP’S FABLE—THE DOG AND THE BONE.

An interesting contribution to the history of the battle of Gettysburg is afforded in a pamphlet essay entitled “Pickett or Pettigrew?” by Capt. W.R. Bond, a Confederate staff officer in the army of Northern Virginia. Capt. Bond’s desire is to correct the commonly received accounts of the parts taken in that battle by the troops commanded by Gens. Pickett and Pettigrew. ******* Gen. Longstreet, according to Capt. Bond, is largely responsible for the current misrepresentation of the Southern side of the story of Gettysburg, and he tells in detail a curious story of the favoritism displayed all through the war towards everything Virginian at the expense of the soldiers from the other Southern States.—Springfield Republican.

We have read with much interest a pamphlet by Capt. W.R. Bond, entitled “Pickett or Pettigrew?” in which the writer, a North Carolinian, proposed to show, and does show very conclusively, that the losses of Pettigrew’s North Carolina brigade in this charge were greater than those sustained by Pickett or, indeed, by any command in the army. He claims that the twenty-sixth regiment of this brigade suffered greater loss than that of any command in modern times. The fate of one company in this regiment recalls ThermopylÆ; it was literally wiped out—every man in it was either killed or wounded. This pamphlet makes a glorious showing for the resolute courage and intrepidity of the North Carolina troops, but it is endorsed by the brave boys here who fought by their side. It also pays a high tribute to the Tennesseeans engaged in that bloody fight, according them the place they occupied in it and the meed of praise they justly won.—Gallatin (Tenn.) Examiner.

It contains some interesting statements from the Southern, and especially from North Carolina, point of view, the object of its author being to show that undue credit has been given to Pickett’s Virginia brigades at the expense of the brigade of Pettigrew from North Carolina. The author contends that undue prominence has been given to the part taken by Virginia troops in the war of the rebellion, owing to the leading part taken by Virginia newspapers and Virginia historians in reporting the events of the war. He shows that North Carolina leads in the report given in Col. Fox’s paper on the “Chances of Being Hit in Battle.” Of the troops losing the most men Mississippi comes next, and Virginia does not appear at all. He has suggestive reference also to the possibility of Gen. Longstreet being of Gascon descent. Altogether, his little pamphlet is lively reading.—Army and Navy Journal.

A review of this pamphlet ought to and shall be carefully written. *** His reference to Gen. Pettigrew is in admirable taste and will evoke new sorrow for the untimely death of that cultivated gentleman and splendid soldier; but the dedication to Hill’s corps is marred by a spirit which no provocation can justify. An author who loses his temper always breaks the force of his argument and weakens his cause. And so in the present case some salient facts which Capt. Bond presents lose most of their strength and effect by the spirit in which he clothes them. *** And suppose the charge of Pickett was given undue prominence in the general history of the war, (and we do not dispute it), was it kind or proper on that account to make a systematic attempt to vitiate the record of all the service rendered by Virginia to the Confederate arms? *** And it is a worthy duty to resurrect those brave deeds from oblivion, a duty which Capt. Bond is well competent to discharge, and in the discharge of which every Confederate Virginian would bid him “God speed.” But he will pardon us for saying that the task, to serve any good purpose, must be approached in a different tone and temper than that displayed in his recent pamphlet, for we have passed by much of insinuation and allegation his work contains, hoping that a calmer frame of mind will lead the author to vindicate in another edition the name and fame of the gallant Carolinians without seeking to pluck one laurel from the wreath with which friend and foe have crowned the Virginia charge at Gettysburg.—Petersburg Index-Appeal.

After an inexplicable silence of nearly twenty-five years, the North Carolinians are beginning to assert themselves in regard to the charge on the third day at Gettysburg. Every student of the history of the war knows that it was not Pickett, of Virginia, but Pettigrew, of North Carolina, who was entitled to the principal credit for the charge. Pickett started out in command of the charging column, but stopped when within half a mile of our line, while Pettigrew went on with his North Carolinians and reached the farthest point attained by any rebel troops.—National Tribune.

Hall and Sledge are the publishers of this remarkable pamphlet, which not only disparages Virginia and Virginia papers as they were during the war between the States, but even Pickett’s Virginians. The world has passed upon all these matters, and its verdict will not be changed.—Richmond Dispatch.

W.W. Owen, of New Orleans, late Lt. Colonel of Washington artillery, A.N.V., writes: “I have just seen a newspaper account of ‘Pickett’s charge,’ by Capt. W.R. Bond, and am anxious to obtain a copy. I was at the battle of Gettysburg and I think his account of it will agree with my idea about it, at least as far as Pickett was concerned.” This little book is well written and the author corrects a number of errors which have been published about certain battles of the late unpleasantness. It is worth reading.—Tallahassee Floridian.

The Wilmington Star noticing an article in the Richmond Times:

“We see from the Richmond Times that a reply is preparing to Captain W.R. Bond’s stinging pamphlet on the battle of Gettysburg. The Virginians do not intend to have it go down to history that North Carolinians did as well at Gettysburg, or better, than the much trumpeted division of Pickett. North Carolinians must see to it that the brave men who made such a splendid record at Gettysburg are neither defamed nor robbed.”

T. Blyler, Captain in the 12th New Jersey, writes: “Your division (meaning Pettigrew’s) advanced in our front and we bear willing testimony to your bravery and to penetrating farther than Pickett.”

W.H. Shaver, of Kingston, Pa., who belonged to the Philadelphia brigade, writes: “If convenient, say to Capt. Bond that I have read his pamphlet with very great interest as well as astonishment, for we of the North know of no other soldiers in the charge but ‘Pickett and his Virginians.’ It is a well written article and will cause history to be re-written.”

J.D. Vautier, of Philadelphia, Historian of the 88th Regiment of Penn. Vols., writes: “I think it an excellent treatise, it appears to be the impression that the Virginians did about all the fighting on the Southern side during the war. To be a Virginian was to be all that was good. The record shows that the North Carolinians were away up head.”

W.E. Potter, Colonel of the 12th New Jersey, writes: “In an address delivered by myself at Gettysburg May, 1886, I called attention to the gallant conduct of the North Carolina troops and the extent of their losses when compared with Pickett’s. So far as I know my speech was the first publication to point out the fact that the troops of Pickett constituted the minor portion of the assaulting column.”

Col. George Meade, of Philadelphia, the son of Gen. Meade, who commanded the Federal forces in this battle, writes: “I am glad to find in it certain facts that confirm what has been my own impression as to the important part taken by the North Carolina troops in the assault at Gettysburg on the afternoon of the 3rd of July. I must congratulate you on having presented your case so strongly.”

Captain W.R. Bond, a North Carolinian and a Confederate soldier, who agrees with Col. Batchelder, of Massachusetts, the Government historian of the battle of Gettysburg, that the brilliant military exploit popularly known as ‘Pickett’s charge’ should be called ‘Longstreet’s assault,’ has written a pamphlet to call attention to the fact that Pettigrew’s division of North Carolina troops in this charge went further and stayed longer and had more men killed than Pickett’s division of Virginians. Captain Bond presents some interesting statements in the course of his narrative.

It may be added that the North Carolinians also lost, by one of the frequent mischances that govern the direction of popular praise, their share of the glory that their bravery should have gained, and which Pickett’s division gathered in for itself.—Philadelphia Press.

GEN. ULYSSES DOUBLEDAY.

Capt. Bond’s pamphlet showing that Pettigrew and not Pickett is entitled to the glory that graced the Confederate banners at the battle of Gettysburg, is bearing fruit. It is bound to convince any fair-minded man who will read it. A private letter to the author from Asheville, says that the writer had a long conversation with Gen. Doubleday, a Federal officer and brother of the Gen. Doubleday mentioned in the pamphlet. “Gen. Doubleday contended,” continues the letter, “that Pickett’s men did as so-called history says they did, and reaped all the glory.” I asked him as a personal favor to read the essay, “Pickett or Pettigrew?” He has just finished telling his opinion. Said he: “It opened my eyes. Your brave men have been slandered. Capt. Bond gives chapter and verse. It is a fine essay.”—Weldon News.

Mr. O.W. Blacknall, of Kittrells, in a letter to the News and Observer concerning the ceremonies at Winchester last Friday, pays a high compliment to Capt. W.R. Bond’s book, “Pickett or Pettigrew.” Mr. Blacknall mentions Capt. Bond’s book as being one of the documents placed in the pocket of the corner stone, and adds:

“I will say in passing that the scholarly and profound brochure of Capt. Bond—‘Pickett or Pettigrew’—has never received the acknowledgment so eminently its due. Therein he clearly shows the manner in which history was shaped to North Carolina’s detriment. The Richmond papers seeking to please their patrons, chiefly Virginians, to put it mildly, laid great stress on the services of Virginia troops and little on their failures. They killed and made alive the reputations of men as they saw fit. Pollard and other historians writing from the Southern stand-point followed largely the Richmond papers, and thus history was miswritten to our apparently irretrievable harm. Capt. Bond’s pamphlet should be widely read and its substance preserved in history.”—Scotland Neck Commonwealth.

LONGSTREET AND N.C. SOLDIERS.

We copy a brief communication that will serve as an eye-opener to Longstreet’s real claim upon North Carolina sympathizers. Our correspondent writes:

“There are some old soldiers from North Carolina, who have always liked and admired Gen. Longstreet and they regret to see the strictures upon him in a recently published pamphlet. If they will read carefully the following facts from the official records relating to the Sharpsburg campaign, they may feel that their partiality has been misplaced.

“General Longstreet had in this campaign nine North Carolina regiments, whose killed and wounded averaged one hundred and four. In his corps there were eighty regiments from other States and their average was sixty-four. In the eighty there were twenty-two Virginia regiments and their average was thirty-two. The 48th North Carolina had more men killed and wounded than any regiment of its corps. The 3rd North Carolina, of Jackson’s corps, had more men killed and wounded than any regiment in the army. In fact, more than the entire brigades of Generals Armistead and Garnett combined. At the conclusion of his report of the operations of this campaign, General Longstreet mentions the names of thirty-eight officers, who had distinguished themselves for gallantry. In this number there is not one brigade or regiment commander from North Carolina.”—Messenger.

REGIMENTAL LOSSES.

A study of regimental actions shows clearly that the battalions which faced musketry the steadiest, the longest and the oftenest, were the ones whose aggregate loss during the war was greatest. Fighting regiments leave a bloody wake behind them; retreating regiments lose few men. At Chancellorsville the heaviest losses were in the corps that stood—not in the one that broke.—Fox.

W.R.B., in Wilmington Messenger:

I write you a letter, as I wish to tell you about certain conversations I lately had with an old Confederate—an officer of high rank, and one who, after the war, was on intimate terms with Gen. Lee. It will also contain a copy of a letter received by me some two months ago from a member of Gen. Lee’s staff, and some other things which I think will interest your old soldier readers. In one of the conversations referred to mention was made of the letters of General Cobb (who was killed at Fredericksburg) which have lately been published. In one of these letters General Cobb says that Mr. Davis and General Lee thought there was only one State in the Confederacy, and that was Virginia. In referring to it I remarked that, allowing a little for exaggeration, I did not think he was very far wrong; that I supposed it was much the same in the other States, and that I knew of the persistent injustice, and sometimes even cruelty, with which North Carolina and her troops were treated. He at once came to the defence of General Lee, and said he knew positively that he was not responsible for much of the injustice of which I complained; that in the matter of appointing and promoting officers General Lee often had very little influence. For instance, after Jackson’s death, when the army was reorganized and the two corps made into three, he was bitterly opposed to having A.P. Hill and Ewell for corps commanders. He wished to have Rodes—an Alabamian—to command one of them, and also wished to give a division to Pettigrew and he always said if his divisions and corps had been commanded at Gettysburg by officers of his choice he would have gained that battle. But, said General ——, as the secretary of war was a Virginian, and the influence of Virginia politicians was so all-powerful, both in the executive mansion and the halls of our congress, his wishes were not considered. Though a Virginian, he spoke at length of this baneful influence which festered for four years in Richmond. And just here it may be remarked that probably the most humiliating thing connected with our struggle for independence—more humiliating even than defeat—was the fact that North Carolinians and other free born men should ever have allowed themselves to be at all dominated by a public opinion, which was made by a sorry lot of ignoble bomb-proof hunters. On one occasion I told General —— about the letter I had received from Col. Venable, and how lie happened to write it. That I had heard reports as to General Pickett, while the assault was being made, which reflected upon his courage, and was disposed to doubt them, as I had heard that he had acted very bravely in his vain attempt to rally his division when routed at Five Forks. I do not think I succeeded in convincing him of this, for I think he believes yet that General Pickett never went near his troops on this the day of their last battle.

Wishing to know if there were any grounds for these reports, I wrote to Colonel Venable, asking him how far into the field General Pickett advanced with his division, and how near he was to it when it was repulsed, and the following is his answer:

“Remington, Fauquier County, Va.

“Dear Sir:—It has been settled by officers of the United States army, that both Pettigrew’s and Pickett’s men went to high water mark—that is, equally far in the charge at Gettysburg. The Federal government has caused marks to be placed at different points on the field with great care.

“The charge should even be called the charge of Pettigrew’s and Pickett’s men.

“Yours respectfully,
“Chas. S. Venable.

“General Pettigrew was every inch a soldier and a very great loss to the grand old army of northern Virginia.

C.S.V.”

It will be seen that no attention is paid to my question, as there is no connection between it and the intended answer. This may signify something or it may not. My letter may have been mislaid and contents forgotten. The time has been when the reception of this letter would have greatly gratified me, but since I have made a study of the records and other authorities I have become convinced that, with one exception, there was not a brigade in Trimble’s or Pettigrew’s divisions which did not only equal but really surpass any of General Pickett’s in all soldierly qualities on that occasion.

And now for a few of the figures you some time ago expressed the wish to see. For the whole battle the fifteen Virginia regiments on the right had in killed and wounded 1,360. Amongst those on the left were the five North Carolina and three Mississippi regiments, which constituted Pettigrew’s and Davis’ brigades, and their loss in killed and wounded was 2,002.

What part of this latter loss was incurred on the third day will never be accurately known; but we know from the Federals that the artillery fire was largely concentrated upon these two brigades, and we also know from the testimony of Federal officers, one of whom was Colonel Morgan, General Hancock’s chief of staff, that the dead lay thicker on the ground over which these troops had passed than upon any other part of the field, and if we did not know these two facts the case of one regiment furnishes a key to the per centage of killed and wounded in its own brigade and that of the one immediately on its right. This regiment, the Eleventh Mississippi, did no fighting on the first day, as it was on detached service and consequently met with all its loss in the fight of the third. We know how many it carried in, and Dr. Guild’s report informs us of the loss, and, knowing these numbers, we know that its per centage of killed and wounded was more than sixty—a per centage so high that not one Virginia regiment ever made it, and not a great many others. This and its companion regiment—the Second Mississippi—were old troops—veterans in fact as well as in name—had fought often and always well. By referring to the Sharpsburg Campaign Series 1, Vol. xix. of the records, a comparison can be readily drawn between the conduct of these two regiments in this campaign and that of several which were afterwards at Gettysburg with Pickett. A comparison that were it not so pitiful would be amusing.

If Pickett’s troops carried in no more than claimed their per centage of killed and wounded was twenty-eight. But in order that their per centage might appear as high as possible, it is probable their numbers were always represented as smaller than they were. Their fifteen regiments probably averaged 400. If they did not, they should have done so, for they did not often have anybody hurt—that is, compared with the troops in the army from the other States. In the period from the close of the Richmond fighting to Gettysburg—one year—twelve battles were fought by the whole or part of the army, and in these battles Archer’s Tennessee, Lane’s North Carolina and Scales’ North Carolina had 3,610 killed and wounded. Kemper’s Virginia, Armistead’s Virginia and Garnett’s Virginia had 772. We can understand why these people were handled so tenderly, for were they not made of better clay than the fighters of the army? Fine porcelain from the province of Quang Tong were they—things of beauty, but fragile.

In the assault Davis’ brigade had about sixty per cent. killed and wounded. It is probable that Pettigrew’s brigade had even a higher per centage, as they were somewhat longer under fire. It is possible that Pickett’s was twenty-five. But whatever it was, after all, their pretty wheelings and lovely drum major’s airs, that the enemy should have been so ungrateful as to shoot at them, so wounded their feelings that they had to be sent out of the army and they did not re-join it for nearly a year afterwards.

If a line of good soldiers can be formed in rushing distance, almost anything can be carried. But if a wide and open field has to be passed and there is to be a loss from twenty-five to seventy per cent. and the consequent disorganization, nothing but useless bloodshed can be expected. This would appear to be a truth so self-evident that the merest tyro could comprehend it. But yet Burnside and Hancock (’till too late) do not appear to have done so at Fredericksburg. General Lee did not at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg, and, in ignorance of this law, the gallant Schobelef sacrificed the best division of the Russian army at Plevna.

Bodies in motion, by their momentum, advance in the direction of least resistance. A body of soldiers making an attack forms no exception to this law of physics. When the Philadelphia brigade of Gibbon’s division, which had been roughly handled the day before, gave way as our men got in charging distance, this point of least resistance was filled by Confederates—a disorganized mob of about 1,000—in which several brigades had representatives, and this is very foolishly called the “high water mark of the Confederacy.” Why, there was not a fresh regiment in the Federal army which could not have defeated this body, and there was a whole corps of fresh regiments at hand. The Sixth, which by many was considered the best in the army had hardly fired a shot. If there was any high water mark connected with this battle it was reached the afternoon before, while McLaws, Hood and Anderson were doing their fighting—and the precise time was when Wright’s brigade, of the last named division, having driven the enemy before them, had carried a battery of twenty guns. Shortly afterwards one of McLaws’ brigades gave way, and with its defeat went our fortunes. Every shot fired by us the next day was one more nail in the coffin of the Confederacy.—Scotland Neck Commonwealth.