“They digged a pit.
They digged it deep.
They digged it for their brothers;
But it so fell out that they fell in
The pit that was digged for t’others.”
* * * * *
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.
* * * * *