Mythbusting

J.D. :

I understand the point that popular myth obscures detail to reinforce cultural memory (preferences). There is also the problem of being so rigorous in correcting that memory that one raises the bar way too high. (Harry Heth said in his memoirs he was looking for shoes. That lends some credence to the argument; at least from Heth’s perspective. What Hill did on 1 July went far beyond foraging as he ordered his Corps forward and dispatched to Ewell that he should change his point of rendevous to conform with Hills move. So is the shoe story purely myth, or part of the fabric of the event?)

Whether or not a pitched battle is a meeting engagement or deliberate should relate to command intent. Did Lee or Meade prepare a battle at Gettysburg on 1 July? Nope. Both sides assumed they had more time based on what intel they were responding to the evening prior.

I think you’re dazzled by Bufords personal efforts to the point of over magnifying their import to what was going on at AoP and ANV HQs.

I’m stuck by how good Kenneth Williams assessment reads even today as he points out the pregnency of Meades correspondence with Halleck at this time.

Hardly dazzled, Dave. Simply convinced by the evidence. Don’t worry though, I hear such comments all the time. Of eight magazine articles and two books I’ve written only one article dealt with Buford on July 1, so my interests are pretty wide-ranging. A library of over 3000 volumes and a room full of other primary source material attests to that fact…

No, hardly dazzled. I will contend that neither commander of the armies intended battle on July 1. However, look at the army’s definition of “meeting engagement.” Gettysburg does not fit. In fact, the events of July 1 are used specifically in the army’s manual (FM-1795) to illustrate a “covering force action” employed to receive a KNOWN enemy from a KNOWN position. In effect, then, the US Army does not define Gettysburg as a meeting engagement. Pretty hard to argue with that.

As to the shoe myth, I contend it’s just that. A myth. Again part of the dramatics and romanticism. Heth’s contemporary writing, not his later writing, states he was looking for “supplies, shoes especially.” So, what does that mean? Nothing. Nothing beyond a foraging effort. However, does a commander take his entire division, led by his artillery no less, on a foraging expedition? No other such example during the war that I’m aware of (if you can point one out, please do). Heth was well aware that someone – militia, AOP cavalry, or otherwise – was in Gettysburg due to Pettigrew’s report, and I believe he intended to brush them aside and see what he could get in the town. Heth would enjoy the fight if there was one – virtually every other unit had gotten into scraps in MD and PA except Heth.

But it all comes down to the definition as set by the military – if there are 3 aspects to the definition, and if Gettysburg only meets, say, 2 of them, then by definition it’s not a meeting engagement.

Plus, if the advance elements of both armies make contact, and keep contact for 12 hours before clashing again, I fail to see how that can be even a layman’s definition of meeting engagement. Certainly neither Meade or Lee expected battle at Gettysburg on July 1, but if the definition doesn’t apply to every part, then it doesn’t apply to the whole. And when the US military itself does not term the battle a meeting engagement, I think that’s hard to argue with 🙂

J.D. Petruzzi

JD:

Okay. Point taken. I still think you’ve set the bar too high. And what field component commands do or don’t do has to have context to what their senior HQ think they’re trying to accomplish. George Meade was very lucky to have some very veteran subs who made him look good at a critical moment.

Telling me that the Army’s way is the right way and you’re covered by Field Manuals doesn’t earn Brownie Points though. ;). I put my 20 in and most of it was general staff; up to Unified Commands, with a TRADOC stint. I’m not trying to impress or overawe. Your bona fides are known to me and respected. I’m a stranger to you folks and just thought it might be helpful to know I shovelled manure for the alpha elephants for a long time ;).

I recall a certain DA campaign that proposed to its soldiers that fighting “outnumbered and winning” required the resolve of the British attacking Bunker Hill. How moronic can you get? Another campaign sent junior historians out to teach soldiers Jackson’s Valley Campaign. One crusty old Col rose up after the presentation and said he had one question: which side won the Civil War? That happened often enough that TRADOC decided to drop the tour cause it wasn’t selling in Poughkipsie….
That didn’t stop them from joy pumping it to the victims in the schools.

Just have a care as to which cards you build your house out of. Murphy is still in charge of operations….

LOL, Dave, gotcha. Now that we’ve shown each other our scars… 😉

I guess it’s in the semantics to a degree. The definition could be applied to the armies as a whole, but not to Buford and Heth in my opinion. I guess I look at it this way – if the definition of “meeting engagement,” as I see it anyway, doesn’t apply to the two units involved in the initial clash, then it doesn’t apply to the resulting battle.

Others see it differently, and I respect that.

J.D. Petruzzi

Well, good point Edwin – in fact, on one popular Civil War chat board, several of us got into a discussion of what was actually a “myth” versus what was just and “error.” There is definitely a difference. The idea of Gettysburg being a meeting engagement may not truly be a “myth” (for those of us who believe that) but perhaps more in the category of an erroneous interpretation of evidence. I think in his blog, Eric was using the term “myth” more in a general sense, and was speaking of the way many of us historians feel – that there is an amount of myths, legends, errors – call them what you will – out there that a particular interpretation of the evidence won’t support.

J.D. Petruzzi

Eric and I together have, in fact, taken such a perceived responsibility to “bust myths” that we have worked an entire book around it. Early next year, Savas-Beatie is publishing our joint work on Jeb Stuart’s ride to Gettysburg, a book called “Plenty of Blame to Go Around.” The project, however, didn’t start out to be so involved in the discussion of the controversy surrounding Stuart’s involvement in events at Gettysburg. We originally wrote a book that was more of a modern telling of the events of Stuart’s ride the eight days before the battle, with just a cursory mention of the controversy.
As we got further along, we realized that there was such a wealth of previously untapped primary material on the controversy, we mutually decided to change the scope of the book. All of our narrative on the ride still exists, but it’s now only about half the book. The second half deals with a modern treatment of the controversy of Stuart’s role.
What was important to us, we learned, was that full disclosure of the primary sources of the controversy was needed – along with a discussion of scholarly references to it in the 20th century. We went far beyond the “Stuart was joyriding and was to blame” or “It wasn’t Stuart’s fault” – in effect, we saw these oversimplifications as “myths.” Contradictory myths to be sure, but oversimplifications unless a full discussion of the facts takes place.
In the end, we present everything possible to the reader and let them decide for themselves. Wherever the reader’s opinion falls then, after reading our book, it’s no longer so much a “myth.” 🙂

J.D. Petruzzi

As I said, we didn’t start out that way. The second half of the book deals with the controversy, but 99% of it is a discussion of what the participants and early commentator had to say about it. Again, by “myth busting” I’m only making the point that we saw an oversimplification of the matter and decided to address it in full like it’s never been done before.

Before folks make an assessment on something as “big” as the effects of Stuart’s ride, it help to have all the information possible. We have put it all in one book, for the very first time, for folks to then judge for themselves.

J. D. Petruzzi