GDG- RE: Wright's Brigade

[Batrinque at aol.com]

In a message dated 12/31/06 4:39:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, zfry at kent.edu 
writes:

> For me, the issue of the location of Wright’s contact with the Federal
> main line can be succinctly answered by a couple key facts.  First, I
> will put my opinion on the line by stating that I believe we can
> conclude incontrovertibly that the 48th Georgia attacked the front of
> the 59th New York and 7th Michigan, with the 69th Pennsylvania also
> contributing greatly to the defense.  This long-standing assertion is
> supported by a host of primary sources, not the least of which is the
> fact that Sgt. James Wiley of the 59th N.Y. captured the battle flag of
> the 48th Georgia in front of the stone wall.  Presuming – as I humbly
> believe it is safe to do –  that such a conventional analysis of these
> events is not perpetuating a myth, we can look to Wright’s own OR. 
> While this document has become infamous for its questionable allegations
> regarding the height of the attack, I believe we at least ought to
> believe the general’s description of his own brigade’s deployment.  On
> p. 623 of part
> 2, Wright notes:
> 
> “In this advance, my brigade was formed in the following order: The
> Twenty-second Georgia Regiment on the right, the Third Georgia in the
> center, and the Forty-eighth Georgia on the left.  The Second Georgia
> Battalion…was deployed in front of the whole brigade as skirmishers[.]”
> 
> This alignment is supported by the ORs of Col. Edward Walker, 3rd GA;
> Capt. B.C. McCurry, 22nd GA; Captain M.R. Hall, 48th GA; and Capt.
> Charles Moffett, 2nd GA Btn.  With this array in mind, we see clearly
> that Wright’s brigade could only have struck at the point where the
> brave Georgians have commonly and historically been held to have done so.
> 

Good observation.  Very good.  And pointing out the difference between solid 
evidence and unsupported speculation.

Bruce Trinque
Amston, CT