GDG- Blue&Gray

[J. David Petruzzi]

Jim Cameron wrote:

<<<< The VETERANS had it right after all.  >>>>

<<In this case, I think they did.   And none of them complained about the
1st
VT monument being in the wrong place when it was dedicated, or, said
anything about being promised that it would be moved some time in the
future.>>

Indeed, Jim.  In both her Gettysburg Magazine articles and the B&G article,
Andie just flatly states that the 'veterans were promised the monuments
would be moved.'  Without so much as a single documentation - because there
is none.  When Eric and I have pressed her both publicly and privately for
documentation, she's offered none.  I dare say no one on the planet has as
much material on SCF as Eric and I, and I can confirm no such documentation
or implication exists.  Instead of evidence, she has just said, "Prove me
wrong!"  Sort of like - tell me about the last time you beat your wife.  You
cannot prove a negative.  Either there's evidence for an assertion, or there
is not.  Period.

Here's also another observation.  Andie would have us believe that the
veterans and states paid for these monuments to be crafted, put together,
installed, and dedicated in knowlingly wrong spots.  In a couple cases, the
monuments had to be hauled piece by piece by ox and wagon up Bushman hill.
When these monuments are put together, the pieces are permanently cemeted
together, with craftsmen doing delicate finished mortar joints.  And then
they are to be later broken apart, hauled nearly a mile away and
re-installed at a "proper" location?  On the face of it, anyone buy that?  I
think many folks have simply looked at this idea of "moving the monuments"
pretty acceptingly and simplistically, without considering the logistics and
plain ol' common sense of it.

>>Andie Custer makes a case which may sound convincing, at first impression.
But she bases too much of it on some very poorly supported contentions about
the monuments being in the wrong places, and, where she things they would
have been if properly located.  Frankly, before I buy the entire cavalry
action on the southern end of the field being wrongly located, by not only
the veterans but the GBMA, the War Department, the NPS, and pretty much
every other historian and student of the battle, for all these years, I
think she needs to make a much stronger case than she has thus far.>>

She also needs to explain away the hard evidence.  She has a map
accompanying her articles about where she purports the "proposed Cavalry
Avenue" to have been placed.  Where she came up with the track of the avenue
is anyone's guess, because, again, there's no documentation for her track.
LBG Tim Smith and Wayne Motts gave me last year a previously-unpublished War
Dept map from 1890 which indeed DOES show the proposed Cavalry Avenue, and
instead of tracking where she places it (coincidentally along the line where
she says the monuments were to have been moved) - the actual road was to
have CONNECTED all the monuments in their present positions.  It was to go
from Merritt Avenue (the grassy lane by the Regulars monument near Ridge
Road today) straight to Bushman Hill, then THROUGH the D-shaped field right
by the 1st VT monument (even further west than today's Confederate Ave) and
then up BRT.  So the map blows her theory of placing the monuments
willy-nilly until the road was to have been built.  The monuments (once the
5th NY was properly relocated) were actually on that road all along - if it
existed, today you would drive from the Regulars monument on the Emmitsburg
Road, swing to the southern summit of Bushman Hill, down right through the
middle of Slyder's D-shaped field, and then up BRT.  Wayne has the map at
the ACHS if anyone would like to see it, and Eric and I have copies.

One of the problems with the space limitations of our response in B&G was
our discussion of this map - and it was also originally to have been
reproduced in the issue.  Since it wasn't, Andie didn't have to address it
in public.  I for one would have loved to see her response.

>>Another factor to consider is that the farther from BRT one moves the
location of Farnsworth's Charge, the longer it takes for the Confederate
infantry to get from BRT to the point at which they were able to fire on
Farnsworth's men.  Farnsworth and his men took only just so long to ride
from where they started, to where they came under fire from the AL troops.
Move the charge too far away from BRT, and the infantry has too much ground
to cover.  It isn't simply a matter of moving the monument line, and
shifting the battle action to match.  The time and distance factors must
also be considered.>>

Probably one of the most important points.  If you're going to move
everything nearly a mile to the south (and now have Merritt and Kilpatrick
tripping over each other as her "map" shows - even though no troopers of
either Merritt or Kil ever saw the action of the other that day) you have to
move the Confederate lines.  That's problematic to say the least.

Those interested should check out our entire original 5500 word response on
Eric's blog, and I believe we will also duplicate the War Dept map online
also so that everyone can see it.  That map alone pretty much shuts down the
"Oh, we'll move the monuments" assertion.

The veterans had it right, and when one regimental officer spoke at the
dedication that he prayed his monument would "stand here for all time," I
believe that damns all goofy assertions to the contrary.

J.D.