GDG- Re: new Blue & Gray

[J. David Petruzzi]

>>In 1887 former 5th NY Cav. Officer John Hammond marked the location
where he believed his regiment protected Elder's battery on 3 July.
Was this done on his own, or at the request of the GBMA?>>

Rick, I'd have to double check, but I believe it was at the GMBA's request.

>>Hammond's location became a benchmark for determining the location of
the positions of the other regiments in a brigade line, as was GBMA
policy for Farnsworth's brigade.  Bachelder made reference to that
policy to the 18th PA's former SGT Grier.
At the same time the GBMA was relocating other regimental monuments from
advance positions to brigade line positions.

Based on Hammond's location the GBMA identified locations for the 1st
WV, 18th PA and 1st VT monuments.
Is that a true statement, as I believe the GBMA had to approve all
monument locations?>>

No.  The other regimental monuments were NOT placed based on Hammond's.
That would assume that the veterans didn't know where they were, for
instance, which is the crux of Andie's theory.  Even considering that
Hammond's original location was incorrect, the veterans of the other
regiments got theirs right.  The GBMA did NOT determine the locations for
the other regiments, the veterans themselves did.  The 3rd WVA was placed
out by the Taneytown Road, assumedly, for exposure.  Not to "stay out of the
controversy" as Custer purports, because, simply, there was no controversy.

And they are not in a brigade line, as the veterans admitted.  The 18th PA's
is placed where their charge advanced.  The 1st VT, of course, marks
Farnsworth's death site and the height of their mounted cavalry charge.
These are two of dozens of monuments all over the field which are NOT in a
brigade line.

Also, the idea of a "brigade line" has been misdefined by Custer.  If you
read the GBMA minutes that she cites, you'll see it was not intended as
such.  Reading through those minutes, it becomes apparent that it was
designed more as a reason for denying Confederate who wanted to place
monuments and markers at and behind Union lines, more than it was used to
place any Union monuments.

>>Hammond's location was later determined by other former brigade members
to be incorrect, but the monument was dedicated in the initial location.
Apparently time was a major factor here.
The GBMA recognized the mistake, and the monument would be relocated
upon completion of the new road.>>

Again, no.  None of the monuments were placed with any ideas about any
existing or future roads (this is true with some other monuments on the
field, but not in this case).  In fact, once the 5th NY was properly
relocated, the War Dept's Cavalry Avenue was going to go right by and
connect all the monuments in their present locations.

>>The monuments to the 1st VT and 18th PA were subsequently erected and
dedicated in their GBMA assigned locations.>>

No - they were placed where the veterans determined, and the GBMA approved.
It was known they were not located in any "brigade line."

>>Were they located on park or private land?  Grier indicated that the
GBMA was to have purchased the land from its owners.>>

Without looking it up, I believe that's correct - some of the land was owned
by private individuals, who gave their blessing to the placement of the
monuments.  The land, of course, was subsquently purchased.

>>A former member of the 18th PA noted years later that their monument was
still in the wrong location.>>

He made that statement in the letter to Bachelder with no explanation.
Obviously, Andie jumped on it.  But the more reasonable explanantion may be
that it doesn't denote their static position, nor their advance nearer the
Slyder Farm.  Or (and I'd have to look up the dates of the initial placement
of Hammond's stake and the date of this letter) it could be that he was
confused by Hammond's location and the location of this monument.  In that
context, it's understandable to assume that one would think one or the other
was incorrect.

>>With no action from the GBMA, sometime later the state of NY moved the
5th NY's monument to its current location.
Was the initial location, at that time on park or private land?
Was the current location on park or private land when the monument was
moved?>>

I believe the original location was on GBMA, and the subsequent location
atop Bushman Hill was then already owned by the GBMA.

>>In 1907-8 Elder's battery's tablet was erected at the same location as
the 5th NY's monument's current location. Probably around the same time they
were identifying locations for the
regimental monuments, based on Hammond's location, the GBMA was
identifying the location of a park road for access to the monuments.
Based on its finding that Hammond's location was incorrect, the road
would also have to be relocated.>>

No, no, no :-)  Elder's battery located their marker right where they knew
they'd served - on Bushman Hill.  Again, the other regimentals were NOT
located based on Hammond's initial placement.  There was no relocation of
the road contemplated - it was plotted out in 1890, and would go right by
the monuments, connecting them.  Custer has indeed contended that the road
was to take a different route (based on what, no one has a clue but her) but
the 1890 War Dept map shows that it was to connect the monuments in their
PRESENT location.  Period.

>>Was the initial proposed road on park property?>>

I believe so, yes.  It began at what is today termed Merritt Ave - the
grassy lane by the regulars marker south on the Emmitsburg Road, proceeded
west and north to Bushman Hill, then cut down to the D-shaped Slyder Field,
going right by the 1st VT Cavalry monument.

>>Would the corrected road have been on park property?>>

To anyone's knowledge, only one Cavalry Ave was proposed and plotted, and
not changed.  If so, there'd likely be evidence of it in the minutes or the
ACHS archives.  There's none, again contrary to Andie's claims.

>>Was the road not built because the other regimental monuments were never
moved?>>

No, again it would have connected them.  When South Confederate Avenue was
subsequently constructed, it may have negated the need for the other road in
folks' minds.  You see, Cavalry Avenue was plotted first.  It came before
Confederate Ave.  On the 1890 War Dept map, there is no Confederate Avenue -
the only road down in that area was going to be "Cavalry Avenue."  (And I
believe the name Kilpatrick and Merritt avenue were also proposed - those
names both show up in some reminiscences.

>>In 1898 the 1st WV erected and dedicated their monument on the Taneytown
road far from where the regiment fought on 3 July.
It appears to me that the initial positioning of the 5th NY's position
by Hammond set off a chain of events that resulted in the locations of
the three monuments in historically inaccurate locations.>>

That's what Andie contends, but there isn't a shred of evidence anywhere.
Not in the GBMA minutes, not in the letters, nothing Bachelder or any other
GBMA members ever wrote, nothing in regimentals, dedication remarks, private
letters, zip... nothing.  You know how Gettysburg controversies go - if
there had been one single peep about such a thing by anyone, we'd know about
it.  There's absolutely nothing, and any monument controversy here appears
to be created out of nothing.

>>Early historians would naturally be drawn to those monuments locations
when writing their accounts of the fight on SCF.
I am sure that those historians sincerely believed that the GBMA had
correctly identified the locations.>>

I would say the veterans correctly identified the locations.  It was their
placement.

>>I wonder if Bachelder was somewhat embarrassed with the incorrect
location of the 5th NY and was slow to react and acknowledge the
mistake, and after his death and the transfer of the park to the War
Dept., this issue was basically forgotten in lieu of other priorities.>>

I truly doubt it.  Moving the 5th NY's wasn't the first, and it wasn't the
last.  Of the several other monument relocations I've researched, there was
very little said about any of them.  I think everyone was concerned with
getting it right, and they did their best.

>>I welcome your assistance regarding the accuracy of my observations and
my questions.

VR, Rick Schaus>>

Hope all this helps.

J.D.



----------------------------------------------------------------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg

You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup

View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
                   ---------------------------------------------------------
-------
You may unsubscribe by going to
http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg

You can add yourself to the GDG map at:
http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup

View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at
http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/