# Talk:Pickett's Charge

The article says: "Pickett's three brigade commanders and all thirteen of his regimental commanders were casualties.". Later in the same section it says "Of the 15 regimental commanders in Pickett's division, the Virginia Military Institute produced eleven and all eleven were casualties—six killed, five wounded. Trimble and Pettigrew were the most senior casualties of the day; Trimble lost a leg, and Pettigrew received a minor wound to the hand (only to die from a bullet to the abdomen suffered in a minor skirmish during the retreat to Virginia)."
So is it 13 or 15 regimental commanders?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.32.171 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC) 

15. I have fixed this and reworked that paragraph. Thank you for catching. Hal Jespersen (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Two things for consideration: First, the article states that it is "less frequently" called Longstreet's Assault.  All of the brigade marker plaques at Gettysburg that summarize the unit's actions during the battle refer to it by this name. Second, I heard from a licensed tour guide that part of the reason it got the name Pickett's Charge is because Pickett went back to Virginia and talked himself up, saying "Look what I did" or "Look what we, the Virginians, did."  Virginia newspapers got the story first and ran with it.  This is partially addressed in the Aftermath section, but Pickett's "bragging" is not mentioned.  I can't find a valid source for this though.
Merv243 (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME is still overwhelmingly "Pickett's Charge". Your former point falls under WP:OFFICIAL and the latter, if true, under WP:POVTITLE to some extent. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted or rewritten a few of the recent edits. The first deletion was the text "Others dispute these claims and assert that Pickett was a brave and inspirational leader to his men in battle, such as James Longstreet, who called him a "great leader." footnoted as "Longstreet, James. From Manassas to Appomattox: Memoirs of the Civil War in America. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1896." Without a page number reference it is difficult to verify this, but I could not find a statement by Longstreet in the context of Pickett's charge that made such an assertion.
Second was a paragraph of opinion without a citation from secondary sources: "Perhaps the most important question that arises from the disaster that was Pickett's Charge is, "Why did the Confederates under Pickett lose?" Although there will never be a definitive answer to this question, it is possible to determine some of the factors that could have contributed to the defeat. Scholars today seem to agree on three main reasons for the Confederate loss. One, it is proposed that Pickett and the other Confederate leaders were too confident going into the battle of Gettysburg after their victory at Chancellorsville, and therefore they underestimated the Union army and were caught off guard in battle. Secondly, it has been argued that Pickett did not have enought reinforcements, and that his troops were not equipped to handle the situation, so they were overwhelmed and lost. The most popular explanation for the loss seems to be that it was a bad call to order the charge by Robert E. Lee in the first place, so by ordering it, he set the Confederates up to lose from the start."
Other changes were to accommodate the flow of the information already in the article. I removed one incomplete footnote as being unnecessary beyond the existing citations.
Hal Jespersen (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In this article, Cushing is noted as being severely wounded early on, then later described as being struck by 3 bullets. 
Cushing's page states he was struck by two shell fragments, then a bullet to the mouth. Was he struck by shell fragments, then by 3 bullets, or wounded three times, the last being a bullet to the mouth?

The "severely wounded" adjectival phrase was out of place and redundant, so I removed it. Hal Jespersen (talk) 15:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed my edit introducing Lee's battle plan was undone, but I'm confused by the reason, which said "the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the main article, not a place to introduce opinions".
The citation described in detail how Lee had planned to attack the flanks to shift forces from the center, then attack a weakened center. 
--SuperAnth (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Thure de Thulstrup - L. Prang and Co. - Battle of Gettysburg - Restoration by Adam Cuerden.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 3, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-07-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The text as written says, "On the right flank, Pickett's Virginians crossed the Emmitsburg Road and wheeled partially to their left to face northeast. [My emphases]."  A little later it says:
"As the division wheeled to the left, its right flank was exposed to McGilvery's guns and the front of Doubleday's Union division on Cemetery Ridge. Stannard's Vermont Brigade marched forward, faced north, and delivered withering fire into the rear of Kemper's brigade. [My emphases.]"
According to this account, Pickett's division "wheeled" to present its right flank to Cemetery Ridge, at least obliquely.  Consistently with that, it claims that Stannard's men, facing north, fired into Kemper's rear.  This account is bogus. 
What actually happened is that Pickett's division encountered the Union position in line of battle facing east, and that as its right wing encountered severe difficulties, its survivors moved by the left flank (that is, the men faced left and proceeded in file) toward the north.  It then faced right, toward the Union position.
We know this both from evidence and common sense.  
Evidence.   
1st Evidence
Col. Francis V. Randall, 13th Vermont Infantry, Stannard's Brigade, reported that after his regiment and the 14th Vermont took a position in advance of the Union line: 
"The heavy rebel column, which I need not describe, bore down steadily upon us until about half way from the Emmitsburg road to our position. Our men were directed to withhold their fire up to this time, when the two regiments rose up and poured in a volley that seemed to level their front rank and all mounted officers. We continued to pour in our fire as best we could, and very soon the charging column seemed to slacken and nearly halt. In this way they staggered for a moment, and commenced to move by their left flank toward a position more nearly in front of the cemetery. As our front became uncovered, I moved my regiment a little by the flank, so as to extricate my left from some shrubbery that partially surrounded and hid them, when I changed front forward on my right company, throwing my left flank toward the rebel main line of battle."
"General Doubleday at this time rode up to me, and assured me that my movement would be a success, and he ordered the regiments to my right to cease firing and allow me to pass in front of their line, which we did, following the rebel column so close that when they faced to charge up Cemetery Ridge we were within 15 rods of them, and they passed directly in review before us, my men at the same time pouring one of the most withering fires I had ever beheld into their exposed flank." [OR 1-XXVII, Part 1, pp. 352-354; my emphases.] 
This report implies that Pickett's extreme right faced east in front of Stannard, halfway between the Emmitsburg road and Stannard's position.  This fact alone is inconsistent with any wheel-like maneuver whereby the division changed front to the northeast.  Randall explicitly asserts that Pickett's right moved by the left flank and then faced to confront Cemetery Ridge.  This also contradicts a "wheel," and contradicts that Pickett's line ever other than east-facing.  The only sense in which the 13th Vermont fired into Kempers "rear" is that it may have shot at the backs of men moving north in long files.  But it was shooting at Pickett's flank.
2nd Evidence
Lieut. Col. S. G. Shepard, Seventh Tennessee Infantry, reported the  operations of Archer's brigade, Heth's division, in part as follows:
"In the engagement of the 3d. the brigade was on the right of our division ... There was a space of a few hundred yards between the right of Archer's brigade and the left of General Pickett's division when we advanced, but, owing to the position of the lines (they not being an exact continuation of each other), as we advanced, the right of our brigade and the left of General Pickett's division gradually approached each other, so that by the time we had advanced a little over half of the
way, the right of Archer's touched and connected with Pickett's left."
"The command was then passed down the line by the officers, “Guide right;" and we advanced our right, guiding by General Pickett's left. The enemy held their fire until we were in fine range, and opened upon us a terrible and well-directed fire. Within I00 or 200 yards of his works, we came to a lane inclosed by two stout post and plank fences. This was a very great obstruction to us, but the men rushed over as rapidly as they could, and advanced directly upon the enemy's works, the first line of which was composed of rough stones." [OR 1-XXIX, Part 2, p. 647; my emphasis.]
This reports the gradual joining together of the lines of Heth's and Pickett's divisions, due to a slight difference in their initial facings.  Both, however, were facing more or less east. After the join, both must have remained facing east, since if Pickett's had turned northeast, it would have been impossible for Archer's brigade to "guide by," or conform its movements to, Pickett's left.  According to Shepard, both divisions then crossed a fenced road, undoubtedly the Emmitsburg road, and proceeded directly to the attack; there is no account of Archer's brigade standing still, once over the road, while Pickett's division changed front as part of some grandiose wheel-like maneuver. 
3rd Evidence
Colonel Norman J. Hall, 7th Michigan, commanded the Third Brigade, Second Division, Second Corps, which on the 3rd was in line just to the left of the "High Water Mark."  His report includes a schematic map of the Confederate assault [OR 1-XXVII, Part 1, p. 438].  His map shows the Confederate forces disposed in line, facing east (more precisely, perfectly parallel to the Emmitsburg road).  It shows both the first and second lines of the Confederate right wing moving by the left flank to shift more toward the eventual "High Water Mark."  There are two notations next to the Confederate first line.  The first says:
"Rebel first line where fire first opened. Commenced to turn by left flank." [My emphasis.]
The second says, "Rebel first line in disorder moving to point A [a point marked directly in front of Cushing's battery]."
The associated depiction of the Confederate first line clearly shows a line of battalions, parallel to the Emmitsburg road, with a north-pointing arrow drawn on the right end of each battalion.  These arrows unmistakably indicate movement by the left flank.  
Hall's map depicts the Confederate second line (presumably, Armistead's brigade) also drawn as a line of battalions, parallel to the Emmitsburg road, with north-facing arrows on their right ends (except that the leftmost battalion is shown moving toward the Union line).  The notation is, "Second line forming column."  This second line is drawn on the west side of the Emmitsburg road, and is drawn such that the resulting column of battalions, headed by the leftmost, would point directly toward Cushing's battery.
The diagram further shows a column of battalions, east of the road, pushing directly toward Cushing's battery.
Now whether the Confederates ever formed a proper column of battalions may reasonably be doubted (I have not found any other reports of it), but this evidence clearly supports that whether organized or disorganized, Pickett's division moved by the left flank to concentrate in front of the "High Water Mark."  Such movement is inconsistent with any sort of wheeling maneuver. 

Other Evidence
You will search the Union and Confederate battle reports in vain for any account of a change of front by Pickett's division.
There is other evidence that I will not bother to introduce just now, because this comment is already long.  However I may introduce it later.

Common Sense
Pickett's first line, in crossing Emmitsburg road, extended from some point southwest of Cemetery Hill all the way to Stannard's position.  There was not enough distance between the road and the Union line for any maneuver resembling a wheel.
Technically, if you read Hardee, there is no such thing as a "wheel" of any unit larger than a company.  There are certain evolutions whereby a battalion in line of battle may change its front, which perhaps could loosely be termed "wheels," but there never existed any regulations governing evolutions of anything larger than a battalion.  Any change of front by a line of multiple battalions would have required a temporary separation of the battalions, and a subsequent mutual conformance to the new line.  Necessarily, this would retard the advance of the battalions on the left during the time taken by the battalions on the right to traverse the necessary arc.  
Such an elaborate maneuver would never have been ordered on the east side of the Emmitsburg road where, by all accounts, the division was already under heavy fire, and coordination was breaking down.  There would have been no way to convey such an order to the battalion commanders and to ensure anything like regular execution.
By very considerably delaying the advance of the division through the killing zone and (assuming room had been available) by presenting the right flank in enfilade to the Union line of battle, such a maneuver would have been profoundly irresponsible.  Finally, after the completion of any such maneuver and advance in a north-east facing line, there would have had to be a corresponding right "wheel" to bring the division into direct confrontation with the Union line.
Very clearly, this defies common sense.
Hess' Mistake
It seems fair to assume that the article's claim that Pickett's division changed front is based on Earl J. Hess' Pickett's Charge: The Last Attack at Gettysburg.  In this, Hess mistakenly assumes that "left oblique" means "an oblique change of front to the left."  Robert McCulloch, a captain in Pickett's division and one of Hess' sources, did indeed say that about halfway in the attack, the line "was moved to the left oblique."  
But "left oblique" was a standard maneuver, specified in Hardee (1861, E.G. Kire & Co., Memphis, p. 67), whereby the line marches in an oblique direction while maintaining its existing front.  The preparatory command is "left oblique!" and the command of execution is "march!"  There is scant doubt that McCulloch, an infantry captain, used "left oblique" in the sense of Hardee.  This maneuver is indeed closely analogous to movement by the left flank; it is only that the line also gains ground forward.  It is in no way a change of front.
So I think that Hess, due to a misunderstanding of the term "left oblique" in his sources, paints a wrong picture of the movements of Pickett's division during the attack.  
Mark Morss (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@MM: I like all your reasoning, but like or dislike of this by fellow editors is not relevant to Wikipedia.  Instead, the Wikipedia policies forbidding WP:OR and WP:SYNTH apply here.  If you disagree with wording in an article that is currently sourced, you bring other sources; that's all that matters.  All the above should be reduced to something like "although the current source A says X, source B says Y, so we should say Z to balance this".
If you don't have a WP:RS for source B, then we can't change the article.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I should add that, because of WP:SYNTH, we rely on WP:SECONDARY sources, not primary ones.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, I have brought the OR, Hardee and McCullogh, but since these are primary sources, nothing can be done.  Fine. Mark Morss (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The map as drawn depicts Hall's brigade (II-2-3) in the Angle and Webb's Brigade (II-2-2) in the second line.  In fact, II-2-2 occupied the angle and some points on either side of it, while II-2-3 stood in line on its left. This point hardly seems trivial, since it affects the understanding of the fighting at the "High Water Mark."
See, e.g. Union II-2 reports in OR 1-XXVII Vol. 1.
Mark Morss (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I want to put a section , with the same title or such. Basically everyone has second guess whether if different events leading up Pickett's charge whether it would have succeeded in the end. Even in 1998 most believe it would have failed no matter what happened, there just wasn't enough of the south at the battle to win. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/magazine/1998/06/28/the-legend-of-picketts-charge/8b9b63a7-5585-401e-93df-7164aa8fc1f7/
Latest results simulation results show no matter what Pickett's charge would either failed initial, or Pickett's men wouldn't have enough forces left to hold the ground they captured. http://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/picketts-charge-what-modern-mathematics-teaches-us-about-civil-war-battle/wcm/0291f19c-3928-45a8-859e-1671533eb99f  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bongey (talk • contribs) 03:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC) 

This sentence reads "Hancock" where it seems it should read "Kemper"
"and delivered withering fire into the rear of Kemper's brigade. At about this time, Hancock, who had been prominent in displaying himself on horseback to his men during the Confederate artillery bombardment, was wounded by a bullet"
73.220.247.81 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Both Kemper and Hancock were similarly wounded at the battle.  Kemper's wounding could use some mention, though.  --A D Monroe III(talk)  01:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

In several instances, the article cites a book by Pfanz, but a book by (I presume Harry) Pfanz is not listed in the reference list. Could someone in the know please add it to the article bibliography? Thanks! SEM (talk) 11:09, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Found it, correct reference was Pfanz, Harry W. The Battle of Gettysburg. Conshohocken: Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1994.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEM (talk • contribs) 20:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Angle (battle) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 30#Angle (battle) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Talk 18:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I know they were under General Hancock, but they took the brunt of the charge and should be mentioned Cooper1313 (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)