View single post by Zod
 Posted: Mon Dec 11th, 2006 07:02 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 

Joined: Mon Dec 11th, 2006
Posts: 7

  back to top

"Carhart's book is loosely based on extremely flimsy evidence. Basically he asserts that Pickett in the center, Johnson on the left and Stuart in the USA rear were to deliver simultaneous assaults.

Johnson was getting nowhere on Culp's Hill, Stuart was failry easily rebuffed and Pickett was destroyed by artillery and a lesser amount of infantry. There is no cotemporary evidence that any of these men, or their immediate superiors,  felt they were acting in concert.

Battles are not won in frontal attacks by 3 divisions of infantry and 1 of cavalry.

Unfortunately, Carhart manipulates available evidence and makes up more to bolster his thesis. Where conversations do not exist, he makes them up. I belive the term for this is 'fiction'..."


I don't think the plan was for simultenous assaults, rather one based on an enfilading en echelon attack meaning to continue to try and "roll up" the Union line that was first demonstrated on the 2nd of July.  "Making up evidence" is a bold criticism.  One realizes upon an inital presentation of the argument that, had Stuart gotten to the rear, his cavalry would have caused havoc (one imagines the effect of Stannard being harassed by these riders, and it's effect on their withering fire into the right flank of Kemper).  Perhaps a chase by Doubleday allows Johnson to finally slide leftward southeast past Spangler's Spring?  The only evidence as it were is the mind of Lee, long gone.  Nonetheless an interesting book and at it's center, bold.

 Close Window