Part 6

Then again there are others who object not only to the tone and temper of the article, but to the mere statement of indisputable facts. There should be, they say, a feeling of true comradeship among all who have served in the same army, especially in such an army as ours. That comrades should assist and defend each other in person and reputation, and under no circumstances should anything be done or said to wound or offend. To admit that there has been provocation in one direction does not justify provocation in another, for two wrongs never yet made a right. That to write of anything to the discredit of a part of the army of Northern Virginia is to a certain extent to injure the reputation of the whole army, and that a sentiment of loyalty to that army and love for its head should prompt its veterans to place its honor above all other considerations. Some old soldiers within and some without the limits of the State have expressed these opinions. Many others may entertain them. It may be they are right. It may be they are wrong. Who can tell? However, letters never printed show that there are many who think when once an effort in behalf of justice is begun it should be continued ’till that end is attained, and be it remembered that the justice demanded is for the dead who cannot defend themselves.

[Sidenote: KIRKLAND’S BRIGADE.]

The 17th, 42nd, 50th and 66th North Carolina composed this brigade, and it was first commanded by Gen. Jas. Martin. It was not sent to Virginia ’till the spring of 1864, when it was placed in a division made up for Gen. Hoke. It was hotly engaged in the battle of Drury’s Bluff where Lt. Col. Lamb, of the 17th, was mortally wounded, at Cold Harbor where Col. Moore, the boy commander of the 66th, was killed, at Bentonville, Kinston, etc. But it is probable that the hardships endured in the trenches at Petersburg were responsible for more deaths than all the bullets of the enemy.

[Sidenote: ARTILLERY.]

Seven North Carolina batteries served in Virginia. All of them were very efficient, but three of them were so remarkably fine that it is a temptation to name them.

[Sidenote: CAVALRY.]

We had five regiments and one battalion of cavalry to serve in Virginia. They were the 9th, 19th, 41st, 59th and 63rd North Carolina troops; but generally known as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th cavalry and the 16th battalion. If space permitted, incidents worth mentioning connected with each of these organizations could be told. As it is, only two, which may interest North Carolinians generally, and citizens of Halifax county in particular, will be mentioned. In the summer of 1864 when General Butler came so near capturing Petersburg, at that time defenseless, the 16th North Carolina battalion was picketing the road by which the Federals were approaching. It was then that this battalion, assisted by two light field guns, acted with so much spirit that the advance of Butler’s men was so delayed that time was given for troops from Lee’s army to arrive and man the fortifications. Prominent among the heroes on this occasion was a Halifax boy--Lt. W. F. Parker. On the disastrous field of Five Forks our cavalry was not only holding its own, but was driving that of the enemy when the infantry gave way. This success of the cavalry on their part of the line was very nearly the last ever gained by any portion of our army. They had been fighting by squadrons and that composed of the Onslow and Halifax companies of the 3rd regiment had just made a successful charge, when, looking to the left, they saw the infantry retreating in disorder. The squadron on this occasion was commanded and led by a Scotland Neck mounted Rifleman, the late Norfleet Smith--a brave officer, a good citizen and a loyal friend. Dear old “Boots” of other days! Lightly lie the sod above your honored head.

“Earth has no such soldiers now, Such true friends are not found.”

[Sidenote: THIRTY-SIXTH N. C. TROOPS.]

This was a heavy artillery regiment stationed at Fort Fisher when the final attack was made upon this fort. After the fire from the ships had dismounted their big guns and the assault by land was being made, they snatched up their muskets and showed the enemy how well they could use them. It is now generally conceded that not in the whole war did a body of soldiers ever struggle so long and so desperately against the inevitable. From traverse to traverse, from gun-chamber to gun-chamber for several hours the hopeless struggle went on. Capt. Hunter’s Halifax company had 58 men killed and wounded out of 80 present. A letter from a gallant member of the company, says:

“There never was a formal surrender. It (the fort) was taken by piece-meal--that is, one gun-chamber at a time.” When the capture of this place was announced in Richmond and before any of the facts regarding it were known, the abuse and vilification heaped upon its devoted garrison was something astonishing even for that very censorious city.

[Sidenote: CLINGMAN’S BRIGADE.]

This brigade was composed of the 8th, 31st, 51st and 61st North Carolina. It served in South Carolina a great part of the war, and for the gallant conduct of the 51st in the defense of Fort Wagner, this regiment was complimented in orders. The brigade took a prominent part in the brilliant capture of Plymouth. It was engaged at Goldsboro, Batchelor Creek--where Colonel Henry Shaw, of the 8th, was killed--and at other points in North Carolina, before it went to Virginia, which it did early in 1864. There it became a part of the command of Major-General Hoke. After having heroically borne all the privations and dangers which fell to the lot of this “splendid division,” as styled by General Joe Johnston, it surrendered with it at Greensboro.

[Sidenote: NUMBER OF N. C. TROOPS.]

The compiler of our Roster adds up the number of names printed in the four volumes, and makes a total of 104,498; but to arrive at an approximation of the real number many subtractions, and very many more additions, will have to be made.

The First Volunteers was a six months regiment (twelve companies) and was disbanded when its term of enlistment expired. All of its companies re-enlisted, and thus these men were counted twice, eight of these companies, with the addition of two new ones, becoming the famous Eleventh regiment. Many officers were counted three, four, and sometimes five times in cases where they had been successively promoted. There were a great many transfers from one regiment to another, and in nearly every instance the individual transferred would be counted with both regiments. The Fourth cavalry battalion was incorporated in a regiment, and its 271 names are counted twice. The Seventh battalion (detailed artisans) contains the names of 402 men who were detailed from regiments in active service, and of course they were counted twice. All of these repetitions would probably reduce the number given by the compiler of the State Roster by 3,600 and make it about 100,900. On the other hand this number should probably be increased by 9,100. One entire regiment (the 68th), which carried upon its rolls at least 1,000 names, is not counted, for none of its rolls could be found. In many regiments the rolls printed were those in use the last year of the war, when they had been reduced to skeletons. For instance, in the 60th regiment the rolls of only nine companies could be found, which carried upon them only 467 names. The surviving officers of the missing company getting together, made out a roll from memory embracing the whole war, and the number of names was 114. So it is certain that this regiment should have had more than twice as many names as it is credited with. The fighting 27th is only allowed 802 officers and men, when the 26th and 28th are both given considerably more than 1,800. The 37th is credited with 1,928 names, while the 54th has only 663. Both of these regiments served in the army of Northern Virginia, and it is a fair presumption that they both received about the same number of conscripts. Basing his calculations upon our Roster, and some other sources of information, the writer has arrived at the conclusion that the number of soldiers furnished by North Carolina to the Confederacy was about 110,000. Of course hundreds of this number shortly after enlisting were discharged as unfit for service. Many more should have been discharged and were not, but were required to undergo hardships that they were physically unable to bear, and the consequence was that they died by thousands.

Of the number furnished, nineteen thousand six hundred and seventy-three are known to have been killed outright or died of wounds. Other thousands lost legs and arms, or were otherwise mutilated for life. Twenty thousand six hundred and two are known to have died of disease; and very many of these deaths are directly attributable either to the ignorance of our surgeons or the misdirected zeal that prompted them to retain in the service men who were unfit for its duties, many of them being little better than confirmed invalids.

The great statistician, Colonel Fox, says: “The phrase, ‘Military population,’ as used in the eighth census, represents the white males between the ages of 18 and 45, and included all who were unfit for military duty on account of physical or mental infirmities. These exempts--which include also all cases of minor defects--constitute in every country one-fifth of the military population.” Taking one-fifth from our military population we should have furnished to the Confederate armies ninety-two thousand two hundred and ninety-seven soldiers. But as said above we did send to the front about one hundred and ten thousand, thirty-six per cent. of whom died.

APPENDIX.

EAST LAS VEGAS, N. M.

Enclosed please find 25c. in stamps in payment for Pettigrew’s Charge. I have read it with much interest. I think you have made a good case and that you are right. I was at Vicksburg the same day--the Adjt. 81st Ills. Vols. Infty.

I am yours truly, J. J. FITZGERALD, Post Dept. Comd’r Dept. N. M. G. A. R.

* * * * *

ABBEVILLE, S. C., July 1st, 1896.

Dear Sir:--I enclose 25c. in stamps for which be kind enough to send me your pamphlet entitled, “Pickett or Pettigrew?” if you have any copies on hand. I recently saw a copy in Charleston. You agree with me about Pettigrew and Pickett. I was Sergt. Major of Orr’s Rifles, McGowan’s brigade, Wilcox’s division. Some years ago I was looking at the cyclorama of Gettysburg in Philadelphia. The Yankee who explained the battle said that A. P. Hill’s men advanced further than Pickett’s, and pointed out to the crowd where a number of North Carolinians fell at the extreme front.

Yours truly, ROBT. R. HEMPHILL.

* * * * *

“JUSTICE FOR OUR DEAD IS ALL WE WANT.”

WASHINGTON, D. C., Dec. 29th, 1888.

My Dear Sir:--Circumstances here have caused me to be so very busy of late that I have not had time sooner to acknowledge your courtesy in sending me the pamphlet on the battle of Gettysburg. I seize the occasion of the holidays to do so. The pamphlet was read by every member of my family with the keenest interest. I have to thank you from my heart for writing it. No living man suffers more from these mean and jealous attempts to deprive North Carolina of her proper honor than I do. I sometimes almost get sick over them. I have always regarded the effort of some Virginians, not all, thank God, to deprecate the North Carolina troops in the battle of Gettysburg as simply a damnable and dastardly outrage. * * * * * * * * *

But let us take courage. The simple truth will ultimately prevail--simple justice is all we want for our dead.

Your friend and fellow North Carolinian. ----

[The above was written by one who loved North Carolina and one whom North Carolina loved to honor.]

* * * * *

A WISE JUDGE.

The following is an extract from a letter written by a resident of Chicago, Major Chas. A. Hale, who has the honor of having served in the Fifth New Hampshire, a regiment which fought gallantly at Gettysburg, and is distinguished for having sustained the greatest losses in battle of any infantry or cavalry regiment in the whole Union army:

“There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind but that the sons of North Carolina, Tennessee and Mississippi carved on the tablets of history equal laurels with the sons of Virginia in the great events of that supreme attempt to gain victory on Cemetery Ridge. Pettigrew and Trimble deserve equal honors with Pickett, and if we weigh with judicial exactness more, for impartial evidence proves that they suffered in a greater degree, and forced their way nearer the lines where pitiless fate barred their entrance. The nearest point reached by any troops was Bryan’s barn; this is made conclusive by evidence on both sides. If there were a thousand Confederates inside the stone wall at the angle more than two-thirds of that number must have been Pettigrew’s men.”

* * * * *

HOW PICKETT’S DIVISION ‘ABSQUATULATED.’

Pickett’s division of the army of Northern Virginia is rarely heard of either before or after Gettysburg. No body of troops during the last war made as much reputation on so little fighting. Newspaper men did the work by printer’s ink and the casualties were small.

Fourteen hundred and ninety-nine were captured at Gettysburg. More than this number “absquated” when Petersburg fell and there was a probability of leaving Virginia. Pickett’s division made a poor show at the surrender at Appomattox.--Abbeville, (S. C.) Medium.

* * * * *

ÆSOP’S FABLE--THE DOG AND THE BONE.

“They digged a pit. They digged it deep. They digged it for their brothers; But it so fell out that they fell in The pit that was digged for t’others.”

* * * * *

An interesting contribution to the history of the battle of Gettysburg is afforded in a pamphlet essay entitled “Pickett or Pettigrew?” by Capt. W. R. Bond, a Confederate staff officer in the army of Northern Virginia. Capt. Bond’s desire is to correct the commonly received accounts of the parts taken in that battle by the troops commanded by Gens. Pickett and Pettigrew. * * * * * * * Gen. Longstreet, according to Capt. Bond, is largely responsible for the current misrepresentation of the Southern side of the story of Gettysburg, and he tells in detail a curious story of the favoritism displayed all through the war towards everything Virginian at the expense of the soldiers from the other Southern States.--Springfield Republican.

* * * * *

We have read with much interest a pamphlet by Capt. W. R. Bond, entitled “Pickett or Pettigrew?” in which the writer, a North Carolinian, proposed to show, and does show very conclusively, that the losses of Pettigrew’s North Carolina brigade in this charge were greater than those sustained by Pickett or, indeed, by any command in the army. He claims that the twenty-sixth regiment of this brigade suffered greater loss than that of any command in modern times. The fate of one company in this regiment recalls Thermopylæ; it was literally wiped out--every man in it was either killed or wounded. This pamphlet makes a glorious showing for the resolute courage and intrepidity of the North Carolina troops, but it is endorsed by the brave boys here who fought by their side. It also pays a high tribute to the Tennesseeans engaged in that bloody fight, according them the place they occupied in it and the meed of praise they justly won.--Gallatin (Tenn.) Examiner.

* * * * *

It contains some interesting statements from the Southern, and especially from North Carolina, point of view, the object of its author being to show that undue credit has been given to Pickett’s Virginia brigades at the expense of the brigade of Pettigrew from North Carolina. The author contends that undue prominence has been given to the part taken by Virginia troops in the war of the rebellion, owing to the leading part taken by Virginia newspapers and Virginia historians in reporting the events of the war. He shows that North Carolina leads in the report given in Col. Fox’s paper on the “Chances of Being Hit in Battle.” Of the troops losing the most men Mississippi comes next, and Virginia does not appear at all. He has suggestive reference also to the possibility of Gen. Longstreet being of Gascon descent. Altogether, his little pamphlet is lively reading.--Army and Navy Journal.

* * * * *

A review of this pamphlet ought to and shall be carefully written. * * * His reference to Gen. Pettigrew is in admirable taste and will evoke new sorrow for the untimely death of that cultivated gentleman and splendid soldier; but the dedication to Hill’s corps is marred by a spirit which no provocation can justify. An author who loses his temper always breaks the force of his argument and weakens his cause. And so in the present case some salient facts which Capt. Bond presents lose most of their strength and effect by the spirit in which he clothes them. * * * And suppose the charge of Pickett was given undue prominence in the general history of the war, (and we do not dispute it), was it kind or proper on that account to make a systematic attempt to vitiate the record of all the service rendered by Virginia to the Confederate arms? * * * And it is a worthy duty to resurrect those brave deeds from oblivion, a duty which Capt. Bond is well competent to discharge, and in the discharge of which every Confederate Virginian would bid him “God speed.” But he will pardon us for saying that the task, to serve any good purpose, must be approached in a different tone and temper than that displayed in his recent pamphlet, for we have passed by much of insinuation and allegation his work contains, hoping that a calmer frame of mind will lead the author to vindicate in another edition the name and fame of the gallant Carolinians without seeking to pluck one laurel from the wreath with which friend and foe have crowned the Virginia charge at Gettysburg.--Petersburg Index-Appeal.

* * * * *

After an inexplicable silence of nearly twenty-five years, the North Carolinians are beginning to assert themselves in regard to the charge on the third day at Gettysburg. Every student of the history of the war knows that it was not Pickett, of Virginia, but Pettigrew, of North Carolina, who was entitled to the principal credit for the charge. Pickett started out in command of the charging column, but stopped when within half a mile of our line, while Pettigrew went on with his North Carolinians and reached the farthest point attained by any rebel troops.--National Tribune.

* * * * *

Hall and Sledge are the publishers of this remarkable pamphlet, which not only disparages Virginia and Virginia papers as they were during the war between the States, but even Pickett’s Virginians. The world has passed upon all these matters, and its verdict will not be changed.--Richmond Dispatch.

* * * * *

W. W. Owen, of New Orleans, late Lt. Colonel of Washington artillery, A. N. V., writes: “I have just seen a newspaper account of ‘Pickett’s charge,’ by Capt. W. R. Bond, and am anxious to obtain a copy. I was at the battle of Gettysburg and I think his account of it will agree with my idea about it, at least as far as Pickett was concerned.” This little book is well written and the author corrects a number of errors which have been published about certain battles of the late unpleasantness. It is worth reading.--Tallahassee Floridian.

* * * * *

The Wilmington Star noticing an article in the Richmond Times:

“We see from the Richmond Times that a reply is preparing to Captain W. R. Bond’s stinging pamphlet on the battle of Gettysburg. The Virginians do not intend to have it go down to history that North Carolinians did as well at Gettysburg, or better, than the much trumpeted division of Pickett. North Carolinians must see to it that the brave men who made such a splendid record at Gettysburg are neither defamed nor robbed.”

* * * * *

T. Blyler, Captain in the 12th New Jersey, writes: “Your division (meaning Pettigrew’s) advanced in our front and we bear willing testimony to your bravery and to penetrating farther than Pickett.”

W. H. Shaver, of Kingston, Pa., who belonged to the Philadelphia brigade, writes: “If convenient, say to Capt. Bond that I have read his pamphlet with very great interest as well as astonishment, for we of the North know of no other soldiers in the charge but ‘Pickett and his Virginians.’ It is a well written article and will cause history to be re-written.”

J. D. Vautier, of Philadelphia, Historian of the 88th Regiment of Penn. Vols., writes: “I think it an excellent treatise, it appears to be the impression that the Virginians did about all the fighting on the Southern side during the war. To be a Virginian was to be all that was good. The record shows that the North Carolinians were away up head.”

W. E. Potter, Colonel of the 12th New Jersey, writes: “In an address delivered by myself at Gettysburg May, 1886, I called attention to the gallant conduct of the North Carolina troops and the extent of their losses when compared with Pickett’s. So far as I know my speech was the first publication to point out the fact that the troops of Pickett constituted the minor portion of the assaulting column.”

Col. George Meade, of Philadelphia, the son of Gen. Meade, who commanded the Federal forces in this battle, writes: “I am glad to find in it certain facts that confirm what has been my own impression as to the important part taken by the North Carolina troops in the assault at Gettysburg on the afternoon of the 3rd of July. I must congratulate you on having presented your case so strongly.”

* * * * *

Captain W. R. Bond, a North Carolinian and a Confederate soldier, who agrees with Col. Batchelder, of Massachusetts, the Government historian of the battle of Gettysburg, that the brilliant military exploit popularly known as ‘Pickett’s charge’ should be called ‘Longstreet’s assault,’ has written a pamphlet to call attention to the fact that Pettigrew’s division of North Carolina troops in this charge went further and stayed longer and had more men killed than Pickett’s division of Virginians. Captain Bond presents some interesting statements in the course of his narrative.

It may be added that the North Carolinians also lost, by one of the frequent mischances that govern the direction of popular praise, their share of the glory that their bravery should have gained, and which Pickett’s division gathered in for itself.--Philadelphia Press.

* * * * *

GEN. ULYSSES DOUBLEDAY.

Capt. Bond’s pamphlet showing that Pettigrew and not Pickett is entitled to the glory that graced the Confederate banners at the battle of Gettysburg, is bearing fruit. It is bound to convince any fair-minded man who will read it. A private letter to the author from Asheville, says that the writer had a long conversation with Gen. Doubleday, a Federal officer and brother of the Gen. Doubleday mentioned in the pamphlet. “Gen. Doubleday contended,” continues the letter, “that Pickett’s men did as so-called history says they did, and reaped all the glory.” I asked him as a personal favor to read the essay, “Pickett or Pettigrew?” He has just finished telling his opinion. Said he: “It opened my eyes. Your brave men have been slandered. Capt. Bond gives chapter and verse. It is a fine essay.”--Weldon News.

* * * * *