These Honored Dead
The February 2007 issue cover photo of the bodies of dead soldiers lying on the field at Gettysburg brings up a question. They are all lying on their backs, knees slightly lifted, coats pulled up above their waists. It occurs to me that they all didn’t fall that way when they went down — that their bodies had been turned over and clothing ransacked. Was it a common practice by both sides to relieve the dead of their wallets, watches, pistols, knives and other personal belongings? Or were the bodies searched in attempts at identification? Could your editorial staff comment on this?
Clifford C. Pearce
Redwood City, Calif.
Civil War Times responds: This photograph of Union dead on the Gettysburg battlefield was taken by Alexander Gardner’s assistant Timothy H. O’Sullivan either on the afternoon of July 5 or on July 6. Gardner titled it “A Harvest of Death” in his Photographic Sketch Book of the War (1865). It is one of only five negatives taken of Union dead at Gettysburg, all of the same group of soldiers. The site of the photograph it still disputed, but evidence points to a position somewhere close to the Union III Corps line on the second day’s field, near the Emmitsburg Road.
It is difficult to determine the extent to which the bodies were tampered with or shifted from where they originally fell. These dead lay behind Confederate lines for two days, from July 2-4, so it is certainly possible that Confederate soldiers did search the bodies for necessary equipment. However, the rapidity of Confederate operations and retreat, along with the speed of the Union burial parties (3,155 men were buried between July 4 and July 7), makes it highly probable that they were not overly disturbed, but fell at or near this exact position.
It is evident that a burial party had not attended to the men yet because they lie in random prone positions, some hunched over. A burial party would have lined up the bodies in a row before identification and interment.
Gardner himself sometimes manipulated his dead subjects into more dramatic poses to add to the drama and commercial value of his photographs. He did this with numerous Confederates at Gettysburg. However, since Gardner had just arrived on the battlefield (July 5) at a time when burials were nearing completion, there is a good chance that he had no time to manipulate these dead, and took this shot approximating their position of death. The bent knees and rumpled frock coats can most likely be attributed to rigor mortis and putrefaction setting in, or from the men clutching themselves in the agony of death. It was common for men, particularly those shot in the upper body, to tear at their clothes in reaction to the heat and pain caused by the bullet.
Rewriting History With the 1st
Recently I read the “Turning Points” department titled “Rewriting History with the 54th,” by Jeffry D. Wert in the February 2007 issue of Civil War Times. Wert’s statement, “Before them marched the first African-American volunteer regiment raised by a Northern state,” is not true.
The 1st Kansas Colored Volunteer Infantry was organized at Fort Scott, Kan., on August 5, 1862, and mustered into Federal service on January 13, 1863. The 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry was organized on March 30, 1863, and mustered into Federal service on May 13, 1863. The 1st Kansas fought its first battle at Island Mound, Mo., on October 29, 1862. Kansas was admitted to the Union as a free state on January 29, 1861, and therefore the 1st Kansas was the first African-American volunteer regiment raised by a Northern state not the 54th.
This error may have begun with the movie Glory, in which the same wrong statement was made. Unfortunately, it seems to have proliferated since that time, as I have seen the error in print several times.
Orvis N. Fitts
Kansas City, Kan.
Gallant Goat
Jerry Holsworth’s fine review of James S. Robbins’ book Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point in the February 2007 issue correctly identified Charles Warner as graduating last in the class of 1862. A minor point, however, is that he was not the commander of a battery at Antietam. He was assigned to Battery D, 2nd U.S. Artillery, and its commander was Lieutenant Edward Williston. Williston is listed as the battery commander in the Official Records as part of the VI Corps artillery (Ser. 1, Vol. 19, pt. 1, P. 176-77). Also see Curt Johnson and Richard Anderson’s book Artillery Hell: The Employment of Artillery at Antietam.
Johnson found that several official reports of that action are not listed in the OR, including Captain Emory Upton’s report as chief of artillery for VI Corps and Lieutenant Williston’s report as commander of Battery D. In both of these reports, Warner is cited for coolness and gallantry under fire.
Brian McEnany
Vienna, Va.
“The Lincoln-Davis Affair”?
In the January 2007 “Mail Call,” Shannon Pritchard from Mechanicsville, Va., used the term “War of Northern Aggression.” This is as offensive to the North as “War of the Rebellion” is to the South. Let’s try a more neutral term. How about “The Lincoln-Davis Affair”?
J. Knight
Montauk, N.Y.
Correction
We apologize for misprinting J. David Petruzzi’s name in the March/April “Reviews” section.
