Pickett's Battle Report
Considering the extreme notoriety of and
controversy surrounding the charge on the Union center made by
the divisions of Pickett, Pettigrew, and Trimble, one might be
led to believe one of the most important historical documents in
existence would be Pickett's official report on his part in the
battle of Gettysburg. Unfortunately, this report doesn't exist.
This is not an amazing fact in and of itself. Wounded officers
often failed to file reports, and, of course, officers killed in
battle were unable to file reports, and their subordinates who
took command often were not in a position to compose a
comprehensive report of battle. General Hood, who was wounded at
Gettysburg, never filed an official report, but, in a letter to
Longstreet after the war, gave his version of events.
None of these reasons explains Pickett,
however, which leads to an interesting -- some would say
suspicious -- story. Pickett did file a report regarding the
operations of his division during the Gettysburg campaign;
however, General Lee ordered Pickett to destroy the report,
stating that he felt the content would cause divisiveness within
the army. No one is certain when he wrote this report, although
it is generally believed it was sometime shortly after the
battle itself -- a day or two --, which would have made it one
of the most timely reports of the campaign. (Most of the
official reports were not written until at least a month after
the battle, some longer than that.) The question is, then, what
was in the report that would cause such divisiveness, at least
to a point that General Lee would consider it a danger to the
morale of the army?
Some historians and critics have suggested
that Pickett's report was critical of Longstreet's handling of
the charge. Pickett was, after all, caught in the middle of the
exchanges between Longstreet and E.P. Alexander in which
Longstreet looked for any reason at all to avoid ordering the
assault. Pickett saw it all, from Longstreet's stubborn
resistance to the charge to Alexander's insistence that the
decision to order it must remain with the commander, not him.
Pickett would have been aware of Longstreet's failures -- if
indeed there are any -- to support the advance and the carry out
Lee's orders. If, as some contend, McLaws and Hood's division
were supposed to be a part of the assault, Pickett would have
been aware of this fact.
If Pickett had died or never said another
word about the charge, the belief that he was critical of
Longstreet might be a somewhat valid assumption; at the very
least it would have been a valid point of view. However, the
story does not end with Lee's admonition and his order to
destroy the report. Pickett's attitude after the battle and the
fact that he did make some statements later in life give hints
as to the possible content of his report. After the war Pickett
once visited General Lee, a visit he refused to make alone.
After the visit, the atmosphere of which was
reported to be somewhat cool and stiff, Pickett is reported to
have said that General Lee had had his division slaughtered.
After the battle itself Pickett refused to even attempt forming
his men into a line to attempt to repulse the expected Union
counter-attack. He stated that he had no division left, that his
men who were still standing were too demoralized to fight, and
even if they weren't, they had no officers to lead them. This
latter view is a little exaggerated, but it gives insight into
what was going through Pickett's mind after the battle. Pickett
was so distraught at the outcome of the assault on Cemetery
Ridge that many report that he set to work writing his report of
battle immediately.
Pickett's state of mind and his opinions
following the war lend credence to the belief that Pickett was
critical of not just the assault itself, but of General Lee's
part in it. It was General Lee's plan. General Lee did take an
active role in organizing and lining up the troops. General Lee
did continue to insist that the assault was made despite the
severe doubts as to the possibilities of success by General
Longstreet and others. The question then becomes, was Pickett
critical of Lee himself? Was Lee, in ordering the report
destroyed, attempting to protect his own reputation?
The latter scenario is unlikely. General Lee
was not that vain. What is more likely is that Pickett's report
contained criticisms of the commands of Pettigrew and Trimble
who were positioned on the left of Pickett's division during the
assault. The post-war controversy that erupted over the role of
these men in the charge lends credence to this theory. Pickett's
men maintained that Pettigrew and Trimble were supposed to
support the charge, as opposed to being an integral part of it,
and that they failed in their duty. This is false, but the fact
that many of Pickett's men and likely Pickett himself believed
this to be true is undeniable.
Whatever particulars his report contained,
it is evident that Pickett was not critical of Longstreet whom
he maintained a warm relationship with during the rest of the
war and after. Indeed, none of Pickett's men were ever openly
critical of Longstreet. If Pickett had felt Longstreet was
responsible for his division's repulse wouldn't it be more
likely that Pickett would have had similar comments about his
corps commander as those he had for his army commander? The
Pickett's and Longstreet's remained close and never seemed to
have harsh words for one another.
One final piece of the puzzle cannot be
considered historical fact, but is interesting nonetheless. The
story in the Pickett family is that George Pickett made a copy
of his report and sent it to "Sally," his soon-to-be
wife. This copy supposedly remained with the family, but at some
point became either lost or destroyed. As the harsh words
against Longstreet were being leveled during the latter part of
the 19th century, someone in the Pickett family stated that he
knew of the existence of a document which many historians would
find most interesting. The tone of his comment, as reported,
tends to indicate that the document would redefine the then
common perceptions regarding the planning and execution of
Pickett's Charge. (It is important to note that at this time,
Longstreet was being blamed by Early, Pendleton, and Gordon as
well as a host of historians for losing the battle of Gettysburg
and not obeying Lee's orders.)
Glen Tucker, a meticulous researcher and
historian who wrote books like High Tide at Gettysburg and Lee
and Longstreet at Gettysburg researched the mystery of Pickett's
report exhaustively, gaining the full support and cooperation of
Pickett's descendants. After going through every piece of family
memorabilia and all of its artifacts, he and the family were
unable to uncover a the copy of the report. This is a tragedy,
but the knowledge that the report did once exist and the
statements made and handed down by Pickett's descendants
throughout the years do, at least, give a glimmer of what the
report might have contained.
At the very least, Pickett's report and
Lee's ordering its destruction are an important part of the
history of the Army of Northern Virginia and especially of the
role of Longstreet in the battle of Gettysburg. Sometimes the
important facts of history are not known necessarily by what
historians find, but by what they don't find and why. The
mystery of Pickett's Report is just such a piece of history and
the study of that mystery is essential to any understanding of
the battle of Gettysburg.
|
