Of course, this is but a small piece of what Harman has to say, but I’m trying to focus on this point alone right now.

An appropriate question would be: if Zeigler’s Grove was destroyed then when was it allowed to re-grow? From a Eric Campbell PCN tour on Henry Hunt-July 3rd artillery, Ziegler’s Grove was allowed to grow in 1960 to obstruct the view from Cemetery Hill of ‘the new’ Colt Park housing development.

Thanks for the response. I’ve spent a few hours on the field with Chaplain Chuck as well, including retracing his idea of Kemper’s route from very beginning to very end, and back!

What I’m specifically interested in at this point is the Copse vs. The Grove as the focal point. Your summary seems to say that Hartwig is at least leaning towards Zeigler’s Grove. Can you set me straight on that?

I’ll send you an email regarding the Wise portraits. Thanks for looking into that.

Interestingly, Teague sees McGilvery’s artillery pushing Kemper’s brigade to its left and up to the copse of trees when actually the focus of Kemper was the gap betwen McGilvery’s line and Vermont brigade. On the Friends/Dejardins map, the gap is clearly there. (I never take a NPS tour of the battlefield without the Friends/Desjardin map and the McElfresh map.)

By the end of the seminar, I came see that Kemper was to hit the gap but was shoved further north to the copse of trees. Garnett and Pettigrew were to converge at the Angle (a salient) which they did. Armistead and Trimble were to follow Garnett and Pettigrew into the salient and make Cemetery Hill untenable.

Like Tom Clemens, the Copse of Trees as a destination never made sense to me. But the Harman-Hewitt-Hartwig-Teague argument has the ‘ring of truth’ for me.

BTW, I have the contact info for the Wise oil portraits. The family is about 20 minutes east of Washington, PA. Send an email to follow up. Also, on gdg discussion group there is a quote by Wise on JQ Adams. Wise greatly appreciated JQ Adams.

Rea Andrew Redd

The Copse even today is a blip on the horizon from Seminary Ridge, and by all accounts it was much smaller in 1863. For that matter, The Angle is a mere pimple of a salient on the Union line. So I agree that either feature or even both combined seem awfully insignificant to guide such a large assault.

I’ve sent a note to Scott Hartwig, but it usually takes a few days for him to respond – he’s a very busy guy, and I’m sure the new VC and the movement of the park’s records is eating up a lot of his time.

Thanks for the info. I believe that the ultimate objective of the charge being Cemetery Hill has been the part of Harman’s thesis that has been found least objectionable by even the most rabid of Gettysburg traditionalists. One of the major objections has been to the idea that Zeigler’s Grove, rather than the Copse, was the intended guiding point of the assault, and it seems from Rea’s summary that Hartwig is moving toward the “dark side”. I last walked the various parts of Pickett’s Charge with Scott three years ago, and at that time I don’t think he gave the notion much merit. I’m curious to learn if he’s changed his thoughts on this, and if so, why.

I was lucky enough to be able to attend the Seminar this year – a first for me. I can tell you that the tide is shifting somewhat more toward Troy Harman’s theory. I was not present on Scott’s tour, but will be interested to see what your readers come up with.

In particular, Lt. Col. Bill Hewitt (Ret.) presented information that was an extrapolation of what he covered in February for our MHO Seminar. That being the philosophy of “dislodgement.” In very basic terms, Bill covered the fact that breaking the line at the angle basically did nothing for Lee. His objective was to knock the Federals off the hill, get them running down the Baltimore Pike and follow it up with Stuart’s involvement. This is not the same as what is proposed by Tom Carhart in his book (the difference being that Stuart was to ATTACK the rear of the Federal Army.)

Bill made a strong case for Lee’s plan and in my mind he has given us the best explanation so far as to an attempt to comprehend Lee’s Plan. That Troy Harman, with his book, started us down this journey several years ago is no small matter. Hopefully, this line of thinking will continue to be discussed and not lost in the tactical details of what happened vs. what was planned.

I’m very much looking forward to Bill’s written piece from the Seminar which will come out in two years, at the next one, I guess.