Day 1 /Gettysburg

[Hancock the Superb]

And at Gettysburg, I recieved the title of Hancock the Magnificent from a staff officer.

[Armchair General]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

And at Gettysburg, I recieved the title of Hancock the Magnificent from a staff officer.

Sounds like a Magician's Act.

[O. O. Howard]

Armchair General wrote:

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Hancock the Superb wrote:

The main one: Gettysburg, A Testing of Courage, by Noah Trudeau (I think that's how you spell his last name).

Thanks, General Hancock! Haven't read that one so will have to find it in the library.

BTW, where did Hancock received the sobriquet, "The Superb?"

J

He got it at Williamsburg, (May 5, 1862). In a dispatch to D.C. McClellan said, "And Hancock fought superbly."

And his men didn't do too bad either!

[Armchair General]

O. O. Howard wrote:

Armchair General wrote:

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Hancock the Superb wrote: Thanks, General Hancock! Haven't read that one so will have to find it in the library.

BTW, where did Hancock received the sobriquet, "The Superb?"

J

He got it at Williamsburg, (May 5, 1862). In a dispatch to D.C. McClellan said, "And Hancock fought superbly."

And his men didn't do too bad either!

They did a lot better than most troops fighting at Williamsburg. It was a rainy, messy, cluster-gaggle affair in the woods around the town and in front of the forts.

[O. O. Howard]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

And at Gettysburg, I recieved the title of Hancock the Magnificent from a staff officer.

And at Ream's Station he received the title of Hancock the Disappointed and Depressed.

[Little Powell]

O. O. Howard wrote:

Hancock the Superb wrote:

And at Gettysburg, I recieved the title of Hancock the Magnificent from a staff officer.

And at Ream's Station he received the title of Hancock the Disappointed and Depressed.

:laugh:

[Hancock the Superb]

Yah, my boys did excelent against Early (I hope there is not Jubal Early on this forum!) :laugh:

[Colonel Dreux]

I think the only evidence that Lane's Brigade formed squares comes from Union sources who noted that Confederate infantry formed squares off to their left, from Cemetery Hill. The Confederates worried about Buford's cavalry on their right flank and Lane apparently blinked, or the regiment that was farthest right did. They never made it back to the left in time to support the rest of the divisions attack on Seminary ridge thanks to Buford's cavalry being along the Fairfield Rd.

[Colonel Dreux]

Not against Hays' Louisianians I bet. The Louisianians stuck it the 11th Corps and then bullied there way through the Union line on Cemetery Hill.

[Colonel Dreux]

Kerflumoxed wrote:

Hancock the Superb wrote:

My sources indicate Lane's troops formed squares, due to their commanders timidy. Lane was ordered to attack, saw the cavalry, halted, and formed squares. His command barely fired a shot.

Very interesting! Would like to know the primary source of this data.

As an aside, it was possible to break the "square" by the cavalry attacking a corner where the square was its weakest. Cavalry would attack by a column of fours with each successive "four" breaking to the left and right by twos. Once the corner caved in, the column would continue into the square and break it up from within.

J

Union officers on Cemetery Hill, maybe even on Seminary Ridge, noted that they saw Confederate infantry form squares (or preparing to) off to their far left. These were from quotes in either letters or from regimental histories compiled after the battle and war. The Confederates reported Buford's cavalry on their right flank (they were skirmishing).

David G. Martin mentions this in his Gettysburg July 1 book. I'm sure the primary sources are referenced there. Look on pg. 428. There are two Union sources quoted, but there are several others apparently.

J.R. Stine, "History of the Army of the Potomac", p. 481
Doubleday, "Chancellorsville and Gettysburg", p. 149 which quotes from a regimental history

It can't be said with certainty what exactly happened, but that is true of most of the battle and the whole of the Civil War. However, there are sources for it and it should be mentioned as having possibly happened. People can then be free to believe it happened or didn't.

Lane was also an academic, much like Gen. Pettigrew, and may have been a by the book kind of fellow who didn't really know any better. He failed to maintain contact with Perrin's attack and reported after the battle that there was no indication that Perrin was attacking near enough to Lane so that Lane would know to move forward and forget about the cavalry... which is to say that Lane arguably didn't really know what he was doing on the field that day.