From the editor . . . Filling A Gap and Farnsworth’s Ghost

Every now and then we get to do a “gap” issue—a feature that fills a gap between high profile events, so that when you’re finished reading you realize that under different circumstances the “gap event” would have gained high profile status in its own right. This is one of those issues.
Once Grant moved east in 1864, events in Virginia moved in such a rapid fire sequence that battles like Cool Spring (also known as Snicker’s Gap or Island Ford) and Rutherford’s Farm have fallen through the cracks of history. Even 2nd Kernstown gets lost in the confusion of the many Winchester area battles.

Having driven countless times along Virginia’s Rt. 7 through Snicker’s Gap in the Blue Ridge between Winchester and Leesburg, I have to admit not knowing until this summer that just beyond the Shenandoah River bridge occurred a bloody battle of no small proportion. Yankees fought desperately with their backs to the river against veterans of Robert Rodes’ division.
Simply put, it was a gap event between headlines about Petersburg and those made by Phil Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley in September and October, 1864. The relative obscurity of the battles of July 1864 in the Valley was guaranteed when, less than two weeks later, a mine exploded at the Crater along the Petersburg lines and Rebels burned Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.

Scott C. Patchan is the author of the Shenandoah Valley, July 1864 feature. His book on the topic will be published next spring by the University of Nebraska Press.

Meanwhile, the ghost of General Elon J. Farnsworth still haunts the fields and woodlands of Gettysburg. The brave Union cavalry commander who fell leading the charge that bears his name probably hasn’t been mentioned this often since 1863.

Licensed Battlefield Guide Andie Custer’s eight years of research into Farnsworth’s Charge culminated in the recent feature article in this magazine. We knew that challenging traditional accounts of the charge and actually moving its location a half-mile from where the Park Service places it, would not be accepted without protest.

But after publication of the article, which claimed to correct historical accounts, not revise them—there is a difference—we received no negative responses. I was puzzled. Gazing out the window of my office on several occasions I wondered, Where is Eric Wittenberg?

I found out when a 5,500-word letter to the editor finally arrived. Among many other topics, Eric has been published on Farnsworth’s Charge, the traditional version, and he and co-author, J. David Petruzzi, are writing a history of Gettysburg cavalry operations.

The long and the short of it is this: Eric accepts Andie’s proof that Captain Henry Parsons’ published account, which has served as a cornerstone of the traditional version, is largely hearsay and speculation. (Parsons was wounded and didn’t see the whole charge, and no one soldier could have been an eyewitness to the complete event.) But Eric disagrees with her article on four points:

1. The route of the charge (traditional vs. Andie’s version).
2. The time and location of Farnsworth’s death (Andie has him falling early into the charge, Eric says later).
3. Whether an argument occurred between Farnsworth and his superior, Judson Kilpatrick, during which the former’s courage was challenged (Andie says no, Eric says maybe).
4. The “brigade line” rule of monument placement for veterans groups after the war (Andie states the rule and veteran error contributed to the misplacement of monuments, which affected the development of the traditional version, while Eric says the rule was not applied uniformly so no argument can be based upon it).

This is why I love my job. I have great respect for both historians. Rather than engage in a back and forth argument through the Response page of the magazine, a future issue will include a jointly-prepared, annotated article that gives both sides, and you the reader can decide. The history of Gettysburg can only be better for it.

editor