Justin Benner

The Civil War was not a good time to be an American.  This conflict that lasted for a few, bloody years pitted brother against brother, father against son, and family against family.  Most conflicts America has been involved in have not affected us in such a manner.  This is to say the Civil War was a crucial time in our nation’s history.  It helped form racial equality and freedom never thought imaginable.  But this outcome would have been drastically different had the Confederacy won.  Such a victorious Confederate army might have existed if it were not for the thwarting battle known as Gettysburg.  From July 1-3 of 1863, Union and Confederate troops were gridlocked in one of the bloodiest Civil War conflicts.  It was not looking good for the Confederacy by day three, when the Union controlled most of the high ground and hills and began shooting artillery down onto Confederate positions.  It was at this moment when Robert E. Lee made the risky, and debatably ludicrous, decision to attack the strongest Union position.  When this attack failed, the Confederates retreated with great losses.  One might think a Confederate account of Gettysburg would be pessimistic, but the journal entry of Randolph McKim proves this to be quite the contrary.

The journal account gives off a feel the Confederate state of mind was in a sort of “better luck next time” mode.  This was a huge offensive into the north.  He starts off his account with giving the reader details about positioning.  He states things like “…there was a double line of entrenchments….”  These types of statements run throughout the account, probably in an attempt to keep the reader up to date in the events.  This account only covers the third day, as well.  Taking a quick read through you can see any attacks the Confederates made were either repelled or forced retreats due to losses.  The account does not describe any land gains made by the south but rather quite the opposite.  The only reference to any successful advance comes in the last paragraph, in which he says: “We were beaten back to the line from which we had advanced with terrible loss and in great confusion.”  So we see even in the one reference he makes to any successful advance he mentions it was with terrible loss and with not much leadership.  Perhaps the South could have won the battle if they just kept their casualty count to a minimum!  Pickett’s failed charge put the nail in the South’s coffin for the battle that day.  With the North holding the high ground and relentlessly bombarding the South, and the casualty count increasing exponentially, the South had no choice but to retreat back to Confederate-controlled areas.

There are a few conclusions we can draw from this.  One is even though the South was losing, badly at times, they kept trying.  They attacked the Northern positions multiple times, each time with more vigor.  Secondly, the South believed in their cause.  It’s one thing to secede from the Union, but these men and boys were willing to lay down their lives to protect their way of life.  Such a sacrifice can still be seen today in the modern armed forces.  Thirdly, the South was not going to retreat out of Gettysburg until it was absolutely tactically necessary.  If the South didn’t think that, then they would have left Gettysburg by day 2 after suffering plenty of casualties.  The last conclusion we can make is Gettysburg may not have been as huge of a morale loss as we might think.  If that were the case, then the overall tone of the account would be much more negative and criticizing of superior officers.  Instead we see a blow by blow account of the last day of battle from the eyes of a soldier describing how groups of soldiers moved and how the enemy reacted.  Perhaps this soldier should have been a reporter instead.