John Oyler: an unexpected trip to Gettysburg |

John Oyler: an unexpected trip to Gettysburg

In this file photo, a re-enactment of Pickett’s Charge takes place during the 2013 commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Last weekend, I had an unanticipated treat thanks to my daughter, Elizabeth — a trip to Gettysburg.

Elizabeth is heavily involved in a symposium on the premiere of a play that will be presented in the Stephen Foster Memorial on the University of Pittsburgh campus at 7:30 p.m. Sept. 14. The play is based on one of the fundamental subplots in the drama of the Battle of Gettysburg, the overpowering friendship of two key antagonists in the conflict – Confederate Gen. Lewis Armistead and Union Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock.

The opportunity to revisit the battlefield was too much for either of us to pass up. In addition, I wanted to see first-hand the monuments commemorating the three local companies we discussed in a recent column — Company C, Company H and Company K.

At the visitor center, we toured the Cyclorama and enjoyed a brief presentation on the battles. It is certainly wonderful that the Park Service has rehabilitated this magnificent work of art. Produced by French painter Paul Phillippoteaux, it covers a circular wall 42 feet high; its circumference is 377 feet.

An important stop was the “Friend to Friend” monument in the Cemetery Annex. This monument is capped by a magnificent statue of Union Capt. Harry Bingham administering to a severely wounded Rebel Gen. Armistead.

Armistead has given Bingham his watch and requested it be sent to Hancock’s wife. The watch is a key component in the play Elizabeth is promoting; confirming its significance in this marvelous sculpture was relevant.

The next morning, we set out on a self-guided auto tour of the battlefields and were rewarded by finding all the specific sites and monuments that interested us. We located the monument to the 149th Pennsylvania Regiment, not far from McPherson’s Barn, where Company D fought. We then drove down Confederate Avenue along Seminary Ridge with its view of Cemetery Ridge where the Union forces were entrenched.

We then went up over Round Top and onto Little Round Top. Gen. Warren’s statue there was every bit as impressive as I remembered from the first time I saw it, eight decades ago. From there, we drove through Devil’s Den and the Wheatfield, where we found the 62nd Infantry monument right where Company H fought so valiantly.

After taking a loop to the east to Culp’s Hill, we returned to Hancock Avenue and Cemetery Ridge, the site of Pickett’s Charge and Armistead’s downfall. We found the modest monument marking the spot where Armistead fell, and, not far from it, the monument to the 1st Pennsylvania Cavalry with its fine statue of a dismounted “horse soldier.” I wonder if he was from Company K?

We visited the Pennsylvania Monument and found plaques for all three companies. The most emotion I felt all day was reading Richard Lesnett’s name, knowing he had survived this battle only to expire the following year from wounds received at Hawes Shop, Va.

Visiting Gettysburg this time, equipped with specific knowledge and specific interests to be investigated, was a memorable experience. It is remarkable a subject so extensively documented still possesses so many nuances that have not been resolved.

I am grateful to Elizabeth for dragging me along. I hope the symposium and the play will enhance my understanding of this significant event.

Categories: Local | Carlynton
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.