Considering the extreme notoriety of and controversy surrounding the charge on the Union center made by the divisions of Pickett, Pettigrew, and Trimble, one might be led to believe one of the most important historical documents in existence would be Pickett's official report on his part in the battle of Gettysburg. Unfortunately, this report doesn't exist. This is not an amazing fact in and of itself. Wounded officers often failed to file reports, and, of course, officers killed in battle were unable to file reports, and their subordinates who took command often were not in a position to compose a comprehensive report of battle. General Hood, who was wounded at Gettysburg, never filed an official report, but, in a letter to Longstreet after the war, gave his version of events.
None of these reasons explains Pickett, however, which leads to an interesting -- some would say suspicious -- story. Pickett did file a report regarding the operations of his division during the Gettysburg campaign; however, General Lee ordered Pickett to destroy the report, stating that he felt the content would cause divisiveness within the army. No one is certain when he wrote this report, although it is generally believed it was sometime shortly after the battle itself -- a day or two --, which would have made it one of the most timely reports of the campaign. (Most of the official reports were not written until at least a month after the battle, some longer than that.) The question is, then, what was in the report that would cause such divisiveness, at least to a point that General Lee would consider it a danger to the morale of the army?
Some historians and critics have suggested that Pickett's report was critical of Longstreet's handling of the charge. Pickett was, after all, caught in the middle of the exchanges between Longstreet and E.P. Alexander in which Longstreet looked for any reason at all to avoid ordering the assault. Pickett saw it all, from Longstreet's stubborn resistance to the charge to Alexander's insistence that the decision to order it must remain with the commander, not him. Pickett would have been aware of Longstreet's failures -- if indeed there are any -- to support the advance and the carry out Lee's orders. If, as some contend, McLaws and Hood's division were supposed to be a part of the assault, Pickett would have been aware of this fact.
If Pickett had died or never said another word about the charge, the belief that he was critical of Longstreet might be a somewhat valid assumption; at the very least it would have been a valid point of view. However, the story does not end with Lee's admonition and his order to destroy the report. Pickett's attitude after the battle and the fact that he did make some statements later in life give hints as to the possible content of his report. After the war Pickett once visited General Lee, a visit he refused to make alone.
After the visit, the atmosphere of which was reported to be somewhat cool and stiff, Pickett is reported to have said that General Lee had had his division slaughtered. After the battle itself Pickett refused to even attempt forming his men into a line to attempt to repulse the expected Union counter-attack. He stated that he had no division left, that his men who were still standing were too demoralized to fight, and even if they weren't, they had no officers to lead them. This latter view is a little exaggerated, but it gives insight into what was going through Pickett's mind after the battle. Pickett was so distraught at the outcome of the assault on Cemetery Ridge that many report that he set to work writing his report of battle immediately.
Pickett's state of mind and his opinions following the war lend credence to the belief that Pickett was critical of not just the assault itself, but of General Lee's part in it. It was General Lee's plan. General Lee did take an active role in organizing and lining up the troops. General Lee did continue to insist that the assault was made despite the severe doubts as to the possibilities of success by General Longstreet and others. The question then becomes, was Pickett critical of Lee himself? Was Lee, in ordering the report destroyed, attempting to protect his own reputation?
The latter scenario is unlikely. General Lee was not that vain. What is more likely is that Pickett's report contained criticisms of the commands of Pettigrew and Trimble who were positioned on the left of Pickett's division during the assault. The post-war controversy that erupted over the role of these men in the charge lends credence to this theory. Pickett's men maintained that Pettigrew and Trimble were supposed to support the charge, as opposed to being an integral part of it, and that they failed in their duty. This is false, but the fact that many of Pickett's men and likely Pickett himself believed this to be true is undeniable.
Whatever particulars his report contained, it is evident that Pickett was not critical of Longstreet whom he maintained a warm relationship with during the rest of the war and after. Indeed, none of Pickett's men were ever openly critical of Longstreet. If Pickett had felt Longstreet was responsible for his division's repulse wouldn't it be more likely that Pickett would have had similar comments about his corps commander as those he had for his army commander? The Pickett's and Longstreet's remained close and never seemed to have harsh words for one another.
One final piece of the puzzle cannot be considered historical fact, but is interesting nonetheless. The story in the Pickett family is that George Pickett made a copy of his report and sent it to "Sally," his soon-to-be wife. This copy supposedly remained with the family, but at some point became either lost or destroyed. As the harsh words against Longstreet were being leveled during the latter part of the 19th century, someone in the Pickett family stated that he knew of the existence of a document which many historians would find most interesting. The tone of his comment, as reported, tends to indicate that the document would redefine the then common perceptions regarding the planning and execution of Pickett's Charge. (It is important to note that at this time, Longstreet was being blamed by Early, Pendleton, and Gordon as well as a host of historians for losing the battle of Gettysburg and not obeying Lee's orders.)
Glen Tucker, a meticulous researcher and historian who wrote books like High Tide at Gettysburg and Lee and Longstreet at Gettysburg researched the mystery of Pickett's report exhaustively, gaining the full support and cooperation of Pickett's descendants. After going through every piece of family memorabilia and all of its artifacts, he and the family were unable to uncover a the copy of the report. This is a tragedy, but the knowledge that the report did once exist and the statements made and handed down by Pickett's descendants throughout the years do, at least, give a glimmer of what the report might have contained.
At the very least, Pickett's report and Lee's ordering its destruction are an important part of the history of the Army of Northern Virginia and especially of the role of Longstreet in the battle of Gettysburg. Sometimes the important facts of history are not known necessarily by what historians find, but by what they don't find and why. The mystery of Pickett's Report is just such a piece of history and the study of that mystery is essential to any understanding of the battle of Gettysburg.
Source: Commentary - Brian Hampton