Gary Gallagher on The Shenandoah Valley,1864

[william42]

Book TV Programs

A Weekly Look at Selected Book TV Programs
On Sunday, August 6 at 12:00 pm and Monday, August 7 at 12:00 am
In Depth: Gary Gallagher Description: Gary Gallagher, University of Virginia Professor in the History of the American Civil War, will be our guest for In Depth on Sunday August 6th (LIVE Noon-3pm ET). Professor Gallagher's most recent book is, "The Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864." Gary Gallagher has written or edited 21 books on the Civil War including, "Leaders of the Lost Cause: New Perspectives on the Confederate High Command" (2004), "Lee and His Army in Confederate History" (2001), "The Lost Cause and Civil War History" (2000), "Lee and His Generals in War and Memory" (1998), "The Confederate War" (1997), "Jubal A. Early, the Lost Cause, and Civil War History: A Persistent Legacy" (1995) and "Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander" (1989). Professor Gallagher has given a 48 part lecture series for the Teaching Company on the civil war, and has appeared in many documentaries about the conflict. View Gary Gallagher's Favorites List


Author Bio: Gary Gallagher has written or edited the following books: "The Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1864" University of North Carolina Press, 2006 (Editor and co-author), "Leaders of the Lost Cause: New Perspectives on the Confederate High Command" Stackpole, 2004. (Co-editor and co-author) "The Shenandoah Valley Campaign of 1862" University of North Carolina Press, 2003 (Editor and co-author) "Lee and His Army in Confederate History" University of North Carolina Press, 2001 "The Richmond Campaign of 1862: The Peninsula and the Seven Days" University of North Carolina Press, 2000 (Editor and co-author) "The Lost Cause and Civil War History" Indiana University Press, 2000. (Editor and co-author) "The Antietam Campaign" University of North Carolina Press, 1999. (Editor and co-author) "Lee and His Generals in War and Memory" Louisiana State University Press, 1998. "The Spotsylvania Campaign" University of North Carolina Press, 1998. (Editor and co-author.) " Blueprint for Victory: Northern Strategy and Military Policy" in William J. Cooper, Jr., and James M. McPherson, eds., Writing the Civil War: Historiographical Essays, University of South Carolina Press, 1998 "The Confederate War" Harvard University Press, 1997. "The Wilderness Campaign" University of North Carolina Press, 1997 (Editor and co-author) "Chancellorsville: The Battle and Its Aftermath" University of North Carolina Press, 1996 (Editor and co-author) "Lee the Soldier" University of Nebraska Press, 1996. (Editor and co-author) "How Familiarity Bred Success: Military Campaigns and Leaders in Ken Burns's The Civil War," in Robert Brent Toplin, ed., Ken Burns's "The Civil War": Historians Respond, Oxford University Press, 1996 "The Fredericksburg Campaign: Decision on the Rappahannock" University of North Carolina Press, 1995. (Editor and co-author) "Jubal A. Early, the Lost Cause, and Civil War History: A Persistent Legacy" Marquette University Press, 1995. "The Third Day at Gettysburg and Beyond" University of North Carolina Press, 1994 (Editor and co-author) "'Upon Their Success Hang Momentous Interests': Generalship," in Gabor S. Boritt, ed., "Why the Confederacy Lost," Oxford University Press, 1992 "Fighting for the Confederacy: The Personal Recollections of General Edward Porter Alexander" University of North Carolina Press, 1989 (Editor) "Stephen Dodson Ramseur: Lee's Gallant General" University of North Carolina Press, 1985 For more information about Gary Gallagher, visit his University of Virginia webpage: http://www.virginia.edu/history/faculty/gallagher.html

[william42]

For anybody who missed the live broadcast that just ended, it will be replayed later today at midnight eastern.

Mr. Gallagher addresses many other issues besides the Valley in 1864, many of which have been discussed at great length here on this board.

Just from the top of my head, he says the following: (and I'm paraphrasing)

-Nathan Bedford Forrest was one of the geniuses to emerge from the war, the other being Lincoln, and he adds that Forrest would not have made a good army or even corps commander.(which pretty much shoots down an argument I had made on a previous thread where in my opinion Forrest would have made a great army commander, but I'm not really ready to completely give up on that just yet.

-All artillery shells used in the Civil War exploded before they hit the ground, not on impact, as portrayed in many Civil War movies. The only ones to hit the ground, according to him were duds. (I did not know this)

-Vicksburg was a more important victory for the US than Gettysburg.

-Little Round top was not the watershed moment where the Union was saved, as has been portrayed, nor was Gettysburg the "turning point" of the war.

-Grant was neither a drunk nor a butcher.

-The idea of paying slave owners of the south for the freedom of their slaves to compensate them, thereby avoiding the civil war, would not have worked because the slave owners would not have agreed to do that.

-When asked what Lee would have sounded like when he spoke, Gallagher said according to people on record who heard him, he sounded "English".

-When asked what would have happened if the Pickett, Pettigrew, Trimble charge on July 3rd at Gettysburg had succeeded, he said that without Lee sending a backup or second wave charge to follow up and exploit a successful breakthrough at the angle then the battle still would have been lost for the south. He said that Lee did not have the numbers available to accomplish that, so the charge and the battle ended where it did.

Well worth watching and recording for that matter, in my opinion.

Terry

[whitworth]

Nathan Bedford Forrest was never considered high command material by Confederate leadership to even get the opportunity.

Mr Gallagher should do a little more research on percussion artillery, such as the Hotchkiss and the Schenkl. Percussion shells exploded on contact, which is one reason why Pickett's Charge was so unsuccessful. Percussion projectiles, while they suffered a difficult breakin period in 1862, came around as a very effective weapon by mid-1863. Mr. Gallagher needs to research the OR's a little better.

Gettysburg was a turning point by proving to the Army of the Potomac that it could soundly defeat the Army of Northern Virginia in battle. It was the point at which the Union armies technological advantages were rising to the top. From that point, the Confederates would have a far inferior artillery and an inferior cavalry. It proved to Meade and the other generals that the Army of Northern Virginia was having very serious problems sustaining an army in the field, due to logistical shortages.

Yes it proved that removing slavery by war was much more effective than removing them by peace.

The Pickett, Pettigrew and Trimble attack failed at its start. The Confederate army used up most of its long-range artillery ammunition before the attack began. It was one good reason why Lee's retreat was a constant movement back to the Potomac River, rather than one of setting up strong defensive positions in South Mountain.

[ole]

Mr Gallagher should do a little more research on percussion artillery, such as the Hotchkiss and the Schenkl. Percussion shells exploded on contact, which is one reason why Pickett's Charge was so unsuccessful. Percussion projectiles, while they suffered a difficult breakin period in 1862, came around as a very effective weapon by mid-1863. Mr. Gallagher needs to research the OR's a little better.

Whitworth: The Good Doctor's statements on shells were in the context of Antietam. It is true that the shells were intended to explode above advancing troops. I'd be interested in reading the OR citations you mention. If I recall correctly from the OoB for Gettysburg, the Hotchkiss and Schenkl were not present in any significant number (if at all).
Ole

[whitworth]

Percussion fuses were invented for the Schenkl artillery projectile in 1861 and were used before and after Antietam, and throughout the last three years of the war.
Percussion fuses exploded the projectile on contact; time fuses or paper fuses exploded the projectile in the air, so many seconds after firing.

An excellent source of information are the relic sellers who sell various types of Civil War artillery projectiles. By searching Schenkl and percussion on the internet, one can find pictures and descriptions on various shells available for purchase.

There are quite a number of references to Schenkl percussion artillery projectiles in the OR's. The Gettysburg Report of Lieut. George Breck, Battery L, First New York Light Artillery mentioned, ..."the amount of ammunition expended during the three days battle was 1290 rounds, consisting of Schenkl percussion, 523 rounds, Schenkl compound [a combination time fuse and a percussion fuse], 715 rounds; and canister, 52 rounds...."

p364 Series I - Vol 27 (Part I)

I noticed after my post a question came up on a few sites, if percussion fuses existed at all. Yes they did. Relic men today are selling unexploded Schenkl percussion projectiles. Anyone who thinks there were no percussion shells used during the Civil War, is certainly unfamilar with the Schenkl projectile.

I would enjoy to give more citations, but this site does not seem to take the "copy" and "paste."

[william42]

Ole, I thought he was referring to the entire war, too, but I'm not sure now. It did seem like a pretty bold statement, but I thought if anyone would know it would have to be him.

If my DVD recorder had been set correctly I would have it on DVD so I could find that segment and listen to it again, but ...whatever.

Whit, you might email him at that address I put up on the board. He'll get back to you fairly quickly. Maybe he can clarify that better.

Tomh, this topic is right up your alley I think. Have you any thoughts on this? We're talking about Gary Gallagher's statement that all Civil War artillery rounds exploded in air, and none on impact. There seems to be some confusion as to if he was talking about that being the rule for the entire war, or just Antietam Creek.

Terry

[ole]

Terry:
On second thought (I'm not going to watch the 3 hours again just for that), he may well have inferred the entire war. With Whitworth's excellent post on the Shenkl fuse, I'll have to re-evaluate my initial agreement with Dr. Gallagher on that subject.
Ole

[whitworth]

On the home page right below Dispatch Depot is Resource Center.

Click on and to the next page find -Weapons & Ammunition -
The School of Artillery - Click

From there on the next page find Frequently Asked Questions About Artillery.
Click on.

Find -what are the different types of fuses with Artillery Projectiles.

[johan_steele]

Upton specifically mentions difficulties w/ percussion shells; he came up w/ a novel fix. Arty gunners were adept at bouncing round shot through enemy ranks... he ordered his gunners to use percussion shells as round shot w/ the first bounce as the target; if it went off all the better if it didn't it still played merry hell. At one point he gave a similar order for fused shells as all the fuses in his battery were found damaged... effective improvisation.

Gettysburg was a turning point only in that it proved to the AoP that Lee was a far cry from invincible and the ANV could be licked. THough noone was under any illusions that it would be easy.

I'm tempted to agree about Gallaghers opinion of Forrest... he was so exceptional because he exerted such complete control over his command and their movements. he found that niche between micro management and letting the boys do their jobs w/out interference.

Ole, the term "bolt" often refers, IIRC, to the various Schenckl & Hotchkiss percussion shells and there are some pretty impressive stories about the accuracy of those nasties in the hands of experianced gunners.

[larry_cockerham]

[quote=whitworth]Nathan Bedford Forrest was never considered high command material by Confederate leadership to even get the opportunity.

This was essentially true. Forrest was not a general officer aside from the "rank" of major general. In the Confederate Army many officers were simply elected colonel, so folks thought they were colonels because of the bars on their shoulders. Many of those men are buried where they fell in combat. Forrest has the distinction of killing a half dozen or so men who were trying extemely hard to kill him hand-to-hand or sword as the case might have been. Forrest gave up 29 horses that fell in combat or from the injuries received there-in, rode home to Memphis on number 30. He had no business running a war department or giving orders to a fully-manned army corps, though he came close thanks to Hood's need for assistance. Looking for a man to lead a few divisions into battle, Forrest was the choice. He hadn't read Napoleon's book, or probably few others, but he had the God-given sense to perceive that marching into a bunch of yankees armed with cannons or repeating rifles was not smart. He often went around the end, trying to stay in bounds like a good half-back, or let his face glow red and charge straight at some unfortunate foe, pistols blazing. Nathan Forrest was IN the war, not watching from the shade.