The Phonyness of Historians

[whitworth]

Historians failed history and the Battle of Gettysburg. Lee made serious errors of judgment, but few if any historian spoke of these. Historians spoke of other's failures, but never asked further questions about Lee.

Historians protected both sides of the argument. They would repeat the story of Stuart failing the army; riding off in a vain glorious attempt to regain stature. Stuart had failed Lee. Stuart had failed as the eyes and ears of the advance into Pennsylvania. And then the story ends.

If Stuart was guilty of all these crimes against the Army of Northern Virginia, why did he remain as commander of the Cavalry? Why would the other generals accept such a general in their command? Other officers were cashiered from command for their actions at Gettysburg. Why not Stuart?
If Stuart had committed all these incompetent actions, why no court of inquiry?
Where were the historians to ask this question?

If Stuart had committed so grevious actions, why did not R. E. Lee act in the best interests of the Confederate army. Why was Stuart allowed to stay by Lee's inaction?
Where were the historians to ask this question?

If Stuart were the eyes and ears of the Confederate advance into Pennsylvania, what of the thousands of dead, wounded, and lost Confederate soldiers. Was not Stuart to blame for these deaths and losses? Why did Lee keep Stuart in command?
Where were the historians to ask this question?

Why then did not General Robert E. Lee not act. Did Lee not fail his command, if Stuart failed his command? How does a great general, in the minds of many, fail his command by not punishing Stuart?
Where were the historians to ask this question?

[ole]

For one thing, Whitworth, it wasn't that long ago that historians didn't have what you have on your desk. Folders and files are still being found warehoused in unlikely locations under wildly misleading labels.

Then, there's the Lost Cause. Not long after the war, Jubal Early started a campaign to exonerate Lee from blame by placing it on Longstreet, Stuart, et al. This movement bloomed into Lost Cause -- the unfairness of the War Against Northern Agression, economic exploitation, and the ultimate nobility of the futile struggle. This didn't begin to die until after the 1930s, and you will recognize that it isn't dead yet.
Ole

[richard]

On the other hand, one must look at the command structure of all the armys of the south. Also, the south had very few "Generals in waiting" so to speak. Look at how many times the same generals were recycled into different commands. Many of them to repeat the mistakes that they had made before. The south just could not replace men who made mistakes with new leaders, they just did not have them and they did not seem to cultivate them from the ranks.

[gary]

Why not punish Stuart? Well, who would you replace him with? It would do no good to punish Stuart or relieve him of command since there was a matter of returning to Virginia and having a good cavalry screen to protect the rearguard. Even after the retreat, it was a time to lick the wounds, rebuild the army and to prepare for the next battle. Stuart was still the best cavalry general Lee had in Virginia. Lest we forget, Lee said, "It's all my fault." I believe Lee tendered his own resignation which was rejected by Jeff Davis.

Finally, I believe that some historians have addressed Stuart's controversial activities during the campaign. Don't ask me to cite which ones because my interest in the war is myopic.

[5fish]

Lee seems to have take full blame for Gettysburg and his entire campaign into the north. If you read his OR's he does not shied anyone but does try to justified his decisions during the battle of Gettysburg. In the end he offers his resign for the outcome at Gettysburg and his health.

From what I know Lee did not cashiered any generals after he return to Virginia unlike after his Seven days Campaign where he did cashiered many officers. It is interesting after the successful Seven campaign he sacks many of his officers and after his failed Gettysburg campaign he sacks none of his officers.

He gave Longstreet, Ewell, Stuart, Heth, Hill and most likely many others a past for their actions at Gettysburg. Lee must have felt the entire operation was his fault and chose not to take it out on his command. he did manage the army much differently in the summer of 1864.


Pondering the past...

[M E Wolf]

Dear 5Fish;

In regard to the cashiering of officers at Five Forks Campaign onwards; I am of the memory; that previously General Lee was not given the position of General of all the Armies until that stage of time. Up to then; any wish to cashier/transfer officers had to go through Richmond. Richmond and Jeff Davis seemingly was the one who decided promotions and or dismissals--but; usually sent those out of favor elsewhere--like western theaters. Being that Davis and Lee were friends; I do believe Davis would humor Lee and Lee knew how to work Davis to get his way.

Another thing I noticed was; if there wasn't a Maryland unit free; a General from Maryland wouldn't be promoted to fill the slot. There would have to be a death at the top for vacancies to be filled.

With Gettysburg, there were plenty of commanding officers that were killed and or so wounded as not to be able to take reins of command for some time; some were prisoner of war until they were healthy enough to be exchanged; e.g. General Jim Kemper. However, it also is a matter of replacing the dead and or indisposed with talented and qualified officers.


But, until Lee was in Grant's power like position; did Lee really have any power to 'shake' things up per se. By that time, it was too late and the Army of the CSA was in terrible shape.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[5fish]

I agree with Whitworth in some sense that Historians feed off each other, which leads to misinformation for all. In the different schools in academia they develop these paradigms that takes years to change because these scholars have a vested interest in the paradigm. If the paradigm is shown to be false or inaccurate the scholars with the vested interest lose everything they work for.

I question much of civil war history because its always seems to be cover in myths...or it just does not sense to me. That why I ask lots of questions of this board...


Off pondering more questions....

[M E Wolf]

Dear 5Fish;

In my grade through high-school "History" class days; the fact is--that the Civil War was a fleeting issue; perhaps being in a Virginia school system; the loss of the Southern cause and or being Virginian was an embarrassment. Revolutionary War and everything else seemed to be more the focus. I can understand why the 'Virginia School System;' of the 60s and early 70's wanted to white wash history to put Southern pride into things--this was worse in schools in Richmond, Virginia; while I was in Northern Virginia--it seems that Northern Virginia was treated more 'Northern' than Southern.

What I personally feel about this--being an adult now; not graded for memory work of history; how well I drew maps of Virginia; is that I had been cheated out of fair view of history. Big battles and big names were all that was offered. I do realize time was an issue to which dwelling on just the Civil War would be as wrong as to skirt around it. But, even in the history books; its pro-Southern and not balanced. The writers of "Virginia History Books" have been just as much to blame for bias views on the Civil War; and I see this as well as in 'historians' who champion a certain person(s), side, battle and so on...

I feel that these myths have gone on and on; its difficult to part company with myth from fact; as its come to being entrenched as if it was fact.

There had been a staged photograph at Little Round Top; to which was studied for over 100 years and until there was an entry in a personal diary of an individual who participated as posing for photographs for a camera man--did this false photograph come to light; as being staged and not actual in the moment photographs like Lewis and Brady. Because there are individuals that may hold precious clues to support or unmask the truth; and just rot in private collections and handed down the family; the pages of clues will not be open for all to see and digest.

It would be wonderful to have every soldier's personal diary during the Civil War; even then--we would have personal opinion, observation and personality conflicts and or personality favorites.

But, in reading accounts of history by 'historians'--it is written how that person sees it in their own mind. Thus, makes it slanted before anything else can be said, as I highly doubt if current historians can do no better than we; it is just that they have published their studies, whereas others read what others have to say.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[Karen Lips]

M E Wolf,

I think you bring out some very good points in your post. Karen Lips

[ole]

Implicit in the title of this thread is that historians are phony. What me miss is that historians interpret. Interpretation gets into the foggy regions. If one man looks at a speech and offers his interpretation of it, and another man looks at the same speech and offers another interpretation of it, which is right?

That's the point at which we must abandon our personal leaning and decide. Usually, we'll lean toward the guy that leans a bit closer to our own leaning.

Facts are facts. If this guy said that, and there's a record, it's a fact. But what did the guy mean? That's an interpretation. It more or less works when we recognize that.

ole