Looking for help here.

[diddyriddick]

Good Morning all,

I've frequently seen the following as Confederate "villains" at Gettysburg. What I'm wondering is...Can anybody help me out with objective sources to confirm or deny the failures there?

1. Ewell for failing to vigorously attacking Culps/Cemetary Hills on the 2nd day. I am currently reading Pfanz on this account.

2. Longstreet for being late and not prosecuting fully his assaults on days 2 and 3.

3. Stuart for being out of contact til it was way to late to matter.

Maybe this is just my perception, but it seems to me the critics are long on innuendo, and short on historically verifiable detail. I know that Jubal Early was particularly prominent in deifying Lee at the expense of Ewell/Longstreet/Stuart.

Any help here?

[Epaphroditus]

Gary W. Gallagher has published a number of books -- usually collections of essays by a variety of thinkers on these types of topics. Quite thought provoking and well worth reading. Forget the exact titles, but he has at least one volume focusing on each day of the battle.

I would also recommend These Honored Dead: How the Story of Gettyburg Shaped American Memory, by Thomas A. Desjardin. This book is more philosophical in tone, but will also get you thinking about how "history" is shaped and reshaped over time.

And Pfanz, of course, will always give you a clear reading of events, without any intended bias.

Hope these suggestions are helpful to you in your quest to make sense of this most difficult battle!

[OpnDownfall]

I would recommend this Board, in fact, I would recommend this very Gettysburg thread. Just go back a few mo's and see what was posted.
You will find there were no villains (as in vile or wicked) merely men trying to do the best they can, under trying circumstances.
Epaphroditus left off a prominent name of those who did less than expected; Rob't E. Lee.

[M E Wolf]

Dear DaddyRiddick,

I have personally bought the complete CD Rom of the "Official Records of the Rebellion" with Confederate History, Confederate Military History, Generals speak, Gen. Gordon, Early, Stuart, Longstreet and Lee's son's publishing Lee's correspondences.

Reading official dispatches, special orders, orders between Generals, Headquarters and the like --I find it is uncluttered with 'historian's' personal opinions and the like -- I can come to my own conclusions then.

Looking at battle maps created by both sides--one can appreciate the strategy of both sides. Sometimes, topography settles how a battle is to be fought, the same with engineering -- everything is under consideration for me.

Now, in addition in buying the CD-ROM; I also bought Civil War manuals, regulations as to 'appreciate' the rules of how the army was run; from the uniform, salutations, calculation formulas of marching for a short while to a long march; the details within; to include camp structures, pickets, etc.
It also helps understand the language within official reports. For example, the Commanding Officers were to keep a journal. The journal entries were to be made from the bottom of the page and upwards to the top== recent report on top--who knew? I would have thought as a regular writer top to bottom of the page. This would put reports in a different order. Though the dates would be still important.

I also agree that the many posts on focus just on Gettysburg is interesting. I am not an expert--nor, do I feel that I am not intelligent enough to draw to my own conclusions based on historical records. But, I am finding--there are things in the official record which can throw off a whole pre-conceived idea/assumption/judgment of what has been written through the years of those who never participated in the Civil War themselves. Thus, my love of 'records.' They are void of arm chair 'generalship.'

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[M E Wolf]

Dear OpnDownfall,

I have found Gettysburg questions and answers in other forums, not just Gettysburg--here.

Sometimes really good exchanges are in the Book/Movie Review tent --

That said, this particular forum dedicated to Gettysburg is wonderful!

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[ole]

Gary W. Gallagher has published a number of books -- usually collections of essays by a variety of thinkers on these types of topics. Quite thought provoking and well worth reading. Forget the exact titles, but he has at least one volume focusing on each day of the battle.

Very much agree, Epaphroditus (we really must come up with an easier nickname for you), Gallagher's collected essays on Gettysburg; Day One, Two and Three, are worth having if the battle is what one is studying. I appreciate reading an assembly of short writings of several historians on the same subject -- kind of keeps them honest and on track.

Gettysburg has been so exhaustively covered that any prospective writer looks for something to make his book different. I prefer to stay with the "names" (and not all of them are above proposing a possible theory as the book's subject). Without raining on ME's appreciation of the ORs, many of the "names" have also cross-checked and verified ORs against personal correspondence and diaries and memoirs; i.e., other documents.

I am unaware of a board with a better forum on Gettysburg. Unfortunately, there are so many long threads in just this forum that it would take quite a while to catch up. Be prepared with a place to put all the book recommendations and links, and to save posts that you want to explore more fully. Sorry about you missing your summer.

ole