Chamberlain The real victory of LRT

Please feel free to visit the Forrest forum, where we try to make people welcome and encourage polite discussion. To address your question about why there's a Chamberlain forum.

I wasn't referring to the forum, really, but in general. Nonetheless, thank you, I will have a look at the forum.
You are putting ' the act ' up for debate, somehow also measuring ' the act ' against every, single other aspect of Chamberlain's war record. Like that's all there was- could have been enough. There was more- familiarize yourself. Chamberlain was chosen by Grant to accept the surrender at Appomattox for a reason. Your question on ' the act ' it has been answered. If it was not to your satisfaction well, can't do a thing about that.

In the whole Spears V Chamberlain debacle post war Chamberlain never bothered defending himself- did you do your homework? He kept an eye on his old regiment to the point of helping financially, did not slam Spears - Spears had an awesome war record and was one of them. All the poetic rambling Chamberlain does was real to him- idealizing men and principals, backing each other up, brotherhood of war, the whole 9 yards. Spears dissolves into bitterness, no idea why. Like I said, he was an incredible soldier. A few times Spears goes overboard and strays into genuine falsehoods with his accusations. That is why I believe Chamberlain.

And how in blazes is it to be laid at Chamberlain's door if someone wrote a book based on the 20th Maine over 100 years later?

I'm going to ignore the fact that you're insulting me and asking if I 'did my homework' (this is the second time, I believe), but I'm going to ask that you cut down on that, please. My aim isn't to start an argument, but to have an actual debate. Again, you're still missing the point. I've said a good five or six times now that whether or not his involvement in the charge occurred, that it means nothing. Why? Well, if he wasn't sure whether or not he ordered the charge, and yet is still regarded as a hero, then clearly there wasn't much concern whether or not he actually did order it. I'm aware he didn't just do the charge, but really, if we're going to be honest here, he's not famous for his actions in other parts of the war. Not by a long shot. The question regarding believing Spears or Chamberlain was entirely rhetorical; but my point is that you can't look at it from just the one viewpoint, need to at least take into account some of the things said by Spear (which reminds me, small correction, there's no 's' in Spear) and Melcher.

But again, I will reiterate, that isn't my point. It's that Chamberlain has an absolutely overwhelming amount of fame for his actions, rather than some others. Here's an example, which I said something similar to earlier, if you were to ask someone about Chamberlain, and then ask them about Samuel Cooper, who, and I will put emphasis on this, was the highest ranking Confederate general (until the appointment of Lee as General-in-Chief), you would get more answers about Chamberlain, in what would likely be a large margin. Now, I'm plenty aware that Cooper did not do anything notable, but reread what I had placed in bold there.

I don't understand why the lot of you continue to disregard what I've been saying, and instead take out bits and pieces to poke and prod at; you're missing the point entirely, and so I've had to repeat myself a good six or so times.
 
I wasn't referring to the forum, really, but in general. Nonetheless, thank you, I will have a look at the forum.


I'm going to ignore the fact that you're insulting me and asking if I 'did my homework' (this is the second time, I believe), but I'm going to ask that you cut down on that, please. My aim isn't to start an argument, but to have an actual debate. Again, you're still missing the point. I've said a good five or six times now that whether or not his involvement in the charge occurred, that it means nothing. Why? Well, if he wasn't sure whether or not he ordered the charge, and yet is still regarded as a hero, then clearly there wasn't much concern whether or not he actually did order it. I'm aware he didn't just do the charge, but really, if we're going to be honest here, he's not famous for his actions in other parts of the war. Not by a long shot. The question regarding believing Spears or Chamberlain was entirely rhetorical; but my point is that you can't look at it from just the one viewpoint, need to at least take into account some of the things said by Spear (which reminds me, small correction, there's no 's' in Spear) and Melcher.

But again, I will reiterate, that isn't my point. It's that Chamberlain has an absolutely overwhelming amount of fame for his actions, rather than some others. Here's an example, which I said something similar to earlier, if you were to ask someone about Chamberlain, and then ask them about Samuel Cooper, who, and I will put emphasis on this, was the highest ranking Confederate general (until the appointment of Lee as General-in-Chief), you would get more answers about Chamberlain, in what would likely be a large margin. Now, I'm plenty aware that Cooper did not do anything notable, but reread what I had placed in bold there.

I don't understand why the lot of you continue to disregard what I've been saying, and instead take out bits and pieces to poke and prod at; you're missing the point entirely, and so I've had to repeat myself a good six or so times.
Yes you need to look at all view points, but you also need to determine what ones are reliable. Spear has been shown to not be reliable because he drastically altered what he said. Early Spear writing and speaches not only collaborate what Chamberlain said, but also over romanticize it. Something Spear would later acuuse Chamberlain of.

Again, your criteria for fame is apparently how high ranking a person is, and as you point out popular opion disagrees with you. You have my sympathy, if you want to educate people on who Samuel Cooper is start a forum, write a book, maybe Hollywood will take notice, before you know it everyone will know who he is.
 
Last edited:
By the way this is a typical conversation I have, they all go pretty much word for word just like this:

Them: "What's your website about?"
Me: "A Civil War general."
Them: "You're not going to tell me what one?"
Me: "I figured you haven't heard of him."
Them: "Oh well try me."
Me: "okay, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain."
Them: "yeah never heard of him."
Me: "have you ever seen the movie Gettysburg?"
Them: "no."
 
Yes you need to look at all view points, but you also need to determine what ones are reliable. Spear has been shown to not be reliable because he drastically altered what he said. Early Spear writing and speaches not only collaborate what Chamberlain said, but also over romanticize it. Something Spear would later acuuse Chamberlain of.

Again, your criteria for fame is apparently how high ranking a person is, and as you point out popular opion disagrees with you. You have my sympathy, if you want to educate people on who Samuel Cooper is start a forum, write a book, maybe Hollywood will take notice, before you know it everyone will know who he is.

I agree there, Spear isn't reliable, but it's still something to note. I don't know what you mean by ranking, I just mean fame in general, but I can accept the fact that most would disagree with me, though I have to point out the fact that's what I mean; popular opinion looks upon him very highly. With regards to Cooper, while I'd be happy to try it, I don't know enough about Cooper, likely someone on this site does know quite a bit about him. I'm simply using him as an example, as he's a pretty effective one.

Me: "have you ever seen the movie Gettysburg?"
Them: "no."

Do they say where they heard of him from, then? Can't lie, I'm quite interested.
 
Chamberlain has gone out of style with the lost cause. In fact if you google lost cause images you will find the surrender ceremony. We held on to that myth well into the 1990s and I think it comes through at bit in the Killer Angels. It was all part of our evolving historical schools of thought. Frankly I think the African American side of the story has been overlooked for far too long. So I really wouldn't shed a tear if I found teachers were not mentioning Chamberlain at all, giving up Killer Angles in place of Twelve Years A Slave or some other such book.
I just hope they offer their kids the story of someone with disabilities, maybe watch Kings Speech or something.
 
I wasn't referring to the forum, really, but in general. Nonetheless, thank you, I will have a look at the forum.


I'm going to ignore the fact that you're insulting me and asking if I 'did my homework' (this is the second time, I believe), but I'm going to ask that you cut down on that, please. My aim isn't to start an argument, but to have an actual debate. Again, you're still missing the point. I've said a good five or six times now that whether or not his involvement in the charge occurred, that it means nothing. Why? Well, if he wasn't sure whether or not he ordered the charge, and yet is still regarded as a hero, then clearly there wasn't much concern whether or not he actually did order it. I'm aware he didn't just do the charge, but really, if we're going to be honest here, he's not famous for his actions in other parts of the war. Not by a long shot. The question regarding believing Spears or Chamberlain was entirely rhetorical; but my point is that you can't look at it from just the one viewpoint, need to at least take into account some of the things said by Spear (which reminds me, small correction, there's no 's' in Spear) and Melcher.

But again, I will reiterate, that isn't my point. It's that Chamberlain has an absolutely overwhelming amount of fame for his actions, rather than some others. Here's an example, which I said something similar to earlier, if you were to ask someone about Chamberlain, and then ask them about Samuel Cooper, who, and I will put emphasis on this, was the highest ranking Confederate general (until the appointment of Lee as General-in-Chief), you would get more answers about Chamberlain, in what would likely be a large margin. Now, I'm plenty aware that Cooper did not do anything notable, but reread what I had placed in bold there.


I don't understand why the lot of you continue to disregard what I've been saying, and instead take out bits and pieces to poke and prod at; you're missing the point entirely, and so I've had to repeat myself a good six or so times.


I do not mean to insult you. If you did do the right research, or homework you would not be refuting Chamberlain' actions that day. Anyone can begin with a theory i.e. " Joshua Chamberlain was a big jerk that day on LRT ", go find someone to agree with them, post this opinion as evidence. This could go back and forth forever and ever- since Suzentale has already provided what you're refuting it is pointless hauling it out again. You do seem to be honestly frustrated. If you would just re-read her previous posts which perhaps you skimmed answers would be there- I see no one missing any points or not answering you. It seems your frustration is arising from no one agreeing with you, not from anyone missing your point.

I'm sorry you have had to repeat yourself a good six or seven times. Women, huh?
 
I do not mean to insult you. If you did do the right research, or homework you would not be refuting Chamberlain' actions that day. Anyone can begin with a theory i.e. " Joshua Chamberlain was a big jerk that day on LRT ", go find someone to agree with them, post this opinion as evidence. This could go back and forth forever and ever- since Suzentale has already provided what you're refuting it is pointless hauling it out again. You do seem to be honestly frustrated. If you would just re-read her previous posts which perhaps you skimmed answers would be there- I see no one missing any points or not answering you. It seems your frustration is arising from no one agreeing with you, not from anyone missing your point.

I'm sorry you have had to repeat yourself a good six or seven times. Women, huh?

It isn't a matter of doing the right research, because the whole point is that it's up for debate; but again, gotta look at it from all perspectives and angles. Also, you're very nearly forgetting what I was trying to get across at this very instant; I'm not talking about the charge, nor have I been talking about the charge, I only dwelled on it as a point, yet it keeps being brought back into the discussion. You might notice the charge being addressed back and forth, but only because I've been responding what I see back. Meanwhile, I continually weaved in my real point, that Chamberlain simply has (sorry, not going to sugarcoat it) an undeserving amount of fame for his actions.

Well, I wouldn't have had to if they had listened the first time. Men, huh? :biggrin:

In rereading I just caught this, and I really do beg to differ. Exibit A, a nice lady trying to have a non Chamberlain related talk in a video recently posted here. http://civilwartalk.com/threads/vid...s-coverage-of-appomattox.119887/#post-1242714

You could take individual cases as exhibits, but I could probably do the same, it doesn't really affect the argument as a whole, because A) Most of the people on this site know more information regarding Chamberlain past the charge, and B) It's pretty much the solid reason for his fame (there is Appomattox, but then it becomes a matter of Gettysburg v. Appomattox, and I have yet to see an awarding-winning and publicly famous book titled The Killer Courthouse, which prominently features Chamberlain in Appomattox, so there's the comparison there).

I guess it is a bit silly that I got all snarky over him editing his post to say he remembered who Forrest was after all,

Just caught this, not a big deal, just wanted to point out the fact I simply don't consider myself to know much of anything about Forrest simply because of the Fort Pillow Massacre. Do I know who he is? Sure, he was a Confederate cavalry commander. But do I know who he is? No. I mean, if you wanted to, you could parallel this to what I was saying about Chamberlain, and how the general public only knows about Chamberlain and the charge, much like Forrest and Fort Pillow (or for that matter, any notable event at all, in this war or anything similar; it's just how it works. Doesn't mean I can't argue against it though :D).
 
Last edited:
It isn't a matter of doing the right research, because the whole point is that it's up for debate; but again, gotta look at it from all perspectives and angles. Also, you're very nearly forgetting what I was trying to get across at this very instant; I'm not talking about the charge, nor have I been talking about the charge, I only dwelled on it as a point, yet it keeps being brought back into the discussion. You might notice the charge being addressed back and forth, but only because I've been responding what I see back. Meanwhile, I continually weaved in my real point, that Chamberlain simply has (sorry, not going to sugarcoat it) an undeserving amount of fame for his actions.

Well, I wouldn't have had to if they had listened the first time. Men, huh? :biggrin:



You could take individual cases as exhibits, but I could probably do the same, it doesn't really affect the argument as a whole, because A) Most of the people know information regarding Chamberlain past the charge, and B) It's pretty much recognized as the solid reason for his fame (there is Appomattox, but then it becomes a matter of Gettysburg v. Appomattox, and I have yet to see an awarding-winning and publicly famous book titled The Killer Courthouse, which prominently features Chamberlain in Appomattox, so there's the comparison there).
If he was so undeserving as you say, then why did Grant give him the honor of accepting the surrender of the Confederate forces.
 
If he was so undeserving as you say, then why did Grant give him the honor of accepting the surrender of the Confederate forces.

You're not looking into what I had said earlier; does he deserve an extent of the fame he's received for his actions? Of course. But has he received a bit much for what he did? Pretty much. Also, even though Grant gave him the honor, I could still say he's undeserving of receiving said honor. That logic only works if I said that Chamberlain wasn't famous, which I did not.
 
You're not looking into what I had said earlier; does he deserve an extent of the fame he's received for his actions? Of course. But has he received a bit much for what he did? Pretty much. Also, even though Grant gave him the honor, I could still say he's undeserving of receiving said honor. That logic only works if I said that Chamberlain wasn't famous, which I did not.
My cousin and her husband are both retired educators and are what they call themselves "summer Mainers" as they have had a summer home there for over 40 years.according to them Chamberlain is the biggest hero of any person from the state and it has been that way long before "Killer Angels" was published.he may have not been known elsewhere but up there he has god status.
 
I do not mean to insult you. If you did do the right research, or homework you would not be refuting Chamberlain' actions that day. Anyone can begin with a theory i.e. " Joshua Chamberlain was a big jerk that day on LRT ", go find someone to agree with them, post this opinion as evidence. This could go back and forth forever and ever- since Suzentale has already provided what you're refuting it is pointless hauling it out again. You do seem to be honestly frustrated. If you would just re-read her previous posts which perhaps you skimmed answers would be there- I see no one missing any points or not answering you. It seems your frustration is arising from no one agreeing with you, not from anyone missing your point.

I'm sorry you have had to repeat yourself a good six or seven times. Women, huh?


Wasn't talking about the charge either. I do see several spots where you brought it up.

The extent of fame deserved seems to be sticking in your throat. That is entirely, 100% subjective and what was bugging poor Spears. Instead of enjoying an honorable retirement he drove himself insane claiming the same thing- hence brought more attention to the person he was trying to have dethroned. All those years later again- and this has been stated before- please show us where it is to be laid a Chamberlain's door Shaara chose LRT's stand from which to tell the story of Gettysburg?

I agree with Suzentale, who provided a super, sociological portrait on Shaara's landscape- she states ' Killer Angels ' should not be used and more emphasis placed on our black American story in schools.

You're not looking into what I had said earlier; does he deserve an extent of the fame he's received for his actions? Of course. But has he received a bit much for what he did? Pretty much. Also, even though Grant gave him the honor, I could still say he's undeserving of receiving said honor. That logic only works if I said that Chamberlain wasn't famous, which I did not.


Then you are giving us your opinion. That's fine. Opinion is subjective- generally something not quantifiable. You say he was not deserving of that honor. Subjective. Given that this was 150 years ago and Grant was the leader who chose him to accept the surrender it isn't really any of us you should be arguing with but Grant. We really can't do anything about it.
 
In its “Celebrity Corner” section, the website of the Stuttering Foundation, stutteringhelp.org, has a biographical profile on Chamberlain titled “General Battled Stuttering.” The article states the phenomenon how some people who stutter are able to speak foreign languages fluently. While at Bowdoin, Chamberlain mastered nine languages besides English: French, Spanish, German, Italian, Arabic, Syriac, Latin, Greek and Hebrew.

Stuttering is a great hurdle which he did overcome. He should be celebrated for his efforts.
 
I just came across this opionion piece and I think this person is spot on. I know historians don't get it, I know they look at Little Round Top and say, well this was a little insignificant victory. But they are completly missing the point. The victory was that no one expected much out of him because he suttered, but he proved them wrong, not only by becoming a respected and influentail figure, but by becoming a beloved public speaker. And it is that victory that is inspiring.

"...What is amazing is that Chamberlain was a person who stuttered. In his youth, his father wanted him to follow in the family tradition of the military while his mother wanted him to be a minister; he knew these professions would face stumbling blocks because of his speech.​

In its “Celebrity Corner” section, the website of the Stuttering Foundation, stutteringhelp.org, has a biographical profile on Chamberlain titled “General Battled Stuttering.” The article states the phenomenon how some people who stutter are able to speak foreign languages fluently. While at Bowdoin, Chamberlain mastered nine languages besides English: French, Spanish, German, Italian, Arabic, Syriac, Latin, Greek and Hebrew.​

I think there should be extra consideration given to Chamberlain in this selection process for all he overcame in his life to distinguish himself as a Maine resident in many ways."​

https://bangordailynews.com/2015/12...more-parks-honor-chamberlain/?ref=moreInstate
Did not know this about Chamberlain. Thanks so much for linking the Stuttering Foundation website.
 
I think Col. Chamberlain deserves all the accolades he can get, not only for Gettysburg, but for ALL of his accomplishments.

Given the availability of information on him, it's not surprising that more is known about him than Col. Colville of the 1st Minnesota or Lt. Col. McGilvery's artillery work.
The 1st Minnesota.... <<goosebumps and tears>>
Cannot even think of them without shivers of awe and gratitude!
 
My cousin and her husband are both retired educators and are what they call themselves "summer Mainers" as they have had a summer home there for over 40 years.according to them Chamberlain is the biggest hero of any person from the state and it has been that way long before "Killer Angels" was published.he may have not been known elsewhere but up there he has god status.

That I can believe, to an extent; but of course, Maine =/= the US. Obviously the fact he was born in Maine, lead a Maine regiment, and was the Governor of Maine for three terms had something to do with it.

The extent of fame deserved seems to be sticking in your throat. That is entirely, 100% subjective and what was bugging poor Spears.

Then you are giving us your opinion. That's fine. Opinion is subjective- generally something not quantifiable. You say he was not deserving of that honor. Subjective. Given that this was 150 years ago and Grant was the leader who chose him to accept the surrender it isn't really any of us you should be arguing with but Grant. We really can't do anything about it.

Opinions are subjective, yes, but when used in the form of an argument in opposition of another opinion, it can become a debate. I'm not trying to continually give out my opinion, which again is subjective, but I'm trying to acquire a rebuttal from the opposition as to why such is the case, and whether all of his fame is justified. I have already mentioned reasons for my argument as to why it is not justified, but have not received any in return, only snippets here and there, usually about the charge or how that is subjective (as seen) instead. That's what I mean when I say you're missing the point.
 
That I can believe, to an extent; but of course, Maine =/= the US. Obviously the fact he was born in Maine, lead a Maine regiment, and was the Governor of Maine for three terms had something to do with it.



Opinions are subjective, yes, but when used in the form of an argument in opposition of another opinion, it can become a debate. I'm not trying to continually give out my opinion, which again is subjective, but I'm trying to acquire a rebuttal from the opposition as to why such is the case, and whether all of his fame is justified. I have already mentioned reasons for my argument as to why it is not justified, but have not received any in return, only snippets here and there, usually about the charge or how that is subjective (as seen) instead. That's what I mean when I say you're missing the point.
It completely depends on what group of people who like him you have a problem with. We only looked at people who stutter this far. As to people who happened to have seen the movie Gettysburg, then I would say it was down to chance that Michael Shaara happened to pick up a book on the little known Chamberlain, that someone happened to like Shaara's book enough to make it a movie. And that even though the movie didn't do well, it happened to be shown in history classes in the 1990s creating a generation of people who know who Chamberlain is.
 
Back
Top