Kathy the history sleuth
First Sergeant
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2020
'Robert E. Lee' Review: A Marble Man, But No Pedestal https://www.wsj.com/articles/robert...guelzo-marble-man-but-no-pedestal-11632946621
I guess.'Robert E. Lee' Review: A Marble Man, But No Pedestal https://www.wsj.com/articles/robert...guelzo-marble-man-but-no-pedestal-11632946621
Curious by what criteria you use to define Lee as the "most successful."Lee was the most successful general of the Civil War, despite his mistakes at Malvern Hill and Gettysburg day 3
I agree. I always try to read material that supports the exact opposite position to the one I hold, keeping as open a mind as possible. If I find them unconvincing, I can feel more confident that my position was right all along.Yes, I'll read it. I think that it's important to expose oneself to all sides. To read only what one agrees with is limiting to the same old, same old.
That's the crucial point. Refusing to read a book because you may end up disagreeing with it is a guarantee of remaining in the dark. First off, you're making a decision solely based on some general reputation and blurbs. That's a bad start. I read as much as I can get my hands on in areas that interest me. Case in point: McClellan. I have some pretty entrenched views about him based on a lot of sources and study- but I've actually revised some of those as they relate to his handling of things after Antietam. That's based on some recent work by Steven Stotelmyer and Tom Clemens. If I hadn't read those I'd be missing out.I agree. I always try to read material that supports the exact opposite position to the one I hold, keeping as open a mind as possible. If I find them unconvincing, I can feel more confident that my position was right all along.
As an army commander, it would be battlefield victories, while also taking into account the resources they had to work with. It would also incorporate the judgment of which general gave their country the best chance to win independence (Confederates) or put down the rebellion (Union).Curious by what criteria you use to define Lee as the "most successful."
'Robert E. Lee' Review: A Marble Man, But No Pedestal https://www.wsj.com/articles/robert...guelzo-marble-man-but-no-pedestal-11632946621
Il try sending it againThe article is hidden behind a paywall, but thanks for posting.
I'm not paying to read a Guelzo account of something that's been re-hashed for 150 years, but left on my front step, free of charge, I'll read it.
You talk like Guelzo isn't already well known....trying to make a name for himself as the anti-Lee.
Perhaps that depends on your reason for reading these histories. If you want to learn about the statistics of Gettysburg, then yes--you're probably right. But if you wish for a clearer understanding of why, then you need to be catholic (small "c") in your research.No I have no interest at all. Quite honestly there are a bunch of very interesting folks that participated I would like to see a book on. Lincoln, Grant, Lee have all been done to death.
Now that's a different - and very reasonable - point. I admit to not having read some of the recent Grant biographies. Same goes for Sherman. Even George Thomas is getting there. There's only so much time and so much shelf-room. Meanwhile, somebody like Hooker, who had an outsized role, hasn't been revisited in 70 years. I suspect a lot of it is marketing. It's like the conflict simulation realm. I can slap Gettysburg or Eastern Front on a box cover and get 500 pre-orders in a week.No I have no interest at all. Quite honestly there are a bunch of very interesting folks that participated I would like to see a book on. Lincoln, Grant, Lee have all been done to death.
Until now, I thought he was the anti-Meade.You talk like Guelzo isn't already well known.
The Matteson book is excellent.Perhaps that depends on your reason for reading these histories. If you want to learn about the statistics of Gettysburg, then yes--you're probably right. But if you wish for a clearer understanding of why, then you need to be catholic (small "c") in your research.
Why didn't General Lee get the retirement that @Kathy the history sleuth argues that he deserved? Why did he have to command at Gettysburg when he was ill (secondary question: why was there no one else?). To what degree was he a victim and to what degree was he the author of his own misfortune? Fascinating--and, because we may never know for sure, we need to read the speculations and conclusions of others.
You're right in stating that there are other very interesting people who ought to be studied. A handful of men didn't fight the War on their own: there was a "supporting cast" and some of their activities were instrumental. For example, I'd like to read more about John Channing, a captain, who found himself as senior officer of the 7th Maine--in the midst of battle (surely there's a story there!). I think that you might enjoy A Place Worse Than Hell (John Matteson) which discusses the impact of (and by) Fredeicksburg on 5 non-General individuals.