D. H. Hill

[JerryD]

For the presentation of the case, which has been available on the internet since 2012, see Special Order 191: Ruse of War (AMZ Publishing Co., Revised Edition 2024).

Well,,,, if its on the internet it MUST be true, right? LOL...sorry, but this whole idea is so crazy that I just dont think its worth my time to dispute it.

 

[JerryD]

False. And all available evidence indicates your assertion is also false.

LOL... um, one crackpot video is not "all available evidence". You can believe crackpot theories if you want, but this is nothing but someone's warped idea of what might have happened with zero evidence to support it.

 

[Jamieva]

That's some random youtube guy. Alex rossino has done immense research on the campaign and the special orders and he has never ever suggested lee planted them.

That youtube guy gives that thomas tucker author a run for his money

 

[Piedone]

For the presentation of the case, which has been available on the internet since 2012, see Special Order 191: Ruse of War (AMZ Publishing Co., Revised Edition 2024).

I read it - it's highly interesting stuff and extremely accurately scrutinizing all available evidence!

You maybe better should have presented this source instead of the video - that I found somehow dubious.

I'd suggest everybody being interested should read the above article on miltaryhistoryonline.com -
it is a pleasant read and gives you a lot to think - i
t especially may give you a bit of new perspective on Lee (which I found quite refreshing)

 

[RevJohnRoss]

I read it - it's highly interesting stuff and extremely accurately scrutinizing all available evidence!

You maybe better should have presented this source instead of the video - that I found somehow dubious.

I'd suggest everybody being interested should read the above article on miltaryhistoryonline.com -
it is a pleasant read and gives you a lot to think - i
t especially may give you a bit of new perspective on Lee (which I found quite refreshing)

Hmmm. "somehow dubious?" The case study "refreshing," but the video "dubious." Yet the one mirrors the other. The subject is for serious students, not butterflies. It requires serious thinking, beyond the interest of day trippers.

 

[52ndFandS]

Hill was probably justified in his criticism of Bragg.Hill's career was wrecked because Davis chose to stand with Bragg over the other generals.Oh, he got along with Stonewall Jackson more than likely because they were brothers-in-law.

I agree. Dislike of Bragg, policy or man, seems no vice.

 

[Piedone]

Hmmm. "somehow dubious?" The case study "refreshing," but the video "dubious." Yet the one mirrors the other. The subject is for serious students, not butterflies. It requires serious thinking, beyond the interest of day trippers.

Indeed.

Regarding the video: it leaves out much of the evidence and gives barely sources and as it is unclear who exactly was the producer much doubt is produced about it's credibilty - single remarks insinuating a conspiration of a "clique of historians" are also not improving matters…

The article is a much different kettle of fish.

 

[RevJohnRoss]

Indeed.

Regarding the video: it leaves out much of the evidence and gives barely sources and as it is unclear who exactly was the producer much doubt is produced about it's credibilty - single remarks insinuating a conspiration of a "clique of historians" are also not improving matters…

The article is a much different kettle of fish.

It is one thing to write a book, another to write text on slides for a video. Both are the product of the same author, making the same point: the rule of repetition. The "cliques" of "historians" exist: We have the folks living about the battlefield who make their living as tour guides. We have the rangers of the Park Service who manage the place. Some have written very good books, but some have not, and the Service itself has an approved narrative. Then we have the "Academics:" for example the Gettysburg College cell, Carmichicael, Guelzzo; then McPherson, now in a home. Gallagher and his entourage. They all have a vested interest in the existing narrative, and the alternative has yet to be tried to a verdict.

 

[Stryker65]

Not sure if it's been mentioned here yet, but the fact that President Davis personally brought Hill out of "awaiting orders" purgatory, made him a lieutenant general, and sent him off to supersede a half dozen other deserving division commanders in Bragg's army definitely says something about Davis's confidence in him. While that confidence may not have been as great as Davis's confidence in Bragg, it's definitely something.

 

[rpkennedy]

Not sure if it's been mentioned here yet, but the fact that President Davis personally brought Hill out of "awaiting orders" purgatory, made him a lieutenant general, and sent him off to supersede a half dozen other deserving division commanders in Bragg's army definitely says something about Davis's confidence in him. While that confidence may not have been as great as Davis's confidence in Bragg, it's definitely something.

To be fair, very few doubted Hill's competence. It was his personality that got him in trouble. And in a war with some acerbic personalities, that's saying something.

Ryan

 

[gjpratt]

I think I have posted this before, but Hill's diary from his service during the Mexican War is a fascinating read. Spoiler: his personality traits were not any different.

 

[M. Smith]

Funny story about Hill, he actually almost got into a duel with Robert Toombs after the battle of Malvern Hill. Hill accused Toombs of not putting his brigade in action enough during the battle, which led to an argument between the two. Eventually, Toombs possibly challenged Hill to a duel but Hill said that he would neither fight or apologize.

 

[Bruce Vail]

Funny story about Hill, he actually almost got into a duel with Robert Toombs after the battle of Malvern Hill. Hill accused Toombs of not putting his brigade in action enough during the battle, which led to an argument between the two. Eventually, Toombs possibly challenged Hill to a duel but Hill said that he would neither fight or apologize.

Yes, and there is no question that Toombs challenged Hill to a duel. Toombs was famously a loudmouth and Hill was always quick to defend himself from criticism from other officers, so the incident was the talk of Richmond society for a short time.

 

[M. Smith]

Yes, and there is no question that Toombs challenged Hill to a duel. Toombs was famously a loudmouth and Hill was always quick to defend himself from criticism from other officers, so the incident was the talk of Richmond society for a short time.

I didn't know that it was confirmed that Toombs challenged Hill to a duel, for some reason the NPS describes it as possibly happening.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I didn't know that it was confirmed that Toombs challenged Hill to a duel, for some reason the NPS describes it as possibly happening.

Maybe I was too quick to react to your post. I went back to Hal Bridge's 1961 bio of Hill and he says the challenge was not delivered in person, but in an exchange of hostile letters between the two men. Toombs never wrote "I challenge you..." directly, but the implication was unmistakable.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

Hill was probably justified in his criticism of Bragg.Hill's career was wrecked because Davis chose to stand with Bragg over the other generals.Oh, he got along with Stonewall Jackson more than likely because they were brothers-in-law.

Yes, and any of his contemporaries who also criticized Bragg were also justified.