Judgement

[John Winn]

William Dunning spent years at Columbia University back in the good old days of genuine academic freedom, can't see the leftist dogmatists allowing that today.

Well, I'm sticking my neck out now but I'll say I think Dunning was right about quite a bit. He was racist, but so were many in his day. It's his racial biases that have discredited his work today and I do think he failed to paint an accurate picture of the degree to which freed blacks stepped up to the plate and were able to take active roles in government. That, though, doesn't mean he was wrong about everything. I'll admit I've not read any of his works other than his famous one on reconstruction but I know he was one of the prominent CW era historians of his time.

 

[Elennsar]

Looking at Dunning's portrayal of Reconstruction:

Presenting Reconstruction as brutal and (especially) corrupt flounders on more than just his racism. Its problems go well beyond issues of interpretation into pushing an agenda.

It's a splendid illustration of how the white non"scalawag" South justified itself and saw itself, its a very poor description of the Republican party and its supporters.

 

[1950lemans]

I do think Freeman has sort of been shoved in the corner because he's considered a "Lee worshiper." Problem, to me, is that he used some darned good scholarship in -- for example -- Lee's Lieutenants. His footnotes, as I've said before, are as good as the book itself. We might quibble with some of his characterizations, but he did a great job of writing.

I think Clifford Dowdey (Lee's Last Campaign, etc.) is a direct historical descendant of Freeman. He did a lot of writing in the late 50s-early 60s. I didn't finish his book but thought it was strange. I'm no expert on Lee but later on, from an historian I can't remember, he said Dowdey couldn't see anything wrong with Lee. It was everyone else's fault!

 

[Nathanb1]

I think Clifford Dowdey (Lee's Last Campaign, etc.) is a direct historical descendant of Freeman. He did a lot of writing in the late 50s-early 60s. I didn't finish his book but thought it was strange. I'm no expert on Lee but later on, from an historian I can't remember, he said Dowdey couldn't see anything wrong with Lee. It was everyone else's fault!

I believe you're right....and I am not as much of a fan of Freeman's biography of Lee as I am the other book I mentioned. It's just so encyclopedic. You really get a sense of who these guys were.

 

[Elennsar]

And Freeman really gives a sense of Lee's problems with finding good officers - anyone can tell you that the ANV suffered heavily in casualties at Antietam and Chancellorsville, but Freeman is one of the few who go into depth about Lee trying to do something to ensure brigades and divisions were properly lead.

It's really remarkable how short on qualified men Lee is by the middle of 1863. Without passing any judgment on those given promotions, the pool is drying up by Gettysburg.

 

[Nathanb1]

And Freeman really gives a sense of Lee's problems with finding good officers - anyone can tell you that the ANV suffered heavily in casualties at Antietam and Chancellorsville, but Freeman is one of the few who go into depth about Lee trying to do something to ensure brigades and divisions were properly lead.

It's really remarkable how short on qualified men Lee is by the middle of 1863. Without passing any judgment on those given promotions, the pool is drying up by Gettysburg.

Yes, he does. That was exactly what struck me.....how at first, there were some good people moving up. Later, there are fewer and fewer that have any business leading brigades and divisions. What to do? That is the real quandary for Lee. Running out of good military leaders. It was never a good situation--and it became much, much worse.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

*Sigh* This is where I'd been intending to have some kind of shot at the thread but your discussion beats the stuffing out of anything I had to say plus now it's wildly distracting. Unsurprisingly have a question.

Given the glaringly obvious, probably a little scary shortage of top officers for Lee, was it just not possible for him to order them not to lead troops- I mean by that to LEAD, lead them- lead charges. Or- was this kind of really needed as the ' thing ' which drove the men to achieve some of those crazy successes? Barksdale comes to mind as far as leading troops, boy, the guy was literally chomping at the bit to be let GO- stream across the battlefield, get into the heart of things. An irreplaceable leader, though, seems inevitable he'd have been killed?

 

[unionblue]

"It is history that teaches us to hope." -- Robert E. Lee.

As we are human beings, it is within us to learn, to study, and to judge if we have learned anything of value from our study of history.

Right and wrong are not foreign concepts, good and evil are not so abstract and so strange as they cannot be recognized when they are observed in a historical setting.

History should be viewed as a tool, one that shows us past causes and effects, rights and wrongs, good and evil that result from past causes and effects, so that we don't endlessly repeat them to our and our children's detriment.

As the man said, its history that teaches us to hope.

We should learn from it, not deny it.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[Elennsar]

*Sigh* This is where I'd been intending to have some kind of shot at the thread but your discussion beats the stuffing out of anything I had to say plus now it's wildly distracting. Unsurprisingly have a question.

Given the glaringly obvious, probably a little scary shortage of top officers for Lee, was it just not possible for him to order them not to lead troops- I mean by that to LEAD, lead them- lead charges. Or- was this kind of really needed as the ' thing ' which drove the men to achieve some of those crazy successes? Barksdale comes to mind as far as leading troops, boy, the guy was literally chomping at the bit to be let GO- stream across the battlefield, get into the heart of things. An irreplaceable leader, though, seems inevitable he'd have been killed?

I suppose he theoretically could have, but 1) I don't think it would have occurred to him and 2) even if it had, it would be the most disobeyed order in the history of the army. It was expected - I'd even go so far as to say taken for granted - that good leaders lead from the front, or close to it. Not just in the ANV, but in all armies of this war.

Victorian (and previously, it wasn't just a fluke of the period) ideas on manly manhood and the necessity of being up close and personal to direct a brigade effectively make brigade command a risky occupation. And the men like Barksdale wouldn't have been so been so inspiring if they sat back and let others eat lead.