Update on Ezra J Warner Generals In Gray reference book

[on again]

1) The picture of willaim Wirt Adams is actully his brother Daniel wisinger Adams 2)Thepicture of Ricahrd B Garnett is actaully hsi cousin Robert S garnett 3)John Breckenrige grayosn first edtion wer blank thente was picture of grayosninmexican war uniform form 4) Isham warren Garrott is buririedin unknown grave was reburied in Vicksburg's Cedar Hill/Confederate Cemetery; 5) Robert C Tyler as born Reuben Cutler Tyler, December 4, 1832, the son of Reuben and Elizabeth Billings Tyler of Hardwick, Massachusetts. 1) adams brothers message # 10 at https://civilwartalk.com/threads/adams-daniel-weisiger.181319/

pictures The adams borthers Richard B Garnett John breckenrige grayson

 

[on again]

coudl Daniel wisinger Adams stroke in1872 result from head woudn that cost him his left eyesight?

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

coudl Daniel wisinger Adams stroke in1872 result from head woudn that cost him his left eyesight?

My layman's understanding as someone who is not medically trained is that yes, traumatic head injuries are associated with higher risk for stroke. Beyond that, I would not want to speculate.

 

[gary]

Happy to pencil in notes in my copy of his book; but what Franklin Gardner doing in those images?

 

[Saint Jude]

From some of the biographies I read years ago in Warner's Generals in Blue, I have always considered his research somewhat shoddy. This just confirms my impression.

 

[Bruce Allardice]

From some of the biographies I read years ago in Warner's Generals in Blue, I have always considered his research somewhat shoddy. This just confirms my impression.

I've been through Warner's papers (at the Chicago History Museum) for my own book, "More Generals in Gray." IMO Warner did well considering that he didn't have the internet or online newspapers to help him. He had to rely on "standard" sources such as "Confederate Military History," which lacked academic rigor.
I was the person who uncovered Tyler's true identity, and without online newspapers and ancestry.com, would never have been able to do so.

 

[Saint Jude]

I've been through Warner's papers (at the Chicago History Museum) for my own book, "More Generals in Gray." IMO Warner did well considering that he didn't have the internet or online newspapers to help him. He had to rely on "standard" sources such as "Confederate Military History," which lacked academic rigor.

Very true. He didn't have the same sources we do now, and he had to rely on secondary sources that were often incorrect.

 

[Ben Ford 987]

Very true. He didn't have the same sources we do now, and he had to rely on secondary sources that were often incorrect.

His work was excellent for the time period. It has been a go to for many decades
Vastly increased access to better sources today does make his work look rather shallow.
But he and his work deserves full credit and respect.
I consider him a groundbreaker and a pioneer.