cards of great historical figures

Peter_Spaeth · #1 10-29-2022, 02:47 PM

From my reading Lee's strategic decision to invade the North in the first place, and tactics at Gettysburg, do not hold up well to scrutiny. Longstreet knew better, but Lee valued Longstreet much less than he had Stonewall Jackson.

G1911 · #2 10-29-2022, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

From my reading Lee's strategic decision to invade the North in the first place, and tactics at Gettysburg, do not hold up well to scrutiny. Longstreet knew better, but Lee valued Longstreet much less than he had Stonewall Jackson.

It was the same gamble Washington made; he can't hold them off forever, the other side has almost unlimited resources. His only path to victory was taking Washington, or getting Europe to back them and provide resources.

The narrative of Gettysburg today is largely writ by Longstreet's memoirs, who Lee never criticized for his almost outright insubordination and screwing up the timing of what was supposed to be, in Lee's plan, a multi-pronged action with a lot more than Pickett's division going up alone in a scene of astounding courage and little chance of survival. Longstreet is one of the great generals in American history himself outside of this, there can be a long debate about whether Lee's battle plan was a good idea or not, but Longstreet's disbelief in it (at best, there's a reasoned argument that he straight up ruined it by delaying for hours for seemingly no actual reason) ensured the failure. My personal opinion is that his army of 1862 may well have triumphed over Meade, but his reconstituted 1863 army with a lot of new leaders that were above their talent level as senior staff kept going, was not capable of the precision they had demonstrated before. Lee's 1862 campaigns are some of the best fought in military history, after that it's the impressive northern invasion ending in a wrong decision that lost the only chance the South really had. If he had not done rolled those dice, the South wasn't likely to ever have a better chance at DC or foreign backing than they did then. After Gettysburg it's the long and slow inevitable failure. Lee's generalship is hard to get an honest assessment of these days; the competing traditions of his near-hagiographic reputation after the war and the modern absolute hatred of him as a devil of history because he does not fit our politics of the present.

Washington and Lee both had to really roll the dice. Washington won. Lee lost. Both are among the most interesting of Americans, and hard to penetrate the surviving numerous records they left behind to really 'know'. They had a lot more in common than their familial relations and similar military positions.

I really need a good Longstreet CDV; and some of Washington's excellent commanders don't have very many card options, like Nathaniel Greene. Historic Autographs put out a really cool set entirely dedicated to Washington recently I picked up and really had fun with.

G1911 · #3 10-29-2022, 03:16 PM

The Civil War News cards are rather sensationalist and not entirely accurate history telling, but some of them look really nice. Here's the two adversaries. I really like Grant's scene here.

Peter_Spaeth · #4 10-29-2022, 03:34 PM

I can't remember where I read it, but there's a probably fictionalized exchange between Lee and Longstreet on the evening before the final day of Gettysburg. Lee says to Longstreet, if Meade is still there (meaning his position on the high ground) in the morning, I shall attack him. Longstreet replies, if Meade is still there in the morning, it's because he wants to be. Then Longstreet tries to persuade Lee to withdraw and retreat, but Lee refuses -- perhaps believing Jackson, had he lived, would have urged an attack.

I never did read Douglas Southall Freeman, it just seemed too long.

At least one account I have read suggests Lee did not fully appreciate what was happening in the battle, when Pickett was driven back Lee allegedly said to him, General, rally your diviision, to which Pickett replied, General, I have no division.

G1911 · #5 10-29-2022, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I can't remember where I read it, but there's a probably fictionalized exchange between Lee and Longstreet on the evening before the final day of Gettysburg. Lee says to Longstreet, if Meade is still there (meaning his position on the high ground) in the morning, I shall attack him. Longstreet replies, if Meade is still there in the morning, it's because he wants to be. Then Longstreet tries to persuade Lee to withdraw and retreat, but Lee refuses -- perhaps believing Jackson, had he lived, would have urged an attack.

I never did read Douglas Southall Freeman, it just seemed too long.

At least one account I have read suggests Lee did not fully appreciate what was happening in the battle, when Pickett was driven back Lee allegedly said to him, General, rally your diviision, to which Pickett replied, General, I have no division.

Both those scenes are from The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, and subsequently the Gettysburg film version of it. Shaara’s novel is heavily based on Longstreet’s memoirs. I really like the book and the epic movie. His son expanded into a career of similar novels, most of which are very well done too.

Freeman’s 4 volume biography of Lee is definitely hagiographic, though Freeman was an excellent historian and his sourcing and documentation is good. He includes too many anecdotes running in old Virginian families, though he does always cites the source and notes several times that anecdotes are not really verifiable. His bias is very much in favor of Lee and of Washington (who he also wrote a big biography on) and he does a good job debunking several myths. It is by far the best Lee biography out there even with the unfortunate hagiography; I’ve yet to find one without a heavy bias one way or the other and Freeman’s detail is unmatched by anyone else. It’s hard to find these days in its original form, I believe it’s been several decades since it was reprinted unabridged. I had to pay $75 for my set.

Lee’s Lieutenants, the 3 volume follow up on the commanders of the Army of Northern Virginia is the better work and, in my personal opinion, a masterpiece of historical writing. It’s much less hagiographic as it isn’t about Lee himself, and his weighing of the weaknesses and strengths of division and corps commanders as the war goes on is the best work of its kind still and always fair. Longstreet and Jackson shine when the facts support that and come for heavy criticism when the facts support that. A classic on leadership in general, and military history, if one has the patience to read the behemoth. It too is now published as a one volume abridgment but the uncut version was published through at least the 1980’s and is easy to find.

EDIT: some of the reprintings and the abridgments remove the footnotes that contain a ton of information on his sourcing. A lot of the contemporary academic attacks on Freeman evidently did not have the uncut originals or chose to ignore them.

EDIT 2: sorry for hijacking off cards

Peter_Spaeth · #6 10-29-2022, 05:34 PM

Well, Freeman was a Virginian and if I recall his father was in Lee's army, so I guess if he was biased towards Lee it's understandable. I grew up in Northern Virginia in the 60s and a lot of stuff was named for Lee, not sure how much of it the woke movement has now changed.

G1911 · #7 10-29-2022, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Well, Freeman was a Virginian and if I recall his father was in Lee's army, so I guess if he was biased towards Lee it's understandable. I grew up in Northern Virginia in the 60s and a lot of stuff was named for Lee, not sure how much of it the woke movement has now changed.

He talks about his Virginian roots in the Introduction off the bat, but you can tell even without him saying it lol. I tend to agree with the 20th century thought that you cannot fully remove yourself from what you are looking at, but I also agree with the 19th century German theory that objectivity should always be the goal. I wish the 5% that's hagiography had been cut out, but I really wish other historians dived into their subjects with the same passion and depth he did. Producing a 4 volume history work and a 3 volume supplemental followup is unthinkable now to a mainstream publisher.

I don't want to get to far into wokeism before people go nuts and this turns into an outrage thread, but I will never understand how Lee and Jackson are held as the symbols of things they had little involvement in and mixed records with for so many of my fellow citizens today. I am simultaneously against the hagiography. It's a shame we can't stick to facts for events within the last ~150 years.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Historical figures actually photographed	Snapolit1	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	5	12-21-2021 09:37 PM
The Color Barrier Robbed us of some Great Players and Great Cards	Seven	Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk	6	11-09-2021 04:15 AM
Historical Figures Mocking the Current Card Scandal	perezfan	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	18	06-14-2019 06:58 PM
How well-known are these all-time great sports figures?	Bored5000	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	77	03-13-2018 12:49 PM
10 Transogram BB figures in original boxes & 3 Historical Figures	bh3443	Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T	1	02-04-2012 12:10 PM