GDG- Lee's Real Plan at Gettysburg

[Laurence D. Schiller]

Bill - you are absolutely correct - and Harman's attempt to suggest a 
different tact for Longstreet's attack not only ignores participant 
accounts, but the direction and orientation of Pettigrew and Trimble 
as well as the tactical problem of presenting an exposed flank to the 
enemy - as I pointed out in a previous post yesterday. There is an 
historian's disease that some people get. It comes from dealing with 
topics that have been heavily researched and examined over the years, 
such as Pickett's charge, and rather then do the legwork to actually 
discover new sources of information (harder and harder to do) that 
might change current interpretations, they are suddenly struck with 
the 'Eureka! everyone else has it wrong!' syndrome. So they take the 
same sources already looked at and apply their own 'new' 
interpretation without the benefit of significant new information and 
'Voila!' They have a book out. It has been my experience that these 
sort of 'new' interpretations don't hold up well because absent new 
source material, enough credible and competent historians have looked 
at the extant sources and come up with credible interpretations based 
on them. An exception to this is when the evidence is reinterpreted 
in the light of a new theoretical orientation - for example, an 
economic perspective, etc. Just some thoughts on the matter for what 
they are worth.

Best,

Laurie Schiller


>Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
>I am going to change the subject here.  Since somebody mentioned Troy
>Harman's book today, I dug mine out and started reading it again.  Although
>I had read it several times before, I wanted to read it fresh again.  My
>question is that Troy is claiming to be covering new ground and discussing
>Lee's plan as being Cemetery Hill.  Yet I fail to see what is new about that
>in the study of the battle of Gettysburg.  What author has ever claimed that
>Lee's plan was not centered around Cemetery Hill.  Harman goes to great
>length to try and put words in the mouths of those whom he claims believe
>the affirmed event by stating that they believe that Lee's plan on the 2nd
>was geared towards the Round Tops.  Maybe I am mistaken here but what
>authors have ever claimed that the Round tops were central to the plan of
>Lee.  In a reading of the major works like Coddington, Sears and other, it
>is very apparent that Lee didn't even believe that Union troops were
>situated as far South as the Round tops thanks to the scouting reports that
>he received in the early hours of the 2nd.   In addition, the placement of
>McLaws division perpendicular to the Emmitsburg Road facing North shows that
>his plan for the 2nd was to push North along the road and drive in what he
>thought was the unanchored left flank of the Union army.  At the last
>moment, thanks to the forward placement of the III Corps, the plan had to be
>adjusted to allow for a more southerly starting point.  The fact that the
>Round tops were even attacked had more to do with misalignment, the wounding
>of Hood and troops heading in the wrong direction than with Lee's plan.
>Does any credible author think that the Round tops were a central part of
>Lee's plan and yet Harman keeps insisting that they do?  It is very apparent
>from reading the major works on Gettysburg that from the afternoon of the
>1st to the afternoon of the 3rd Lee's mind was fixed on Cemetery Hill and
>how he was going to take it.  He never really had any serious plans for the
>flanks other than as diversions to the real plan.  So instead of putting
>forth new material Harman is really just stating what others have already
>stated.  The only new thing that I see in the book is the fact that he
>believes that the PPT attack was actually traveling towards Zieglars Grove
>instead of the Copse of Trees.  Am I missing something here?  Have I misread
>the other books on Gettysburg that I have and do historians really believe
>that on the 2nd the flanks were object of Lee's plan and not the center
>which was Cemetery Hill? 
>
>And I think that if somebody is going to pay $150 for a first edition of
>this book they are crazy.  I like my copy of it and I am satisfied with the
>$19.95 that I paid for it.
>
>
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>You may unsubscribe by going to 
>http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
>
>You can add yourself to the GDG map at: 
>http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
>
>View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at 
>http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/


-- 
Dr. Laurence Dana Schiller
Maitre d'Armes
Head Fencing Coach
Department of History
Northwestern University
Commissioner, Midwest Fencing Conference
Midwest VP, US Fencing Coaches' Association
Vice-Chair USFA Illinois Division
Lds307 at northwestern.edu
847-491-4654
FAX 847-467-1406
Official Sports site: http://nusports.ocsn.com/
Student web site: http://groups.northwestern.edu/fencing/