Comments for Civil Warriors

Comment on The Future of Civil War History–Some Questions by Peter

Peter — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 19:24:10 +0000

We could only hold the event during spring break so that we could access to classroom space. We just didn’t have any wiggle room on our end. Safe travels and look forward to seeing you tomorrow.

Comment on The Future of Civil War History–Some Questions by Ethan

Ethan — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:13:27 +0000

Thanks for your thoughtful response, Pete. The bad timing vis a vis the SMH is not insurmountable, as with some effort it looks like I will be able to make it work. (In anything involving air travel these days it is best to wait until after the egg is laid to cackle.:)) But I don’t think it is unreasonable to wonder why the conflict could not have been avoided ahead of time.

Moreover, concern about “marginalization” (however well-founded your words of caution in use of that term are), is a real one among military historians, especially those who work in PME. It is also one that your conference offers a particularly good forum for discussing. Thus, my raising the issue ahead of time.

Comment on The Future of Civil War History–Some Questions by Peter Carmichael

Peter Carmichael — Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:19:35 +0000

At the risk of sounding defensive, you have overlooked a hard fact. The Society of Military Historians is meeting the same week as The Future of Civil War History. We had, as a result, a number of military historians from the professional military education system who were previously committed and could not come to Gettysburg. I am sorry for that but our vision did include then despite your speculation. And I think we need to be more careful about using the word marginalization, which has become the hobby horse of too many. This event welcomes all people and it is structured to be highly conversational and open ended with the audience. What this conference shows is an integration of so many different ways that we engage the Civil War past and it is a testament to how far we have come in field. The program affirms that we are quite comfortable in talking across the aisle with a wide range of professionals and audiences. Again I apologize for sounding defensive and look forward to seeing you Thursday

Comment on Great trip to Washington . . . The State! by Tom Clemens

Tom Clemens — Sun, 03 Mar 2013 05:27:05 +0000

Was there about 12 years ago, but was told it was Isaac Stevens. I have been deceived! Damn!

Comment on Answering the question . . . or not by David

David — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:05:03 +0000

My bad.

Of course, McClellan would have to have been aggressive in order to have a Cold Harbor or a Pickett’s Charge on his résumé. On the other hand, Antietam’s badly coordinated attacks and high death toll might seem to qualify as a Cold Harbor.

Comment on Answering the question . . . or not by Ethan

Ethan — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 15:22:35 +0000

” . . . one searches in vain for a Cold Harbor or Crater on *McClellan’s* military resume.”

Comment on Answering the question . . . or not by David

David — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:43:57 +0000

No Cold Harbor on Lee’s resume? I guess July 3, 1863, didn’t happen?

Comment on Answering the question . . . or not by Ethan

Ethan — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:16:45 +0000

Yes, but I understand stretching the definition a bit for the sake of the exercise.

Comment on Answering the question . . . or not by Harry

Harry — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 14:08:36 +0000

Interesting that 3 of the 7 “commanders of the Army of the Potomac” named by the commenter were never commanders of the Army of the Potomac.

Comment on This Week in the Army of the Potomac by Firm Foundation Pict

Firm Foundation Pict — Fri, 01 Feb 2013 23:30:29 +0000

Check out what this man is doing to honor his ancestors

https://vimeo.com/58484387