Point counterpoint. But i expect that to happen. At any moment. So i have all the questions here. Theyre really good ones. And not surprisingly, there are about four of them that are basically the same, but with a little bit of a twist. And it was a question that i was planning to ask anyway. So what i would like to do is just start over here and one at a time tell me who you think was the most hated general of the war. I think we all pretty much know this answer already. But and well go down the panel with that, and then start back here and say who do you think was the most loved general of the war. Okay . So lets start over here. The most hated general of the war. I get not only that question, but i getting to first. [ laughter ] can you start on that end . So i can kind of deal with the rest of us . Youre on the spot. Okay. Im not seriously i am not dodging when i answer this. I dont hate any of them. I really dont. Anybody of any rank from private to general, any of these guys who put on a uniform and got in harms way, to me, they deserve respect and admiration. Now, some more than others, possibly. [ applause ] but you all can tell, im not the you know, im not the politician type. So im not saying that, you know, just be evasive. But i really dont. Now, if i have to answer the question, the one that i am most puzzled, if you will, about some of the decisions he made during the war in fact, almost all of them, would be joe johnston. But im sitting right here, you know [ laughter ] but i dont hate him. I really dont. I have a lot of respect for him. Its just i you know, i dont understand. And you know, ill just say im not saying i disagree, because i wasnt there. And i dont know what information he had. But from 150 years away, 1 million miles away, ive always kind of wondered, you know, why did he do this and why did he not do that. But i really i mean, there really isnt a general on either side that i necessarily dislike. Very good. How was that . Thats good. [ laughter ] i think in terms of who was most hated, it depends on the constituency. I think ben butler was most hated in new orleans. By a lot of people, to for a variety of reasons. I think joe johnson was most hated by people in richmond. And so it really depends on who is doing the hating. If i had to say the one who came out of the war with the most problematical reputation, it would probably be ben butler. But as weve heard, that depends very much on the criteria you use to evaluate him. And if youre looking at him as a general, well, maybe thats deserved. If youre looking at him as a contributor to American History, theres a different evaluation we can make. Well, theres obviously no way to be precise about a question like this. Im not even sure i like the question. But ill answer it anyway. And i agree with craig. I think its butler. Certainly, hes the most vilified in the south. I think far more than any other Union General and for less reason in many ways. And i also oh, i think far more than sherman. During the war itself. I think in the north, butler is going to have plenty of enemies. And during reconstruction, he has plenty of enemies north and south. So ill vote for butler all the way. Well, again, i would agree with craig. Its the criteria of who is doing the evaluating. But if you want to take the perspective of the common soldier, i would say its braxton bragg, who by the end of his tenure in tennessee, he had very few friends amongst the command structure of that army or the common soldiers. Again, perhaps unjustly in some cases. He was accused of executing his soldiers and doing all sorts of horrible things to them, which was not true. And many of you have had the chance to read earl hess new book on braxton bragg, which is not an entire revision of the man, but gives you a better perspective, a more i think a more balanced perspective of braxton bragg. But from the soldiers standpoint, it would have to be bragg. I admire very much wills affection for the loveable losers weve been talking about. In fact, i suggest that the next conference after next year i know next Years Program is planned, you should do a loverable losers program and have will do all the talks. All seven. [ cheers and applause ]able lose will do all the talks. All seven. [ cheers and applause ] thats cold. I would have to lock at this through the lens of policy reason popularity. And i think the man who perhaps most dispointed those in professional positions who expected much of him or more of him was henry alec. His role as the generalinchief of union armys devolved into something very different. I think many of us who have jobs we dont like wish we could transform them into something else. And hallek succeeded. He didnt want to be a generalinchief in the traditional form, and instead he slowly evolved his job into being essentially a chief of staff. And in the process, i think he frustrated many of the men who came under his command and expected him to exercise command. And when he opted not to, left behind a legacy that is was not always a net positive impact on the union war effort. Well, were running out of candidates here. Brag obviously comes to mind. Butler and ive done some work with butlers papers so i can attest to the animosity people felt for butler after the war as well as during the war. I think will raises a great question. Among the soldiers, bragg. But i think also think bu. And i think another candidate, who im going to throw into this, and i do this because ive done the biography, is a person, franz segal, who was vilified by the public. Even germans during the war. And he was a person whose career long after the war was vilified by a lot of germans and nongermans for his maddeningly frustrating campaigns. So i have some real creditability being part of that conference you just mentioned, losers and generals in defeat, perhaps. So maybe that could be a theme. But in any case, those are the ones i would say. I think you know what im going to say. Ben butler gets my vote. Not only during the war, but after. And in the north and in the south. Nobody illicits the animosity that butler does. Of course, no other general than jefferson davis, and order calling for his execution. And if you read some of his hate mail and his papers, the library of congress, i think its pretty clear that its ben butler. Well, were going to kind of turn this around a little bit. And well start over on this end, and this was a great question. And i think steve talked about it a little bit. Which of the generals are not hated enough . [ laughter ] not hated enough. Not hated enough. Youre going to start with me . Are yes. Starting over there. Not hated enough. Ill go with Nathan Bedford forest. Shelby foot declared to be one of the two great geniuses of the war. Weve had work on him that celebrated him as a tactical genius and what he does at ft. Pill and other places. The racial atrocities is utterly despicable. So ill go with forest. I dont know how to follow that. Thats a great, great beginning. But i think theres also something to be said for hallek. Hallek is a frustrating, maddeningly individual who on both in the east and the west perhaps deserves a little more criticism than and of course, maybe john will disagree. But i would vote maybe hallek. So i struggle with these questions, only the nature of the questions, because, again, it gets us back to kind of the realm that george was mentioning this morning, where we look at this as an exercise, as if its a sunday afternoon football game. In which team do we like most and which team do we like least. I would only say, rather than answering specifically, and maybe im dodging the question. That in almost all of these cases, these individuals found themselves in complex situations that our Cultural Heritage has discouraged us from fully understanding. And so in this age, i think, you know, kind of doing this bright side and dark side division, just kind of feeds into a simplistic view of history that we need to move away from. And so maybe on that rather unpleasant basis, i refuse to answer the question. [ laughter ] [ applause ] thats good. Thats kind of a Sidney Crosby type of an answer. [ laughter ] ooh i will directly answer the question. I think that winning tends to cover lots of sins. And one of the great winners of the civil war, who i think is one of the great sinners of the civil war is phil sheridan, who is undoubtedly was undoubtedly a very talented cavalry officer. Not maybe at first, but he became a very good cavalry officer. And is almost always represented in the trium fer ant of sherman, grant and sheridan are usually given credit for winning the civil war. But on a personal level, sheridan is a rather unlikable fellow. The way he would relieve people of command right on the field, whether its torbert in the Shenandoah Valley or warren out here at five forks, and the way he dealt with some of his s subordinates was not something to be admired. But you rarely see sheridan portrayed in a negative way. Good point. George. Im tempted to follow John Hennesseys example, because for one thing, i agree with it. Having written one book on hatred and now studying hatred from the northern side, im not sure i want to contribute to it. But ill give a contrarian answer, just to give a contrarian answer. Im going to say mcclellin was not hated enough during the war, and hes been hated too much after the war. Typical professorial answer, george. Thank you. I think what the question implies, i think what its intended to imply is someone whose reputation is pretty good these days, that we tend to think back and think, oh, im impressed with victories that this individual managed to craft. But perhaps may not be deserving of that. And im going to go with where we started. I think Nathan Bedford forest falls into that category. He has gotten a pass. Not only from popular media, but even forrest gump gives him a pass. And i think that we give him all together too much credit. Now, whether he deserves to be hated for that, but i do think hes an inflated character in the war. Sam. And now for the unprofessorial response. Again, i agree. This its a difficult question. And especially for me, since ive spent, you know, 10 or 15 years trying to redeem the honor of somebody. To then to then criticize im always loathe to do that. But since the question has been asked, and i have already criticized joe johnston, i think ill just keep it at one. And [ laughter ] and even though you all didnt see it, but craig stomped on my right toe. [ laughter ] in the middle of no. And ill also and ill just say one thing. I think joe johnston did one thing that is was extremely disappointing, as i studied. And that is, in his memoirs, he stated that he accepted command of the army of tennessee, the third time in 1865. Knowing that the war had been lost, and his words were and this is almost verbatim, which is kind of an oxymoron, i guess. He said that he accepted command, knowing that there was nothing more to accomplish than to accept terms surrender terms that might, you know might be acceptable to the southern people. But at bentonville, he attacked he actually initiated an attack, and there were 3,000 confederate casualties, including 800 killed. And then also in his memoirs, he says of John Bell Hood, that the attack at franklin was useless butchery. Well, if franklin was useless butchery in november of 1864, what was bentonville in 1865 . Especially when he said, were just trying to get better surrender terms. And i thought that was pretty costly for the 800 the 800 troops. But, again, i after criticizing johnson, ill say i dont want to criticize johnson. [ laughter ] too late. Anyway. That it would be one it would be one particular instance or incident that i think deserves a little more scorn than its received in history. Well, there were several other along the same vein, of course. You also have to consider what the soldiers felt about all of these guys. And which ones they enjoyed or hated or loved so much. I think weve exhausted that topic. The rest of these i just leave open to the panelists, if they want to answer or not. And well get your opinions on these things. This one i found kind of interesting. Its a speculation, really. But which one of the generals mentioned in our seminar this weekend would have risen to high rank in todays army . Anybody want to tackle that one . Weve got several guys here that are west point graduates. And one guy who wasnt. Anybody . No comment. Okay. Well move on. All right. This one is for john, especially. But others can elaborate. If they wish. Could you elaborate on your opinion of Phillip Kearney . Why is there no modern scholarly biography of the man . Well, because no one shows the right one, i suspect. Someone will. There is a fellow, bill sotooipl in new jersey, who has done tremendous work in preserving and uncovering documentary material related to carney. Carney to me is a very interesting interesting fellow. He is intolerant of those who he sees as inferior to him, which is to say almost everybody. He is highly critical, both privately and at times publicly, of those around him. But he also exhibited and the reason i call him perhaps the best Division Commander of the army the potomac ever had, hes one of the few who had a not only unbroken, but largely positive record of aggressiveness. Which is really characteristic, contrary to the culture of the army of the potomac, which was not only politically generally conservative. It was also kind of conservative in its approach to the art of war, as well. You can probably count on two hands the number of times a subordinate commander in the army of the potomac showed initiative in a way that mattered in a great fashion on a Civil War Battlefield in virginia. Or in maryland or in pennsylvania. So i think carney is interesting for those reasons. There are all sorts of cultural reasons. His service in the old army. His connections overseas. Hes a very interesting man. His status is i mean, his his instinct to seek out conflicts and combat and to serve the military art not just nations, but military art at the same time, he begs a little bit more investigation. Which, you know, that may revise my view of him, as well. I mean, you get someone like brian to work on someone like ben butler, and i think i mean, that was one of the finest talks ive heard at one of these sessions in my life, actually. And that kind of work can really shine new light on people. So i would say, you know, carney is right for investigation and discussion. He was often named as a potential army commander. Its hard to imagine that, given his personality. But he was highly effective and anomalous on the battle field for the army of the potomac. Anybody else want to comment on that . George. Carney reminds me of the quotation attributed to Teddy Roosevelts daughter, Alice Roosevelt longworth. That is, if you cant say anything nice, sit by me. And carney if you dislike george mcclellin, read carneys letters. He hates mcclellin in spades. They are delightfully critical, negative, colorful. I think carney is worth a great deal of study, and he certainly provides a lot of fodder on many issues. One littleknown footnote to phillip carney. His death place at chantilly is really the origin of the Civil War Preservation movement. Because back in 1986 and 87, when there was a proposal to develop that land at chantilly where carney and stevens were killed on september 1st, 1862, some local folks got together and said weve got to do something about that. And we all got together in my living room in july of 1987, and out of that was born the association for the preservation of civil war sites, which then gave way to whats now the civil war trust. So carney made another contribution in death 100 and some years later to the Civil War Preservation movement. Anybody else on that one . I think this is a great question. That somebody gave us. And its actually about probably more about how these each one of your generals reacted with the press. But the actual question is, could the positive things said of mcclellin by grant and sherman have been out of empathy, since they had their own careers saab tojed by military intrigues and had personally been ripped in the press. So maybe you can comment, each one of you, on how your guy reacted with the press, and then well talk about the press, i guess. Anybody want to start that one . [ laughter ] ill say something. I think one of the things that almost all of these individuals did after the war, and ill be happy to hear exceptions, is try to preserve their reputations by lining up testimonials, if you would, not only from the people they fought with, but the people they fought against. It was very important, for example, for joe johnston, sams best friend, to have sherman tell the press how joe johnson was such a difficult foe. And they actually became quite close after the war. There are interesting photographs of sherman and johnson down on the floor of the living room going over old maps of north georgia saying i did this, why did you do that sort of thing. And if each can make the other be accepted as a military genius, think how much better that makes them look. I mean, sherman, because he beat a military genius, and johnsons excusal i stood up. And they also went out and found testimonials from friends and allies. Well, dont you agree i was right at this location, and the other guy was wrong, and they collected these things. Sam showed us some letters yesterday that are samples of those kinds of things that hood not just hood, of course, but virtually all of these people, sought to find support for the public resurrection the Public Protection of their names. Their such in their honor whatever in the 19th century they would have found important there. And these played out not just in newspapers and popular literature but where buhl and johnson got together and asked each of them to provide some information. Well, they didnt just provide information. They didnt do what grant did in his memoirs and simply give a sort of narrative recitation from the view of the headquarters. They instead point by point showed why their critics were wrong. And theres a lot of that in the post civil war literature. And it infects still some of the Research Materials we all rely on to do our work. Okay. Anybody else . Yeah. Is there any public major public figure in American History who has liked the press that they got . Especially a president or a general. They almost never do. Joseph hooker railed against the press. Mcclellin did. I think the reason, perhaps, is positive la active for why grant might have been sympathetic to mcclellin on that account is that grant understand the complexities of what mcclellin faced. In maneuvering with the press. And the other thing, there isnt just the press. The press is as complicated in 1863 maybe even more so than it is in 2017. This idea that, you know, the American Press is objective and nonpartisan or ought to be, is not rooted in a knowledge of the history of the press in the United States of america. And these officers mcclellin actively cultivated connections with press that were favorable to him. Fitz john porter, who was his number one guy, kept on an incredibly important and illuminating correspondence with a man named manton marble, owner and editor of the new york world, which was probably the most prominent conservative or in america at the time. So these men, while they bemoaned the press they didnt like, they cultivated the press they did. And they faced a circumstance that is in different medium, of course, than today. But almost identical in terms of political viewpoints and philosophically and complexity as the press is today for politicians and leaders. Just another footnote. If any of you are interested in the subject of the civil war and the press, there is an annual conference at the university of tennessee at chattanooga that deals with that very subject every year. And i think its actually free. Its not not an expensive trip. So if you are interested in that subject, go online to the university of tennessee in Chattanooga Communications department, and they sponsor this conference annually. Of course, you know, there were several generals during the war that took actual punitive measures against the press. General sherman and also general mead had terrible relations at times from the press. And, you know, the stories there are interesting, too. Let me i would be remiss if i didnt give a shoutout to my friend harold holzers book, which takes in not just lincolns dealing with the press, but the way the press worked in the 19th century and particularly in the civil war. Gives you great insights into how that institution is different, and in some ways the same as we have today. So recommendation. And this one actually was something that you mentioned earlier, that was i thought a pretty good question. Regarding joe johnston. Was his post war relationship with sherman did that result in a loss of respect in the south for joe johnston. There wasnt much to lose. [ laughter ] for poor old joe. I dont think it did. I think, in a way, johnston craved the approval and backpatting from his opponents almost more than he did the people of the south. There always was a group within the south that looked upon joe johnson as a path not taken. A lot of this, as i mentioned the other day is a product of attacking jefferson davis. Its not that we love joe johnson, its that we hate jefferson davis, and i can use joe johnson as a blunt instrument to beat him over the head by saying that if only davis had selected a different strategy, if only he listened to joe johnsons sort of fabian approach, which johnson always denied. He always said i did not adopt a fabian approach. It was forced on him, really, in north georgia. But there was always a large portion of the Southern Society that admired joe johnson and made him kind of a hero in spite of his lack of success. But what he wanted was approval nationally, writ large, of the north as well and his relationship with sherman gave him that. Anybody else on that one . This one is for brian. And the rest of these questions are a little bit more specific to your topic, and the overall topic of the conference. Do you see ben butler seemingly positive actions merely with an eye to his political advantage, or was there a genuine altruistic conviction behind them, particularly in new orleans . Butler, i think his war time political ambitions have been overstated. Theres been a lot of talk and a lot of scholarship that, you know, suggests that butler was angling for a run for the presidency in 1864, and thus far, i just havent seen the evidence of that. I think he had a genuine respect for Abraham Lincoln that did not always agree. But they had a generally respectful relationship. And i dont think the radicals were angling to put him up in 1864. And i think that threat has been a bit overstated. And a lot of that comes to us from the diaries of some of lincolns cabinet members who were persuaded of this. Gideon wells and edward baick seats because they were so flummoxed lincoln refused to intervene in butlers actions in norfolk. In particular. They just could not understand lincolns refusal to do that and a lot of historians, you read the butler biographies that exist, they suggest well lincoln refused to intervene and sanction butler because he was worried about a challenge from his right. I just dont see that. I think hes been overstated as a political opportunist during the war. He certainly is ambitious and he certainly will, of course, in 1884 run for the presidency on the greenback ticket. He will have a post war career in massachusetts. But i really dont think that politics politics is something he immediately announces hes going to subordinate to the union cause. And he signals that in a number of these public addresses. He is a master at using public addresses to demonstrate that. And he has that meeting with lincoln right after the major generals commission comes out after baltimore. And he says, i will not play politics. He understood the stakes, i think. And even more importantly, he put his cunning legal mind and just the deft mastery he had of language to work on the union cause. And then, of course, very effectively played politics after the politics of reconstruction. Brians talk intensionally minimized butlers tactics around petersburg. Just a couple points about butler. First of all, his performance in bermuda 100 campaign was not nearly as bad as it has been portrayed. There are two books that came out around 1989, and Glen Robertsons book is a theyre both good books. But Glen Robertson gives you a different perspective on butlers performance. He was very badly handicapped by his two corps commanders, gilmore and smith, who were incompetent. Grant in his memoirs has this very unfortunate phrase that has always followed ben butler. That he was bottled upper mud 100. Which if you look at any map of chesterfield county, you realize how ridiculous that statement is. Butler could easily cross the james river whenever he wanted. And he built a pontoon bridge to go to piecersburg outskirts of petersburg any time. The only direction he couldnt go was west. So that, i think, has influenced our opinion of butler. Last thing ill mention is that there is a very interesting episode in early july of 1864 that involves butler and grant. Some of you might be familiar with this. But i dont think it gets a lot of attention. Butler was as brian said, very unpopular with henry hallek. And grant had a pretty Good Relationship with butler, but there was some impetus. I wont go into the details. That maybe it was time to get butler out of the field command, and put baldy smith in charge of the actual tactical operation of the army of the james. And orders were actually promulgated to that effect. And the concept was to send butler back to ft. Monroe to be the administrative head of the department, but to give baldy smith the actual field command. Well, butler was unaware of all of this. Smith was unaware of all of this. Smith went on furlough, went on leave for ten days to take care of a sick relative. All of a sudden, these orders come down, and butlers chief of staff happened to be in washington. And heard what was happening. And tipped off the general that he was about to get in practicality demoted. Butler goes to visit grant, and confronts him with this alleged order, and grant says, oh, no, no, no. I dont want this at all. In fact, i want to give you the 19th corps when it comes up from the gulf and expand your responsibility. No, thats not it at all. Well, baldy smith catches wind of something going on. He comes down. Rolands tells smith, hey, youve got to go see grant. And grant says, youre out. Youre done. Go home. And ben butler emerges retains an expanded command. And theres a lot of controversy about how that happened. How did it go from butler having orders actually i cant remember the name of the special order or the number of the special order. But special order 225 that was actually written and published. And all of a sudden, smith is out, and butler is back in with an expanded command. So i dont know exactly what that says. Baldy smith, who is an invet rat liar, says, you know his explanation is that butler was present at his headquarters, and sometime in late june when grant was so drunk that he threw up all over his horse, and that smith knew that butler was going to use that against grant. And that it was basically some kind of blackmail. I dont know. And maybe weve talked a little bit about that, brian. I dont know if you have delved any deeper into that. But thats an example of how butler and grant have had relationship. And if you like grant, and grant really doesnt dislike butler, youve got to think, well, is grant completely wrong . About this guy . And the backup on that is, you know, what influence did butler or what background or dirt did butler have on lincoln that allowed lincoln to keep on having this man in command, long after his usefulness. Apparently after the election of 1864, his usefulness kind of declined a little bit. And so and there is a backup question to the bermuda 100 thing here. Did ben butler accomplish his mission. At bermuda 100. Well, if you ask butler, he would say yes. [ laughter ] what were butlers orders . Was he to capture petersburg . No. He was not. He was supposed to go to richmond and cooperate with mead, who would be coming down from the north side of the james. Butler would be coming up from the south side. And they would trap lees army in between these two forces. Butler had established a firm bridge head at bermuda 100. He had fortified the position. It was safe. The one thing that, of course, he failed to do was to break that railroad, and i dont want to get too deep into it, but, you know, he and grant, i think, share responsibility in that first offensive, june 16th and 17th, for butler was actually in on the railroad. And was tearing it up. And then his subordinates kind of let him down. And they retreated back off of the railroad in the face of less than overwhelming confederate force. And he never was able to get that railroad again. And that was his biggest failure, to cut the connection between richmond and petersburg on the richmond and petersburg railroad. Otherwise, butler would say i did everything i was supposed to do. I would just point out that wells list of losers he loves is getting longer and longer, as we go along. [ laughter ] i can only imagine you started life as a mets fan in 1962, yes . [ laughter ] well, being a white sox fan qualifies for that. [ laughter ] i was just going to say that. Okay, were going to move lets move over to John Bell Hood. Weve got a question. Weve got a couple of questions for sam over there. This one is interesting. One, is there any evidence that hood took laudnum during the spring hill and franklin campaign. There is lots of accusations that are made to that effect. What have you found . First of all, i was sitting here, and i was thinking, isnt im at a gathering on controversial generals and all the talk has been about bet butler. Im not used to this. I was enjoying being a inspect tater, so the answer to that is no, none, zero. Its kind of hard as we all know, its difficult to disprove a negative, but and actually the bulk of the work that was done on quote unquote, proving that hood didnt use laudum or disproving that he did, steve davis, did a lot of research on it and then i kind of built on steves research and again, as i said in my presentation last night, if you take sources and you start working backwards from source to source to source quite often you hit a dead end to where there is no source, and what happened with hood and laudum was by the way, its a lot easier to do now with internet, you know, and information so easily at hand. The first mention of John Bell Hood and opiates or painkillers of any kind was in a biography. And in the biography theyre talking about dick yuills injuries and theyre saying the buy og gras fer says something secondhand that other generals or other soldiers with similar injuries may have used laudum. From the may have used laudum mentioned in a biography in 1940, it builds and builds until its at one point some author actually gave the dosage that he took and another one was alcohol. Its alcohol and laudum and even mention that he liked bourbon, so it wasnt scotch and so but actually there is none and i think what may put an intellectual exclamation point on that is and i didnt mention this last night. I didnt get to it. Among hoods papers that i found in 2012 and it was one of many that just astounded me was the original handwritten Daily Journal of hoods physician, dr. John thompson darby who was not at chicamonga when hood was wounded but arrived two days later but in the paper or in the journal, it gave description of hoods wound, by the way, im convinced it was friendly fire, just from the medical description of the way hood was positioned in the saddle and the way the ball entered and exited, but darby arrives two days later and takes charge of the case and i guess its the 1864, 1863 version of the little computer that the doctor has beside your table and he every day gave a detailed description of hoods condition, and the entire report, the report runs from september 20th or september 22nd, the last entry is in late november in richmond when hood apparently is completed his rehabilitation, but in the report, darby, among many other things, darby gives the medication that hood is being given every day, gives the dosage every day and often gives the effect. And hood received reasonable when i say reasonable, i checked with physicians, reasonable dosages of morphine or more feeia as they called it at the time. Oent at night he was only given morphine at night to induce sleep and later on in october, i believe late october, darby starts weaning hood off of the morphine. Cuts down on the dosage and then actually starts recording slept last night without morphine, continues to sleep without it. So hood was weaned off the only opiate that was mentioned and it was again to induce sleep. And the other thing that i discovered in the papers and again its the absence of evidence, there were 59 letters that hood wrote to his wife anna in the 1870s as hood traveled. He sold insurance and there are 59 letters and i transcribed them all and there is not a single mention of any medication other than he was in savannah and he had a head cold and he mentioned i wish you had packed something. Theres no mention of pain. Theres no mention theres one mention of st. Louis, its icy on the sidewalks so i best not to go ought today. So theres only one mention of his handicap condition and zero mention of pain and no mention of any medication whatsoever, so i think by adding the absence of any witnesses, any requisitions, anything from his physicians and the fact that nothing was ever mentioned about it until 1940, it also was never mentioned by his rivalries and adversaries of which there were many, that i think its pretty much been disproven. This one is for any one but probably especially for john, did general hooker receive his head injury at chancellorville before or after a major part of the battle . If before, could this have been a factor in his performance . On the morning of may 3rd which was the third day, hooker was on the upper floor of the chancellor house and a pillar of the house was struck by an artillery shell. It split the pillar and a portion of the pillar struck hooker who and it knocked me unconscious. He was unconscious by his own account for about 30 minutes and other witnesses suggest that he was incensable for about the same time. Its very clear that he suffered what we would call today a traumatic head injury, and disorientation, the lack of awareness, the sluggishness that attends, if any, of you have had a head injury, ive had a couple concussions in my life and theyre difficult to deal with and others confuse that for a drunken stooper. Some have suggested he drank to medicate himself. Will worked at the park for almost as long as i have. I dont know what his views are of hooker on chancellorville. Ive never seen any real evidence to suggest that hookers disability and the effects of it were real. Theres no question about that, but that disability was a function of a traumatic head injury and not from alcohol. I dont know. What do you think, will . I agree. And the subsequent effect of his performance after the head injury on the battle . I dont think theres any question about that. After wielding fiercely independent command that often ran contrary to the wishes of his suborder natures, he retreated into the collective thinking in the war council in the days following that, although he did largely ignore the advice of his senior commanders underneath him and decided ultimately to retreat against their orders. I dont think theres any question that theres a you know, the ability to focus, the ability to really work problems through in your traditional way are deeply effected when you have a head injury like that. Thats one of the primary symptoms of a head injury like that. So he did revert. I think recognizing his disability to a counsel, perhaps also counsels were great way to distribute the responsibility for decision but he ultimately and to his many of his subordinat subordinates, discussed and gaed wi agreed with a couple of his favored commanders under him and Daniel Butterfield who is the most obscure important figure in the history of the army, the potomac, probably, i dont think theres any question that the head injury had a profound effect on hooker and thus on the battle of chancellorsville. This one is for steve, its basically about the relationship between grant and bule. There really wasnt a relationship between grant and bule. They only met one time and that was, you know, at shiloh and so there really wasnt any real opportunity to have any sort of a relationship, so basically whatever existed was through official correspondence. And their performance together on the second day of that battle. Well, the performance on the second day is, you know, largely because of where grants army, you know, retreated to, the defendable ground in shiloh. If youve ever been, its the closer to the river you get the higher you get and theres a slight revin but the arrival of bules troops that were fresh from transporting and thrown into what, you know, the confederates thought would be a fairly defensive position the next morning and were not prepared for what bule and grant had planned for them early the next day on monday and so collectively they managed to pull out of, you know, defeat, fairly prominent victory, so okay. The last two questions basically are about civil war research. This i think is a good one. Over the past 15 or 20 years how has the recent research changed any aspect of Civil War History as opposed to what was going on before that . Ill start with that one. Largely because there was a question earlier about the press and one of the things thats happened in our profession is everythings been digitized, which has been terrific, but before that everything was either microfilmed or archived. And so i can remember when i was chair of the History Department one of the things i did was purchase a microfilm reader with extra funds, end of the year money you had to spend and when i was working on the latest book i decided to read three to four newspapers for every day of the war. I come in early and just decide im going to read, you know, whatever newspaper, the bangor daily wigan courier for the entire war years and xerox hundreds of articles i thought and so when we talk about the importance of the press, it was absolutely unincalculatable how important the press is like today but for me the way to use the press was a way that the readers of the 19th century would use it. Information. And so that became the great conduit became what was going on at the front, how it got interpreted at home and how at home responded to that. And so, for example, after the battle of fredericksburg one of the things that some of the new england newspapers did, for example, the bangor daily courier, they printed a list of casualties on Christmas Day of all the casualties at the battle of fredericksburg and it was incredible and the readership that came from it and the letters that came in from that to the editor, you just got caught up in how the public used that information to gauge their mobilization, their patriotism, their frustration and you could see it with articles to the press in many ways, articles to the governor, letters to the governor. I read this, theyd clip a piece of the newspaper and send it along with their letter about their outrage or condemnation, so the press was extremely vital. These days everythings digitized so theres a number of newspapers you couldnt even get on microfilm in 25 years ago so today you can look at the main farmer, local newspapers that no one really thinks of but theyre printing the same types of information and theyre using it in the same way so from the local to the national to the new york world, the the new york times, you still see this sort of usage of the press in a way that helps inform the public and how the public reacts to that. I thought it was fascinating and i have one of the things i wanted to do after i retire, maybe, everybody else is retiring apparently here except brian and i. We got to hold the fort down and hes younger than i am. I think that would be a great way to use the press as, you know, instructional even today, how we digest information and how we as a nation have digested especially during war, so you want to go . Okay. Can i jump into this a little bit . Im almost certainly the oldest person on this panel so ill adopt my role at grouchy old man and say that im concerned on a level i cant really articulate a bit about Research Methodology that digitalization of so many sources have made it remarkably easy to do all of your research from your computer console. I think thats unfortunate. Not many people had the experience that sam had finding the old papers in the attic. That almost never happens. Its less likely to happen if research consists of pushing button on your console and getting copies on the screen. Dont get me wrong, its wonderful. When i did my book on lincoln, i was actually in the national archives. Not only were they online but there was a photograph, photograph of the original document next to a transcription of the document so you could compare one with another and the heck with this, im not driving into d. C. Any more. So that was done to from my computer but even as i did it and took advantage of that opportunity, somethings being lost here. When i did the joe johnson book and i would go in mckellyin, they actually plotted together to conduct a filibustering expedition into central america. That would have been the chapter, but i was holding the original papers in my hands. Thats kind of cool, and then i think the next generation of historians are probably not going to experience that, except for sam. I did my masters thesis in maine and you mentioned the maine newspapers, the bangor daily whig, there were 68 newspapers in maine in 1860 and i found every one of them. It was it took about a year to find all them. Most of my research was trying to find newspaper accounts and when you finally find Something Like the main farmer which is very obscure, you do get that sense of accomplishment that you dont get off a computer screen, so i agree wholeheartedly. Let me say, this, craig, all of the governors papers were on onion skin paper, handwritten, okay. All right so not to disappoint you on that. Ive got to top that by saying that at the pennsylvania Historic Society where joe johnsons letters to his wife lydia are housed, paper was so scarce they would write in long and in cursive which young people cant read either. They would write in cursive on one side and turn it over and write back and through and it would bleed through both sides and then turn it sideways and then write over it again. Read that. Jerry . Couple years ago i took my second book and took three chapters out of it and decided to see what percentage of the sources, the footnotes for each chapter i could have done documented online, purely through online resources and i was surprised at the results. Right around one out of every four citations in that book was Available Online. Yes, theres a tremendous amount Available Online but, know if you want to write a really important and great book, you cant do it by writing or doing research solely online. Its just impossible. Weve got about five more minutes and this is the traditional last question. We want to ask each one of our authors what theyre reading now or what book they might recommend that we read. Lets start over with brian and just go down the line. Ill say the most recent book that ive read that i found really impressive is a book by Jonathan W White called midnight in america. The subtitle i believe is darkness sleep and dreams in the civil war and its a really thoughtful study, Excellent First chapter on exhaustion among common soldiers which i found particularly enlightening but then he dives into nearly 500 dream reports that he finds from soldiers, from civilians, from slaves and it was really for me a profound meditation on the way that the war really annexed ordinary peoples lives, the way it was intruding on their dreams. I just found to be fascinating and keeping in line with the recent trend in the history og gras if i i think getting away from the war as an event and thinking about it as a complicated Human Experience and thats what i think weve been doing the last ten years and its an exciting time to be a civil war historian and i think well see much more work that will help us illuminate the way that actual people, ordinary people, live this thing. That author actually spoke here two weeks ago and it was really fascinating, i do recommend it. Im reading three books at once. Im reading im on an honors Reading Committee so were reading two books right now. One is called mistakes were made but not by me which should be required reading for every freshman so they learn how to apologize, even when theyre not sure theyre right. The other one is never caught by erica dunbar which is the story of a judge who is a slave who escapes to freedom because during her enslaved term with George Washington while hes the president in pennsylvania, the pennsylvania laws prohibit having residency can be established after one year and so owna judge has to be returned to virginia for a number of weeks or months, so that he can retain slaves so this is also on that list but im also reading Michael Holts new book on the election of 1860. Anything by michael holt i find terrific, so there you go. The last book i read im not going to identify because i didnt like it and i dont want to say bad things about someones hard work on national television. The book im reading right now is actually Peter Cousins book on the indian wars which is illuminating and well done and much appreciated. Getting back to one of the earlier questions, im astonished at the amount of historical work thats been done of memory in the last 25 years. Its fundamentally altered how we do our business, how we write our books, how we interpret to the public and i would suggest any of you who havent read some of that genre, dont read it all because it will eventually kill you because its so voluminous now, but its important some of that is important to read and i would start with david blights recent reunion which is a tremendous, tremendously thoughtful book but being challenged right and left these days but still a pretty powerful argument. Well, before i answer that question, i just want to take a second to express what i think was just a wonderful conference. [ applause ] lots of people responsible for that. I see two of them standing up over here, if you have any idea of the amount of detail to physical get ready for a conference like this and have it executed just ask patrick and his staff about how many details that hes had to manage and then ty wyatts daughter down there that was good you know, jerry [ inaudible ]. Jerry just does tremendous work and is just invaluable to all of this and of course no one knows better than i do the multiple task that an executive director has to accomplish in order to pull one of these things off. It was easy. Well, not the least of which is the challenge of crafting an original and very clever and absolutely hilarious reference to my hairline. Now, the book. As george knows my reading tends to be pretty much focused on military history because of what i do, leading tours and given talks on military history, theres so much out there that if i stray from that path, im going to be a behind and so in that regard i have to say the obvious and thats gordon rays book, on to petersburg, which is just as good as his first four. And if you havent caught that yet i would certainly recommend it but the book that im reading is not about the civil war is one thats been out for probably almost a decade now, its called, what god hath wrought and its in the oxford history of the america of the United States and its the study of the United States between 1815 and 1848 and it is an absolutely brilliant book and if you are not all that familiar with the decades leading up to the civil war era, then i would recommend howes book on what god has wrougwhat god has wrough wrought. What i read recently is kind of a sad story because the author died in a tragic auto accident in richmond recently, fairly recently. Elizabeth brown pryors six encounters with lincoln which is i dont know how to categorize the book and thats not a criticism. Its a very original piece of work. Its not really a biography as the title suggests. Its six different encounters. She talks about soldiers, frederick douglas, indians, women, throws in some shakespeare. Its gloriously written, extremely well researched no matter how much youve read on lincoln or the civil war, you will learn from this book. Youll enjoy the book and youll be deeply saddened that we wont have any more books from this author. Ive spent the last ten years reading all world war ii books because i have ive written a couple in that decade and i have a gigantic one coming out the spring on world war ii at sea, all navies, all nations, all theaters, so i havent had as much time as i would like to do civil war stuff but i do think thats what happened is 2017 is turning into just as 2009 was the year of lincoln, when you couldnt turn around without bumping into a new lincoln book, this seems to be the year of grant. Ron whites new biography, i saw it in the airport, a 1,074 pages itll keep you busy for a little while and almost simultaneous with the publication of that is the publication of a new annotated version of grants own memoirs edited by john marsylak. And whats useful about the two of them together is that grants own memoirs as some of you who dipped into them know focus heavily on the war years, chernew focuses heavily on the id recommend both of those. Im actually im actually writing a book not reading one right now and it is as i guess we are all aware of the social situation with Civil War History, monuments, that sort of thing, i a few months ago decided im going to study, compile and somehow or another construct and present in an efficient way ive spoken to some of the fellows here about it, exconfederates, what the confederates did after the war. These guys had lives that were they did more in their lives than shoot at yankees for four years and in the research that im doing im reading a lot of books and crimson confederates, theyre compilations, yales confederates, bobby cricks book on army of staff officers, a lot of im compiling what former confederates did after the war that contributed to the building of america, and i knew of, you know, the four generals who served in the United States army, spanish american war but i really didnt know much else and i found out there were four Supreme Court justices, a secretary of the navy, secretary of the interior, two attorney generals, these are all federal and so forth and so on, so what i am focused on right now almost exclusively and i say sadly because id rather be reading and studying and feeling voids of ignorance in my mind on other things but ive been studying up on what confederates did after the war to try to put whats going on today in context. Very good. Well, that concludes our symposium as far as the panels go. Please, everybody, stick around because we want to draw some raffle prizes and well finish up. This weekend on the cspan networks. Za at 9 15 p. M. On cspan, former president ial speech writers for president s nixon to obama and sunday at 6 30 p. M. , dr. Anthony ieten on how your zip code impacts your health on book tv on cspan2, saturday at 9 00 p. M. Eastern, editor in chief Christopher Bedford on his book, the art of the donald, lessons from americas fill loss fer in chief. On American History tv on cspan3, saturday at 8 55 p. M. Eastern. Penn State University history professor matthew restal and sunday at 9 10 p. M. The Ground Breaking ceremony for the dwight d. Eisenhower memorial in washington, d. C. This weekend on the cspan networks. Announcer cspan student cam is under way and students across the country are busy at work and sharing their experience with us through twitter. Its not too late to enter. Our deadline is january 18, 2018. Were asking students to choose a provision of the u. S. Constitution and create a video illustrating why its important to you. Our competition is open to all middle school and high school students, grades 6 through 12. 100,000 in cash prizes will be awarded. The grand prize of 5,000 will go to the student or team with the best overall entry. For more information go to our website, studentcam. Org. This friday on American History tv, historian Michael Kazin on the legacy of andy war rack and how they influence peace movements in the United States. Heres a preview. At the age of 87, jeanette ranken, here she is in 1932 opposed to the war, here she is at 87. Led a brigade of about 3,000 women in the 1968 march to the Capitol Building in d. C. Where they delivered a ai petition to the speaker of the house. John mccormick, a veteran of world war i. So 50 years seemed very short to both Jeanette Rankin and john mccormick. Another echo of the war during the great war there was a very popular 1970 soul record that shot to number one on the billboard chart by edward star. It posed the rhetorical question, war what is it good far . Jane adams and her sisters would have applauded the answer. It means destruction of innocent lives, war when their sons go off to fight and lose their wars. War, what is it good for . Absolutely nothing. Thank you. Watch the entire program at 8 00 p. M. Eastern friday. This is American History tv on cspan3 every weekend and on holidays too. Sunday on cspans q a, journalist and author robert merry on his book, president mckinley, architect of the american century. He was a very effective president and you cant quite figure out how or how or why he was able to accomplish what he accomplished, because he was indirect. He was incrementalist. He was a manager. He was not a man of force. It turns out that without that force he had amazing capacity to manipulate people and manipulate them into doing the things that he wanted them to do while they thought it was their idea. Sunday night at 8 00 eastern on q a on cspan. Up next, Taylor Branch discusses the challenges of researching and writing biographies. The Graduate Center for the City University of new york hosted this event. Its about an hour. But tonight were
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.