Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Kowalski

Debunking the Myths of Gettysburg

29 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

For something that happened 150 years ago, the Battle of Gettysburg still generates its share of controversy. And myth, according to historian Allen Guelzo, “grows like weed out of controversy.”

Guelzo, a professor of history at - appropriately enough - Gettysburg College, is the author of the recently published “Gettysburg: The Last Invasion.” He spoke with ABC News Political Director Rick Klein about the battle and his book – an exhaustively researched and detailed dive into the pivotal fight of the Civil War.

Among the myths of Gettysburg that Guelzo debunks is that the battle was an accident – that Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia and George Gordon Meade’s Army of the Potomac merely happened upon each other in the hills of South Central Pennsylvania. “No, it was not really an accident,” said Guelzo. “At least not more of an accident than any battle in the Civil War was.”

Guelzo’s book also restores the reputation of J.E.B. Stuart, cavalry commander of the Confederate Army. “Did he [stuart] really render Robert E. Lee blind by riding on a joy ride almost entirely out of the campaign?” Guelzo asked. Over the years, Stuart has come in for much criticism for his cavalry’s supposed abandonment of Lee’s main force. “That also is an exaggeration, if not an outright myth.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/debunking-myths-gettysburg-150-years-later-historian-allen-035434409.html

Edited by Kowalski
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I always thought that had General Jackson not died a few weeks previously, then the intial encounter that took place with General Buford's forces would have been handled much better than it actually was by Generals Hill and Heth. I think if Jackson still had command of that Corps, then Gettysberg would not have happened. Though of course there would have been a titanic battle shortly after the presumed rout of Reynold's Corps, though in less favourable circumstances to the North. Anything would then have been possible, direct involvement by Britain and France on side of Confederacy, anything. As for it being a classic encounter battle with both sides "blundering" into each other, then I would say it wasn't. Both armies were heading straight towards each other and see I see it almost as a race to get to and command the Gettysberg ground. Buford certainly knew how vital it was, and he won the race, then Heth made an uneccesary mess of things. IMO

Edited by Tutankhaten-pasheri
5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like some are really taking apart many myths: The Alamo, Custer's last stand (in reality the Natives last stand), Gettysburg... soon there will be nothing left for Disney to spin a tale about...

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like some are really taking apart many myths: The Alamo, Custer's last stand (in reality the Natives last stand), Gettysburg... soon there will be nothing left for Disney to spin a tale about...

While I agree about Custers Last Stand being in fact the Native Americans Last Stand, what myths about the Alamo are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't really aware of any myths and such regarding Gettysburg but I will now do some research thanks to your post. I love addressing new things. Thanks, Kowalski!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree about Custers Last Stand being in fact the Native Americans Last Stand, what myths about the Alamo are you talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFXp3tgdKAY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree about Custers Last Stand being in fact the Native Americans Last Stand, what myths about the Alamo are you talking about?

Look at the list of defenders of the Alamo. You'll find some Spanish surnames. You don't hear much about this in movies and TV shows. It's a cool bit of trivia (concerning a substantial sacrifice), though.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree about Custers Last Stand being in fact the Native Americans Last Stand, what myths about the Alamo are you talking about?

There's a good deal of controversy about Davey Crockett's death, is there not? One story is that his body was found in the hospital with the bodies of a dozen or so Mexican troops lying dead around him, his knife still sticking from the chest of one of them. Then there's another story that says he surrendered and was executed under Santa Anna's orders.

From what I've read, there's really no way to be certain exactly what happened.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ancestors, were very instrumental in the Texas Revolution, and according to family lore, we had 2 cousins who rode out of Gonzales (the Immortal 32) to give aid to the men at the Alamo.

I know there is a lot of controversy about Davy Crocketts death, and I don't think we'll ever know what really happened...

I think the de la Pena (I hope I spelled that right) diary should be taken with a grain of salt, though. It's a pretty biased source, and I wonder how a Mexican infantryman, can even know what Davy Crockett looked like?

When people start to talk bad about the Alamo defenders, I just want to throw my flip flop at them! :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ancestors, were very instrumental in the Texas Revolution, and according to family lore, we had 2 cousins who rode out of Gonzales (the Immortal 32) to give aid to the men at the Alamo.

I know there is a lot of controversy about Davy Crocketts death, and I don't think we'll ever know what really happened...

I think the de la Pena (I hope I spelled that right) diary should be taken with a grain of salt, though. It's a pretty biased source, and I wonder how a Mexican infantryman, can even know what Davy Crockett looked like?

When people start to talk bad about the Alamo defenders, I just want to throw my flip flop at them! :yes:

I agree. Most folks in today's world would just curl up in a ball and p*** themselves in a similar situation.

While we may never know for certain what happened, we do know what their sacrifices brought about for both the State of Texas and the United States as a whole.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My ancestors, were very instrumental in the Texas Revolution, and according to family lore, we had 2 cousins who rode out of Gonzales (the Immortal 32) to give aid to the men at the Alamo.

I know there is a lot of controversy about Davy Crocketts death, and I don't think we'll ever know what really happened...

I think the de la Pena (I hope I spelled that right) diary should be taken with a grain of salt, though. It's a pretty biased source, and I wonder how a Mexican infantryman, can even know what Davy Crockett looked like?

When people start to talk bad about the Alamo defenders, I just want to throw my flip flop at them! :yes:

I doubt that anybody outside of Mexico talks bad about them, because as far as I am concerned: Saying the truth is not speaking bad... no matter who does not like it. And the first fact is that it was less about being American but much more about kicking Mexico City in its gonads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Most folks in today's world would just curl up in a ball and p*** themselves in a similar situation.

While we may never know for certain what happened, we do know what their sacrifices brought about for both the State of Texas and the United States as a whole.

That's for sure.... :tu:

I doubt that anybody outside of Mexico talks bad about them, because as far as I am concerned: Saying the truth is not speaking bad... no matter who does not like it. And the first fact is that it was less about being American but much more about kicking Mexico City in its gonads.

What truth is that? That 180+ men, some of Mexican descent, gave their lives so their families and future descendants could live in liberty?

There is a saying in the Old West, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What truth is that? That 180+ men, some of Mexican descent, gave their lives so their families and future descendants could live in liberty?

There is a saying in the Old West, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

As (amateur) historian: Legends have no place in history, for that we have Hollywood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Native last stand never happened. There are MANY undefeated natives champions.

Native resistance was biggest resistance in history.

While in south Pizzaro and Cortes have had "easy" work, Europeans thought north will fall easily too.

They were wrong.

Conquering the north last MUCH longer although was done more properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As (amateur) historian: Legends have no place in history, for that we have Hollywood.

You are not amateur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legends do indeed have a very important place in History - and the study of History... All we know of much of history is the legends that came out of the oral tales of the actual events...

Any Historian that ignore legends, severly limits themself in the understanding of history...

It does become a problem however when the Legend is accepted as fact with out being verified...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legends do indeed have a very important place in History - and the study of History... All we know of much of history is the legends that came out of the oral tales of the actual events...

Any Historian that ignore legends, severly limits themself in the understanding of history...

It does become a problem however when the Legend is accepted as fact with out being verified...

There is nothing wrong basing your investigation on a legend, what certainly is, once the facts are known, is to keep divulging the legend as fact because you don't like the reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

There is nothing wrong basing your investigation on a legend, what certainly is, once the facts are known, is to keep divulging the legend as fact because you don't like the reality.

Dude, don't lecture me on Texas history, just because I don't buy the "revisionist history" c****…

Those men made the ultimate sacrifice, and we should honor their memory, not be spitting on it. You aren't from Texas, you aren't a fifth or sixth generation Texan, so you have no idea, how sacred a subject this is to most of us.

What those men did, was nothing short of bravery. They knew they were going to die, and yet they stayed there and fought, to buy Houston more time. That is courage, and I find it very inspiring. Does it really matter if Davy Crockett was killed fighting or was shot as a prisoner after the battle? What difference does it make?

Note: I'm not trying to beat up on you or anything, it's just hard for people, who are not Fifth generation Texans and not only had ancestors who were instrumental in the Texas Revolution, but had cousins who fought in the battle, to understand why this is such a sacred topic, to people like me.

Edited by Kowalski
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude, don't lecture me on Texas history, just because I don't buy the "revisionist history" c****…

Those men made the ultimate sacrifice, and we should honor their memory, not be spitting on it. You aren't from Texas, you aren't a fifth or sixth generation Texan, so you have no idea, how sacred a subject this is to most of us.

What those men did, was nothing short of bravery. They knew they were going to die, and yet they stayed there and fought, to buy Houston more time. That is courage, and I find it very inspiring. Does it really matter if Davy Crockett was killed fighting or was shot as a prisoner after the battle? What difference does it make?

Note: I'm not trying to beat up on you or anything, it's just hard for people, who are not Fifth generation Texans and not only had ancestors who were instrumental in the Texas Revolution, but had cousins who fought in the battle, to understand why this is such a sacred topic, to people like me.

Those men who made the ultimate sacrifice were Mexicans in their great majority, and they were fighting for a Republican Mexico in their majority. For slavery rights in a minority.

They were manhandled into splitting off Texas from Mexico by Santa Anna, among other due to the red flag on the Alamo and Goliad (which strangely seems to be ignored in all this despite 303 making the ultimate sacrifice). Joining the Union was more an act of desperation because they knew that if somebody more capable than Santa Anna came along the Republic would not last long. For ten years all attempts been black balled by Washington... and maybe still would be if Polk would not have the grand vision of the great US of A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those men who made the ultimate sacrifice were Mexicans in their great majority, and they were fighting for a Republican Mexico in their majority. For slavery rights in a minority.

They were manhandled into splitting off Texas from Mexico by Santa Anna, among other due to the red flag on the Alamo and Goliad (which strangely seems to be ignored in all this despite 303 making the ultimate sacrifice). Joining the Union was more an act of desperation because they knew that if somebody more capable than Santa Anna came along the Republic would not last long. For ten years all attempts been black balled by Washington... and maybe still would be if Polk would not have the grand vision of the great US of A.

First off, I never said there weren't any Mexicans there. There were many Mexicans, most notably, Juan Seguin, who were instrumental in the Texas Revolution. Santa Anna was a dictator, pure and simple.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a saying in the Old West, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Never realized that 1962 was considered part of "the Old West", considering that that line was taken from the movie "The Man who shot Liberty Valance". So evidently there are several here at UM, myself included, who were part of the Old West. No wonder I feel old. :lol:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kowalski do you think Comancheria was empire as some historians argued ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Never realized that 1962 was considered part of "the Old West", considering that that line was taken from the movie "The Man who shot Liberty Valance". So evidently there are several here at UM, myself included, who were part of the Old West. No wonder I feel old. :lol:

cormac

I love that movie. But, the saying, is what happens a lot in history, especially in the Old West.

"History is the course of events people have agreed upon." -- Napoleon

Kowalski do you think Comancheria was empire as some historians argued ?

Well, yes. The definition of empire:

em·pire

[ ém pr ]

  • lands ruled by single authority: a group of nations, territories, or peoples ruled by a single authority, especially an emperor or empress
  • monarchy headed by emperor or empress: a monarchy that has an emperor or empress as its ruler
  • period of empire's existence: the period during which an empire exists

Edited by Kowalski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that movie. But, the saying, is what happens a lot in history, especially in the Old West.

"History is the course of events people have agreed upon." -- Napoleon

Well, yes. The definition of empire:

em·pire

[ ém pr ]

  • lands ruled by single authority: a group of nations, territories, or peoples ruled by a single authority, especially an emperor or empress
  • monarchy headed by emperor or empress: a monarchy that has an emperor or empress as its ruler
  • period of empire's existence: the period during which an empire exists

While the saying itself doesn't originate in the Old West as you claimed it does have some truth to it in that, quite often, legends of an event will take on a life of their own replacing the truth. But to the more relevant point that questionmark was attempting to make, replacing the truth of an historical event with legends of same (mostly out of expediency) does not make those legends a fact no matter how many times they are stated. That should have been obvious IMO.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love that movie. But, the saying, is what happens a lot in history, especially in the Old West.

"History is the course of events people have agreed upon." -- Napoleon

Well, yes. The definition of empire:

em·pire

[ ém pr ]

  • lands ruled by single authority: a group of nations, territories, or peoples ruled by a single authority, especially an emperor or empress
  • monarchy headed by emperor or empress: a monarchy that has an emperor or empress as its ruler
  • period of empire's existence: the period during which an empire exists

I wish to learn more about Apacheria...is there any book if you know or perhaps documentary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.