An Interesting Perspective on Carhart’s Nonsense

Great stuff, and I’ll check out his blog.

I continued to be amazed by Carhart’s book with each page. Yes, he claimed to have come up with this great theory (which has been around as long as the battle, and one of those annoying myths that won’t die) and when he can’t prove it with the evidence, he simply invents things like conversations between officers! “Well, it would be great to have a recorded conversation between Lee and Stuart – however, we don’t. So in order to prove my theory, I’ll make one up. It goes like this…. There, I’ve proved my theory!”

I would tear out each page of Carhart’s book to line my new puppy’s pen, but that would be highly insulting to my puppy. He deserves a better brand of tome on which to poop.

J.D.

Eric:

“Festering pile of turds”? Now don’t be shy and mince words; tell us how you really feel about this book! I haven’t read it and if it’s as bad as you indicate, I don’t plan to. I have always been interested (ok, obsessed) with Gettysburg and tend to take it for what it was. I’m not really interested in theories about this or that. It is what it is and that’s enough for me.

Randy

So, Eric, you don’t like the book? 😀

Anyway, it’s nice to see some passion about history these days when most people don’t know who fought in WWII.

Steve–

I have real trouble with Carhart’s book, in part because we can’t simply sit back and say that he’s just one of a vast number of people who believe they have a Civil War book in them.

Carhart’s a professionally-trained historian. See

http://www.tomcarhart.net/formal_resume.htm

There’s nothing “new” in this interpretation in terms of Stuart’s role, despite the claims in the text and the foreword. Professionally-trained historians ought to know better.

As for buying the book cheap, that usually means no royalties for the author, so perhaps the author did not profit from your purchase. As for me (and, I have no doubt, for Eric and JD as well), I have to wade through a lot of garbage because it’s my responsibility to know the literature, good and bad. Trust me, if I could have the thirty minutes of my life back spent reading Michael Korda’s horrendous biography of Grant, I could have at least watched another Cheers rerun. 🙂

Brooks,

Your point is well taken, and as one who does not have to wade in that stuff all the time, I do understand where you are coming from.

I know I am no freaking genius, but just from reading this stuff makes me wonder how it could be published. That said, as much as I hate this stuff, I should read it before I comment, and hell yeah I got them el cheapo, as I have no interest in putting money in their pockets. 🙂

As for Korda’s book on Grant, it still bothers me that the one time CSPAN came to tape one of our RT meetings, it was when he spoke here. It has embarrassed the hell outta me to this day. I have watched the program, and can see myself on the TV screen shaking my head while he spoke. Like you, I would rather watch Frasier running around the bar with scissors, than to be subjected to a program like that again. 🙂

Am not one for sitting back either. When I see crap, I will label it crap. In this instance I have not added to the chorus because I have not read Carhart’s book yet. That’s all I meant to say.

Hope all is well.

Regards from the Garden State,

Steve Basic

Brooks Simpson wrote: “Trust me, if I could have the thirty minutes of my life back spent reading Michael Korda’s horrendous biography of Grant, I could have at least watched another Cheers rerun.”

Lots worse ways to spend your time. Cheers is the second best sitcom ever to appear on American TV. The Andy Griffith Show is the first.

Cheers,
Jim Morgan

Serious question.

I’ve not read Carhart’s book. Hadn’t ever heard of it before reading this thread. In light of the comments on here, I’m really puzzled by the endorsements of Carhart’s book by James McPherson and Sir John Keegan.

Here are their endorsements taken from Carhart’s website:

“No historian before Carhart has pieced together the whole story. . . . Given the vast number of writings about Gettysburg, it seems impossible to come up with new information and insights about the battle. But Tom Carhart has done it.” —James McPherson, Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Battle Cry of Freedom (See more excerpts from the foreword by James M. McPherson.)

“Tom Carhart sheds new light on the grandest battle of the Civil War, a remarkable achievement by any military historian.”
—Sir John Keegan, author of The Face of Battle and Six Armies in Normandy

Both of these respected historians say that Carhart has brought something new to the Gettysburg story. Yet the consensus on here seems to be that, not only has he not done so but that he’s done nothing more than rehash some very old, already debunked, theories and may well have plagiarized from previous authors.

What’s going on here? I’m confused.

Jim Morgan

As a PhD advisor for several students, I make it a rule NOT to blurb their books or to review their books. That would appear to be simple, no? The conflict-of-interest charge is too clear.

Not everyone follows this rule. An incredibly famous historian used to review the books of people where he had served as their dissertation advisor, including books completed first as dissertations under his supervision. You can see how it might be impossible to avoid conflict of interest in the latter case. 🙂

The book in question was not a dissertation.

J. D. wrote … “I’m sure McPherson has heard at least some of the negative reviews of Carhart’s book. Eric, you should recount for the folks your conversation with Carhart last year.”

C’mon, Eric. Give!

Jim

I’m sure Eric, J. D., and others are aware of this, but for those who are not:

http://www.civilwarphotography.org/newsletters/Vol2Iss1.pdf

Go to page 2.

Note that Atkinson is among the list of favorable reviewers compiled by Venson and located at http://www.roberteleecwrt.com/Carhart_Praise.doc:

“Tom Carhart sheds new light on the grandest battle of the Civil War, a remarkable achievement by any military historian”
—John Keegan, author of The Iraq War

“A lively and innovative interpretation of the greatest battle ever waged on American soil. Written with verve and a keen eye for the telling detail, Lost Triumph brings to life both the battlefield and the remarkable men who fought there. Tom Carhart has given us not only a fine work of scholarship, but a fine story.”
—Rick Atkinson, author of An Army at Dawn

“With Lost Triumph, West Pointer Tom Carhart swats a stupendous, historical, out-of-the-park four-bagger. History is seldom page-turning; here, the true events of Gettysburg compose a thriller. Dr. Carhart makes the case for revolutionizing our understanding of the decisive engagement of the Civil War; elevates the renown of Robert E. Lee; improbably reanimates the reputation of George Armstrong Custer; and shows us how history should be analyzed, challenged, proven and taught.
On the way, he condenses the complexities of the military art into entertainingly digestible bites.”
—Gus Lee, author of China Boy, Honor and Duty and Chasing Hepburn.

“Lost Triumph is an exciting, wonderful book rivaling anything yet written about the battle of Gettysburg. It is mandatory reading for Civil War buffs. I have always wondered why General Lee ordered that fateful attack when and where he did. Now I know. Thanks to Tom Carhart’s exemplary new research and his knowledge of military matters, Lost Triumph presents the first comprehensive view of Lee’s previously unknown plan to win the battle.”
—Bruce Lee, author of Marching Orders: The Untold Story of World War II

“Few generals were as brilliant as Robert E. Lee and few battles as titanic — and puzzling — as Gettysburg. Why did Lee fail? In Lost Triumph, Tom Carhart offers a bold and provocative new assessment. Agree or disagree, it is sure to stimulate debate among even the most seasoned Civil War buffs.”
—Jay Winik, author of April 1865: The Month That Saved America

“Provocative and exciting. A very good read.”
— Gabor Boritt, Director, Civil War Institute, Gettysburg College

“A mark of true genius is a writer’s ability to show us the familiar in a new light. Tom Carhart does just that in Lost Triumph, an original and refreshing look at Lee’s strategic thinking at Gettysburg that is sure to set the standard view of that battle on its head. But the genuinely breathtaking aspect of this book is the way Carhart takes his brush to the tarnished image of George Armstrong Custer. Lost Triumph is truly a ground-breaking contribution to American military history.”
—Dan Cragg, author of Generals in Muddy Boots and Top Sergeant

“Lost Triumph sets forth an intriguing theory and goes on to prove that it might just have been possible for General Lee to defeat the Union Army at Gettysburg but for the intervention of George Armstrong Custer. Tom Carhart’s grasp of the Civil War is firm, and his writing is lucid and has splendid pace.”
—Gail Frey Borden, author of Easter Day, 1941

“After 142 years of common belief that Robert E. Lee’s battlefield brilliance had somehow failed him in the decisive battle of Gettysburg, Tom Carhart, a West Pointer and noted historian who knows firsthand the blood and guts and chaos of war as a combat soldier in Viet Nam, has remarkably broken the code and now rewrites history so that we might finally understand what really happened there. Stunning. Brilliant.”
—Gil Dorland, author of Legacy of Discord: Voices of the Vietnam War Era

“Read any of the hundreds of books on Gettysburg-better yet, walk the route of Pickett’s Charge-and you’ll wonder what Lee was thinking when he sent those men across that deadly field. Tom Carhart has an answer. A gifted storyteller, Carhart recreates an entire world and leads us firmly to the far right of the Union line. Lee didn’t lose a triumph at Gettysburg; an impetuous young Federal cavalry general named Custer and his blue-coated horsemen snatched it away.”
— Ed Ruggero, author of Combat Jump: The Young Men Who Led the Assault Into Fortress Europe, July 1943

“Tom Carhart brings a soldier’s perspective to his analysis of Lee’s tactical thinking at Gettysburg. Whether or not you accept Carhart’s conclusions about JEB Stuart’s role in Pickett’s disastrous charge, his command of the principles of mounted combat are superb, and his descriptions of the actions of Stuart’s Confederate cavalry and Custer’s Union cavalry are filled with new insights. Carhart convincingly shows that Custer was at the right place at the right time at Gettysburg, even if that were not the case 13 years later on that grassy hillside overlooking the Little Bighorn in Montana.”
—Col. (ret.) Michael D. Mahler, author of Ringed in Steel—Armored Cavalry, Vietnam 1967-1968

“Students of military history have long wondered why, on July 3rd, 1863, during the Battle of Gettysburg, General Robert E. Lee launched the attack against the center of the Union Army’s defenses. This attack, known as Pickett’s Charge, turned out to be a suicidal effort that had disastrous results for the Army of Northern Virginia in the short term, and ultimately to the overall cause of the Confederacy. Tom Carhart offers a fresh and compelling explanation for Lee’s decision in Lost Triumph. Fast paced, well researched, and provocative — this a book that is a must read for Civil War historians, and an entertaining read for those having only a casual interest in the greatest conflict in our Nation’s history. Tom Carhart is not only a scholar, he is a West Point graduate who served as a young officer in Vietnam. Tom writes with a soldier’s perspective — an understanding of tactics and the complexities of command / battlefield decision-making. He is one who has known the sounds, the smells and the fears of battle. These unique insights come through in Lost Triumph, adding realism and authenticity to his work”.
—Ronald H. Griffith, General (Retired), U.S. Army

“Why Robert E. Lee, a brilliant commander and tactician, ordered a tragically failed frontal attack by 15,000 Confederate foot soldiers at Gettysburg has been an unsettling mystery to most military history buffs. One hundred forty years later, Lost Triumph provides a plausible answer. Tom Carhart’s analysis brings the rolling hills of Pennsylvania to life for those who enjoy unraveling history’s mysteries. Truly a great book for those who follow military history.”
—Edward C. Meyer, General (Retired), U.S. Army

**Of course, the question is “who’s right on this,” the above-noted reviewers OR the commenters on civilwarcavalry?

For some reason, Venson did not include McPherson’s praise, and he IS a Civil War historian, tho connected (through Princeton) to Carhart, but, as noted above, Carhart’s Ph.D. thesis was not about the Civil War. A conflict of sorts, which should have been mentioned.

As to embracing the theory, there are, as noted above, no facts to support the Carhart theory, so any Civil War scholar might have difficulty. But Carhart may be more into the “selling books” business than into Civil War scholarship (as you have noted, there is no bibliography and no detailed footnoting, so this doesn’t have the appearance of scholarship). Carhart’s book could be a new Civil War genre, not flagrantly fictional as Kantor’s “If the South had Won…”, but put forth on non-existent facts to implicate a world “If Lee’s real plan had been executed…”

If reaching “many” people is the goal, Carhart may have succeeded, because there are probably more readers/buyers who think Carhart is right than those who have looked at civilwarcavalry and know he is neither correct nor original. These tricked people may have been helped to such end by reviewers such as noted in the previous post. This brings up another question. What is the responsibility of reviewers (including McPherson) to readers when tossing about words such as novel, original, and never before?
Do potential readers understand that these reviews are merely puffery, or do the readers have some expectation of “truth in review”?

So, blurbing without background is bothersome? What is McPherson’s excuse?

For a discussion of a different review of Carhart’s book (by Bell), see

http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-was-jeb-stuart-really-doing-on.html