I agree. Certainly developing expertise in one area or on some favorite topics does not and should not preclude you from broadening your horizons. And of course I was by no means denigrating your strengths– sorry for needling you about Dahlgren et al. !!

And I thought Mr. Miller’s comment was insightful indeed. I’d buy that book as well.

Best regards, R.

I think you’re probably right, and I also think that you raise a very valid point. We all have our strengths, and we all have areas where we know more than others. I, for instance, would never consider myself a Western Theater expert, and I would never attempt to hold myself out as one. That’s not to say I’m not interested or I’m not willing to learn–I am. What it does mean is that there are areas that interest me more than others. What it also means is that I have a great deal to learn about a lot of things.

Eric

Really good and interesting comment–thanks.

I agree with you.

And it sounds like there’s a book project waiting for you to write on the historiography of Gettysburg……

Eric

A second key factor was access. Simply put, post-war Gettysburg was more accessible by road and rail than say, Antietam; but unlike Antietam, the battle of Gettysburg offered what many 19th century literati would refer to as superior “dramatic unities”–a balance between Southern victory on the first day and Southern defeat on the third; dramatic tension on the second day followed by a climactic finish, then the denoument (the Gettysburg Address.) It has taken historians decades to dispel notions of Gettysburg as “the turning point” of the war, and, pace Faulkner, the overdramatized notion of the “highwater mark of the south”–as if the South’s objective was ever the annexation of Federal territory above the Mason-Dixon line!

In sum, there were many reasons why Gettysburg is first among equals in a theater of war that has long enjoyed an unwarranted primacy. Some future scholar will probably mate notions of literary theory, economics (no gainsaying that local residents are an entrepreneurial lot), geography, and 19th century concentrations of media and political influence to explain just how this happened.

And if I live long enough to see it written, I shall be the first to buy the book.

I think part of what you’re seeing there is a combination of hype, availability of sources and an understandable desire on some folks’ part to feel like they have some expertise. The Civil War (as a whole) is a large and challenging body of coursework. I can see where some get frustrated–they read Foote, Catton, McPherson, Goodwin and Sears; they watch Ken Burns; they visit a few battlefields; they’re enthusiastic and think of themselves as fairly knowledgable–then they have a ten-minute conversation of you going off on “the paradox that was Ulrich Dalgren” or the unpublished correspondence of John Pope’s adjutant, and they feel like a freakin’ idiot! 🙂 Narrowing the lens to something like Gettysburg makes the topic managable, and there’s a lot of available material, plus there’s always a movie to fall back on!!

I think the saddest thing about narrowing to Gettysburg or the Eastern campaigns is the personalities you miss out on–and I don’t just mean Sherman. Keep up the interesting work; I enjoy it daily. –Russ