Thank you

If I may ask, who was your Zouave ancestor?

Mike

Boy do I feel like a fish out of water ! 🙂 I am writing this among three very distinquished authors and JD and Eric, I count among my dearest friends.. (Mr. Simpson some day you and I are going to have to sit down and talk about G.K. Warren!). 🙂

But here goes. As I noted over on JDs blog, as one who continues to learn something new every time I visit Gettysburg and walk the grounds, I am astounded at Mr. Gallaghers comments!

For instance. During my research into Burlings brigade at Gettysburg, I walked out to the approximate location of the brigade before it moves to the Rose farm where its broken up and sent to its destiny with history.
While standing there, I opened up Joe Bilbys book on Remeber you are Jersey men, and read the account. I then opened up Tombs book on New Jersey and read his telling of the story. Then but not least, I pulled out the after action report of Burling, Humphry, and all of the regimental officers (Those who survived- so in some cases it was subordinates who wrote it)…
What began to naw at me was their statements of recieving heavy arty fire from Seminary Ridge. Helllllooo!!! Where the brigade was, they cannot be scene from Seminary Ridge unless the AnV scouts were standing on Longstreets tower, and even then they would have had a hard time!!!

We then moved to Roses farm. And having read the accounts allready, I am now really scratching my head.. Their accounts DONT MATCH THE GROUND!! My wife (A CW and Gettysburg novice who is learning fast), says Jim this doesnt add up!!! We have just learned something together and been spurred further to research this………..

So in light of this.. What is my point??? Obvisouly there is still so much to learn! And this is about one brigade!!

How many more mysterys are out there like this??? How many more retelling of the story to make sure the history we are telling is RIGHT! How much more research, exploration, walking the ground is it going to take before even I personally understand this brigades place in the largest battle of the Civil War, and in North America …….

So Mr. Gallaghers comments seem to me to show either a distain for those of us who are stiill driven to explore, undertand, and yes tell the REST of the Story or maybe caught up way too much in his “impotance”..

Jim Lamason

Let me begin by saying how much I appreciate the votes of support posted here.

Brooks, there is absolutely no doubt that you’re correct, and we will find a way to try to do just that.

Although I pretty vigorously disagree with Gary, I do understand his point. I wonder if his objections to microtactical histories extends to those that have not been covered previously? My book on the Battle of Monroe’s Crossroads is the ONLY detailed tactical treatment of that fight ever written, and I get into microtactics in it. Why? It was a soldiers’ fight, down to the individual level. So, is a work like that–with no prior tactical treatment–also objectionable in Gary’s view of thing? I certainly hope not, but it also sounds that way when you read Gary’s comments.

And, for the record, you’re right, I do know you. We’ve spent some time together on the battlefield, and we’ve broken bread together. I have absolutely no intention of turning this into a professional vs. amateur thing, as that’s NOT what this is about. Rather, this is a Gary Gallagher thing, pure and simple.

Eric

No, I haven’t had the pleasure of your company (yet, I hope!). And I do understand what you mean. I too wish to stay away from the amateur vs. pro issue, because I feel that just muddies the waters and paints with just as broad a brush as I feel is in Gallagher’s comment – and that gets us nowhere.

The problem with his comment, as I see it, is the responsibility that someone of Gallagher’s status has (and certainly he must understand that). To those who are given much, much is expected. Think of how the authors of that Railroad Cut study would feel about his comment. And of the budding authors out there who are thinking of writing a “microhistory” or microtactical-type work on Gettysburg or anything else. As I mention in the follow-up post I made today on my blog, such a comment as this was made in a time when CW readership is down and spiraling further, reenacting/living history interest is down, battlefields and historical sites are under increasing developmental attack, and our younger generation is losing interest in history as their attention is demanded by the latest gizmo. I just feel it is irresponsible to make comments such as he made, and Gallagher should know better. I don’t believe you’d hear folks like Ed Bearss make such a statement, and you certainly wouldn’t have ever heard Brian Pohanka make it. I knew Brian well enough to know that he loved every bit of new research and felt that everything should be constantly revisited because you just never knew what new thing was around the corner, or lurking in someone’s attic or basement.

The CWT issue was a Special Gettysburg issue, and here we have one of the premier CW historians basically saying that we just don’t need anything new on Gettysburg, and in fact what’s been coming out recently is virtually worthless. And that there’s nothing new to discover. Oh, that I had such omnipotence!

When you get a chance to read the entire interview (if you do) please let us know what feeling you come away with from that comment – and whether it was constructive or not. Gallagher and others may be thinking those things, but to have actually articulated it and have it printed is simply beyond my understand. Pompous, or immature, or unwise, or undiplomatic – any or all of those – but just plain dumb to say.

Steve H – thanks for the kind words and the second reading! Very kind of you. As for the pro vs amateur definition, basically anyone in the field of academia as a career is defined as a “pro,” whatever that means. Guess there’s lots of gray areas there, too. For some, it’s important to make that distinction, I guess.

J.D.

What is the criteria to distinguish a “professional” from an “amateur”? Is it solely based on being an academician? If so, that is crazy.

Thanks for a great book and keep them coming-from a purely amateurish standpoint, of course.