Lost Triumph: Lee's Real Plan at Gettsyburg

[Diane Merkel]

Here's a review that may be of interest:

LOST TRIUMPH: LEE'S REAL PLAN AT GETTYSBURG — AND WHY IT FAILED. By Tom Carhart. Putnam. 272 pages. $25.95.

If author Tom Carhart is correct, this is the most important book written about Gettysburg in decades — and perhaps ever.

It is also bound to be terribly controversial. No battle in American history has been studied as thoroughly as this one, and serious students of the Civil War are bound to roll their eyes when they hear his theory of who the real hero was: Gen. George Armstrong Custer, the pride of Monroe, Mich., who is today mainly remembered for the utter disaster at the Little Big Horn (emphasis added).

“It seems very reasonable to say that at Gettysburg, Custer truly saved the Union,” the author says. “No, this might not be the kind of man you would want to have in your home for a quiet dinner, but thank God he was there when this nation’s survival hung in the balance.”

For the entire review: toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050904/ART02/50904047

[Scout]

Interesting theory to say the least, I have not read Carhart's book but I would like to comment on two things. First the statement, ''this might not be the kind of man you would want to have in your home for a quiet dinner''....What in the hell is that based on? George Custer would be one of my top choices compared to half of the drunken Union & Confederate Generals that fought in the war. He was always known to be a gentleman in social situations. I would really like to know what that staement is all about. I feel some underlying PC going on.

But as far as 'saving the Union' I have to say whoa. First of all the Union army had a lot to do with it and even if Lee had been successful and routed Meade, he would have still had to contend with Lincoln and Grant, who may have not been so co-operative and giving it up. Winning one battle does not win the war, or the south would have been 'victors' after Shiloh.

Gettysburg has a lot of parallels with the battle of the LBH. Two of the most studied battles in American history and a lot of 'what ifs.'
Thanks for the post.

Scout

[Scout]

I meant to say 'Bull Run' not Shiloh.

[Tricia]

Scout--

I think you're being too unforgiving when looking at the remark whether GAC would or wouldn't be the kind of guy you wanted over for a quiet dinner. The guy, although he could behave as a gentleman in social situations, was just as well known for being a bit of a rowdy. I think the key word is "quiet." Entertaining would be a more accurate term for a Custer-in-attendance dinner.

Regards,
LMC

[Scout]

Custer was known to be rowdy with his brothers and the young cadet Custer was also known for his highjinks, but this has no bearing on his adult social life. The actor Lawrence Barrett, a close personal friend and member of the New York social scene, considered Custer a gentleman of the highest order. I think you are confusing the real Custer with the Erroll Flynn portrayal. Have any good first hand accounts of his behavior at any social function that would indicate 'loud' or rowdy behavior? I know of none, but perhaps you do. Anything else is heresay. He did what most others did at social functions of the day which is read prose and plays, and generally talk. Don't know of any arm wrasslin episodes!

Regards, Scout

[elisabeth]

Indeed, according to Libbie, he would frequently duck out of social gatherings altogether and go off and brood in his study or wherever.

His dogs, now, that's another matter. "Rowdy" isn't the word for those!

[markland]

Haven't I read that during family gatherings, GAC and his brothers were known to wrestle with each other as well as other roughhousing and teasing? Note, I said family gatherings which are much different than formal social occasions.

Billy

[Tricia]

markland said:

Haven't I read that during family gatherings, GAC and his brothers were known to wrestle with each other as well as other roughhousing and teasing? Note, I said family gatherings which are much different than formal social occasions.

Billy

And there were those instances, even after the ACW, when Custer was out and about with West Point pals flirting with hookers and attending shooting galleries ... granted, these aren't dinners, per se ... "sport," to use his word for these activities ... and Elisabeth is correct, GAC would go off on his own, sometimes bringing Libbie with him, at society events. I can't remember what book I read this in, but it was considered kind of rude by the guests.

I mean no negative connotations here, only to offer a balanced perspective.

Regards,
Leyton McLean

I

[My Dawg Got Et]

The most common word I read regarding people meeting Custer in social situations is "gentleman." The word crops up through all kinds of correspondence and journals starting in the CW and through to Fort Lincoln.

GAC didn't go off at "society events" so much as he would sometimes go to/stay in his office at Fort Lincoln. When he was writing his memoirs he tended to get way too much into himself.

It was only with close friends and family he most often cut loose. Or if he was out and about with Tom -- that was an explosive combination.

alfuso

[Tricia]

And add a little Cooke to the mix ... a good time is guaranteed for all.

[weir]

admin said:

“It seems very reasonable to say that at Gettysburg, Custer truly saved the Union,” the author says. “No, this might not be the kind of man you would want to have in your home for a quiet dinner, but thank God he was there when this nation’s survival hung in the balance."

With the story of dinner, it seems the author wanted to stay in the political correctness. Anyway, his remark about Custer's charge is quite important, because historians often scorn Custer's deeds on July 3rd to analyse what was wrong on the main celebrity of the day on the East Cavalry Field, General Stuart.

Come on you Wolverines!

[Tricia]

West--

What's "politically" correct about not wishing GAC to dinner? It's a personal choice. PC doesn't answer all woes.

Regards,
LMC

[weir]

it's an opened question.
For example :
I found an article of historian Jeffry Wert about Major Kidd's writing, where he wrote : "To Kidd [...] Custer was simply the best cavalry officer in the Union Army. While modern students and historians of the war might disagree vigorously with Kidd's assesment of Custer..."
(America's Civil War, September 2001, p.62)

And Jeffry Wert in his Custer's bioagraphy : "If Custer's career had ended at Appomattox, we would remember him as one of the best cavalrymen of the country". (the controversial life of custer, 247).

In an open article of Civil War passionates, Jeffry Wert wanted to be careful with words, opening the debate instead of ending it. Sounds for me that the author quoted in this post is doing the same.

[Diane Merkel]

Exciting news!

Tom Carhart has agreed to answer questions about his book online. We can either do it on a Message Board or in a chat room. If you haven't read his book, check out his website: www.tomcarhart.net/.

Please let me know which venue you would prefer and when you would like to schedule it. Tom will also be a speaker at the LBHA Conference in Richmond next July.

[ma dawg got et]

I don't do chat rooms

alfuso