Gettysburg Heroes: Perfect Soldiers, Hallowed Ground by Glenn W. LaFantasie

[AnnD]

Glenn LaFantasie has a new book out called Gettysburg Heroes: Perfect Soldiers, Hallowed Ground (2008), which I merely glanced at.  Based upon previous writings, I am not inclined to buy any of his books, but I thought that I would let the members know of its existence.  What I did glance at seemed typical of this author's style; he borrows information from others and makes statements that are both inappropriate and inaccurate.

[DanJeris]

If anyone buys this thing please post your reaction.  From the review on the amazon website it sounds like another trashing of the memory of James Longstreet or the world according to Lafayette McLaws....

[DanJeris]

Just picked this book up last night.  Haven't finished the chapter on Longstreet yet but I've seen enough to advise not to waste your money on this.  UGH!

This is a collection of essays that I was looking forward to reading until I started reading it last night.  The first essay after the introduction is the one on Longstreet.  It’s absolutely horrible.  I’m not even halfway through it and I cannot believe what I am reading.  This guy debunks the lost cause myths of being slow and then hatchets Longstreet for being indecisive, duplicitous while committing treason (this in regard to his resignation from the US Army).  Lafantasie sprinkles his opinion with a few footnotes that hardly provide sources for what he’s writing.   His source for the resignation allegations…..Jeffrey Wert.  He even quotes Bob Krick’s essay, “If Longstreet says so…..”    This is a revised version of an article that appeared in MHQ in 1999, edition 11 to be exact.  I’m astounded that this type of thing can get published and then praised….Don’t see how I can read the rest of the book now….This is the type of thing that I find discouraging to no end….Opinion based on secondary sources….Oh and of course he quotes the McLaws humbug letter…..

More evidence that in order to get anything published on Longstreet you have to mix left handed compliments with character assasination. 

Although I was looking forward to the essays on the 15th Alabama I think it will be a waste of time now.  Moving on to Faust's "This Republic of Suffering."

[barrydancer]

Thanks for the info, Dan.  Looks like I'll be steering clear of that one.

I think they whole commission "controversy" is in the end, much ado about nothing, and I think we've talked about this somewhere else on the board.  I don't know anything about military protocol, commissioning dates, pay, etc., so I guess if you wanted to get technical, accepting that Confederate commission a week or so before submitting his resignation to the U.S. Army could be an ethical and judicial problem.  Maybe even treason if you wanted to go that far.  But I don't think there was any duplicity involved in Longstreet's actions or any attempt to cover up any embarrassing episodes. 

After all, look at his overall conduct at the time.  He could have simply left earlier in the year, but didn't, even though he may have already made up his mind to serve the South.  Instead, he stayed on to finish not only his assigned duties, but those of his colleagues who did simply leave!  I've brought this up before, but in discussing this period Wert extensively references an interview with Longstreet in the New York Times talking about his feelings and the goings on at his post just prior to his leaving, except the portion of that article where Longstreet talks about getting numerous letters from his brother and others urging him to leave, as the early people would get the best positions in the Confederacy.  Longstreet effectively told them that he had work to do still and would take his chances later on.

Also with Wert, perhaps a military person can chime in on this, as I think he's grasping at straws with this next claim.  He seems to chastise Longstreet for going straight to Richmond after resigning, instead of going to Alabama to enter that state's forces.  Piston makes clear in his dissertation that Alabama's governor wasn't interested in giving Longstreet a commission.  Wert seems to acknowledge this in saying that the governor forwarded Longstreet's letters and offers to Davis and the Confederate government.  Piston also stresses that Longstreet's commission as Lt. Colonel came from the Confederate government, a point which Wert also seems to acknowledge this when he writes "Confederate authorities in Montgomery, the secessionist nation's first capital, appointed Longstreet lieutenant colonel of infantry." (54)  So it seems pretty obvious to me, and I'm sure the records in the archives say for sure, that Longstreets commission was in the regular army, not state volunteer forces, and directly from the government. (Though if I'm not mistaken, the regular army only had one rank about colonel, that of full general, so I'm not sure if Pete's promotions above colonel were in the provision army or regular).  By the time he left the US Army, the Confederate capital had moved to Richmond.  So, if he has a regular army commission straight from the national government, and the government seat is in Richmond, what business would he have going to Alabama?

[AnnD]

To those of us that take our history seriously, we often wonder how some of these author/historians get the history wrong.  It is not uncommon for many of these author/historians to rely heavily on secondary sources.  In fact, I have noted errors in PHd dissertations, which obviously go undetected.  This group of historians are banking on the fact that there is a lazy populace that is willing to accept their interpretation as fact because they lack the initiative to question the facts.  If these books didn't sell, these authors would either stop writing or they would be forced to elevate the quality of their work.

The question really is are they historians or authors.  I believe that there is a difference between the two.  I consider an individual like Harry Pfanz and Ed Bearss historians.  They have lived and studied history for most of their lives.  Mr. Lafantasie is in the business of putting out books, and considering how many he puts out (he has six works in progress), he probably doesn't have much time to validate sources, so the next best thing is to borrow from others through the use of secondary sources.

[AnnD]

I came across a limited preview of Gettysburg Heroes in google books, but the chapter on Longstreet is in its entirety.  I'm providing the link to anyone that is interested in how some professors, like Lafantasie, regurgitate the old myths.

http://books.google.com/books?id=F0yYPPMRrTwC&pg=PP1&dq=Gettysburg+Heroes&ei=2ej6StDZDJSMNsS3qPsO#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Clark]

______________My Review on the LaFantasie book at Amazon.

"Glen W. LaFantasie has done it again. He managed to misread and trash one of the South's greatest generals...again.

His essay on Longstreet begins and ends with misinterpretations of events in Longstreet's life. His perchance for quoting Longstreet detractors doesn't enhance his work either.

For example, LaFantasie quote's a conversation between Gen. Longstreet and his old servant and about how the servant said "Something must have scared you mighty bad to change you from what you was when I had to care for you." Lafantasie trys to persuade us that this is evidence of Longstreet's lifelong aposty. In reality, the servant was just commenting on how Longstreet had changed from being a young ruffian with little religious bent to a more subdued pious senior citizen. I don't see how you can read anything other than that in the old servant's statement. Then Lafantasie quotes from McLaw's well-known "humbug" letter, but doesn't tell you that Mclaws wrote other letters stating what a good soldier James Longstreet was.

Furthermore, the whole disloyalty thing is blown way out of proportion by Wert which, of course, gives Lafantasie and ilk more fodder for their pee-shooting quotations. Heck, all (thousands) who quit the US Army to go South were techincally traitors. So why is Longstreet being singled out for special treatment in that regard. Besides, it was customary for soldiers (officers) who resigned from the Army to wait a few days and then move off and not wait for a comfirmation on the resignation. Does anyone know of a resignation that was turned down? But Wert likes to spice his narratives with a little dark drama, so why not put Longstreet on the spot. After all, he's been trashed by just about everybody else. So, does Lafansie's work deserve a better rating? Yes, IF he had done some original research on his own and not just quoted others and then making (sometimes ridiculous) inaccurate statements in his work.

Lafantasie has a good narrative style. He speaks well and the dialogue flows well, but he trips on the facts. Sorry, Glen. Forget about the bucks for once and try to get it right for a change."