Conversations with History - James M. McPherson

"Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief"
James M. McPherson, Professor of History Emeritus, Princeton University, October 27, 2008, 60 minutes

Conversations host Harry Kreisler welcomes Pulitzer Prize winning historian and Princeton Professor Emeritus James M. McPherson for a discussion of his new book, Trial by War. Their discussion focuses on the
qualities that defined Abraham Lincoln's leadership, how he came to define the role of commander in chief, the evolution of his thinking on national policy with regard to slavery, how his goal of saving the Union shaped the politics of the war, his relationship to his generals, and the thinking and circumstances that led to his suspension of habeas corpus and the initiation of military tribunals. Professor McPherson reflects on the lessons to be learned from Lincoln's conduct of the civil war and its implications for today's wars.

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/iis/Kreisler.html
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/

Category:

Education

Tags:

• uc
• ucberkeley
• university
• california
• berkeley
• Military
• National
• Security
• Politics
• Legislation
• Democracy
• yt:quality=high

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Your dad should have listened to your mom and pulled out.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Yes Lee was reckless at Gettysburg, he should have listened to Longstreet and pulled out.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Union troops were on Culp's hill, even if Buford's men weren't.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Let me clarify that I'm not saying that I think Ewell would have failed if he had attacked. I'm just saying that given the situation, and not receiving a direct order from Lee, he did the right thing.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Well if "historians" say Ewell should have attacked, I guess he should have attacked. "Historians" never speak from hindsight....

Of course Ewell regretted not attacking. It was the defining battle of the war and they lost the battle (and the war).

Please give an example of a time Jackson attacked up a hill without knowing the strength of the enemy. Fierceness doesn't mean reckless. Lee was reckless.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Indeed, he gave him the order to attack if practicable, historians agree that is was practicable and Ewell should have taken it. Ewell himself regreted not taking it when he had the chance. Jackson would have taken that hill, his fierceness is not to be underestimated.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Buford positioned his men on cemetery hill and culp's hill. Where do you think Buford took his men?

Lee didn't order Ewell to attack. Telling him to attack "if practicable" isn't an order.

Jackson took calculated risks. He wouldn't have sent his men running blindly up a hill.

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins If Jackson had been alive, he probably would have agreed with Longstreet about maneuvering instead of attacking. Lee might have actually listened if it were both of them. I don't think a confederate victory at Gettysburg would have drastically changed the outcome of the war. The Union was still dominating the Western theater, and Grant took Vicksburg at that time and gained control of the entire Mississippi.

[RevBillyRayCollins]

@KayBeeEee1983 Ive never read anywhere that Buford went to Culps Hill....

Yes the hill was occupied, but on the first day when Ewell was given the order to take it, it was less occupied and little defenses set up.

I think Jackson would have, he was known to take risks and pursue the enemy with all due speed. And he is not one to disregard an order from Lee. Longstreet was the cautious one who did not want to attack until Stuarts return. Actually he would have rather not of fought at all

[KayBeeEee1983]

@RevBillyRayCollins Defenders always did well during the civil war. That was the theme. An army in a trench, or behind a wall, or on a hill was extremely difficult to dislodge.

After Buford withdrew his men through town, he positioned them on Culp's hill. It wasn't defenseless.

I don't think Jackson would have attacked Culp's hill because he didn't have proper intelligence. It's not good to attack a hill if you don't know how many men the enemy has.