Talk:Richard S. Ewell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The following user(s) are actively involved with this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Hlj (Hal Jespersen) (talk • watchlist • email) This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.

[edit] Anonymous criticism

This article is a perfect illustration of why Wikipedia is utterly useless as a valid source for academic research.

Almost every fact in this article is wrong or questionable; most notable is the myth repeated here regarding Ewell's conduct at Gettysburg, a myth that was definitively debunked nearly a century ago. Are we still protecting Lee's legend even now? If Ewell did make a mistake on 1 July 1863 - it was the exact opposite of the mistake alleged in this horrid article.

No, I'm not fixing the article. It should be deleted and started over. Educate yourself, starting here:

http://www.historynet.com/acw/blbaldyewell/

68.52.39.124 20:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewell's conduct at Gettysburg was certainly much more questionable compared to Winchester. Research the letters of one of his best subordinates, John Brown Gordon, whose papers can be found in the library of the University of Georgia in Athens. Gordon was quite heated in a letter to his wife written during the time of the battle. He feared that a grave mistake had been made. So, the criticism of Ewell did not begin with the Lee apologists, but with Ewell's very own generals in July 1863. See also the collected papers of Early, Trimble, Harry Hays, etc. I'm certainly not a Lee apologist (his men killed my great-great uncle on East Cemetery Hill), but as a Civil War author and writer, as well as tour guide, Ewell's conduct needs to be discussed from both perspectives. It was late in the day; Anderson was not fully up; Johnson was not yet in position; and part of Early's men were fought out. Still, the odds on July 2 were far slimmer than on July 1. If the article needs any editing, it is that perhaps both sides of the issue should be presented in a little more depth. However, the article is by no means worthless - not at all. Scott Mingus 20:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

While I do not normally get excited about comments from anonymous reviewers who offer broad criticism without specific recommendations, this article does need a bit of work, which I will undertake in the next day. Hal Jespersen 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC) BTW, I just looked at that article, to "educate" myself, and I'll point out that many of those who disagree with its conclusions have published more scholarly works than this magazine article without footnotes seems to be. But our article should cover both sides more thoroughly. Hal Jespersen 21:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Updated. If you have any specific recommendations, post here or edit away. Hal Jespersen 15:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)