Originally Posted by Vitito,Aug 23 2006, 08:59 PM

Spys were/are necessary to collect information on an enemy force. Both sides used them. Leaders had to pay them whether they collected valuable information or not. Since they did not "fight" with arms, march into battle, they were not highly regarded. You hit on a great point Rob, men of very little character..........but this spy has a lot of character, and courage..........knows his Shakespeare too. Lee admired/loved Jeb Stuart, sort of as a son. He could not believe that Jeb Stuart would leave the Army "blind". He occupied one of the most highly regarded positions in the Army, General in command of Lee's cavalry, "the eyes and ears of the Army." It was Stuart's job to locate/report on the enemy's position/movements, so to Lee, he did not need to pay spies. But, Stuart was "joyriding," and he did leave the army blind. Hard for Lee to believe. So yes, Lee did not want to believe the Spy..........he wanted to hear and believe in Stuart, his "son". Lee was emotionally tied to Stuart. Longstreet was looking for facts, and the spy provided them, not Stuart.

Originally Posted by Legal Bill,Aug 23 2006, 09:15 PM

And so, the issue behind the issue. Stuart is like a son to Lee, and Longstreet has so little faith in Stuart that he hires a spy to get intelligence. Lee is a man of flowery honor, chivalry and tradition. Longstreet is pragmatic.

Originally Posted by Vitito,Aug 23 2006, 08:31 PM

Army versus Navy, Infantry versus Cavalry. Longstreet infantry, Stuart Cavalry. Infantry grunts. Cavalry glory bound. Competition? I agree Bill, Longstreet was pragmatic.

Originally Posted by ralper,Aug 23 2006, 09:29 PM

Bill,

I don't think the spy would have been seen in any different light regardless of who he was spying on. There was a certain set of "rules" (for the lack of a better word) of war and a class structure. The spy and the sniper were at the bottom, again viewed as whores.

I sometimes think that we revere intelligence today because we now believe in winning at any cost. I don't know if its right or wrong, but the chivalry of war has been lost. (I know I sound hypocritical because I don't believe that there is any honor in way or dying, but through the eyes of the times, I think that was the case.)

Vito,

I think you are right. I think what we are seeing emerge is the difference between Lee and Longstreet. Lee the dignified general who fights with tradition as his comrade and Longstreet the modern soldier who know he has to be expedient. I think the author develops this more a little further on.

Originally Posted by Vitito,Aug 23 2006, 08:36 PM

Rob.......what do you think both armies thought about Nathan Hale?

Originally Posted by ralper,Aug 23 2006, 09:43 PM

An interesting question that I hadn't thought of before. I imagine the British didn't think much of him, but I think the Americans did. But, I think there is a difference. The American army was a rag tag bunch of revolutionaries, not a traditional army. The Revolutionary army hid behind trees, and used tactics that weren't considered proper so I think their view might be different.

Also, I wonder if our view of Nathan Hale has become enhanced as the years have past.

It is an interest question.

Originally Posted by valentine,Aug 23 2006, 05:53 AM

......civil war bullets and indian arrowheads and would bring them home by the bagsful. They've become much more rare now and my brother has saved daddy's collection......

Originally Posted by paS2K,Aug 23 2006, 10:08 PM

Val, you should bring a sampling along to the Gettysburg gathering.

If it would fit into the trunk, I might bring my gr gr grandfather's 1863 long rifle along. I just took a look....it's 60" long, front-loading, marked 'Harpers Ferry 816' (assumed to be the mfr location), and must weigh 25#