Civil Warriors

Recently I spent some time in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, an activity with multiple meanings for me.  Sure, I’m a Civil War historian, but I’ve also visted Gettysburg a number of times, starting with my first visit in 1967, so I have various memories connected with various trips.  Two direct ancestors of mine fought at Gettysburg: William M. Thomas, a drummer boy with the 23rd Pennsylvania, was at Culp’s Hill, while James L. Denton’s 146th New York fought at Little Round Top.  The New Yorkers were all dressed up in slate blue (or powder blue) Zouave outfits, such as this one currently on display at the visitor’s center:

   Pretty dandy duds, to be sure.

On July 2, 1863, the 146th New York, along with the 91st and 155th Pennsylvania, scurried up the north slope of Little Round Top in the wake of the 140th New York, led by Patrick O’Rorke.  You know the story of how O’Rorke led his men across Little Round Top just in time to save the right flank of Strong Vincent’s brigade as the 16th Michigan gave way (yes, believe it or not, there were other people on Little Round Top besides Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine).  Although the other three regiments were not involved in this original action, they must have seen a little fire that day or the next, because the 146th New York suffered 28 casualties … four killed and twenty-four wounded.

Most of you know exactly where the 146th New York was deployed on Little Round Top.  Indeed, most of you (if not virtually all of you) who have visited Little Round Top have stood exactly where this regiment was deployed.  The best way to prove this is to show you a picture of the 146th monument:

  That’s right … the regiment was deployed at the Warren monument.  Indeed, the regiment included veterans of the 5th New York, which was once commanded by Warren; Denton joined the regiment when Warren was its brigade commander.

Ted Alexander and the folks at the Chambersburg Chamber of Commerce will be following up last year’s smash Antietam seminar (chronicled here and here and here) with what has got to be the ultimate Gettysburg program. It will run on 23-27 July 2008, and offers an absolutely fantastic program of speakers, panels, and tours. And lots and lots of great food. So far these seminars have raised over $100,000 for battlefield preservation.

There is not space enough here to do justice to this program in its entirety, so I will simply provide some of the highlights and refer readers to the full program, which includes registration information, and is located here. Anyway, check out this out: Eric Wittenberg leading Farnsworth’s Charge and (with J.D. Petruzzi) Stuart’s Ride tours; Jeffry Wert leading Iron Brigade, Pickett’s Charge, and Culp’s Hill tours; Bobby Horton performing “Songs of Billy Yank and Johnny Reb”; Joseph Bilby speaking on small arms; Ed Bearss leading a Hood’s Attack tour (among others); Richard Sommers speaking on engineers in the campaign; and Kent Masterson Brown leading a Lee’s Retreat tour. Of course, you won’t want to miss the Friday night panel “Meade at Gettysburg: His Biographers Weigh In” involving myself, Andy Waskie, Richard Sauers, and Kent Masterson Brown.

Students and teachers will definitely want to look at the two scholarship opportunities offered, which not only cover seminar registration, but also provide a stipend!

This article has a wider applicability.

My contributor’s copy of the long awaited Grant’s Lieutenants: From Chattanooga to Appomattox arrived yesterday. (How long-awaited? Three of the essays were presented as a panel at the Society for Military History’s 2000 Annual Meeting and one served as my job talk at West Point in 2001.) I see it is already ranked 40,268 on Amazon, which is no doubt attributable largely to the blurbing power of Brooks Simpson.

Here is the list of contributors and subjects:
Steven E. Woodworth, Editor and George Thomas
John F. Marszalek, William Sherman
Mark Grimsley, Benjamin Butler
Ethan S. Rafuse, George Meade
Benjamin F. Cooling, David Hunter, Lew Wallace, and Horatio Wright
Earl J. Hess, Franz Sigel
Steven Nash, Phil Sheridan
William Feis, Edward Ord
Mark Grimsley, Henry Halleck

It looks like in a few years the original corps commanders of the Army of the Potomac will have finally gotten their due from historians. In addition to the recent work of Russel Beatie and Jerry Thompson‘s Civil War to the Bloody End: The Life and Times of Major General Samuel P. Heintzelman, I have just learned that a Edwin Sumner biography is currently in the works.

The fellow working on it is Durwood Ball, who has a Ph.D. from the University of New Mexico, is an associate professor of history at that institution, and is editor of the scholarly journal New Mexico Historical Review. Given that he is the author of Army Regulars on the Western Frontier, 1848-61, Ball sounds like the ideal person to undertake a Sumner bio, although I hope his interest in the frontier army doesn’t lead him, as so many Winfield Scott biographies have understandably done, to give the Civil War years short shrift. I doubt this will happen, but if it does we do now have Vince Armstrong’s thorough examination of Sumner and the Second Corps during the Maryland Campaign.

What about the other three original corps commanders? James Hollandsworth has told us what we need to know about Nathaniel Banks, while I have been under the impression that Thomas J. Rowland was working on a biography of Irvin McDowell (and stated as much in the bibliographic essay at the end of A Single Grand Victory), but have not heard anything on that front for a while. The great obstacle to work on McDowell, of course, is that no one has yet been able to find an extensive collection of his personal papers, although the Chicago Historical Society does have a relatively modest one. Then again, this did not preclude Christopher Einolf’s producing a very solid recent study of George Thomas.

Anyone out there know of any work on Erasmus Keyes, besides his memoir Fifty Years’ Observation of Men and Events? I also know (stretching the “first corps commanders” definition a bit) that Brian Burton is in the process of following up his Extraordinary Circumstances: The Seven Days Battles with a Fitz John Porter study, which should provide a fine complement to Mark Snell’s biography of William B. Franklin.

Along these lines, I was somewhat surprised to read in a recent issue of North and South that Stephen Sears was working on a study of the Army of the Potomac’s high command. That surprised me on two counts. First, given all the recent scholarship on the subject, from Sears’s own to Beatie’s to John Hennessy’s to Stephen Taafe’s to Jeffry Wert’s, I would think that the market for such a work is very close to being exhausted for this generation. Second, somewhere I had gotten the impression that Sears was working on either a Meade or Hooker biography. Both would make eminent sense, as there is a need for both and they would seem a natural follow up to his Chancellorsville and Gettysburg studies.

It was a great disappointment to me that I could not make it to Philadelphia earlier this week for the Society of Civil War Historians meeting, both because I missed the session I was supposed to chair and because I missed the best part of these things; namely, catching up with friends and comrades in the field.

What happened was this: When I found out the panel I was on had been accepted by the program committee and scheduled for Tuesday morning, I made reservations along with a colleague to be in Philadelphia on Sunday evening and rearranged my teaching schedule a bit so I could catch as much of the program as possible. Then, however, I found out my daughter’s two-week pre-kindergarten class began that Monday, which involved her first bus ride to and from school and I wasn’t going to miss that if there was anyway I could avoid doing so. Fortunately, I was able to change my flight to late Monday afternoon. So far, so good–everything’s coming up Milhouse.

Then came Monday afternoon. Since I was going to be away for just one night and only packed a small bag, as my wife dropped me off at the KCI terminal I anticipated smooth sailing through the various hoops between Kansas City and Philly. Thus, I was stunned to see a huge line to the USAir check-in counter and learn that my flight had been cancelled due to bad weather. I then made some calls and got booked on a Midwest flight later that evening that went through Milwaukee. When I reached the ticket counter for Midwest, though, they were honest enough to let me know they did not have much confidence that any flight to Philadelphia would go that night. As the prospect of being stranded in Milwaukee until I could catch a flight that would almost certainly reach Philadelphia too late for me to make my session had little appeal to me, I made some more calls and cancelled my reservations altogether. I then left messages with some folks already at the conference that I would not be coming.

Anyway, I apologize to the conference organizers for my absence. I also thank Susannah Bruce of Sam Houston State University for stepping in to fill my slot on the program.

Oh yeah, since you asked Tom, when I said I owed you a beer at the Union League no adjustments for inflation were implied. So if I see you at Chambersburg in July, it is still A beer.

I’ve received an inquiry from a reader who’s looking for info to help identify the watercolor painting at left (click the image for a larger view). Here’s the background info he was able to provide. Any ideas?

I own a wonderful and early watercolor from the Mexican War era. Before I purchased it, the seller had sent a scan of it to Dr. Bruce Winders with the Alamo Museum, and to him, it looked representative of the Mexican War era. After I found more information independently on my own about the original owner, it reinforced that statement as I determined that the original owner, Mr. John Robert Matcek, who died in Temple, Texas in 1952 collected of all things — Mexican War books and paintings - bought and sold them - and it was in the possession of his descendants where I purchased it from the seller at the estate auction.

I have been corresponding with several Mexican War authors and experts and I received one response below from Donald S. Frazier, Ph.D who participated in the recent PBS program about the Mexican War:

He said “My best guess is that he is an officer of volunteers in Northern Mexico, Monterrey or Saltillo. I wonder if he isn’t among Jack Hays’ Rangers of the 1st Texas Mounted Rifles? Perhaps John Coffee Hays, Ben McCulloch or Sam Walker (Samuel Hamilton Walker)?”

“Could be central Mexico, but it just struck me as being circa Buena Vista. Looks like a cavalry issue sabre, a bowie knife, and a paterson colt. All of which I think Hays carried. I googled his image, and I could see a potential match there . . . Try looking at the tintype of Samuel Walker on the Wikipedia page for Texas Rangers . . . ”

I also googled and found an image of Ben McCulloch who could be a possibility - although most images of men in later years shows them with beards so the face is not entirely shown and of course the men are older too in the available photographs.

The Mexican War era watercolor appears to have been dry mounted on a hard stock board at some time in the past - perhaps by Matcek and the original watercolor has evidence of it being in a frame at one time as there is a ghost image along the edges where the inside edge of the frame met the picture image - approximately 3/4 inch wide.

The watercolor is in remarkable condition, and I have tried below to write as best a description as possible, given my limited knowledge of the subject:

(Continued)

Congrats to Ralph and Bill here and DLB at Blog them Out of the Stone Age. It was indeed a) Baron Antoine Henri de Jomini who wrote in The Art of War (1838) the passage cited on counterinsurgency/national wars! BUT . . . if you had guessed: d) U.S. Marine Corps Small Wars Manual, well . . . check this out:

No army, however disciplined, can contend successfully against such a system applied to a great nation, unless it be strong enough to hold all the essential points of the country, cover its communications, and at the same time furnish an active force sufficient to beat the enemy wherever he may present himself. Jomini, Art of War, 32

to wage war successfully under such circumstances . . . The occupying force must be strong enough to hold all the strategical points of the country, protect its communications, and at the same time furnish an operating force sufficient to overcome the opposition wherever it appears. U.S. Marine Corps, Small Wars Manual, 1-9(d)

AND . . .

If success be possible in such a war, the following general course will be most likely to insure it—viz.: make a display of a mass of troops proportioned to the obstacles and resistance likely to be encountered, calm the popular passions in every possible way, exhaust them by time and patience, display courtesy, gentleness, and severity united, and particularly, deal justly. Jomini, Art of War, 33

While curbing the passions of the people, courtesy, friendliness, justice, and firmness should be exhibited. U.S. Marine Corps, Small Wars Manual, 1-9(d)

And some say history doesn’t repeat itself. . . .

When I went to Kings College London in 1984-85, I chose to specialize in the “ethical aspects of war.” Although it was the subject that interested me most, it was not the one to which my talents were best suited — it drew upon history but was rooted primarily in philosophy. Not only did I have scant background in philosophy, it has never, then or since, had much intrinsic appeal for me. Consequently, as the time drew near for me to select a topic for my extended essay, I decided to combine the ethics of war with my strongest suit: the American Civil War. The obvious slant was to explore the erosion of noncombatant immunity during the conflict.

And that’s what I did. I did my research in London, then embarked on a two-month trip to Kenya and Zaire, taking my notes with me. I actually composed the essay while working on a medical mission near Lake Tanganyika. I typed three identical copies: two for my examiners (I sent them separately to make sure at least one of them arrived), and a third for myself. The essay earned a passing grade and I got my M.A. in War Studies, but I was never really satisfied with the product. Neither, I learned years later, were my examiners. One, a philosopher, thought the essay contained too little philosophy. The other, a historian, thought it contained too little history.

For myself, I thought the essay was thesis-driven. Having taken “the erosion of noncombatant immunity” as my topic, I was pretty much stuck with demonstrating that “erosion” was indeed what had occurred, notwithstanding the fact that the actual picture was a lot more complex. I managed this via the time-honored tactic of marshaling the evidence that supported erosion while ignoring or explaining away the evidence that did not. I did it clumsily. I have seen many historians employ the same tactic with greater elegance.

(Continued)

As a historian and as a political observer/commentator, I have watched with no small sense of irony as Barack Obama laid claim to the title of the “presumptive” nominee of the Democratic party. Years ago, when the Abraham Lincoln Association was speculating about a banquet speaker in 2009, someone mentioned Obama, and I quickly replied that we should sign him up before he was elected president. It looks like I saw something there. Last year I arrived in Springfield the day after Obama formally declared for the presidency from the steps of the Old State Capital in Springfield (a place where I was to speak on Lincoln’s birthday), and I recalled the last time I spoke there … when I appeared with the late Lerone Bennett and Allan Guelzo on a panel about Lincoln and emancipation. Obama’s spoken fondly of Lincoln, and of course there are some interesting comparisons to be made between the campaign Obama waged to defeat the “expected” nominee, Hillary Clinton, senator from my home state of New York (and a wannabe Yankees fan) and the campaign Lincoln waged to defeat another frontrunning New York senator, William H. Seward.

But the coincidences don’t stop there. Obama claimed his victory on the 200^th anniversary of the birth of Jefferson Davis; the last senator from Illinois to win the Democratic nomination was Stephen A. Douglas. How delightful.

But for me it doesn’t end there. Several weeks ago, in what can be understood only as a stupid statement made out of a combination of exhaustion and desperation, Clinton asserted that the race was far from over, that, after all, her husband had not clinched until June 1992, and, after all, what about Bobby Kennedy?

To this day I still don’t know what Senator Clinton meant. However, I instantly concluded that someone who was stupid enough to say that was not someone I wanted answering the phone at 3 AM. That the person who made that comment actually occupied Kennedy’s seat made things worse, as if that was possible.

(Continued)

Identify the source of this statement regarding the challenges of counterinsurgency and national wars.

“No army, however disciplined, can contend successfully against such a system applied to a great nation, unless it be strong enough to hold all the essential points of the country, cover its communications, and at the same time furnish an active force sufficient to beat the enemy wherever he may present himself. . . . If success be possible in such a war, the following general course will be most likely to insure it—viz.: make a display of a mass of troops proportioned to the obstacles and resistance likely to be encountered, calm the popular passions in every possible way, exhaust them by time and patience, display courtesy, gentleness, and severity united, and particularly, deal justly.”

Is the answer?

a) Antoine Henri de Jomini, The Art of War (1838)

b) Mao Tse-tung, Problems of Strategy in Revolutionary War (1937)

c) U.S. War Department, General Orders No. 100 (1863)

d) U.S. Marine Corps, Small Wars Manual (1940)

e) Carl von Clausewitz, On War (1832)

No cheating with Google. (Not that I have the ability to check anyway.)

From Mark Kleiman at The Reality-Based Community:
If Ann Coulter Had Live-Blogged the Gettysburg Address

Old Abe is approaching the podium, looking even more like a badly-dressed and ill-proportioned scarecrow suffering from a depressive disorder than he usually does. I mean, if you’re going to be an empty suit, couldn’t you at least find a suit that fits?

And as usual, he’s not wearing an American flag lapel pin. Too good for it, I suppose. Probably thinks it’s tacky, and that “real patriotism” doesn’t have to be displayed. Typical intellectual arrogance.

Unfortunately, duty has required me to get a seat up close, so I’m likely to be able to hear his annoyingly high, faint voice.

Of course, it’s going to be hard to take anything he says seriously, since he’s obviously just angling for votes in Pennsylvania. Notice that he didn’t bother to give a speech at Antietam.

Okay, here we go. More “eloquence,” no doubt.

(Continued)

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/04/the-lincoln-dou.html

Presidential candidates Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held this debate on April 16, 1858 at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

(Civil Warriors Note: Of course, the Lincoln-Douglas debates concerned a US Senate seat, and there was no US presidential election in 1858, but let it slide)

MODERATORS:
CHARLIE GIBSON, ABC NEWS
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC NEWS

MR. GIBSON: So we’re going to begin with opening statements, and we had a flip of the coin, and the brief opening statement first from Mr. Lincoln.

LINCOLN: Thank you very much, Charlie and George, and thanks to all in the audience and who are out there. I appear before you today for the purpose of discussing the leading political topics which now agitate the public mind.

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m sorry to interrupt, but do you think Mr. Douglas loves America as much you do?

LINCOLN: Sure I do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But who loves America more?

LINCOLN: I’d prefer to get on with my opening statement George.

STEPHANOPOULOS: If your love for America were eight apples, how many apples would Senator Douglas’s love be?

LINCOLN: Eight.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Proceed.

(Continued)

I have just been asked by editor Keith Poulter to contribute to a discussion of guerrilla warfare in the Civil War that will appear in North & South. To kick off the discussion, he has asked myself and two other historians (Mike Bradley and Steven Newton) to provide 700 or so word essays on the subject. While I already have a fairly decent idea of what I am going to say (and am working on a very tight deadline), I would greatly appreciate any suggestions any of you might have regarding topics, perspectives, or lines of inquiry you think would be of value to this discussion. Any help will be much appreciated.

It doesn’t get better than this. Here’s Abraham Lincoln speaking about hard war by quoting Star Trek. Really.

Kinda.