Union Veterans Recall the Burning of Chambersburg

Because the war unfolded almost entirely on southern soil, nearly all incidences of the destruction of civilian property took place in the Confederacy. Former Confederates possessed a wealth of evidence from which to recount stories of looting, destruction, and the general abuse of civilians. But they did not hold a monopoly on stories of "uncivilized" warfare.

The burning of Chambersburg, Pennsylvania on July 30, 1864 reminded loyal citizens of the United States that Confederate civilians were perhaps not the only victims of war they so often claimed to be. When citizens of Chambersburg could not, or would not, pay a hefty ransom demanded by Confederate general Jubal A. Early, the cantankerous Rebel ordered the town fired. Union veterans described the violent scene. Confederates kicked in doors, stole private property, and threatened the townspeople with weapons. Many claimed that Rebels executed their orders with glee, destroying the town while in a drunken state of rage. In June 1905, one GAR veteran described the aftermath of the Rebel invasion.

He [his commander] got there the next morning in time to see the results of that cowardly and uncalled for burning of the homes of women and children. He saw, as did all who where there, the horrors of that terrible scene. Oh, it was something to be remembered as long as life lasts. That little town, beautiful, as you know, was laid in ashes; the people there without homes wandering in the streets, the dead unburied, the sick lying on the sidewalk. It reminded me then and does now as I look upon it, like a terrible dream.

This incident certainly incensed Union soldiers. Later in the nineteenth century, veterans would note the Rebel atrocities as the spark that ignited the final push against Confederate forces in the Valley. “The boys in blue,” suggested one Union veteran in 1881, “frenzied by the sight of homeless, weeping women and children, again charged upon the foe, never allowing them to stop for a moment.”

In the hands of former Federal soldiers, the Chambersburg story grew in intensity by the twentieth century. While no where near as angering as the Andersonville and other prison stories, Chambersburg nevertheless numbered among the many “rebel atrocities,” “increasing acts of barbarity,” and “deliberate acts of vandalism” perpetrated by their former foe. Veterans acknowledged that during the war the incident caused a “considerable civilian panic” and “attracted the anxious attention of the whole country.” Most remained aggravated by the “destruction…caused by a public enemy,” and recalled the acts of “insolence, theft, and violence” alongside the Union battle cry: “Remember Chambersburg!”

Cosmic America: Office Hours at Huston's BBQ and Memorial Park in Pasadena

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Yes...I am on a BBQ kick these days so expect a lot of videos from the various joints around LA. It seems I am on a bit of a culture kick as well - go figure....so I may shoot a little video in a museum or two - or some other place that is all cultural and stuff (wait a sec...isn't everything cultural??).

Today's question comes from Rob in Pennsylvania - he wants to know how the post war writings of guys like Jubal Early affected the reputation (and how we think about) Confederate general James Longstreet - particularly his actions (or inaction, as it were) on July 2, 1863 at Gettysburg.

Well, I love a Gettysburg related question so thanks Rob - and - I have been meaning to head out to Pasadena to check out the Civil War monument there. I hope you liked the backdrop!

And for the rest of you - keep the questions coming! I'll answer them right here at Cosmic America. And if you are in LA, try Hustons. Yes...there is such a thing as good BBQ in Los Angeles.

Peace,
Keith

Turning Points

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

One of the most useful tools for bloggers is something called Statcounter. Just in case you are not familiar with this free service, Statcounter is an invisible tracking service that you can configure to track just about anything that happens on your blog (or website). Where the hits came from, where they went, how long they were there, and what they searched for on Google (or whatever) to find you. It might seem a little obsessive to meticulously go over these stats every day. But really, the information gleaned from this site has really helped me tune Cosmic America to my liking.

Anyway....the reason I mention all of this is because the other day I noticed a few hits from someone who had done a Google search with this intriguing question: "Why was Gettysburg the turning point of the Civil War?" The phrasing is what caught my eye -  because the person asking presumed that Gettysburg was the turning point...as opposed to a turning point.  Suffice to say, Gettysburg was a significant battle in the overall scheme of things. It was the last time a major Confederate army advanced into United States territory and the Union victory greatly improved the morale of the loyal population in the North. But to suggest that Gettysburg was the turning point obscures the ebb and flow of prospects for victory for either side. The war was hardly a downhill ride for the Rebels from July 1863 on.

The notion of turning points is always a tricky matter. While is it tempting to view them, especially in the case of Gettysburg, as clear cut lines of delineation, in doing so we run the risk of falling into an ahistorical trap...that is, reading history backwards.

(sidebar: I once heard of a history class taught precisely this way. It began in the present...and worked backward to discover the origin of events. Honestly, I shuddered at the thought.)

Suggesting that Gettysburg (or Vicksburg or any other battle) was the turning point in the Civil War is is a sure-fired way to get it wrong. In fact, from our twenty-first century perspective, there were many turning points in the war. The ascendancy of Robert E. Lee in the early summer of 1862, the Battle of Antietam in the autumn of the same year. The fall of Atlanta in 1864. The reelection of Abraham Lincoln. The list goes on and on. We can point to any of these events and say with confidence: AHA! There it is! From this point the outcome of the war was set in stone. But we can only say that because we know how things turned out.

The point is, those in the ranks and on the homefront did not. Soldiers and citizens on both side sides had their doubts, their certainties, their hopes...and all of these could (and did) change with changing events.

James McPherson, in his Pulitzer Prize winning Battle Cry of Freedom warns against viewing the war as destined to end the way is did from any given point. His ideas regarding contingency illustrate that any number of things could have happened potentially changing the outcome of events. Meaning: the United States proving victorious at Gettysburg did not mean the war was over - not by a longshot. While McPherson in this regard provides a valuable lesson for Civil War students, I would caution nonetheless. Even esteemed historians can accent the battles and other events - providing a trajectory (contingency intact) of a steady movement toward Union victory and all that came with it. Contingency or not, a certain teleology bleeds through in Battle Cry. Nation, freedom...it almost seems foreordained from the onset.  There is an overall triumphal tone to his book, implying a progression toward the ultimate goal of victory and freedom. McPherson writes  always knowing what is at the end of the tunnel. He generally stresses the significance of contingency when it works in favor of the Union cause and Union victory, but does not give the same treatment to the Confederacy at Chancellorsville or Jubal Early’s shelling of Washington City in 1864, McPherson's work is strikingly similar in terms of the relationship between civilian morale and battlefield events…he concentrates on the tendency of northerners to steadily grow in support of things such as the Emancipation Proclamation.

And so we need to think carefully about turning points - or any events for that matter. What they mean to us...what they meant to those who lived through them - did they suspect that such turning of the tides were actually taking place? I have indeed looked at a number of soldiers' and civilians' letters and diaries written shortly after Gettysburg - from both sides. With a few exceptions (such as sensationalist newspaper headlines), I have seen scant trace of certain victory or certain defeat. Unionists were thrilled - Confederates were not...but the war dragged on.

Peace,

Keith

The Defense of Washington City and the Importance of National Capitals

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

During the war, Washington City was the most heavily fortified city in the United States or the Confederacy. Indeed it was. What's more, according to the Civil War Trust website, the city was more than likely the most fortified in the world.

Surrounding the capital, there were 68 enclosed forts with 807 mounted cannon, 93 mortars and over 20 miles of rifle trenches. There were military roads, telegraph lines, storehouses, and all kinds of camps - all of which ringed the city.

But did the Rebs ever really consider taking Washington? Not likely. Sure there were a few shot at the city - such as Jubal Early's famous raid in July 1864 - but that was merely a threat, meant to relieve the pressure on Lee's army in Virginia. Other Confederates considered trying to get between Washington and the Army of the Potomac - Longstreet's famous plea to Lee during the Gettysburg campaign was exactly that sort of plan. But nothing came of it.

Any threats on Washington were really only that - threats. Meant more to make the people of the North nervous or to draw Union troops away from the principal Rebel Army operating in the East.

In wartime, taking your opponent's capital seems like a good idea. Remember the Union's early war cry...On to Richmond!!!! But there was no equivalent - On to Washington! resonating in the South. They didn't need to capture the United States capital - the Rebs only needed to wear the northern fighting spirit down to a nub - which they almost did....almost.

The truth is, the Union army didn't really need to go after Richmond, either. U.S. Grant surely knew this. He saw the Army of Northern Virginia as the life blood of the Confederacy. Destroy the army, he thought, the rest will fall in to place. Richmond was evacuated in the last days of the war when Grant began the final chase to Appomattox  -  it was not taken by force. What do you know...he was right.

Peace,

Keith

James "shoulda won in Pennsylvania" Longstreet - oy.

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So last night I was checking out Youtube videos featuring the various reenactments of the Battle of Gettysburg (don't judge). My favorite part of these vids is the comments section. I love reading the comments from people - mostly Civil War buffs - from all over the world.

A lot of these comments are authored by knot heads, pure and simple. You know - the unreconstructed types screaming and yelling about how we have all been duped by the liberal intelligentsia to believe that the Confederacy was not right. I am kinda glad that these guys don't know where I live - but I have to admit - I get a kick out of reading them...and maybe even stirring the pot a little with my own two cents.

I noticed something else last night that has reinforced my belief in the power of popular culture. It seems that Confederate general James Longstreet is still doing mighty fine. As you probably know, Longstreet toppled from the Confederate pantheon after the war because he dared criticize Robert E. Lee in print. Bad move, hombre. Other former Rebels like Jubal Early made sure to remind the world that you blew it wholesale at Gettysburg and cost the CSA the war (he didn't really - but we can talk about that later).

But it looks like the Shaara novel Killer Angels and the film Gettysburg have revived the spirit and popularity of Old Pete. In short, here's what he wanted to do in Pennsylvania. After a CS victory on July 1, he wanted to move around to the right of the Union army and get between it and Washington City - forcing an engagement on ground of his choosing, insuring a tactical advantage.

Now because of this book and film, a whole lot of folks think that this move would have sealed the deal for Confederate victory and independence. YIKES - not so fast!

We have no way of knowing what would of happened had the Confederate Army disengaged after an early victory at Gettysburg (except that they would probably have lost momentum and been demoralized). So let's just stop with the "if Lee had listened to Longstreet the CSA would have won" nonsense. Why not focus on what really happened, not what might have. The truth is, Longstreet sulked, pouted, and dragged his ass around Gettysburg on July 2, which caused a big problem in terms of Lee's battle plan. Yep, Longstreet showed up late (by several hours) to the party and things didn't go so well for the Army of Northern Virginia.

Now this doesn't mean Confederate defeat was Longstreet's fault like his enemies would have you believe. I'm just sayin'...he wasn't the wise modern soldier who had the war all figured out like these elements of popular culture depict him. Hey - at least he got a statue out of the deal...which looks suspiciously like Tom Berenger. Hmmmmmmmm......

Peace,
Keith