Is There Any Other "Copse" of Trees?

Mention the copse to anyone with even a passing knowledge of the Civil War and that person will know precisely to what you are referring. The copse...or rather, Copse of Trees is of course the culminating point of Longstreet's famed assault - known to most as Pickett's Charge - on Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg...what many believe was the turning point of the Civil War.

But why copse? Why not "patch" or "grove" or "thicket" or something like that? It seems that the word was selected for this particular growth of trees by historian/artist John B. Bachelder back in 1870 - in a book detailing a painting on the repulse of Longstreet's Assault (at least that is the earliest reference that I am aware of). And the name stuck. As the Battle of Gettysburg ascended higher and higher again into American lore and legend, the copse became The Copse of mythic proportions.

So by my estimation, this little stand of trees has ruined the word for any other copses out there. That is all well and good, I suppose. I mean, no one really uses the word any more to refer to other trees...so what's the trouble with having only one copse? Maybe other small groves of trees should go by the term "coppice." It's almost the same and such a reference won't confuse any Civil War enthusiasts who happen to be nearby.

Keith

The Weekend in Retrospect

Greetings all - time to do a little catching up after a brief absence. Over the weekend I managed to get a couple of important things done. One, I ran the San Francisco Marathon. It was cold, foggy, congested, and the hills were BRUTAL. But I had a good time. This, of course, means that I have now completed the LA/SF challenge - a feat for which I was awarded a giant medal - so I can rest for a while before I take on training for Las Vegas this December.

But enough about me.

I also read Kevin Levin's new book on the Battle of the Crater. I plan on writing a review of this study in the next few days, but here are a couple of very quick comments. I enjoyed the book very much. I believe that Kevin had tapped into something about the battle and battlefield that has gone unconsidered for too long. In terms of memory studies - the analytical backdrop for this book - there are many things here that Kevin and I could discuss. Stay tuned...I will expand shortly.

Finally, I was disappointed that no one knew who this person was - featured in the Cosmic America question of the day. So, if you give up.....her name is (or rather was, she passed in 2010) Cammie King. She played the role of Bonnie Blue Butler in Gone With the Wind. It was a minor part, but pivotal to the plot as I am sure you all know. King was four years old when she was selected to play the young Butler, a role for which she earned a whopping sum of $1000. Actually, not bad for a four-year-old in 1939. After GWTW, she went on to do a couple of other bit parts, including the voiceover for Young Faline in Bambi. And that was pretty much it for her show biz career. Much later in life she joked, "I peaked at five." Here is a shot of King in her Hollywood heyday.

Peace,

Keith

Cosmic America Question of the Day

I am heading out the door to San Francisco - a six-hour or so drive from Hollywood - so I can run the marathon this Sunday. In between packing up the car, making sandwiches for the road, and securing my belonging so the cats do not destroy them while I am gone...I came up with this.

Who is this person? The first to answer correctly in the comment section wins a big Cosmic America shout out.

Do you need a hint? Okay, fine. There is a Civil War connection that has to do with popular culture.

Good luck to you all.

Keith

All Comedy All the Time

Eric Andre, after noticing a little interpretive whitewashing in the commercial promoting Colonial Williamsburg, offers some historical hilarity on the Conan O'Brien show. Thanks to Matt Moore for the heads up on this one. I do not own a television - so I have to rely on the kindness of my friends in the Twitterverse when this stuff comes up.

Anyway - enjoy

Keith

Footnotes?

Recently an irritated reader made this astute observation: "Cosmic America does not use footnotes." Thank you master of the obvious. It is true, I do not use them. Culminating in an attack on my academic integrity, the reader asked why I "refused" to supply proper citations. First of all...relax. Second, the answer is simple. I want to keep this cite as informal as possible. The colloquial nature of the blog format allows for a low key exchange of ideas. I reserve the formal citations for work written with the intention of publication in the traditional (print) sense.

Much of the primary evidence presented here is fairly common knowledge. Prominent individuals' speeches and publications, for example, which are readily available on any number of websites, need not be cited. But I make a rule of identifying my sources if they are not immediately recognizable. I will always make note of the origin of any historic newspaper articles, passages from lesser known or out of print books, individual private testimony and correspondence, or other sources as they come up.

But if none of this is satisfactory - please send me a note in the Contact section of this cite. I will happily supply formal citations (as I did for the irritated reader....and he didn't even say thanks - ingrate).

Well...you're welcome anyway,

Keith

Lincoln's Last Public Address

Two days after Lee's surrender and three days before he was murdered by John Wilkes Booth, Abraham Lincoln addressed a large crowd gathered outside the White House. His topic was reconstruction -especially in Louisiana. The president's policies had been quite lenient thus far - but in this speech he hints that he might be revising his position. We will never know precisely what he had in mind, but perhaps we can discern something from his words on April 11, 1865:

We meet this evening, not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace whose joyous expression can not be restrained. In the midst of this, however, He from whom all blessings flow, must not be forgotten. A call for a national thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be duly promulgated. Nor must those whose harder part gives us the cause of rejoicing, be overlooked. Their honors must not be parcelled out with others. I myself was near the front, and had the high pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you; but no part of the honor, for plan or execution, is mine. To Gen. Grant, his skilful officers, and brave men, all belongs. The gallant Navy stood ready, but was not in reach to take active part.

By these recent successes the re-inauguration of the national authority -- reconstruction -- which has had a large share of thought from the first, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. It is fraught with great difficulty. Unlike a case of a war between independent nations, there is no authorized organ for us to treat with. No one man has authority to give up the rebellion for any other man. We simply must begin with, and mould from, disorganized and discordant elements. Nor is it a small additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to the mode, manner, and means of reconstruction.

As a general rule, I abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself, wishing not to be provoked by that to which I can not properly offer an answer. In spite of this precaution, however, it comes to my knowledge that I am much censured for some supposed agency in setting up, and seeking to sustain, the new State government of Louisiana. In this I have done just so much as, and no more than, the public knows. In the Annual Message of Dec. 1863 and accompanying Proclamation, I presented a plan of re-construction (as the phrase goes) which, I promised, if adopted by any State, should be acceptable to, and sustained by, the Executive government of the nation. I distinctly stated that this was not the only plan which might possibly be acceptable; and I also distinctly protested that the Executive claimed no right to say when, or whether members should be admitted to seats in Congress from such States. This plan was, in advance, submitted to the then Cabinet, and distinctly approved by every member of it. One of them suggested that I should then, and in that connection, apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the theretofore excepted parts of Virginia and Louisiana; that I should drop the suggestion about apprenticeship for freed-people, and that I should omit the protest against my own power, in regard to the admission of members to Congress; but even he approved every part and parcel of the plan which has since been employed or touched by the action of Louisiana. The new constitution of Louisiana, declaring emancipation for the whole State, practically applies the Proclamation to the part previously excepted. It does not adopt apprenticeship for freed-people; and it is silent, as it could not well be otherwise, about the admission of members to Congress. So that, as it applies to Louisiana, every member of the Cabinet fully approved the plan. The message went to Congress, and I received many commendations of the plan, written and verbal; and not a single objection to it, from any professed emancipationist, came to my knowledge, until after the news reached Washington that the people of Louisiana had begun to move in accordance with it. From about July 1862, I had corresponded with different persons, supposed to be interested, seeking a reconstruction of a State government for Louisiana. When the message of 1863, with the plan before mentioned, reached New-Orleans, Gen. Banks wrote me that he was confident the people, with his military co-operation, would reconstruct, substantially on that plan. I wrote him, and some of them to try it; they tried it, and the result is known. Such only has been my agency in getting up the Louisiana government. As to sustaining it, my promise is out, as before stated. But, as bad promises are better broken than kept, I shall treat this as a bad promise, and break it, whenever I shall be convinced that keeping it is adverse to the public interest. But I have not yet been so convinced.

I have been shown a letter on this subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to be definitely fixed on the question whether the seceding States, so called, are in the Union or out of it. It would perhaps, add astonishment to his regret, were he to learn that since I have found professed Union men endeavoring to make that question, I have purposely forborne any public expression upon it. As appears to me that question has not been, nor yet is, a practically material one, and that any discussion of it, while it thus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect other than the mischievous one of dividing our friends. As yet, whatever it may hereafter become, that question is bad, as the basis of a controversy, and good for nothing at all--a merely pernicious abstraction.

We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper relation with the Union; and that the sole object of the government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation. I believe it is not only possible, but in fact, easier to do this, without deciding, or even considering, whether these States have ever been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely at home, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had ever been abroad. Let us all join in doing the acts necessary to restoring the proper practical relations between these States and the Union; and each forever after, innocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts, he brought the States from without, into the Union, or only gave them proper assistance, they never having been out of it.

The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the new Louisiana government rests, would be more satisfactory to all, if it contained fifty, thirty, or even twenty thousand, instead of only about twelve thousand, as it does. It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, "Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?" "Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining, or by discarding her new State government?"

Some twelve thousand voters in the heretofore slave-state of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to the Union, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a free-state constitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black and white, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchise upon the colored man. Their Legislature has already voted to ratify the constitutional amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slavery throughout the nation. These twelve thousand persons are thus fully committed to the Union, and to perpetual freedom in the state--committed to the very things, and nearly all the things the nation wants--and they ask the nations recognition and it's assistance to make good their committal. Now, if we reject, and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize and disperse them. We in effect say to the white men "You are worthless, or worse--we will neither help you, nor be helped by you." To the blacks we say "This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, hold to your lips, we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering the spilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how." If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations with the Union, I have, so far, been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize, and sustain the new government of Louisiana the converse of all this is made true. We encourage the hearts, and nerve the arms of the twelve thousand to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselyte for it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to a complete success. The colored man too, in seeing all united for him, is inspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring, to the same end. Grant that he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner by saving the already advanced steps toward it, than by running backward over them? Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to what it should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl by hatching the egg than by smashing it? Again, if we reject Louisiana, we also reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the national Constitution. To meet this proposition, it has been argued that no more than three fourths of those States which have not attempted secession are necessary to validly ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself against this, further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned; while a ratification by three-fourths of all the States would be unquestioned and unquestionable.

I repeat the question, "Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her new State Government?

What has been said of Louisiana will apply generally to other States. And yet so great peculiarities pertain to each state, and such important and sudden changes occur in the same state; and withal, so new and unprecedented is the whole case, that no exclusive, and inflexible plan can be safely prescribed as to details and colatterals. Such exclusive, and inflexible plan, would surely become a new entanglement. Important principles may, and must, be inflexible.

In the present "situation" as the phrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the people of the South. I am considering, and shall not fail to act, when satisfied that action will be proper.

Your thoughts are welcome (as always).

Keith

Casting a Wider Net

You may have noticed that I have changed the subtitle of this site from "Civil War History" to "Civil War. Reconstruction. Reunion." No, I have not run out of things to say about the Civil War...and I do not suspect that I ever will. But, there are a few developments underway that suggest Cosmic America should cast a wider net.

For one, I signed on to teach a class in Reconstruction history at UC Riverside during the winter 2013 term. This of course means that I will be talking a lot about it here. I will more than likely set up a page including the course syllabus and all the primary documents. But that is not happening for a while yet.

Also, I talk about reunion all the time anyway, so I believe the subtitle should reflect the content of the site - wouldn't you agree?

I am looking forward to the Reconstruction course - getting back in the classroom is exciting indeed, especially since I will be dealing with one of the most controversial eras in American History. To my mind, the period represented an uncertain landscape for those who lived through it. So many of the the websites and forums I run across dwell on retrospectively examining the successes and failures of the period - primarily the failures...taking on the Reconstruction period as some sort of "lost moment."  But this approach could be of limited utility. One has much more to gain by accessing the events - success and failures all - as they unfolded. No one in 1865 knew what was about to happen. So I would say it is best not to try and understand their history from our perspective. I trust my students will agree.

Peace,

Keith