Colonel David Ireland - the Hero of Culp's Hill...Missing in Action

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I feel bad for Colonel David Ireland. Why you ask? Well...because you can't find a T-shirt with his image on it at any Gettysburg gift shop. And I think I know why.

You might even be wondering who David Ireland is. Born in Scotland (really?) Ireland was a tailor in New York City before the war. During the war he served as Captain for the 76th New York Infantry.* He saw action at the Battle of Chancellorsville as part of the XII corps.

But the fun didn't really start for Ireland until the second day at Gettysburg. Ireland's regiment was the extreme right of the Union line - positioned on Culp's Hill - the barbed section of the famous Union "fishhook." Loss of this hill would have been devastating to the Union at Gettysburg. It commanded both Cemetery Hill and the Baltimore Pike, and thus stood guard for supply lines and the road to Baltimore or even Washington City.

The XII corps had taken up position there on the morning of July 2. Meanwhile...Confederate General Lee had ordered a simultaneous attack on both ends of the Union line. Richard S. Ewell, commander of the Confederate II corps eventually got things going around 4 PM - when he heard the attack commence on the Union left. By 7 PM he sent in his main attack up the eastern slope of Culp's Hill. Three Rebel brigades from "Allegheny" Johnson's division hit Ireland's regiment hard - and were stopped in their tracks by the firmly entrenched New Yorkers.

The Union right held - against the better part of an attacking Confederate division.

But all the credit for saving the Union (and thus, the war) goes to our old friend, Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, colonel of the 20th Maine - who held the extreme left of the Union line at Little Round Top.

What gives? Why no love for Ireland these days? Well...it seems that popular culture has taken over in this particular case. With Michael Shaara's Killer Angels, and subsequently the Burns Documentary The Civil War and finally the film Gettysburg, Ireland has been relegated to obscurity. People want more and more Chamberlain stories - poor Ireland just gets lost in the mix.

So Colonel David Ireland - who also held the line at all costs, doesn't get the accolades he deserves - or hardly even a mention in the popular treatment of the epic 1863 battle. So I am going to make my own T-shirt and wear it on the battlefield. Let's see if anybody recognizes the good colonel - let's just see....

Peace,

Keith

* extra-special thanks to Cosmic America reader John Stoudt for reminding me that David Ireland originally served in the 79th NY, not the 76th...and that he commanded the 137th NY Infantry at Gettysburg. I always welcome correction when I make mistakes - thanks again!

Ed Ayers on the Civil War and the South

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Edward L. Ayers, President of the University of Richmond, author of The Promise of the New South and In the Presence of Mine Enemies, mastermind of the Valley of the Shadow project, and one of my former professors at the University of Virginia, weighs in on the defeat of the Confederacy. In just over a minute, he puts things in perspective by illustrating exactly what the southern states lost in their effort to form a slave-holding republic.

Peace,

Keith

Robert E. Lee - A Tragic Figure in The American Experience

Watch the full episode. See more American Experience.

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I have finally sat down to watch The American Experience: Robert E. Lee. Being the avid fan of well-done documentaries, I must say that I was not disappointed - at least not for the most part. We are treated to a mighty fine cast of historians providing the analytical commentary including Peter S. Carmichael, Joseph Glathaar, Gary W. Gallagher, Emory M. Thomas and a number of other first-rate scholars. PBS provides the narration and additional analysis - and as it turns out, a link to a streaming version! So watch and enjoy right here on Cosmic America! Oh, and by the way - you might want to watch to video (if you haven't already) before you continue reading. I wouldn't want to blow the ending.

The emphasis of Robert E. Lee is a move away from the deity in bronze or marble man image that the mighty general has ascended to since his death in 1870. The program paints the Virginia aristocrat as an altogether human figure. A human with an almost obsessive devotion to duty above all else, even family. The film walks us through the life of Lee as a young cadet at West Point, as Winfield Scott's trusted staffer in the War With Mexico, through a religious conversion experience, and as an ardent Confederate nationalist. He is irritable during the 1862-63 winter, at one point humiliating a subordinate in front of others. He experiences a bout of melancholy when he learns of family tragedy, and he suffers from an incapacitating heart condition. In other words - a man with emotions, faults, flaws, idiosyncrasies, and illness...just what we might expect of any other man.

Except that this is Robert E. Lee - and the film is very conscious of letting us know that many - both in the North and South - saw Lee as infallible...a virtuous, honorable soldier in a noble cause.

But Lee is a man who failed. He failed on an epic scale and saw everything that he stood for crumble. No one knew this better than Lee himself. So ultimately, Lee is a tragic figure. A man who on one hand was as virtuous as one can be, but who on the other saw no real problem with slavery and led an army to preserve it. In 1865, his country is defeated, his fortune is gone, his beloved Virginia is in ruins, and his family is only a shadow of what it once was. He spends the few remaining of his life in bitter private reflection.

And thus my critique of Robert E. Lee. The general narration of the film has a somewhat apologetic, even sorrowful tone - it seems to empathize with a man who has lost everything because of a devotion to duty. Do we then walk away from this film feeling as though Lee deserved better than what he got? Even Lee himself once stated that he wished he had not chosen the life of a soldier. Should we wish the same?

Lee is among the most compelling figures in American history. His brilliance and military acumen deserve accolades. But many have a difficult time reconciling this with the fact that a man of such great virtues committed treason against the nation he swore to protect - as does Robert E. Lee.

The film seems to poke a little at this nagging problem. The opening segments - "Lee" reading his pledge of allegiance to the United States as a young army officer bookended by a closing segment of a much older "Lee" reading his oath of loyalty to those same United States suggest that we should think more about his commitment to the national state.

In the end this is the real tragedy - that Lee, with all the promise of a brilliant career, cast his lot with what U. S. Grant would call "the worst cause for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." One could argue that he stood up to be counted in utter disregard of his devotion to duty - and thus turned his back on his nation and indeed - himself. In this the film only makes slight inroads - ones that perhaps are left for a future documentary.

Peace,

Keith

The Best Book Ever - That I Disagree With: Race and Reunion by David Blight

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

A former student asked me to elaborate on exactly why I disagree with David W. Blight's  Race and Reunion. Fair enough - I talk about disagreeing with it all the time. Perhaps a little explanation is in order.

But first, I would like to say that this is an important work in the field of Civil War memory - maybe the most important (at least right now). It is beautifully written and about as captivating as a history book can be. I just think that Blight has missed his mark. Here is my thinking on what I term Blight's (and others') "reconciliation premise" - paraphrased from a yet-unpublished manuscript on the subject of veterans and national reconciliation.

Blight, while curiously overlooking northern efforts to commemorate the fight to preserve the Union, examines how participants at events geared toward reconciliation, such as the 50^th anniversary reunion at Gettysburg in 1913, ignored the principal issues leading to war and the Union war aim of emancipation. At these events, mentions of slavery or emancipation were conspicuously absent. Blight reasons, together with white supremacists, reconciliationists “locked arms” and “delivered a segregated memory of the Civil War on Southern terms.” He concludes, “Forces of reconciliation overwhelmed the emancipationist vision in the national culture [and] the inexorable drive for reunion both used and trumped race.”

Scholars can and should agree that Civil War veterans from both North and South shared in their racist sensibilities; they can likewise condemn them for their actions. But while the participants were undoubtedly racist, emphasizing veterans’ reconciliatory impulses solely as efforts to commemorate a “white only” war runs the risk of obscuring veterans’ intentions. Did veterans calculatingly contribute to historical amnesia along racial lines in the name of reconciliation? There is relatively little evidence pointing to this conclusion. It is true that from the point of view of most veterans, reconciliation seemed the soundest course of action. Yet the memories that informed the terms of reconciliation suggest that Civil War veterans acquiesced to reaching across the bloody chasm only so long as their former enemies accepted their respective arguments – a scenario that seldom transpired.

Even a cursory look at the historical record reveals that the memories of slavery, emancipation, and the trials of freedmen coupled with other contentious issues such as treason and the right of secession loomed large for former soldiers from both North and South. In fact, questions concerning race functioned as a leitmotif throughout the reconciliation era. Whether veterans celebrated the demise of slavery and saw emancipation as a worthy component of their cause, or viewed slavery as an incident rather than a cause of the war, race and the plight of black Americans functioned as a central narrative in the battle to write the terms of reconciliation.

Evidence suggests (and I have examples to spare – just ask) that Blight’s efforts to illustrate the memory of the war as a “white only” “southern terms” affair miss the bull’s-eye by a Confederate mile. The terms of reconciliation were – and still are for that matter – undecided, hashed out, and fought over...at least on a national scale. Slavery, emancipation, and black people in general were central to this post-war conflict over memory. Neither Union nor Confederate veterans let the citizens of a reunited nation forget their positions on this volatile subject – a subject that has remained among the most divisive generations after the conflict. But as always - I suggest you read Race and Reunion and judge for yourself.

Peace,

Keith

Civil War Reenactment at Calico Ghost Town, February 19th, 20th, and 21st, 2011.

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Now if this isn't a flag-raising patriotic picture I don't know what is. And if all goes according to plans, I will be seeing this first hand in February, 2011. Yes indeed - I am going to the Calico Ghost Town in Yermo California this February for their annual Civil War reenactment.

Here's the thing: I find Civil War reenactors a curious bunch. I am intrigued by why they do what they do. I have run across many of these guys and been to several "encampments." Their motivations to enlist in "reactivated" units seem range from intense ideology to a desire to have a little family fun time. And I have loved talking to all across the spectrum. I am fascinated by their (nineteenth-century)  politics and impressed by their commitment to battlefield preservation.

Strangely, I have never been to a battle reenactment. I have never smelled the gunpowder from an artillery barrage or witnessed a musket volley. So I figure it is about time. This February, video camera in hand, I will make the pilgrimage to Yermo, California to check a reenactment out first hand.

Of course, there will be interviews (if the boys in blue and gray are willing). I want to know what makes these guys tick. So stay tuned. I am sure  to kick up a fuss.

Peace,

Keith

A Review of Fort Pillow, a Civil War Massacre, and Public Memory by John Cimprich

I was dusting off some of my book concerning Civil War memory and I came across this one - by John Cimprich...Fort Pillow, a Civil War Massacre, and Public Memory. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2005). This book is worth reading, especially if you are interested in the history of the fort and the details of the infamous massacre. I was however, disappointed in the book's lack of analysis - or perhaps I should say misdirected analysis - or perhaps I should say Cimprich sort of jumped on the memory band wagon a little late in the game with nothing really new to offer to the ever-growing collection of titles on Civil War memory. At any rate, I also came across a review I wrote for Southern Historian...way back in 2006, which was published the following year in said journal. As you can see, I was pretty lukewarm on the book back then too. Here you go...

On April 12, 1864, Confederates under the command of Major General Nathan Bedford Forrest overran Federal forces garrisoned at Fort Pillow, a remote fortification in western Tennessee overlooking the Mississippi River. Northerners reeled from news of the Confederate victory. The most biting reports emphasized the murder of black Union soldiers and white Tennessee Unionists stationed at the fort. Forrest’s men – perhaps Forrest himself – flagrantly exceeded the tacit civility of conventional warfare and showed no quarter to surrendering Federal soldiers. In turn, Confederates disputed accusations suggesting Forrest let loose a massacre in pell-mell fashion. Divergent accounts of this event resonated long after the close of the conflict and fueled bitter controversy between formerly warring individuals and their descendants.

Cimprich, unquestionably an expert on this tragic event, meticulously details the days leading to the battle and the massacre itself. Readers will benefit from a blow-by-blow account of the action adeptly composed from participant testimony. But Cimprich’s objective is to move beyond a recreation of immediate incidents and weave the narrative of the fort into a survey of broader Civil War topics. He thus explores the experiences of green troops in combat, daily life of soldiers in camp, guerrilla warfare, and the shift from a Union war policy of conciliation to so-called “hard” war. One can observe all of these issues, Cimprich insists, through an analysis of the fort from its earliest incarnations as a Confederate outpost in 1861.

He may very well be correct. Undoubtedly, the lives (and deaths) of soldiers of both armies affiliated with the fort over its short history corresponded to the full gamut of Civil War experiences. However, Cimprich’s connections are often tenuous. For instance, his discussion of the Union policy of hard war, while well articulated, does not clearly illustrate the fort as a relevant factor in the policy as Cimprich implies. Agreed, Union cavalrymen “may have used Fort Pillow” (51) as a base of operations. Yet, this suggestion could be applied to nearly any fort, outpost, house, or town in the region. Further, Cimprich fails to offer anything particularly new regarding Union war policy. The problem thus rests with Cimprich’s efforts to elaborate on topics that serve to distract from the matter at hand – the fort itself. Far too much of this book travels familiar roads and then tacks on the fort in a concluding statement, seemingly as an afterthought.

Naturally, one would expect a discussion of race in a story that involves the murder of several dozen black Union soldiers. Suggesting that a “cruel spirit animated many of the Confederates,” (82) Cimprich concludes that racism was the principal motivating factor in the massacre. Again, the reader could easily suppose that Cimprich is correct. Yet this assertion seems so obvious as to appear banal. Rather than “proving” racist Confederate soldiers took especial pleasure killing blacks, Cimprich might have further developed intriguing ideas mentioned briefly elsewhere in the text. How, particularly in a war where soldiers on both sides clearly expressed overt racism, did race function in the development of two distantly different national ideologies? Here, the fort could indeed represent a microcosm of the clash between two dissimilar nationalisms.
Finally, the discussion of public memory in the book’s concluding chapter offers a brief look at various interpretations of the massacre story since the war’s close. In short, Cimprich’s work fits neatly with many memory studies published over the last several years. Varying and changing interpretations of the massacre, he argues, reflected specific cultures and historical circumstances fueling regionalism and supporting societies founded on white supremacy. Signing off with a somewhat cliché hope that “society” might one day move beyond intolerance, Cimprich misses an opportunity to describe not only how memories reflect cultures, but also how individuals use memories to shape those cultures.

Criticisms aside, Cimprich does provide a clear narrative of what actually took place at Fort Pillow in April 1864. Further, he provides two handy appendices outlining commanders and units involved in the fort’s history as well as the numbers of killed and wounded. Those interested in the details of the battle and massacre and Civil War soldiers in general will find this book useful.

But hey - judge for yourself and read Fort Pillow, A Civil War Massacre...comments welcome! If you liked the book (more than I did) and disagree with my assessment, fire away!

Peace,
Keith

Bayyyyyyoooooooneeeeeeetttts....CHARGE! The 20th Maine in the film, Gettysburg

Yessiree - films have a powerful affect on us all. I am going to wager that pretty much everyone with an interest in Civil War history has had a look at Ron Maxwell's 1993 film, Gettysburg. I will also wager that pretty much everyone has something to say about it - good...bad...or somewhere in between.

For starters, I have to say that I enjoyed the film (I can't say the same about Maxwell's follow up prequel, Gods and Generals - but that is a story for another day). I saw Gettysburg as a student, and I have shown it to my own students as part of an on-going effort to get at how Americans understand the history of their greatest national conflict.

I am particularly interested in how this film has helped catapult Joshua "don't call me Lawrence" Chamberlain to the upper echelon of Union heroes. As we all know, Chamberlain's unit, the 20th Maine, was positioned on the extreme left of the Union line at Gettysburg on July 2nd, 1863: Little Round Top. Their orders: hold the position at all costs.

Admittedly - this was a precarious situation. While they held the high ground (and thus a tactical advantage) the 20th was up against an Alabama regiment of Confederate General Longstreet's Second Corps (some ass-kicking Rebels) and their left flank was exposed...hanging out in the breeze, really. Failure to hold this position could have essentially threatened the entire Union line - and everybody knew it. Anyone who has been to Little Round Top can plainly see that properly deployed Confederate guns would have been in a perfect position to roll up the Union left flank. The film suggests that this was the pivotal moment in the battle and the war. "If we lose this fight," declares Chamberlain in the film, "we lose the war."

Bummer. So the whole enchilada hinged on the commanding prowess of one man - and a college professor to boot. No worries - Chamberlain and the 20th won the day. A bayonet charge just when all seemed lost pushed the final Rebel advance off the hill and voila - the UNION WAS SAVED!!!

Not so fast. Now I am not trying to retrospectively kick Chamberlain in the nuts here, but let's have a look at the bigger picture. I think, and most would agree, that Chamberlain and the 20th did a splendid job at Gettysburg (and Jeff Daniels did some bang-up work in the film, too). But did one man save the Union? I think not.

So why does this one soldier have such a hold on the American imagination? Well, it works a little like this. No one had heard much about Chamberlain until 1974, when Michael Shaara published The Killer Angels, a novel about the Battle of Gettysburg on which the film Gettysburg is based. Apparently Shaara was taken with Chamberlain's story. A thoughtful college professor of rhetoric with a keen sense of right and wrong and an uncanny ability to master the art of warfare seemingly made for an excellent central character and a wonderful narrator of the Union cause. The novel won the Pulitzer Prize and elevated Chamberlain in the eyes of Civil War enthusiasts.

But things really took off in 1990. Ken Burns, the self-proclaimed future of documentary film making, brought the Civil War into the living rooms of millions of Americans with his epic multi-part film, The Civil War. According to Burns, The Killer Angels was a "remarkable book that changed my life." So it stands to reason, then, that Chamberlain and the 20th Maine would hold such a prominent position in the documentary. And if Burns's film didn't prove once and for all that Chamberlain essentially saved the Union, Gettysburg sealed the deal. Historians virtually ignored Chamberlain for the longest time, it took popular culture to shed light on this intrepid savior.

OK Chamberlain fans...you can just relax. I love me some 20th, and Chamberlain was the real deal. Hell, he won the medal of honor for his gallantry on Little Round Top - and deservedly so. Let's just be clear on a few things. He did not win the Battle of Gettysburg and save the Union all by himself.

For one, the 20th held only one end of the line. On the Union far right - Culp's Hill - Colonel David Ireland commanded the 137th New York and held his position against an entire Confederate division. A loss here could have been equally catastrophic for the Union cause. But he is not mentioned in Shaara's The Killer Angels, Burns's The Civil War, or Maxwell's Gettysburg. Too bad for Ireland. His cultural resonance is merely a blip against the Chamberlain juggernaut - even though his work was equally daunting, equally crucial, and was executed with equal fortitude and gallantry as Chamberlain's.

But my quibbling with Chamberlain's role in Gettysburg really leads me to my bigger point. The film has helped instill the idea in the greater American narrative that the war all came down to one battle. It did not. The Gettysburg as "high tide" of the Confederacy story really did not take hold until after the war, when analysts and historians looked retrospectively for the moment when the Confederacy had its greatest chance to secure independence. From this perspective, things went steadily downhill for the Rebels from July, 1863 to Appomattox. This is a powerful idea in many ways - but believe me, very few (if any) people in 1863 saw Gettysburg as deciding things one way or the other. Citizens of the Union were thrilled by the news of victory, citizens of the Confederacy were devastated by defeat. But the war went on for nearly two more years - and the people from both republics looked to the armies in the field for news of victory that would bring them closer to securing their respective causes.

The film suggests otherwise - and no one understands this better than our hero, the sagacious Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. Gettysburg leaves the viewer with the knowledge that Gettysburg would have been the decisive battle for Confederate victory and, thanks to Chamberlain, this victory would not take place. Thank God that one colonel had the cajones to make the crucial decision to order a last ditch bayonet charge at the most critical moment in the battle. The film thus falls in line with one of the greatest misconceptions regarding the war: that Gettysburg was the war's turning point. And this is ultimately what the Chamberlain story tells us. But misconception or not - Chamberlain is today among the top ten Civil War cultural icons...right up there with Lee and Lincoln. After all, you can't find a David Ireland t-shirt for sale at any Gettysburg gift shop. This may be the most devastating fact of all.

Of course, that's just my opinion - judge for yourself...

The Killer Angels
The Civil War
Gettysburg

peace,

Keith