Wednesday, October 5, 2011

If Robert E. Lee had a Facebook Page

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Today, just for fun, let's see if the impossible can actually shed a little light on something. I mean...why not? I am home sick with a cold and it is pouring down rain outside.

This past summer, when I was attending the Civil War Institute 2011 conference in Gettysburg, historian Peter Carmichael wondered what Robert E. Lee's Facebook page would have looked like. After stating to the audience (correctly) that they probably were somewhat unfamiliar with the medium, he went on to discuss how on Facebook, you live your life for all the world to see - and that it is all about approval and affirmation.You make a statement...and people can "like" it.

Now - Lee understood that military policy needed the support of the Confederate populace. Without it, the efforts to secure independence would surely fail. So in this regard, a Facebook page would have been entirely helpful. "Should I invade Pennsylvania?" he could ask...and wait a minute or so to see how many of his friends clicked the little thumbs up button.

Of course, this is an utterly ridiculous proposition - but it does make one think about the connections between military policy and the homefront in a democratic republic. Lee understood that his army was the physical manifestation of the will of the Confederate people...and that so long as his army could continue the fight, his country's citizens could hold on to their dreams of independence.

Hey! Guess what. Lee actually does have a Facebook page (in case you were wondering, he has a Twitter account as well). I sent him a friend request - not because I support his efforts, but because I want to click the like button should he ever post anything about surrendering at Appomattox. He has not accepted just yet...maybe he thinks I am a Yankee spy.

Peace,

Keith

Friday, September 30, 2011

What Civil War Battlefield Would You Most Like to Visit?



Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Well, I never really thought there was such a thing as a $14 burger and fries. But since I have been going to Go Burger on Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood I have changed my tune. And if you are feeling adventurous, they also boast an assortment of "adult" milkshakes - my favorite is made with chocolate and tequila (naturally). And yes I know that eating like this is not particularly good for me (or anyone, for that matter), but I like to indulge from time to time. Whatever, I run marathons.

My question is this: what Civil War battlefield would you most like to visit - and of course, I would like to know why. Mine is Gettysburg. I have spoken about it often here on Cosmic America. To me, that is the best place to get a healthy dose of history and memory all in one. I never miss a chance to to go!

Peace,
Keith

PS - click HERE for a little snippet from my last Gettysburg trip.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

The Civil War Numbers Game: Counting the Dead

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I recently read an article in the New York Times Disunion series entitled "Recounting the Dead" by J. David Hacker. Hacker concludes that although Civil War history has gone through any number of revisions, the generally agreed upon number of deaths resulting from that war amount to around 650,000.

Until recently.

Hacker illustrates how the death toll has risen to upwards of 750,000...perhaps as high as 850,000. Read the article yourself to find out how all of this came about. I want to talk about what these numbers mean.

It seems strangely perverse that we can throw numbers around like this...without a little explanation. Of course, Civil War literature is full of statements (somewhat cliche these days) such as "more died in the Civil War than all other wars combined" or the ever popular "at [insert battle here] thousands fell in a matter of minutes." Then you have the "bloodiest" scenarios. Bloodiest battle, bloodiest single day, bloodiest three days, bloodiest assault, bloodiest general, bloodiest regiment, etc., etc.

But apart from making modern observers shake their heads in disbelief, what do these numbers and observations tell us? Were nineteenth-century citizens extraordinary  marksmen? Did they care little for human life?  Did they flippantly cast soldiers pell-mell to their inexorable deaths? Not likely.

The staggering loss of life suggests something that so many journalists, historians, buffs, armchair generals, and narrators for the History Channel seem to miss: the citizens of the Union and the Confederacy were deeply and profoundly committed to their respective causes. Citizen soldiers were not fooled, tricked, duped, or hoodwinked. What's more...they knew what they were fighting for. For the most part, they willingly (often enthusiastically) participated in a fight to the finish, despite the mounting casualty figures.

To put things in perspective - let's do a little population comparison to see just how willing nineteenth-century Americans were to put up with such grim and devastating numbers. for the sake of argument, let's also stick with the lower estimation of 650,000 deaths.

The population of the United States in 1860 (that is the whole enchilada...before secession) was roughly 31,500,000 people - and around 4,000,000 of these folks were held in bondage. Based on the laws of higher mathematics, that means that somewhere around 2% of the total 1860 population lost their lives as a result of this war.

Fast forward to 2011. The current population of the United States is roughly 311,000,000...a shade less than ten times the 1860 population. Now...let's just say (again for the sake of argument) that United States forces in Iraq and Afghanistan sustained  losses comparable to the combined Union and Confederate armies and navies. That would mean that 6,220,000 United States soldiers, sailors, and Marines would have been killed over the course of the last several years.

I find these statistics sobering to say the least...and doubt quite adamantly that Americans would tolerate such dismal numbers today. The total death toll in Vietnam eventually numbered close to 58,000, and Americans of the 1960s did not stand for it. Today, the media report military deaths on an individual level - and Americans are intensely divided over what such sacrifice means.  I cannot know for certain what would transpire if news of deaths by the thousands appeared nightly on CNN - but I can only imagine Americans taking to the streets in revolutionary fury.

A century and a half span the distance between our current wars, our wars in recent history, and the Civil War era - and I believe many have lost sight of exactly what Americans from both sides of the Potomac were willing to endure between 1861 and 1865. It seems clear that they were far more intensely committed to their respective nations and causes than what is often assumed. And because of this we lose sight of what nation meant to nineteenth-century Americans. The idea that southern soldiers favored regional (state rights, remember?) over national allegiance or that northern soldiers thought little of the concept of Union still holds a pretty tight grasp on both popular and scholarly takes on the war.

One side sought to preserve a nation, one side sought to establish an entirely new one. Of course there were some on both sides who opposed these efforts - opposed the war entirely. But overall, numbers do not lie...especially in a war between two democratic republics. The People of the 1860s supported their causes to the bitter end - enough so that they sustained unparallelled losses.

So next time someone quotes you numbers, whether they be 650,000, 750,000 or 850,000 - you might want to remind them what that actually means.

Peace,

Keith

Monday, September 26, 2011

If You Could Speak with Anyone from the Civil War Era, Who Would It Be?



Greetings Cosmic Americans!

It's a question I love to ask - ahhhhhh if only it were possible. Personally, I would love to sit down with U.S. Grant, have a drink (or two) and a cigar, and talk to him about strategy.

How about you - to whom would you speak? What would you discuss?

Peace,
Keith

Sunday, September 25, 2011

Sherman's March and the History Channel

[caption id="attachment_1628" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="A pensive Sherman....perhaps thinking about what to burn down next. "][/caption]

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

It seems that lately I have been unleashing a disproportionate amount of criticism on our old friends at the History Channel. And why shouldn't I? I mean...a channel with all claims to be the go-to network for history airs programming dedicated mostly to truckers, pickers, restorers, pawners and others of their ilk - but little history. And...when there is a program dealing with history - we get this. Sherman's March...in all its predictability.

We get about what we might expect in Sherman's March - a sort of post-Vietnam analysis of an army on a rampage (with a little edged in on Sherman the reluctant liberator). It is pretty dull really - the same old story...Sherman helped bring the South to its knees and in the process invented total war (and the film is poorly acted, by the way...bordering on the ridiculous at times). Now I am not saying that Sherman didn't do his fair share of damage to the glorious South, but the narrative relies heavily on the claims of Sherman himself - making Georgia howl and all, and tends, whether intentionally or not, to sound a bit like the old articles in Confederate Veteran Magazine - you know the ones...those that paint Sherman with the evilest of strokes.

In fact, there is little to nothing in this program that even those with only a slight familiarity with Sherman's March haven't already heard. So let me add in a touch to get you thinking.

Of course, Sherman's March to the Sea - conducted from Atlanta to Savannah Georgia in late 1864 - left behind a swath of destruction, it terrorized those it in its path, and it gave Lincoln Savannah - an important port - as a Christmas present. Then he turned left and raised holy hell in South Carolina - the hotbed of secession. But did his grim work actually damage the Confederate cause as much as we might think? Could the March have hurt the Union war effort? There are scholars who believe that this might be the case.

Did Sherman's invasion of the Georgian hinterland and subsequent march to the Carolinas actually galvanize Confederate civilians? Did Confederate resistance prove effective and prolong the war? Confederate women especially may have been instrumental in supporting and sustaining the war effort during this volatile time - not just passive victims of a ruthless invading host. For an interesting look at the Rebel response to Sherman in Georgia and the Carolinas check out Jacqueline Campbell's When Sherman Marched North from the Sea. It might change how you think about the war in the deep South. Then you can write a letter to the History Channel and complain.

Peace,

Keith

I was going to suggest checking out the History Channel website and downloading Sherman's March - but the site is really annoying. I wouldn't want to inflict it on my readers. Instead, you can pick up a copy at Amazon.

Saturday, September 24, 2011

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

Thursday, September 22, 2011

Eating BBQ Beef - not Goober Peas. I Still Like the Song, Though



Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Just because I am interested - tell me your favorite Civil War era song. This is the kind of question I think of at lunch - today I am featuring Phillips BBQ on Crenshaw in LA. And stay tuned...I have a great Office Hours question slated for this weekend!

Peace,
Keith