It seems almost ghoulish that whole libraries can be filled with books on the U.S. Civil War, whereas if war could have been averted, the 1860s would be a yawn in the history books with perhaps one shelf sufficing. I used to be on mailing lists for booksellers with whole extensive sections of Civil War books. Today I have tried to get off mailing lists of all kinds because of our emerging paperless society.
I'm sure if you typed any common term connected to the Civil War into a search engine, you'd get reams. It seems obvious: conflict mesmerizes us. But the Civil War is fading ever more into a very distant past. Why the lure? Author Tony Horwitz has a theory. The Civil War, the intrepid journalist suggests, was the last war to be fought by human beings. This was before massive industrial inroads enabled the killing of human beings "with industrial efficiency," Horwitz writes. (He's the author of "Confederates in the Attic.")
So we had wide sweeping pageantry and drama in this uniquely American "brother vs. brother" conflict. The sheer grisly nature of the war doesn't distract us now. We are too distanced by time. Even people who had ancestors die or get hurt in the conflict aren't touched on an intimate level, such is the gap of time. So today we focus on the tactics and personalities in the way that Americans have always been fascinated by competition.
The battle of Gettysburg is iconic. At the time, its principals never dreamt this conflict would have such status. It was another in a string of horrible battles in which the South was pugnacious and basically trying to get the North weary of the suffering to the point where a peace could be negotiated. This peace, in the South's view, would at least grant the South leverage on certain issues if not outright sovereignty. The word "rebellion" was assailed as Union propaganda at the time. But after considerable reading I feel the term is entirely fair.
If the South were really a would-be autonomous nation, why did it never have a discernible sense of geographic boundaries? The Mason-Dixon line was more of an academic exercise that was like drawing a boundary on a dodgeball court. And to the west? The west was a wholly wide-open proposition.
It was after the Civil War that the Federals decided that Gettysburg would be the symbolic battle. Many of the units put their memorials there. Interestingly even the South didn't shun this. There are memorials all over the place including one to the First Minnesota Regiment. A replica of that memorial is at Summit Cemetery here in Morris. It's perhaps the most overlooked landmark in our community. It's called the "Running Rifleman" statue (or Sam Smith statue) and is one of the most artistically striking memorial designs in connection to that battle.
The First Minnesota, composed of loggers and immigrants attracted to our then-wild state, had an essential role in the Union success at Gettysburg. A horrible sacrifice was required. General Winfield Hancock ordered the First Minnesota to plug an opening in the Union line, essentially buying time for the Federals. It was a successful maneuver but it was accomplished at horrible cost. It wasn't as glamorous as the bayonet charge directed by Joshua Chamberlain on Little Round Top. Those were Maine boys.
The Battle of Gettysburg has been placed under a microscope with authors and artists exploring no end to its twists, pivotal moments and sub-plots. One of the best books I've ever read is "The Killer Angels" by the late Michael Shaara, Pulitzer Prize winner, which is an historical novel on the battle. Celebrated as that book is, it has been predictably picked apart by obsessive Civil War devotees who allege that certain details aren't quite right.
Civil War artists are likewise under tremendous pressure to make their work historically accurate down to the finest details. At least one contrarian in this field suggests, though, that "art" has no such accuracy prerequisite. "Art" can take license on a variety of fronts, while only the sub-specialty of "illustration" might demand flawless accuracy.
So what do I think of all the obsessive analysis and attempts to document? I'm reminded of two things. First, there's the privilege that generals have of writing definitive historical works after-the-fact, even though they have CYA motivations (cover-your-whatever). These august figures who are used to so much deference don't want to admit how chaotic and disorganized most battles are as they develop. Secondly, I'm reminded of Andy Rooney of CBS News, who was an eyewitness to part of World War Two. Rooney said of a certain theater in that war that it was "a mess" from an Allied standpoint, not the methodical march forward as might be suggested in books.
War can never be neatly organized because you're fighting a foe who is trying to use deception as much as you are. In the end, the winning side usually just masses resources to the point that it cannot be stopped. The Union had those resources in the Civil War. The South's only hope was for some type of negotiated peace where concessions could be gained. But no, President Abraham Lincoln hired U.S. Grant to do a job, plain and simple, and that was to wage "Total War" and give no ground.
Grant treated his mission in a wholly businesslike way and had no interest in the pageantry of war or "gentlemanly" traditions. This was a war of attrition in which the North knew it had superior numbers. The battle of Cold Harbor was the epitome of Northern sacrifice. Today we read about such conflicts from a comfortable distance. Back then it was unspeakable horror.
Think of the conflagration that the "Running Rifleman" was running toward. Today it suggests glory more than tragedy as the latter has been suppressed with time. We all ought to focus on the truth.
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
I'm sure if you typed any common term connected to the Civil War into a search engine, you'd get reams. It seems obvious: conflict mesmerizes us. But the Civil War is fading ever more into a very distant past. Why the lure? Author Tony Horwitz has a theory. The Civil War, the intrepid journalist suggests, was the last war to be fought by human beings. This was before massive industrial inroads enabled the killing of human beings "with industrial efficiency," Horwitz writes. (He's the author of "Confederates in the Attic.")
So we had wide sweeping pageantry and drama in this uniquely American "brother vs. brother" conflict. The sheer grisly nature of the war doesn't distract us now. We are too distanced by time. Even people who had ancestors die or get hurt in the conflict aren't touched on an intimate level, such is the gap of time. So today we focus on the tactics and personalities in the way that Americans have always been fascinated by competition.
The battle of Gettysburg is iconic. At the time, its principals never dreamt this conflict would have such status. It was another in a string of horrible battles in which the South was pugnacious and basically trying to get the North weary of the suffering to the point where a peace could be negotiated. This peace, in the South's view, would at least grant the South leverage on certain issues if not outright sovereignty. The word "rebellion" was assailed as Union propaganda at the time. But after considerable reading I feel the term is entirely fair.
If the South were really a would-be autonomous nation, why did it never have a discernible sense of geographic boundaries? The Mason-Dixon line was more of an academic exercise that was like drawing a boundary on a dodgeball court. And to the west? The west was a wholly wide-open proposition.
It was after the Civil War that the Federals decided that Gettysburg would be the symbolic battle. Many of the units put their memorials there. Interestingly even the South didn't shun this. There are memorials all over the place including one to the First Minnesota Regiment. A replica of that memorial is at Summit Cemetery here in Morris. It's perhaps the most overlooked landmark in our community. It's called the "Running Rifleman" statue (or Sam Smith statue) and is one of the most artistically striking memorial designs in connection to that battle.
The First Minnesota, composed of loggers and immigrants attracted to our then-wild state, had an essential role in the Union success at Gettysburg. A horrible sacrifice was required. General Winfield Hancock ordered the First Minnesota to plug an opening in the Union line, essentially buying time for the Federals. It was a successful maneuver but it was accomplished at horrible cost. It wasn't as glamorous as the bayonet charge directed by Joshua Chamberlain on Little Round Top. Those were Maine boys.
The Battle of Gettysburg has been placed under a microscope with authors and artists exploring no end to its twists, pivotal moments and sub-plots. One of the best books I've ever read is "The Killer Angels" by the late Michael Shaara, Pulitzer Prize winner, which is an historical novel on the battle. Celebrated as that book is, it has been predictably picked apart by obsessive Civil War devotees who allege that certain details aren't quite right.
Civil War artists are likewise under tremendous pressure to make their work historically accurate down to the finest details. At least one contrarian in this field suggests, though, that "art" has no such accuracy prerequisite. "Art" can take license on a variety of fronts, while only the sub-specialty of "illustration" might demand flawless accuracy.
So what do I think of all the obsessive analysis and attempts to document? I'm reminded of two things. First, there's the privilege that generals have of writing definitive historical works after-the-fact, even though they have CYA motivations (cover-your-whatever). These august figures who are used to so much deference don't want to admit how chaotic and disorganized most battles are as they develop. Secondly, I'm reminded of Andy Rooney of CBS News, who was an eyewitness to part of World War Two. Rooney said of a certain theater in that war that it was "a mess" from an Allied standpoint, not the methodical march forward as might be suggested in books.
War can never be neatly organized because you're fighting a foe who is trying to use deception as much as you are. In the end, the winning side usually just masses resources to the point that it cannot be stopped. The Union had those resources in the Civil War. The South's only hope was for some type of negotiated peace where concessions could be gained. But no, President Abraham Lincoln hired U.S. Grant to do a job, plain and simple, and that was to wage "Total War" and give no ground.
Grant treated his mission in a wholly businesslike way and had no interest in the pageantry of war or "gentlemanly" traditions. This was a war of attrition in which the North knew it had superior numbers. The battle of Cold Harbor was the epitome of Northern sacrifice. Today we read about such conflicts from a comfortable distance. Back then it was unspeakable horror.
Think of the conflagration that the "Running Rifleman" was running toward. Today it suggests glory more than tragedy as the latter has been suppressed with time. We all ought to focus on the truth.
-Brian Williams - Morris mn Minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment