Blog 4 History

Received my copy of William L. Shea’s Fields of Blood: The Prairie Grove Campaign (Civil War America).

Publish date: November, 2009.

Hardcover: 392 pages
Publisher: The University of North Carolina Press
ISBN: 0807833150

From the publisher: “William Shea offers a gripping narrative of the events surrounding Prairie Grove, Arkansas, one of the great unsung battles of the Civil War that effectively ended Confederate offensive operations west of the Mississippi River.”

Dr. Shea is an exceptional historian (not that he needs me to proclaim this!) and it goes without saying that he is the foremost expert on the trans-Mississippi region which I also take an interest in. The best compliment I can give Dr. Shea, his books are not just scholarly, but readable. They are like Joseph J. Ellis, Gordon S. Woods, James M. McPherson, and others. As an aspiring historian, published author, master’s candidate, and history enthusiasts, I appreciate the history writer as much as the historian. Shea is a scholar who writes very accessible books that enthusiasts such as myself enjoy and learn from.

I came across an excellent interview with William L. Shea and found the following Question and Answer:

What research challenges did you face?

Professor Shea: When Earl Hess and I began our research on Pea Ridge ages ago, we were warned that it was impossible to do a book-length study of anything on the Trans-Mississippi because of a lack of documentary material. We also were advised not to bother because the Trans-Mississippi was a backwater of no significance. But we were heedless youths and pressed ahead undeterred. Over the next few years we found hundreds of manuscript collections scattered across dozens of states. We ended up with far more material than we could possibly use.

So it was with Prairie Grove. I came across letters, diaries, and official documents everywhere I looked. I cannot recall ever storming into an archive and not coming out with a pile of photocopies or notes. The biggest haul came from New York City, of all places. The headquarters papers of the Confederate District of Arkansas have been hiding in plain sight at Columbia University for nearly a century. Even more remarkable, many of the “missing” Confederate division, brigade, and regimental reports from the battle were resting in the New York Historical Society, only a few blocks away. What this trove of Confederate documents was doing in “enemy hands” is a story in itself, but a definitive history of the Prairie Grove campaign could not have been written without it.

Too often trans-Mississippi campaigns are dismissed because they did not always involve the numbers of their Eastern counterparts, however, I can tell you they were no less violent or intense. And as Dr. Shea points out, there is an abundance of letters, diaries, correspondences as the men of these Western armies were very concerned with documenting their experiences. And as noted above, Shea discovered important documents not seen before that helped him to piece together a wonderful battle narrative.

Anyway, I am six chapters in tonight and am absolutely enjoying “Fields of Blood” which is, as usual for a Shea book, very readable and informative!

What are the best American Civil War Regimental Histories? Not the best regiment, but the best book about a Civil War regiment?

I’d like to invite my fellow Civil War bloggers to join in and let me know what regimental histories they have enjoyed and why.

My pick: Stand Firm Ye Boys from Maine: The 20th Maine and the Gettysburg Campaign, by Thomas A. Desjardin (Oxford University Press US, 2001). The book is well written and Desjardin’s fight narrative of Little Round Top is second to none. He balances the exploits of the 20th Maine with those of the Alabama troops they squared off against. Good regimental history books are not a series of chapters detailing with the actions of the unit. They take us on a journey and tell a story about the men who fought and died. Dejardin also had to balance the story of Joshua L. Chamberlain and the rest of the men. Finally, the book is well researched and includes a roster that details the occupation, age, height, and other vital data for the historian.

[I am making the assumption that any book that deals with a specific regiment for an individual campaign or battle qualifies?]

But there are so many other Civil War regimental histories worthy of any top lists! What are yours?

It looks like Mr. Dreyfuss had a nice day recently at Gettysburg as he continued his crusade championing American civics and history instruction. Last Friday thousands showed up for the keynote Dedication Day speaker and Oscar-winning actor Richard Dreyfuss. After giving what appears to have been a well received speech on American ideals and virtue, the following event occurred:

When the United States Marine Band opened the 10 a.m. ceremony with a rendition of the National Anthem, hundreds spontaneously joined along, singing the Star Spangled Banner in unison. Similarly, when the band closed the 60-minute program with “God Bless America,” many throughout the crowd waved small American flags. [link]

The Governor chimed in saying, “We’ve got to remember that what made this country great is the American spirit,” said Rendell. “If we retain that spirit in our hearts, there is nothing that this country cannot do.”

Despite the apparent success of Mr. Dreyfuss, I’m still not sure what place Hollywood stars and Rock-n-Roll singers should have as cultural warriors.

[This is not an image of the actual letter]

The letter appears to be the only one Lincoln wrote to a child while in office that survives as an original document, he said.

“There was a letter sent to youngsters Clara and Julia Brown, the original of which has been lost, and this letter to young [George] Patten,” Raab said. The letter to the Browns also was written while Lincoln was president.

Patten, who was about 8, had proudly informed his classmates and teacher that he had met Lincoln, but they laughed at him and were so skeptical that his teacher wrote the president in an attempt to verify what her student said.

Lincoln responded directly to the boy from the White House on March 19, 1861, about two weeks after his inauguration.

Read more…

I’ve often been fascinated how reviews can vary so much in regards to American Civil War books. Reviews for The American Civil War: A Military History, by renown British author/historian John Keegan perhaps represents one of the finest examples of such variety in reviews. I understand that every reviewer is not equal, and that some have an agenda. Still, the recent remarks concerning Keegan’s book differ wildly.

Reviews for The American Civil War range from flat out glowing remarks such as:

Chris Patsilelis declares that Keegan’s “assiduously researched and comprehensive new work …gives us a vivid, panoramic overview of dynamic, mid-19th century America.” Not to be outdone, John M. Taylor, notes that “Mr. Keegan’s fine book will find its way to many a bookshelf, especially those north of the Mason-Dixon line.” The Brits chimed in declaring, “Keegan’s most original contribution to his subject…”

To the other extreme, there have been some rather scorching reviews, such as:

James M. McPherson, who found that the “analytical value of Keegan’s geostrategic framework is marred by numerous errors that will leave readers confused and misinformed.” And yet even more blunt comes Steve Raymond, “Moreover, Keegan’s narrative is shot through with errors. Examples: He attributes a Ulysses S. Grant quote to Robert E. Lee, then 40 pages later attributes it correctly to Grant. He locates the Battle of Champion’s Hill on the wrong side of the state of Mississippi, says Confederates surrounded at Vicksburg planned an escape to the east side of the Mississippi River when they were already on the east side, and has Confederate General James Longstreet wounded in the arm on one page (wrong), in the throat (correct) on another.”

I will say that the reviews of Keegan’s book have been mostly positive.

Some historians and wanna be historians love to do the “I told you so” in regards to American history. They love to point out how Lincoln was not the Great Emancipator, Washington did tell lies, and that Jefferson not only owned a bunch of slaves, he fathered children by one of those slaves. Indeed, all of the above observations are mostly true and have been corrected as such by social historians during the past several decades. For as we know, though Lincoln played a role in emancipation, he cannot be given much credit, Washington loved to tell lies and during the Revolutionary War he depended on telling as many lies as possible, and finally, Jefferson and Sally indeed had a sexual relationship that probably included rape. All of this is cause enough, for some, to remove them from their pedestal and probably remove them as being worthy of much study.

[I am not a fan of the phrase "politically correct" whatever, but no one can prove to me it does not exist. Therefore, the question here is valid until someone can prove otherwise. I am not proclaiming that the so-called "political correct" nature of history is necessarily a part of this topic.]

For some the past is a usable device to shape the present (memory) and possibly make up for past injustices. J.H. Plumb wrote in 1969 that “True history… [was] basically destructive… For by its very nature it dissolves those simple, structural generalizations by which our forefathers interpreted the purpose of life in historical terms.”

As Gordon S. Wood has noted recently, “During the past generation historical scholarship apparently has fulfilled its destructive role only too well.”

And in many respects this “destruction” has been a positive as numerous myths have been corrected. Such things as the Lost Cause myth, slavery and racism, and many other mistakes and tragedies of our past.

However, these same historians and teachers are sometimes slow to point out myths or falsehoods still taught; I wish I knew why? I could suggest a few ideas but…

For example, I remember a few weeks ago during Constitution Day some blogs and a couple of news stories promoted the idea that the Iroquois Confederacy greatly influenced and shaped our American Constitution. After all, MAYBE, this made us feel better when considering the bad things Whites did to Indians.

Evidence: there have been over the last few years our own government, newspapers like the New York Times, colleges and universities, and those dreaded history blogs, Blogs, Blogs, Blogs [UPDATE: American Creation just deals with the issue and does not promote it] that have promoted this myth. Why is this myth acceptable to anyone? I don’t know. All I know is there is not a shred of evidence that backs up this myth, yet it still exists in many areas of academia.

A week or so ago the Pew Global Attitudes Project released a study titled “The Pulse of Europe 2009: 20 Years After the Fall of the Berlin Wall” that centered on the attitudes in Eastern Europe and Russia about the collapse of Communism. The results are fascinating and led me to consider something after reading this short op-ed piece by Karlyn Bowman.

The report describes the “long-existing transatlantic divide,” a divide that suggests what? Well let’s look at the data. The study revealed that “fewer people [in eastern Europe] today than in 1991 think that people should be free to pursue their life’s goals without interference from the state.” This is of course a pretty clear difference to what is typical of an American belief system, and one that some suggest is “exceptional” in its individualism and freedoms. Indeed, as the study clearly found, “Americans remain far more individualistic than Europeans.”

Interesting data indeed. We can just say that the survey tells us nothing more than we are different, big deal, being different does not suggest exceptionalism. But is it more than that, do the values that we uphold on individualism and freedoms make us exceptional? I hope so. Do we always live up to those ideals, of course not, our history is right there and reveals our failures. However, failure at times to always follow by those values does not mean there is nothing there to celebrate, that there is nothing there exceptional.

Follow up: President Obama feels the same way according to this quote: “that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our beliefs in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.” [source]

I have found out today that my efforts to start an early American History survey course has been approved. Some of you who already have such a thing might be saying, “So What.” Thus, allow me to explain.

Starting next year, here in our School District in Colorado, U.S. History A and B will start post-Reconstruction with the Gilded Age. No more early American history. I made a proposal to keep this time period, up to 1877, as a “U.S. History Studies” class as they wanted to call it. Well it has been approved and I have a few weeks to write a description and propose a list of essentials! I look forward to this and to teaching the class next fall!

I recieved from Oxford University Press a couple of new books. This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War and Stand Firm Ye Boys from Maine: The 20th Maine and the Gettysburg Campaign. This Mighty Scourge is the new paperback edition and Stand Firm the 15th Anniversary reprint. I have not read Stand Firm, but will do so soon. I have read some great reviews concering Thomas A. Desjardin and his book. I was assigned part of McPherson’s book for my Civil War graduate class last Spring and read part of it, I will finish the rest and post some comments soon.

Sounds like Richard Dreyfuss was a complete bomb today at Kevin Levin’s private school in Virginia. Levin and his school had the unfortunate pleasure (I guess) to have this Hollywood actor/ historian (?) as a guest speaker. Levin titled his blog story today as The Richard Dreyfuss Show, very catchy! I like it.

I will agree with Levin, that based on his description, Dreyfuss indeed did not know the audience he was addressing and did not, as it sounds, stay on message that was appropriate for that audience. I do not know, I was not there.

So who was in the audience besides Levin? This is a private school, St. Anne’s at Belfield School, Charlottesville, Virginia, and while I don’t know anything about this school, I would bet they are an expensive school and, well, SOME might consider them elite. Whatever! All I know is that their school website is sweet and would make most simple public schools look embarrassingly bad. I would post the link to ours, but, well, sadly, though not for lack of effort, it cannot compete.

One thing that does concern me is this, Levin wrote, “From the beginning Dreyfuss … alienated much of his audience when he asked for a volunteer to cite the Bill of Rights.

Not sure how asking those students for a volunteer to recite a cornerstone document of our country was a problem or “alienated” those students? Was it because they could not do so? Was it his asking them to do so that offended? Clearly few students at any school would be able to do so, thus I assume that was the issue? As I said, I was not there. If that is the case, Dreyfuss blundered clearly. But with that said, I appreciate his intentions, we as citizens need to better appreciate and understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights! Perhaps his point is well taken though impracticable?

Regardless, I am not defending Dreyfuss, it does sound like he clearly had no idea what he was stepping into and he got what he deserved!