Hometown hero, at last Hometown Hero; Maine community gives Civil War general his due

Boston Globe ^ | 5/31/2003 | Doug Warren, Globe Staff

[Uncle Jaque]

BRUNSWICK, Maine -

Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was many things in his lifetime: Medal of Honor winner for his bravery during the battle of Gettysburg, governor of Maine, and Bowdoin College president.

With interest in the Civil War growing in recent years, Chamberlain has gained almost mythic stature, with his image appearing in movies, TV documentaries, on bottles of ale, and even in a stage musical.

But somehow, Chamberlain - who died in 1914 and is buried here - had failed to fully capture the hearts of the people of this picturesque college town where he spent most of his adult life.

He was a figure of some controversy,'' said Niven, whose family roots run deep in the community. ''He pushed reforms at the college and he took some unpopular stands as governor.
And some local folks thought his wife, Fannie, `put on airs.'''

The national spotlight focused on Chamberlain by Ken Burns's PBS documentary ''The Civil War'' and Ted Turner's movie ''Gettysburg'' had an impact on Brunswick, and perhaps on local sentiment. ...

Even before its dedication, the Chamberlain memorial (Recently erected statue of General Joshuah Lawrence Chamberlain near Bowdoin College in Brunswick ME) was drawing admirers.

On an overcast Memorial Day, Reenactors from the 3d Maine Infantry, Company A, marched to the site after participating in the Brunswick parade.
The men placed flowers at the statue's booted feet and then presented arms.

Almost 140 years after Gettysburg, Chamberlain was once again in his finest hour, towering over a sturdy line of Maine men in Union blue.

(This story ran on page B1 of the Boston Globe on 5/31/2003.)

[larryjohnson]

I became a fan of this Officer after I moved to Maine. Then I read the Angels book and saw the GBurg movie. I went to college at Gettysburg but never knew the role of the 20th. I knew the Battlefield by night. Some day I will take my Maine grandsons to Gettysburg and tell them how their GGGG grandpas fought each other. My family were Confederates.

[Thunder 6]

'Soul of the Lion' bump.

[vetvetdoug]

One of my most treasured books is Maine At Gettysburg Report of Maine Commissioners prepared by the Executive Committee in 1898. It gives the speeches at the dedication of monuments at Gettysburg and a history of the lobstermen at Gettysburg. This is an excellent reference book. GB to me was an excellent movie. After working on North and South, Dream West, and a myriad of documentaries, GB was an improvement.

[ontos-on]

Well, well; we appear to be equally convinced about opposite propositions.

I am surprised by your position. Namely, that "People, in general, were not more articulate then. …. Far fewer people were educated enough to even speak correctly."

Perhaps my meaning is not clear to you. Let me try to make several observations on what I mean. In the mid 19th century, there were No TV, no radio. There was a much greater use of an oral tradition. Much more storytelling and storylistening by people of all ranks and stations. The word had a much greater power. It carried the expression of an inner thought. People had more quiet to be in touch with their own minds. There was more opportunity for actually talking and real conversations.

Sure there is much more schooling today. But you have to measure real expression, articulateness; and not the multiplication of literate people immersed in a culture where much that is said is sadly regurgitated. Minds today are much more passive and submissive to frameworks set by others.

What is your image of mid 19th century America such that you would dispute this?

BTW, there was a post in the last week on freerepublic which I think is on point with our controversy. See how George Orwell talks about the lacks and limitations of modern speech. Loss of imagination, precision and concreteness. This really makes my point. Take a look at this. Here is the URL: It was entitled Politics and the English Language and was written in 1946.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/918841/posts


also see this excerpt from an article called Education in the Internet Age
which was posted on freereublic on 6-2-2003:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/922061/posts

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is always easy to sanctify the past and downgrade the present and that has been done in every age and culture. Nineteenth century America was a land of little culture outside a few Eastern cities. In the South the majority of the poor were illiterate and the prevelence of illiteracy and lack of culture in general makes true eloquence and articulate speech difficult if not impossible for the vast majority of the population.

Prior to the spread of public education only the wealthy had any education to speak of. To think that there were very many Daniel Websters, John C. Calhouns, Hamiltons or Lincolns is simply mistaken.

Stories mumbled around a fire at night is not the same as articulate speech. To me articulate speech is correct or at least poetic speech. Incorrect speech can be articulate but it is the rare speaker who can pull that off. And some people can babble incessently without saying a thing worth hearing.

Rhetoric, the proper use of speech, was once a serious study for those who were formally educated and its disappearance as a subject of study does not help today's talkers but only a small percentage of the population of the past was exposed to it anyway.

As regards the oral tradition and the ability to have more conversational encounters that may be true however, it certainly is also true that I have all those I desire. Having a limited cultural background cannot make one's conversations MORE interesting rather the opposite.

[joebuck]

"There were numerous embarrasments regarding 'Gettysburg'..."

Granted all your points are correct (especially the awful phony beards) but these are pretty minor things. Overall, I thought the Movie was excellent. Barringer was great as the brooding General Longstreet and Daniels performance as Chamberlain was worthy of a Best Actor nomination. The film captures all the "what ifs" that make Gettysburg so fascinating to study. What if Ewell had taken the high ground on the first day, an obvious move for any good General; what if Stuart hadn't gone on his joyride and had kept the Confederate army informed as to the Union's position? What if Gen. Lee had taken Longstreet's advice and used a flanking manuver rather than head on assualts against an entrenched enemy; a tactic that had already proven itself disasterous at the Battles of Malvern Hill and Fredricksburg. Despite my personal feelings toward Martin Sheen, I didn't think his portrayal of General Lee was bad at all, although I think most freepers disagree with me on this one. Granted, Sheen is a very short man and Lee was not, but I thought Sheen captured that image of Southern Gentility and honor that I usually associate with General Lee.

[BartMan1]

much to treasure here, esp # 15....

[ontos-on]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I think we are missing each other, but I am not sure how to rectify that.

[ontos-on]

I think we mean something different by expression and articulateness. I wished you had addressed my points about how contemporary use of language is very inarticulate. Did the Orwell article cause any sense of agreement in you?