Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A turning point in the Civil War
CS Monitor ^ | June 05, 2003 | Tom O'Brien

Posted on 06/05/2003 6:01:44 AM PDT by stainlessbanner

July will bring the 140th anniversary of the battle of Gettysburg. Across Pennsylvania fields baking under the hot summer sun, reenactors will be out in force - most from the South, eager to replay, or imaginatively reverse, the whole encounter.

Reenactments began in 1913, a time closer to the battle than to us. But Gettysburg is a place that history embalmed as a special shrine long ago. What new could there be to say about it?

In the hands of two master historians, Stephen Sears and James McPherson, plenty, it turns out - though their books serve quite different purposes. McPherson's "Hallowed Ground" focuses on the battlefield today. Sears, whose "Gettysburg" will be published later this month, focuses on the battle, providing the best single-volume study in 30 years of what happened at Gettysburg from July 1 to 3, 1863.

"Hallowed Ground" is part of a series by Crown in which famous writers guide readers across their favorite landscapes. McPherson, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning "Battle Cry of Freedom," fulfills the task with a crisp but informative tour of key spots at the Gettysburg National Military Park. Using appropriate monuments as "stops," McPherson provides apt, moving commentary about personalities, controversies, and oddities connected with the battle. Among the last, he says, a body was found as late as 1997 with the skull shattered, just one of close to 8,000 fatal wounds suffered during the battle.

Sears and McPherson agree on a major point of controversy: The Southern strategy of attack, not defense, was commander Robert E. Lee's decision; the failure of several days of attacks was Lee's fault. In their view, that does not decrease his stature as the greatest general in American history. But both authors also explain that his greatness was his undoing: Lee began to believe in his army's invincibility.

Both writers put the illusion in context. Two months earlier, Lee had staged daring, high-risk attacks at Chancellorsville, which made him think his men could work miracles.

Sears quotes liberally from the diaries of many soldiers and the accounts of the foreign observers around Lee. (The Union had none; its only friend was Russia, which later sent naval squadrons as token support.) The English colonel, Arthur Fremantle, summed up the emotional situation best in noting that all the Confederates held their enemy in complete contempt.

Sears shows nothing was wrong with the Union army that a competent general couldn't cure. But it had been plagued with overzealous or overcautious commanders. A week before the battle, Lincoln found in George Meade someone who could keep his balance. Meade was sharp enough to find high ground and lash himself to it. For technological reasons, defense normally won Civil War battles, and Gettysburg was the ultimate proof. Sears also shows how the Federals benefited from dogged work by their officers and from stealing pages from the Confederate book, especially by doing the unexpected.

Both historians mention many heroes, but none compares to the superbly named Union Col. Strong Vincent and his subordinate Joshua Chamberlain, a Bowdoin professor who, when his 20th Maine regiment ran out of ammunition, naturally decided to charge. Chamberlain is now famous from the PBS series "The Civil War" and the Ted Turner film "Gettysburg." But Sears's full discussion makes you wonder if the US would still exist intact without Vincent, who died of his wounds soon after the battle.

Both Sears and McPherson bring to light unknown aspects of the Gettysburg campaign, chiefly involving the role of blacks. Black troops were not yet fighting for the Union, but a black farmer named Bryan owned acreage right in the center of the Union line. He judiciously departed before the fight, but got $48 in damages from the government afterward.

Indeed, free black men (many lived in southern Pennsylvania, near the Mason-Dixon line) had all evacuated. Free black women and children, both historians say, were kidnapped in droves by Confederates raiding nearby towns in the weeks before the battle. Declared "contrabands" in official orders, they were herded south. For varied reasons - chiefly the triumph of pro-Southern post-war history, or "Tara"-vision - this incident has been omitted from most accounts. But Sears and McPherson cite witnesses of the pogrom, such as the white diarist Rachel Cormany.

One wishes "Hallowed Ground" were longer; some might wish Sears had shortened his account - although its comprehensiveness pays off when he recounts the battle's climax - Pickett's charge - from a score of angles. Both Sears and McPherson have lived with this subject for a lifetime and have thought hard about communicating it as clearly as possible. Like 19th-century scholars, rather than modern or postmodern ones, they know citizens will respond to serious matter if given half a chance by lucid presentation. Sometimes, they show, writers succeed by staying behind the times.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: jamesmcpherson; mcpherson; sears
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last
To: LexBaird
There's plenty of ugly history to go around.

Very true. And much of that history is being rewritten with continuous bias against anyone deemed of committing a politically incorrect crime. This is also accomplihed by distortng the use of commonly used words or phrases, such as we refer to here. The distortion being made to paint the non-PC in the most unfavorable light.

Those on the left, who distort words purposefully for their own biases against anyone who disagrees with their leanings, also succeed in distorting history. Which if distorted enough, will begin to serve as nothing more then propaganda for a cause.

Referring to some isolated incidents of kidnapping of Blacks as a "pogrom" of the Confederacy, is an absurd distortion of the word. This is confirmed by the dictionary reference I cited and by the common usuage of the word.

Would you refer to Sherman's March as a pogrom of the Union, against Georgia?

21 posted on 06/05/2003 10:24:47 AM PDT by Michael.SF. ('Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on Paul's vote' - G. B. Shaw (mod.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Restorer
I'm in the middle of my second reading, and it is very fair to both sides.

Calling James McPherson "fair" is like calling the New York Times "unbiased." His treatment of prewar economic conditions in particular is just plain embarrassing and replete with interventionist and pro-yankee tripe. But then again, the only economics the good doctor ever seemed to pay attention to were by a bearded German guy named Karl.

22 posted on 06/05/2003 11:22:18 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Everybody knows why Lee lost Gettsburg.

No Jackson.


BUMP

23 posted on 06/05/2003 11:30:48 AM PDT by tm22721 (May the UN rest in peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
I found the same definition. It does seem to fit. As does this: "organized persecution of an ethnic group (especially Jews)," which also fits. Also, this one, which doesn't: "an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically : such a massacre of Jews." I also don't know about "provid[ing] slave labor in Russia."

The classic pogrom was a murderous riot or rampage of destruction, and that still seems to be the connotation. The word comes from the Russian "grom," thunder, and the connection to violence and destruction was quite strong. It clearly can be extended to other cases and has been, but the objections to using words in more general senses apply (think of the word "holocaust" and the controversy surrounding it). Talking about all oppression as "pogroms" looks more metaphorical than actual.

But it would be unfortunate if discussion of the article focused on a single word. The event discribed is something that should be examined further. Some people have the strange idea that the Confederate army and government represented freedom -- almost freedom in the libertarian or anarchist sense of the word. But like all armies and governments they were capable of oppression and practiced it on a large scale.

People seem to think that the Confederacy was just like the present day South, but that's not the case. If you aren't accustomed to seeing people in chains auctioned off in market towns or branded as punishment, or to being rousted from bed to hunt down runaways, you might not fit into Confederate society.

24 posted on 06/05/2003 11:52:09 AM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
ping
25 posted on 06/05/2003 11:57:10 AM PDT by CGVet58 (I still miss my ex-wife... but my aim is improving!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
Maybe so, but if Jubal Early had been able to take Washington...
26 posted on 06/05/2003 11:59:39 AM PDT by Frumious Bandersnatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
Those on the left, who distort words purposefully for their own biases against anyone who disagrees with their leanings, also succeed in distorting history. Which if distorted enough, will begin to serve as nothing more then propaganda for a cause.

Agreed. Here is a selection of definitions of "pogrom" from various online dictionaries:

an act of organized cruelty or killing which is done to a large group of people because of their race or religion:

organized massacre (originally of Jews in Russia)

organized persecution of an ethnic group (especially Jews)

a systematic persecution or slaughter of an ethnic or religious group, esp. of Jews.

An organized, often officially encouraged massacre or persecution of a minority group, especially one conducted against Jews

wholesale massacre of a class or race, especially of Jews in Russia.

It would seem that the author of the article used a valid, but secondary, meaning of the word in a loaded manner.

Referring to some isolated incidents of kidnapping of Blacks as a "pogrom" of the Confederacy, is an absurd distortion of the word.

Opinionated and loaded, yes. Absurd distortion? Methinks in your zeal to see the glory in what was Dixie, you veer close to dismissing an atrocity as a mere "isolated incident".

Would you refer to Sherman's March as a pogrom of the Union, against Georgia?

I'd probably refer to it as the 19th c. version of carpet bombing. War at its most brutal. But it was not directed at a particular religious or ethnic minority. It was directed at destroying the South's ability to sustain its military actions.

27 posted on 06/05/2003 12:04:54 PM PDT by LexBaird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
Your point is valid and well stated. However, it's still possible to wonder what would have happened if Lee had routed the Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg and then taken a clear road into Washington. It seems from what I've read that his invasion of Pennsylvania was intended to accomplish just such a knockout blow. The North may have decided that suing for peace and recognition of the Confederacy were the only options left to them.
28 posted on 06/05/2003 12:11:07 PM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tm22721
Everybody knows why Lee lost Gettsburg. No Jackson.

I like George Pickett's answer when asked the Gettysburg question some years after the war: "I always thought the Yankees had something to do with it."

Yes, I give Bobby Lee a lot of credit (or blame) for prolonging the war against great odds, but it is also true that the Army of the Potomac was snakebit through the first two years. There was nothing wrong with the northern rank and file, and junior officers were on the same learning curve as their confederate counterparts, but Lee had put together a solid command team while the federals endured severe command problems at corps level and above. Getysburg is the first big battle/campaign in the east where the Yankees didn't beat themselves.

While there were still some kinks in the machine -- mistakes are a part of war, and all commanders make them -- the federal command structure at Gettysburg, on balance, outperformed the confederates. That was a first. At the subordinate level, the federals more often than not demonstrated intelligent discretion and initiative, and the man at the top didn't freeze or panic. Once the Army of the Potomac stopped self-destructing, there was no way the ANV could win a clear victory.

29 posted on 06/05/2003 12:16:35 PM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: bruin66
Even in an Old west saloon.
30 posted on 06/05/2003 12:23:08 PM PDT by wordsofearnest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tm22721; CGVet58; GOPcapitalist; Michael.SF.; rebelyell
The author of this article appears to be the mouthpiece for the "South Bad, North Good" society. He's blindly following the path led by his masters.
  1. Blaming Lee for Gettysburg, but Lee himself accepted blame for Gettysburg. Nothing new here.
  2. Use of poison language - pogrom is a massacre
  3. Oversimplifying Union command by stating, "nothing was wrong with the Union army that a competent general couldn't cure"
  4. Obscure statement that the losers wrote the history books (see "Tara-vision"), despite conventional wisdom and Confederate leaders acknowledgement that the victors will write the historical accounts of the war.

The author knows his craft well, inciteful language, restating the obvious with a slant, and pulling it off as professional. I'm surprised the CSM carried this piece. On the flipside, he does get props for mentioning the oft ignored Col Strong Vincent, in addition to the over-glorified Chamberlin; both honorable men. The review leaves much to be desired. But the point is to get us to read the book!

I will reserve comment on the book, though a review of past work by McPherson, indicates financial factors, economic conditions, political issues, and international relations of pre-Civil War America are ignored in favor of a focus on slavery.

 

31 posted on 06/05/2003 12:38:55 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
"Vicksburg, not Gettysburg, was the turning point in the Civil War."

While I agree with you from a tactical standpoint, I disagree from a strategic and political standpoint. Had Lee won at Gettysburg the political climate would most likely have forced the north to sue for peace on terms recognizing the south as a soverign entity. I don't beieve the morale of the north could have tolerated another major defeat in the eastern theater, especially if Lee had followed up a victory at Gettysburg with a march against Washington. Sometimes political considerations mean more in a war than pure military might. For example, the US never lost a major battle in Vietnam but still lost the war.

32 posted on 06/05/2003 12:41:40 PM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
Me thinks in your zeal to see the glory in what was Dixie, you veer close to dismissing an atrocity as a mere "isolated incident".

Wow. That is a huge leap that you just made. So the random acts of some Confederates is either an "atrocity' or a pogrom. Both words clearly used to paint the south in the darkest possible terms. Your Yankee colors and bias are clearly evident. I do not dismiss the acts committed as being part of the 'glory' of the south. I object to the over characterizations being made as to the extent and nature of these acts. Which were indeed rare.

Regarding Sherman's March

But it was not directed at a particular religious or ethnic minority.

Does the fact that is was not directed at a minority make it excusable? Implying that the South's actions against Blacks was more vicious and more wrong, because it was racist in nature? So when Sherman's men raped 12 year old white girls, burned down their fathers farms and cut a swath of destruction 60 miles wide and 200 miles long, it was less of a crime because it was not directed at a minority?

It was directed at destroying the South's ability to sustain its military actions.

No. You are smarter then that. It was directed primarily at civilians and was so directed to punish any white southerner, who dared to stand up for State Rights.

Sherman was a war crimial who ordered an act of simple vengence, and thereby committed a pogrom. The only general I know of in the Civil War or any US war, who purposefully allowed his men to commit an attrocity against innocent civilians. Sherman was probably the model used by the Russians when they defeated the Germans in WWII. The germans raped any woman they came accross, from young girls to grandmothers. They did this or revenge, retribution, and other assorted perverse reasons an they did this on a scale unmatched since, well since Sherman.

33 posted on 06/05/2003 12:49:25 PM PDT by Michael.SF. ('Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on Paul's vote' - G. B. Shaw (mod.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tm22721
Everybody knows why Lee lost Gettsburg. No Jackson.

What happened, happened. "What ifs" are idle speculation.

Lee lost Gettysburg because he overestimated his army's ability to assault an entrenched defensive position with determined defenders. He put too much stock in the elan of his troops and too little in the morale of the Unionists. His previous success probably lead him to this, but it was still a miscalculation, especially by the third day.

Lead and cannonballs don't care how brave you are, and when enough of your company, division or corp die, you will retreat.

34 posted on 06/05/2003 12:51:12 PM PDT by LexBaird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: joebuck
I agree with your premise. The only thing that could have changed the outcome of the war would have been the lack of northern resolve. That was always a problem, even from the beginning. If Grant had lost at Shiloh, there are many who believe the north would have sued for peace. I'm not sure I buy that, but it's a possibility.

Likewise, before Grant took Vicksburg, there was a growing resentment and disatisfaction with the war effort, in the north. Grant seemed stuck in the mud, and the losses at Fredericksburg and later Chancellorsville, made it worse.

Enlistments were non-existant, in the north, resulting in the northern government enlisting the draft (and leading to the resulting draft riots). Union morale and sentiment was at its nadir.

When Grant took Vicksburg, with the victory at Gettysburg just the day before (Gettysburg, July 3rd, and Grant took Vicksburg on July 4th), it steeled the resolve in the north to see things through.

Grant's victory at Chattanooga sealed it.

There were still moments when northern resolve faltered, such as after Cold Harbor, but Grant is never given credit for his masterful maneuvering through the political minefields of the war both inside Washington and the north as a whole. Grant was able to walk the tightrope that McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, etc, could never have done.

That's why I say it was Grant who won the war. Period. It was his unique character, personality and abilities that won it. He and Lincoln were the perfect partnership. Lincoln gave him the tools, and Grant used them masterfully to end the war.

He bottled up Lee at Petersburg, even with an Army of the Potomac that was skittish, demoralized, and which lacked the "killer instinct" Grant had built up in his Army of the Tennessee out west. Yet even with such an Army and even with mostly incompetant commanders (other than a few like Hancock, Sedgwick, and Meade) he was able to pummel Lee into Petersburg and hold him there allowing the rest of his plan to be put into action...

That being, Sherman was able to march on Atlanta, burn it to the ground, and march all the way to the sea with barely any southern resistance at all! This was always part of Grant's overall strategy, to use all the armies at once, applying unrelenting pressure on the south. He knew it would break somewhere.

The south broke at Atlanta.

Grant was the man. All due credit to Bobby Lee for his daring, dash, and brilliance, but he was no match for Sam Grant. Period.

35 posted on 06/05/2003 1:04:49 PM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: x
But like all armies and governments they were capable of oppression and practiced it on a large scale.

Excellent points made in your post. But I would pose the following comments to you:

During the period of time leading up to the War between the States, the Federal government practiced two forms of oppression, both on a very large scale.

The first was the allowance of selected states, to practice slavery. A wholly despicable practice, one which was quickly losing favor in civilized cultures.

The second form of oppression, that the federal government practiced, was one of an economic nture, which fully took advantage of the poorer states, located in the southern regions of the fairly recently formed Federal Union.

The first form of oppression was practiced aganst a people, who were prevented from rising up only by the chains which held them and the brutality of government, which allowed this to continue. Yes, this continued oppression was condoned in the South, but tolerated by North (though abolitionists were increasing in power). The economic oppression was commited against a people unfetered by chains and in a position to voice their complaints at the allot box. However, with the election of Abraham Linoln, those voices recognized that they werno longer going to be heard. Thus as a result of their failed attempts to redress their grievances, war was inevitable.

The newly elected Lincoln, stood ready to appease the southern states, even by allowing the continued persecution of he oppressed black. But in a bold political move and to prvent others from entering the war, the focus shifted and the emancipaton resulted.

36 posted on 06/05/2003 1:21:06 PM PDT by Michael.SF. ('Any government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on Paul's vote' - G. B. Shaw (mod.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: katana
Most military historians I have read have always believed that Gettysburg would never have resulted in a total northern rout.

I don't think so either. I think Gettysburg is the most overrated battle of the war. It's received all this attention because of the Shaara's books and because of Ken Burns, and because of the body count. There's not denying it's an exciting battle to study, or that it was awful.

But I've never felt it was anywhere near as important as it's often credited with being.

I think the best that Lee could have gotten, would have been a draw. There was just no way he was going to crush the AOTP in the position they held. I very much doubt that Lee would have been able to take Washington if he had completely routed the AOTP. It sounds good, but the reality of the situation doesn't really allow for such a scenario.

Vicksburg was the decisive victory of the war and the battle of Champion's Hill was the decisive battle of the war. The Vicksburg campaign gets far less attention than it deserves given its overall importance on so many levels. After Vicksburg, the south could only rely on holding on long enough to make the north weary of the war. That was the only hope they had for victory.

The south was mortally wounded after Vicksburg, never to recover. Victory at Chattanooga elevated Grant to overall command, and after that it was all just last gasps. Grant fought Lee to a draw in the Wilderness and that was the last offensive Lee was ever able to launch.

The south lost the war for good on the night of May 7th, 1864 when Grant decided to move south out of the Wilderness towards Spotsylvania Courthouse.

Funny thing is, Lee himself, when he saw Grant would move south, and would not retreat, knew it was over too.

Lee knew what he was up against.

As Longstreet warned them all when they were "poo-poo-ing" Grant's resolve:

"That man Grant will fight us every day and every hour until the end of the war."

37 posted on 06/05/2003 1:22:44 PM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
"Grant was the man. All due credit to Bobby Lee for his daring, dash, and brilliance, but he was no match for Sam Grant. Period"

I agreed with just about everything in your analysis until you got to this sentence. While I have always admired Grant as the best General in the Union army, to say that Lee was "no match for Sam Grant" is quite an overstatement in my opinion. The direct confrontation between Lee and Grant started with the Wilderness campaign. At the begining of this campaign the Army of the Potomac which Grant essentially commanded directly on a day to day basis (although Meade was still the token commander in name only) had approx. 150 thousand men and unlimited supplies and food. Lee had less than 50 thousand men and never had enough food and supplies from that point throughout the rest of the war. Despite this disparity Lee was able to either win or fight Grant to a stalemate in every battle they fought. Grant was able to replenish his losses with the Union troops defending Washington, while Lee's army got smaller and weaker with every battle. Still, Lee was able to hold out for over a year until Grant streched the Confederate battle lines around Richmond and Petersburg to the breaking point. Grant was smart enough to realize his advantage in manpower and materials and use it to win the war. There wasn't much Lee could do about this and I have no doubt that if you switched them and put Lee in charge of the Union and Grant in charge of the ANV, Lee would have easily defeated Grant.

I don't mean this as a put down of Grant in any way. Grant was a superb general and I completely disagree with those who call Grant a butcher and ascribe his success merely to a bloody battle of attrition that Grant was bound to win merely because of his numerical superiority. Grant's tactics during the Vicksburg campaign were the stuff of genius and were easily the equal of any of Lee's tactical victories.

38 posted on 06/05/2003 1:32:45 PM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Frumious Bandersnatch
I don't think there was ever a chance in Hades that Jubal Early could take Washington. I don't even consider it was ever even a possibility.

Scared the citizens of Washington, sure, but that was just panic. Washington had excellent defenses and was not undefended.

Again, the importance of Washington to the war was as overrated as Richmond was. It was Grant who recognized that holding territory and siezing cities meant nothing with enemy armies in the field. The objectives of the "old guard" were always "cities". Grant knew what the real objective was; destroying the enemy armies in the field. Then you could sieze all the cities you wanted.

The north could have abandoned Washington and set up shop elsewhere, and the north could easily have retaken Washington, too.

The Confederates, likewise, abandoned Richmond, and it had little effect.

What mattered was Appomattox - Grant receiving the surrender of the AONV. It didn't matter squat where the Confederate government was, or that they had taken Richmond.

That's why Grant told Meade, when he first assumed command, "Your objective is Lee. Where Lee goes, you will go too."

39 posted on 06/05/2003 1:33:29 PM PDT by Im Your Huckleberry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Im Your Huckleberry
Lee had nowhere to go, what else could he do?!

Do you feel Chamberlin's role in the war is overrated?

40 posted on 06/05/2003 1:34:48 PM PDT by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-120 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson