Blog 4 History

As noted in my last post, my A.P. United States history class is in the final phase of our Reconstruction Unit. Yesterday we opened class discussion with a reading they were assigned the night before from Elizabeth R. Bethel’s excellent book, Promiseland: A Century of Life in a Negro Community. Afterwards students organized into groups to do the following: 1) List the major issues facing Reconstruction; 2) Devise a 5-Step plan. They have already read about Lincoln’s Plan, the Radical Republicans plans, Wade-Davis Bill, ect., and along with the supplemental readings like Bethel’s, I felt like they had a good mix of information to create their own plans. They did a good job with the activity and the discussions were informative and at times elaborate. Here are some highlights as I remember them:

• Goal of Reconstruction: Students struggled with seeing Reconstruction as a success. It succeeded at reunited the nation, but utterly failed with regard to Blacks. So we discussed what was the goal of Reconstruction, the students said it was 1. Unity; 2. Recovery; 3. Equality. Problematic indeed. We talked about race and racism and that there was probably never a real chance at equality, and as the next 100 years will show. So we felt as a class, that Unity and Recovery were most likely the main intentions of Reconstruction. (Yes, some simplification here, but I tried to stay out of the discussion as much as possible and only intervened when I felt they were going up the wrong tree, I guess.) Some students overreached and designed plans that were, though thoughtful, not practical for 1860s and 1870s America.
• The End of Reconstruction: [I stole this from Kevin Levin].  I write on the board: “1876: Mission Accomplished.” This gets the intellectual juices flowing and some heady discussion usually follows. You can imagine the topics: Black Codes, Sharecropping, ect. The discussion here was about how the end brings out, perhaps, what the Civil War was about? The end of the fighting and how reconstruction was accomplished can maybe lend some light there?

A final discussion was about the legality of seizing Southern Plantations and giving the land to other people (former slaves). It was mainly one student who decided that as Slavery, though morally wrong, was not illegal when practiced by the South, so therefore did the United States have the right to sieze land? Clearly once the South rebelled they did, however, there was some interesting reasoning, though of course ultimately I don’t think the debate lasted.

All in all some great discussion.

The end of our Civil War and Reconstruction unit is nearing and as we enter our discussion concerning Reconstruction we looked briefly at Sherman’s Field Order Number 15. To me this represents so much about Reconstruction. William T. Sherman clearly issued the order as a practicality to take care of the issue of all those new Southern laborers in need of subsistence, but also it furthered his desire to punish the Southern plantation elite. Some students did wonder if Sherman was capable of seeing this order as doing good for those former slaves [first and foremost] who desperately wanted their own land, and I felt that was a legitimate question that I could not answer. Sherman’s order is convoluted in terms of potential interpretation, is it not? It held so much hope for those poor Freedmen and in the end so much heartbreak. So in a way, the hope and failure of Sherman’s order represented, in a microcosm, the failure of Reconstruction.

Any thoughts here that I could pass on to my students. This is a very frustrating end to the unit as its hard for them to get past the failure of Reconstruction and focus on understanding what happened and why. Isn’t that the goal, understanding and not judgment? Or is it?

I am making my way through Eric Foner’s excellent book.

–
Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877 (New York: Harper and Row, 1988).

Whether you appreciate Reagan or not. Whether you think he had much to do with the Berlin Wall coming down or not, his “Tear Down This Wall” speech is historic and prophetic. In honor of the anniversary of the “fall” of the Berlin Wall and the flourishing of freedom in Eastern Germany:

West Pointers and the Civil War
The Old Army in War and Peace
By Wayne Wei-siang Hsieh
(UNC Press, 304 pp., ISBN 978-0-8078-3278-3)

Americans at one time were very sensitive to standing armies and very distrustful of the idea of a large professional fighting force, which is why throughout the 19th and early 20th Centuries America time and again was woefully unprepared for war. At the outbreak of the Civil War the United States had a meager 16,000 soldiers. There was a constant tradition of militia units in many parts of America. These local organization were based on proud tradition and myth. Whether it was the American Revolution or the War of 1812, and in particular the Battle of New Orleans (1815). We know that “citizen soldiers,” though they had their moments, were notoriously ineffective when engaged in nation state warfare. However, in early colonial America, they were very effective protecting their communities, but when asked to step away from home they were not very effective. Once again, they had their role and purpose, but they lacked the discipline and training modern warfare demanded.

To avoid chaos on the battlefield troops must have some discipline and organization. Wayne Wei-Sian Hsieh’s West Pointers and the Civil War: The Old Army in War and Peace emphasizes that the success and failure of Union Armies during the American Civil War had more to do with the quality (or lack thereof) of professional soldiers and leadership. It was not so much field fortifications or new technology, but leadership, training and the resulting morale of the foot soldiers.

I got the opportunity to get into this book sooner than expected and am very happy to have been able to do so. On pages 186-187 Hsieh gets to what I feel is the heart of his thesis when he writes: “Although the presence of fieldworks did expotentially increase the power of the tactical defensive durng the Overland campaign, the Army of the Potomac had the numbers and material support necessary to overcome that defensive advantage, if properly commanded and led.”

As we already know, and as Hsieh points out, “only a  small minority of corps commanders in the Army of the Potomac attained their posts through meritorious service on the battlefield.”

It would be the lack of professionally trained leadership that would hamper, time and again, the outcome of well planned and organized strategy. The absence of a solid corps commanders and leadership down to the Regimental level, costs the Union army countless times. Were their exceptions to this rule? Of course, lots. But by and large, leadership, according to Hsieh, and the lack there of was an important factor in the outcome of numerous battles.

I thoroughly have enjoyed reading this book, and though by no means an expert on this genre, I can confidently say that I would love to put Mr. Hsieh and Earl J. Hess on a stage and have them discuss their recent research as I think combined they have established a very unique way of approaching Civil War battles.

A letter written by Major Thomas W. Bradley, 124th New York Volunteers, and published in the National Tribune, February 4, 1886 :

“Smith’s Battery has not received in history full credit for the heroic and valuable work done by its members at Gettysburg. I was at that time 1st sergeant of Company ” H,” I24th New York. I saw the Battery come down Rock Run Glen. The guns Were unlimbered at the foot of Rock Ridge and hauled up the steep acclivity into position amid the rocks on its crest, and the Battery was soon engaged in a hot duel with the rebel batteries on the heights beyond the ” peach orchard.” Under cover of the Confederate fire, Longstreet’s Corps, massed in battle lines eight or ten deep, moved in confident, rapid attack on our position. The Battery changed from shell to canister, and, working as I never saw gunners work before or since, tore gap after gap through the ranks of the advancing foe. All this time the men were exposed to the direct fire of Longstreet’s Sharpshooters, and his front line. Every round of ammunition had to be carried from the foot of the ridge, the Battery keeping up a well-directed fire until the enemy was at the base of the heights and the guns could no longer be depressed to reach him. Then knowing that greatly superior force would overwhelm us and capture the guns unless checked, Colonel Ellis of the 124th, after a few rapid words with Major Cromwell, ordered a charge. It was immediately responded to and as quickly repulsed. It was again made in the face of a withering fire that ‘left killed and wounded two-fifths of the regiment. Flanked at the Devil’s Den by the turning of our line at that point, we were swept from the position, and the crest and guns were for a brief time in possession of the enemy. Meanwhile Captain Smith had removed horses, caissons and ammunition, rendering the guns useless to the enemy, whose hold on the position was so short that he could not remove them. * * * Longstreet’s determined charge, now so famous in history, was so dauntlessly met by our single line of battle on the crest of Rock Ridge, his force so terribly broken by the merciless fire of Smith’s canister and the fierce grapple amid the rocks of Devil’s Den. * * * The foregoing account is my recollection of Gettysburg, July 2, 1863. It may be faulty; it was more than twenty-two years ago, and I was but nineteen years of age then. The business cares and thoughts of an active life have come in between. I was seriously wounded in the second charge and my memories of the last part of the contest are confused with the agony of wounds, of being trampled under foot, carried and placed helplessly beside a rock on the other slope between both fires, hoping as I lay there that I might live long enough to see our side win, which I did, thank God ! I recovered and returned to duty. During the last of my service I was a major and aide-de-camp on the staff of the Third Division, Second Corps. This Division was formed by the remnant of the old Third Corps left alive after Gettysburg. I managed to get ‘ plugged ‘ a couple of times after that and yet see and take part in some pretty active fighting, but I never saw such a gallant rush ‘into the jaws of Hell’ as was made by our little regiment that July day, or a Battery worked and fought with such coolness and skill, such tireless devotion, and with such terrible havoc to the enemy. * * * Without that charge and the work of Smith’s Battery, our left would have been more seriously turned; but now, in the light of after experience, as I think of it, what a mad act it was. Our regiment—a mere handful, at that—with no order back- of its Colonel, charging from its base in line of battle to lock arms with Longstreet. This good it did, it gave pluck and steadiness to the men at our left, who were needing it and who fought like heroes, as the slaughterhouse in the Den abundantly attested.”

Bio Link Source: BRADLEY, Thomas Wilson, a Representative from New York; born in Yorkshire, England, April 6, 1844; immigrated to the United States in 1846 with his parents, who settled in Walden, Orange County, N.Y.; attended school until nine years of age; during the Civil War entered the Union Army as a private; promoted to captain in the One Hundred and Twenty-fourth Regiment, New York Volunteer Infantry; was aide-de-camp to Major General Mott, Third Division, Second Army Corps; awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor “for gallantry at Chancellorsville”; was brevetted major of United States Volunteers; member of the State house of assembly in 1876; delegate to the Republican National Conventions in 1892, 1896, and 1900; elected as a Republican to the Fifty-eighth and to the four succeeding Congresses (March 4, 1903-March 3, 1913); was not a candidate for renomination in 1912; engaged in banking; president and treasurer of the New York Knife Co.; died in Walden, N.Y., May 30, 1920; interment in Wallkill Valley Cemetery.

Yet another new arrival, and a beautifully created one. Atlas of the Civil War: A Complete Guide to the Tactics and Terrain of Battle (National Geographic). The folks at National Geographic were nice enough to send a review copy and I am speechless. A beautiful presentation, all glossy with excellent maps, narrative, and photos. Broken down by a year-to-year presentation with excellent writing. A first class and big book that is easily worth the $40 price tag!

I received a few days ago my advanced review copy of Wayne Wei-Siang Hsieh’s West Pointers and the Civil War: The Old Army in War and Peace (Civil War America). Hsieh challenges studies that claim field fortifications and defensive positions were to make the decisive difference in battle during the Civil War. Instead, Hsieh argues, there were other factors such as leadership, morale, and troop strength that played a key role in the outcome of battles. I have spent some time looking through the book and can’t wait to get to it…. only question is when?!?!?!

I got a chance to look through my recently arrived copy of John Keegan’s book and I am already enjoying it. Some interesting comments just in his introduction alone he writes, “Had the battle [Bull Run] gone the other way, as it might so easily have done, the war might have been concluded more quickly and at a much lower cost both to North and South.” An interesting comment that I am not sure I agree with. But nonetheless, a great book thus far. For instance, Chapter One, Mr. Keegan starts off by discussing, of all things, American Exceptionalism! What, has he not been informed by some bloggers that there is no such thing?

Anyway, Keegan starts off by declaring, “America is different.” Gasp. Exasperation. Is this master historian an idiot or what? He is for sure not as smart as a lot of the bloggers in the historiosphere.

[Continued Part II]

So I get the response that something that is “different” is not necessarily Exceptional and of course. We’re all different. I left that there hanging expecting someone to hammer that point. Keegan himself continues stating, plainly, “Today American ‘exceptionalism’… is less exceptional than it was…” and I would have to agree. Since the1930s the character of America has slowly changed. We have devalued character, honor, virtue, and honesty to the point where we have become less exceptional. Remember, the Founders absolutely understood the importance of things like virtue in a Republic.We have lost that.

 [Continued Part III]

John Keegan will always remain one of my favorite military historians, and indeed I start off with this caveat as I am sadly seeing the end of a career perhaps. This book which I started off enjoying soon turned south. Keegan never gets going in this book, his chapters on the “Military Geography” of the war and on “The Life of the Soldier” are sadly deficient and error prone. Keegan lists one source for his Soldier chapter, and that is Bell Irvin Wiley, and not both of his volumes, but only “Life of Billy Yank.”

Unfortunately this book is such a huge disappointment I doubt I will be able to finish it for some time.  I simply do not know what Keegan, his handlers, agent and the publisher Knopf were thinking!?

The Enemy of American Exceptionalism posted this remarkable video [below] as an apology to Eric Wittenberg over the recent debate (which predictably became personal!) they had concerning John Latschar. Eric accepted Kevin’s apology, sorta.

Anyway, what is remarkable to me is Levin’s meandering video that I include below. Does the word narcissist come to mind? My God, this guy thinks the world revolves around him so much that we care to listen to a 9-minute bumbling so-called apology by him. I did and had a good laugh. But then again, what happen to his radio show? Let’s see, he interviewed his brother and then his wife, nice. I really want to spend 30 minutes listening to Levin interview his family. What’s next, Ma and Pa? No, maybe the family pets? If this strikes as a bit too personal and passionate post, well I’m just returning the favor to Levin. [Click Here to understand]. So go grab some popcorn and pay attention, professor Levin is in the house:

Final Thoughts About John Latschar from Kevin Levin on Vimeo.

Now, most of this post is tongue and cheek. I actually think the video apology was a good idea as there are some things that get lost in translation on the Internet. And Blog Talk Radio is a pretty cool website that I use a lot and listen to some amateur shows that are very good. I wish Kevin could have got his show going, but as a fellow teacher I understand how time becomes an issue. Kevin and I have exchanged some unfortunate personal posts. In the spirit of Kevin’s apology which I thought was very passionate, I want to apologize for my part in all of out disputes last month. I am too a passionate blogger and I regret what I wrote and implied in my posting.

PS – I do admit that the above post, though not serious, was fun to write… Maybe I should have posted a video of me crying?

I will be clear.  I don’t know John Latschar and don’t care. However, he recently won some award concerning his work with the Gettysburg Battlefield and that’s great. But what heated it up was the news about his alleged use of a work computer for something, well, controversial. According to the news report, “Federal investigators found more than 3,400 sexually-explicit images on a work computer belonging to Gettysburg Battlefield Supt. John Latschar, as part of a year-long review of alleged misconduct at the park.”

The “Enemy” of American Exceptionalism wrote that: “The news concerning Latschar’s inappropriate use of government computers will no doubt distract from his accomplishments and give fuel to his detractors. I am not a federal employee so I can’t comment on how they’ve chosen to handle this particular violation. Can someone tell me what counts as a “sexually explicit” photograph for the federal government? Does it include a Sports Illustrated swim suit issue? I do agree that Latschar should be focusing on other issues during his working hours, but I honestly could care less what he looks at. This little piece of supposedly salacious news tells me next to nothing about Latschar’s character.”

Interesting. True, lets not jump to conclusions. Also, true, I don’t care what anyone does with a personal home computer. BUT, if you are stupid enough to use a work computer to view pornographic material, if you can’t wait to get home… that does speak a lot about someone’s character! I don’t understand the thinking that someone’s irresponsible behavior while on the job does not speak to their character or judgement? Hello! This guy was at work. If these photos are porn, he deserves to be fired.

Levin later admitted in his comments section, “I never met Latschar and I have absolutely no interest in what he does beyond preserving the Gettysburg battlefield.”  Not surprising Levin would feel this way. However, it does matter, whether Levin likes it or not.

And finally, let me get this straight, Levin thinks that Federal investigators will get involved over Sport’s Illustrated swim suit images!? Is that the implication here, sure seems like it.