Blog 4 History

It’s Friday and I am tired, but I will post this nonetheless. The headline reads “Barack Obama rejects Normandy trip to avoid offending Germany” in the London Telegraph newspaper. When I first saw it today (the story came out days ago) I was a little stunned that our Commander-in-Chief rejected the idea of visiting the cemetery of fallen American heroes. Soldiers who helped to save Europe from herself all those years ago. Young (and old) American boys and men who made the ultimate sacrifice are not shown the respect by their President that they deserve. During a week where our President set out to reestablish better diplomatic relationships with Europe and other allies, I paid no attention to the Right Wing attacks on Obama’s so-called “apology tour.” I kind of understood what he was doing. Our past administration was not beloved there, and for our Leader to show some humility was, I think, prudent. I don’t even care if he did or didn’t bow to the Saudi King (though he clearly did and why they can’t just admit it is strange and representative of things). Would an afternoon in Normandy paying respects to our fallen soldiers really been offensive to Germany? To which Germans I have to ask? The Neo-Nazis? Ah, do they have Skin Heads there? Would it have been a big deal time wise or logistically, no and no when you consider where he visited during his trip: Turkey, ect.  To visit Normandy would have reminded everyone of our sacrifice, yet this simple gesture proposed by the French was rebuffed by our President.   I am perturb by this behavior on the part Obama and his handlers. I don’t buy any of the excuses they have provided.

Now with that said, it was reported that the President MIGHT have agreed to go to France for the 65th anniversary of the June 6th 1944, D-Day landings. However, White House spokesman declined to confirm so at this point there is no such plan. If Obama does indeed visit Normandy in June, I will happily post a rebuttal and sing his praises!

I started a new class (two classes actually) at American Public University where I am working towards my masters. Though its not an assigned reading I spent part of the weekend reading Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography, which I had not read before. I found something that I wanted to share:

Observations on my reading history, in Library, May 9th, 1731.

“That the great affairs of the world, the wars, revolutions, etc., are carried on and affected by parties.

“That the view of these parties is their present general interest, or what they take to be such.

“That the different views of these different parties occasion all confusion.

“That while a party is carrying on a general design, each man has his particular private interest in view.

“That as soon as a party has gain’d its general point, each member becomes intent upon his particular interest; which, thwarting others, breaks that party into divisions, and occasions more confusion.

“That few in public affairs act from a meer view of the good of their country, whatever they may pretend; and, tho’ their actings bring real good to their country, yet men primarily considered that their own and their country’s interest was united, and did not act from a principle of benevolence.

“That fewer still, in public affairs, act with a view to the good of mankind.

“This is a marginal memorandum.—B.

“There seems to me at present to be great occasion foi raising a United Party for Virtue, by forming the virtuous and good men of all nations into a regular body, to be govern’d by suitable good and wise rules, which good and wise men may probably be more unanimous in their obedience to, than common people are to common laws.

“I at present think that whoever attempts this aright, and is well qualified, can not fail of pleasing God, and of meeting with success. B. F.”

I assumed at first that Franklin was speaking of “affected” parties as those combatants of a war. But when he appears to switch to politics, it takes on a whole different meaning, it seems. Anyway, I loved when he wrote: “United Party for Virtue” whereby the “virtuous and good men of all nations into a regular body, to be govern’d by suitable good and wise rules…” Dream on Ben, dream on…

In honor of President William Henry Harrison and the anniversary of his death. Who at the time was the oldest man (68) ever elected to the office and who unfortunately only lasted a month before succumbing to pneumonia. Here’s a humorous video presentation (via “Drunk History”) on the circumstances surrounding the death of William Henry Harrison.

This is a fascinating lecture!

Professor Blight begins his lecture with a description of the sea change in Civil War scholarship heralded by the Social History revolution of the 1960s and 1970s. Along with a focus on the experience of the common solider, women, and African Americans, a central component of this shift in scholarly emphasis was an increased interest in the effects of the war on the Union and Confederate home fronts. After suggesting some of the ways in which individual Americans experienced the war, Professor Blight moves to a discussion of the war’s effect on industry and economics, North and South. The lecture concludes with a description of the increased activism of the federal government during the war, an activism that found expression in finance, agriculture, taxation, building railroads, and, most importantly, in emancipation.

Found several documents worth sharing. [source]

---

“Head Quarters Department of the Cumberland,
Murfreesboro, Tenn.,
June 2, 1863General Orders, No. 126

Court Martial of 1st Lieutenant Henry H. Wiley, 6th East Tennessee Infantry, which convened at Carthage, Tenn., of which Colonel P.P. Lane, 11th Ohio Infantry was President. Includes the charges, specifications, findings and sentence.

Lieutenant Wiley was charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, for his actions and language on the 27th day of April, 1863, while in the encampment of the 1st Brigade, Cook’s Division, near Carthage, Tenn. Wiley, seeing and well knowing that Captain Robert G. Campbell and his employees, said Captain Campbell then being Asst. Q.M. of the 1st Brigade, Cook’s Division, were absent from camp, did go to the tent of said Campbell, and did then and there, no WHITE person being about the tent of said Campbell, except the wife of said Campbell, to wit: Virginia Campbell, and did intrude himself into the tent then occupied by her, and her proper place of staying, and did greatly insult and disturb her feelings, by remarking to her, among other things, that he had been in the Army a year or more, and had not yet had any woman to roll in his arms and to sleep with, and that he would like to have a woman to sleep with, and that he, wished her, Virginia Campbell, to kiss him, at the same time advancing towards her to accomplish such object.

The Court found Lieutenant Wiley guilty and sentenced him to be dismissed from the service of the United States, however his sentence was commuted by the General Commanding. Instead, Lieutenant Wiley was sentenced to forfeit three months pay, and make a full written apology to Captain Campbell, for the unofficerlike and ungentlemanly conduct of which he has been found guilty of. To further humiliate Lieutenant Wiley, his written apology shall be read at the first dress parade after the publication of these orders. It is interesting to note that there was no mention of an apology to Captain Campbell’s wife, Mrs. Virginia Campbell.”

---

“Head Quarters, Army of the Potomac,
September 28th, 1864General Court Martial Orders, No. 36

Includes the court martials of the following officers and men who served in the Army of the Potomac: 2nd Lieutenant George H. Bannister, 11th New Jersey Vols.; Private Alfred G. Lawrence, 16th Massachusetts Vols.; Private David H. O’Brien, 73rd New York Vols.; Captain James Doyle, 110th Pennsylvania Vols.; Private Dennis Dalrymple, 5th New Jersey Vols.; Edward McDonald, 93rd New York Vols.; 2nd Lieutenant Thomas Clark, 7th New Jersey Vols.; Captain James S. Baer, 1st Maryland Vols.; 2nd Lieutenant Ernest Kemp, 15th New York Heavy Artillery; Private Emanuel Carpenter, 12th U.S. Inf.; Captain Samuel Wilson, 39th U.S. Colored Troops; Private Charles H. Merlin, 2nd Maryland Vols.; and 1st Lieutenant Charles A. Jones, 2nd New York Artillery.

Gives the charges, findings, sentences and proceedings for each individual court martial. Also states where the several court martials were held, their dates and what officer served as president of the court.

Some of the charges that these men were brought up on were drunkenness on duty, conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline, desertion to the enemy, disobedience of orders, misbehavior before the enemy, disrespect towards a superior officer, absence without leave, and desertion.

Some of the sentences ordered by the court were to be cashiered from the service, to forfeit all pay and allowances, to be dishonorably discharged, and several were given the ultimate penalty, to be hung by the neck until dead, and to be shot to death with musketry.

This order was issued by Command of Major General Meade, and signed in print by S.[eth] Williams, Assistant Adjutant General.”

Leave the lights on between 8:30pm and 9:30pm and watch this video with your friends and family!

Here’s the trailer for a true account of the Iraq war told with no hidden or not so hidden agenda. I hope to see it soon.

I was asked recently why I seem so drawn to the Civil War. During my clumsy and meandering response I caught myself actually making sense! I know, hard to imagine. My fascination with history starts with the idea that looking “back” and “remembering” yesterday is soooo much more pleasant than contemplating the future. Beyond this simpleton view I enjoy trying to determine or guess the nature of events and people from the past. What they did was not always as important as the reason’s why they did, or the reasons for their “attempt.”  After all, why is it we are here? Well, that obviously varies. I want to leave something decent and “memoriable” behind. We all contribute to history but only a few seem to become a part of history. The more people remembering the more we find participants who are often forgotten. Perhaps its the safty of the past that appeals to me instead of the uncertainty of the future!? Excuse these hopelessly random thoughts…

This is being offered up as a “possible” Civil War soldier on ebay!? It is a tintype, and though they were superseded by gelatin emulsion dry plates in the 1880s, I want to say this is from the 1890s as my grandmother had a table exactly like the one in this photo, and it was from the 1890s… anyone an expert? But anyway, why do you suppose this seller thinks this photo is Civil War era? I don’t see anything to suggest that other than it is a tintype.