Sorry for the constant change in blog themes. I was experimenting with different looks and realized in the end that simplicity is a virtue. This theme provides plenty of horizontal room for postings as opposed to the more confined formats.
I should have mentioned this earlier, but there is an excellent blog that focuses on Boston and the American Revolution that I recently listed on the blogroll. It is called Boston 1775 and the posts are intelligent and entertaining. Definitely check it out.
I don’t know how many of you are tennis fans, but I am totally psyched for the Wimbledon final between Federer and Nadal. Nadal is clearly a thorn in Federer’s side, but it should be a close and exciting match as they are playing on grass. Federer is an absolute pleasure to watch. His shots are clean and his moves are so graceful. There is a certain beauty in watching him perform. He is obviously very comfortable with his body. I do love team sports, but singles tennis hinges on the individual’s endurance and mental toughness. It is an exercise in all-around discipline.
Today is the first installment of a new series called "Fridays with Jeb and Felix." Of course, Jeb and Felix (a.k.a. "The Boys") are our cats. Friday is a pretty relaxed day so the subject matter seems appropriate. I am still trying to learn my way around the digital camera, which explains the red-eye. I will eventually fix it. For some hilarious photos of cats in sinks, check out Cats in Sinks [via Rebecca Goetz]. It’s a great place to "procatinate."
My work on the Crater project is moving along, though I am still having some difficulty focusing. Today I decided that it might be worthwhile driving down to Petersburg and re-connecting with the Crater battlefield. I jumped into my car, popped in Bob Dylan’s Live 1966 and I was set. I enjoy driving alone as it gives me time to think about things and solve the world’s problems. The clouds were out, but the weather report suggested that it might clear by early afternoon. I know, I should have been more realistic. As I got closer to Richmond the clouds increased and right before Petersburg it started to rain. I didn’t really mind that it rained. The weather was cool, which made for a pleasant tramp across the battlefield.
I stopped off at the PNBP Visitors Center to pay my entrance fee and headed directly to the Crater. My first stop was the Union lines by the Taylor Ruins and Fort Morton where Ambrose Burnside made his headquarters. The view of the Crater is direct though it takes a bit of imagination to block out the trees. This first photograph is from Fort Morton looking towards the Crater.
From there I headed over the Norfolk and Petersburg R.R. – which was surveyed by William Mahone before the war – and parked next to the trail that winds over to the tunnel. Rather than head straight for the tunnel I decided to walk up the Baxter Road to where it intersects with the Jerusalem Plank Road. There is a monument to Massachusetts soldiers, who served in the Petersburg Campaign, that was erected at the turn of the century. Massachusetts veterans traveled to Petersburg, and specifically to the Crater on a number of occasions. Their close interaction with the local A.P. Hill Camp of Confederate Veterans fueled interest in preserving the battlefield for future generations that stretched beyond the Commonwealth. Right across from the monument are two guns that are positioned to represent Henry B. Flanner’s Battery which saw a great deal of action on the morning of July 30, 1864. They were situated directly behind the Crater right along the Jerusalem Plank Road. Federal units that managed to advance beyond the confines of the crater felt the full force of this particular battery. This is a photograph taken from the position of the battery and looking towards the Crater. I then walked along the Jerusalem Plank Road towards Blandford Cemetery to locate the entrance to the Covered Way that Mahone’s division used in their counterattack which took place some time around 9:00a.m. It’s not easy to find and the actual path is difficult to follow since it winds through the woods. For some reason I decided to wear sneakers and shorts today and needless to say I ruined the former. It is indeed a strange feeling to follow the route used on that particular day knowing the result of the movement. The walk was very quiet, but for the sighting of two young fawns. I came out in the shallow area that David Weisiger’s Virginia brigade used as cover while they organized their ranks. It is difficult to get a feel for the topography of the battle since the landscape was transformed dramatically following the war. The property remained in the hands of the Griffith family until it was purchased by the Crater Battlefield Association and turned into an 18-hole golf course. Here is a view of the Crater from a point just beyond where the counterattack formed. Notice the tree line on the left and you will see the shallow area that was used. Beyond that you can see another slope and the Mahone monument. I used to think that it was this further slope that was used, but that would put Mahone’s men too close to the advanced Federal units.
The Mahone monument is a fairly prominent marker on the battlefield. Visitors sometimes wonder why there aren’t more monuments, but it should be remembered that the field remained in private hands until it was incorporated into the Petersburg National Military Park in 1936. While many are familiar with Mahone’s name in connection with the battle, it is important to keep in mind that his postwar political career landed him in a great deal of trouble not only with his fellow Virginians, but with members of this own command. Mahone’s Readjuster Party constituted one of the most successful bi-racial parties in the postwar South. The monument was originally supposed to be located in a more prominent location, but owing to the protests of various groups it was decided to place the monument on the battlefield. The monument is located at roughly the Virginia brigade’s right as it advanced towards the Crater. Along the path of the counterattack I veered off to the left to walk part of the Confederate line that was occupied by McAfee’s North Carolinians. Although they are covered by woods you can still make out the outline of the position.
The only part of the battlefield that I did not photograph was the actual crater. I guess if you’ve seen one hole you’ve seen them all. Not quite, but for some reason I failed to snap a shot. Sorry about that, but I am sure you can find one on the Internet somewhere. On my way out I noticed one of the NPS Rangers leading a tour so I joined to get a sense of what people walk away with. The guide focused a great deal of time on the actual digging of the tunnel – time that could have been better spent. At the actual crater the guide suggested that the soldiers who fought within its confines were not fighting for union or secession, but for their comrades. I don’t really know what to make of this. Perhaps it was an attempt to steer clear of divisive topics or offered for some kind of dramatic effect. All in all I had a great day. The weather could have been nicer, but I do feel better for having gone.
I want to add one more post to this most recent series in this on-going debate surrounding the direction and proper scope of Civil War battle studies. As to the question of the proper balance between both approaches, I really have nothing to add. There is no answer to the question; it is a false dichotomy. In the end, my interests are in not simply understanding factually more, but understanding better, and to achieve these ends you must ask a broad range of questions.
The majority of my posts on this subject have focused on what the traditional battle narrative fails to include. I thought I would take a different approach here and concentrate on what I take to be the reasons for the overwhelming popularity of the traditional narrative and why there is so much resistance to some of the new approaches that academic historians have introduced over the past few decades. I should add that these thoughts are not directed at any one group or individual. They are based on my own observations of Civil War culture.
My concerns with the traditional narrative actually have not as much to do with what they fail to include, but with the historical context that continues to fuel its popularity. I tend to see the traditional battle narrative as falling squarely within the context of postwar reunion and reconciliation. As the nation bound up its wounds and worked towards sectional reconciliation by the turn of the century, histories of the war came to reflect a growing unwillingness to engage the tough moral issues such as emancipation, race, and blame. If the participants of the war tended to see themselves on an equal moral plain with their one-time enemies and not as political beings that harbored strong political beliefs and a deep hatred, then it is not surprising that our early histories focused on a sanitized view of the battlefield. If our collective goal is to see ourselves as unified and the war as part of the inevitable march of freedom, then it is not surprising that our historians ignored the darker aspects and unresolved issues that related to the war. (In fact, many historians at the turn of the
century contributed to the disfranchisement of African Americans by ignoring their role in the story and exacerbating the racial components of the Lost
Cause.) I can see this clearly in my work on the battle of the Crater. Battles were slugfests that could be captured in all their glory and majesty without having to worry about the many political and social issues that animated the men in the ranks. Americans chose to celebrate the war and we continue to do so today. We really do want to be entertained by our Civil War. I tried to make this point in much more detail in a recent paper, “Why the Civil War Still Matters,” which was presented as part of the Virginia Festival of the Book back in March.
Gary Gallagher is fond of pointing out that most people don’t just simply want to hear the same stories, they want to hear the same stories told well. And those stories tend to satisfy our deep desire to relish in a narrative that is progressive and brings out the best in the American character. It shields us from having to acknowledge the dark underbelly of our history. Perhaps the human cost was not worth it in the end. In light of the war in Iraq, perhaps we can see more clearly that the war did not really end in 1865, but simply took on a different form. The questions that have come out of the academy have allowed me to explore the Civil War with a bit more sophistication. More importantly, it has given me a more mature understanding of how the war both reflected progress and regression for various groups. I do not want simply to be entertained by history. I want to be challenged and surprised.
I recently discovered a very interesting blog that falls very close to my own reading and research interests. The blog is called "not in memoriam, but in defense," which as many of you know is a reference to the 1930 Agrarian manifesto, I’ll Take My Stand. Here is a bit from Sarah’s first post:
Beginning on June 14, I will begin my
thesis research on Confederate monuments in three Southern cities: Richmond,
Stone Mountain, and the tiny town of Moulton, Alabama. From this research I hope
to understand how myths of the South have changed in recent years. Specifically,
I want to figure out how Confederate monuments have fared in cities in which
there has been a dramatic demographic shift. According to the 2000 census,
Richmond is almost 60% black. Stone Mountain, a city outside of Atlanta, is
nearly 70% black. Both of these cities are home to two of the most famous cites
of Confederate memorializing: Monument Avenue in Richmond, and the face of Stone
Entries catalog both her travels and research. You will find a link to this site with the other Civil War bloggers.