The View From The Ground Now Available In Bookstores

Although the book is not slated for release until December I was able to pick up a copy yesterday in my local bookstore.  The full title is The View From The Ground: Experiences Of Civil War Soldiers and is edited by Aaron Sheehan-Dean with an afterword by Joseph T. Glatthaar.  The publisher is the University of Kentucky Press and the book is part of a new series called New Directions In Southern History, which is edited by Peter Carmichael, William Link, and Michelle Gillespie.  I have to say that it’s nice to see one of my essays in book form and in a collection that includes some very talented historians.  Here is the Table of Contents:

1. The Blue and the Gray in Black and White: Assessing the Scholarship on Civil War Soldiers by Aaron Sheehan-Dean
2. A “Vexed Question”: White Union Soldiers on Slavery and Race by Chandra Manning
3. A Brother’s War?: Exploring Confederate Perceptions of the Enemy by Jason Phillips
4. “The Army Is Not Near So Much Demoralized as the Country Is”: Soldiers in the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederate Home Front” by Lisa Laskin
5. “‘No Nearer Heaven Now but Rather Farther Off”: The Religious Compromises and Conflicts of Northern Soldiers by David W. Rolfs
6. “Strangers in a Strange Land”: Christian Soldiers in the Early Months of the Civil War by Kent T. Dollar
7. ‘A Viler Enemy in Our Rear”: Pennsylvania Soldiers Confront the North’s Antiwar Movement by Timothy J. Orr
8. Popular Sovereignty in the Confederate Army: The Case of Colonel John Marshall and the Fourth Texas Infantry Regiment by Charles E. Brooks
9. “Is Not the Glory Enough to Give Us All a Share?”: An Analysis of Competing Memories of the Battle of the Crater by Kevin M. Levin
10. Afterword by Joseph T. Glatthaar.

I will be joining Dollar, Phillips, Manning, Brooks, and Sheehan-Dean for a roundtable discussion at the upcoming Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association in January 2007 in Atlanta.  The session is titled, Soldiers, Citizens, and Sources: The Uses of Civil War Soldiers in Writing U.S. History and will focus on different methodological approaches to researching our subjects.  The session is scheduled for Saturday, January 6 from 2:30-4:30pm in the Hilton Hotel’s Monroe Room.

In the meantime pick up a copy of The View From The Ground; it will make a great stocking stuffer.

1 comment

The “Second Emancipation Proclamation” That Wasn’t

One of the things that I am trying to explain in the final chapter of my Crater manuscript is why a reenactment of the battle did not take place in July 1964, given the popularity of two previous reenactments and reunions in 1903 and 1937. A closer look at the Civil War Centennial reveals a contested landscape between Americans who wished to celebrate a “Reconciliationist” and heroic interpretation of the war and the impact of the Civil Rights Movement and its reminder of a long-forgotten “Emancipationist” account of the war.

This conflict emerged in its clearest form at the end of 1962 as the Kennedy administration tried to figure out the best way (politically speaking) to commemorate the Emancipation Proclamation without offending Southern whites who would be needed to help reelect the president in 1964.  As late as December 26 Kennedy was handed the text of a proposed statement to be read on January 1, 1963:

Whereas Negro citizens are still being denied rights guaranteed by the constitution and laws of the United States, and the securing of these rights is one of the greatest tasks of our democracy:

Now, therefore, I, John F. Kennedy, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim that the Emancipation Proclamation expresses our Nation’s policy, founded on justice and morality, and that it is therefore fitting and proper to commemorate the centennial of the historic Emancipation Proclamation throughout the year 1863.

Kennedy refused to issue the statement, and instead decided to invite prominent African-American leaders to the White House which would minimize the damage to white constituents in the South and possibly lead to coverage by magazines such as Jet and Ebony.  So, what did Kennedy do on New Year’s Day?  He attended the Orange Bowl game in Miami and watched Joe Namath lead the University of Alabama to victory.  This was the very same school that had to be ordered by the courts to admit Autherine Lacy in 1956 as the first black student.  White students rioted on campus and in response the school suspended Lacy rather than the students responsible for the violence.

What does it say about a country when its own president refuses to honor the central event of our Civil War?

HAPPY THANKSGIVING

0 comments

James Longstreet Ain’t Got Nothin’ on William Mahone

Here is a statement made by William Mahone upon leaving the Senate:

"I have stood upon Cemetery Hill and looked down on the scene of the great Crater fight, and wondered in my heart if God could have any forgiveness for those men who led the South into that awful war, and are answerable for the blood, the misery, the ruin that followed.  Yet under their teaching I was one of the most bitter and irreconcilable of all who flew to arms in the cause of the State and the Confederacy, and I never learned my wretched error, the awful blunder of the South, the curse of her institution of slavery and her traditions until I sat in the United States Senate, and day by day had borne in upon me the amazing significance of our form of government, what it meant, on what basis it was founded, how great and grand it was above any previous human effort, what it meant for humanity, and how much greater the nation was than any State."

0 comments

James Longstreet Ain’t Got Nothin’ on William Mahone

Here is a statement made by William Mahone upon leaving the Senate:

"I have stood upon Cemetery Hill and looked down on the scene of the great Crater fight, and wondered in my heart if God could have any forgiveness for those men who led the South into that awful war, and are answerable for the blood, the misery, the ruin that followed.  Yet under their teaching I was one of the most bitter and irreconcilable of all who flew to arms in the cause of the State and the Confederacy, and I never learned my wretched error, the awful blunder of the South, the curse of her institution of slavery and her traditions until I sat in the United States Senate, and day by day had borne in upon me the amazing significance of our form of government, what it meant, on what basis it was founded, how great and grand it was above any previous human effort, what it meant for humanity, and how much greater the nation was than any State."

0 comments

The 1937 Crater Reenactment

Here is a little taste from my ongoing Crater project.  This short section is from chapter 5 which explores events in Petersburg during the first few decades of the twentieth century.  The images are located at the Petersburg National Battlefield Park.  The first image is a map of the Crater site at the time it was owned by the Crater Battlefield Association which turned it into an 18-hole golf course.

The acquisition of the Crater site by the Petersburg National Military Park in 1936 should be understood within a broader context of economic revitalization. Public officials in Petersburg continued to look for ways to use its Civil War battlefields as a way to attract both businesses and new residents. The PNMP urged residents to see its history as not simply a way to commemorate the “valor of the Blue and the Gray.” The park would attract tourists, conventions, “permanent investments,” employment, and finally, it would “open new territory available for suburban subdivisions . . . and will increase the value of the land around the park.” The Pine Gardens estate sale which took place in September 1929 drew a direct connection between residential development and preservation: “It behooves every one who had a relative to serve or die in this great conflict of the Civil War to own at least a small portion of this sacred and beloved soil.”

With the Crater site under park supervision, officials spent most of the summer and fall of 1937 removing golf traps and greens; [Crater was turned into an 18-hole golf course] the planting of trees and shrubs was done to shield the field from modern structures along nearby highways. A restoration of the entrance to the mine shaft was also started in 1937. Workers uncovered shell fragments, nails and other articles as the work progressed. Excavations indicated that the starting point of the tunnel corresponded with the location of the stone monument placed there by the veterans of the 48th Pennsylvania in 1907. In November 1937, the remains of two Union soldiers were found.

In addition to physical improvements to the landscape, Park officials erected markers that outlined the battle. The content of these markers reflected an interpretation that by the turn of the century had become standard. The overall mission of the PNMP was to “commemorate the valor and devotion of the American soldiers of the Revolution and the War Between the States.” Visitors were expected to interpret the battlefield “on which the manhood of the North and of the South, each contending for high ideals, engaged in the final decisive struggles of the war of 1861-1865.” Such an interpretation left no room to acknowledge the battle as a moment for African-American soldiers to demonstrate their willingness to sacrifice their lives for freedom. Neither was there mention of the rage exhibited by Confederates at having to fight black soldiers or the well-documented incidents involving their execution following their surrender. Mahone’s Virginia brigade was singled out as the most important component leading to Confederate success: one marker, titled “Mahone’s Charge,” was described as including “800 men of Weisiger’s Brigade” and “composed mainly of Petersburg men.”

The Park Service wasted little time utilizing the Crater to attract people to the battlefield On April 30, 1937, a reenactment was held for an estimated 50,000 spectators. An immense amount of planning and publicity work was required, and during the month preceding the reenactment, Park employees devoted most of their time to the affair. Preparations included the construction of a stand, an enclosure for invited guests, six latrines, two enclosures for the press, two structures to represent bombproofs, temporary imitation earthworks and battery positions. Workers went to great lengths to create a realistic visual for the audience; monuments on the fields were camouflaged, and arrangements were made to prohibit airplanes from flying over the area during the day.

Richmond Times-Dispatch reported to its readers that they could “see reproduced the greatest fiasco in modern warfare.” Once again the attention would be on Mahone’s brigade; those in attendance would see how they “came to reinforce the Crater’s defenders and how they dashed into the Crater themselves, screaming the Rebel yell, goaded to insane fury by the faces of a Negro division Burnside had thrown into the fight”—one of the few references to Confederate rage at having to face black soldiers. Six thousand seats for spectators were sold for 50 cents, though general admission and parking came with no charge.

With national reunion solidified, press releases from the Park Service and other public offices in Petersburg advertised an event that would celebrate the heroism of the American soldiers and the battle in neutral terms. Historian, Raleigh Taylor described the reenactment as a commemoration of an “important phase in American history.” When describing the failed Union attack, Taylor made it a point to mention that their “Regiments and brigades served gallantly.” Finally, Taylor hoped that visitors would walk away with a better understanding of the “costly folly of war.” James Latimer of the Petersburg Chamber of Commerce touted the reenactment as an opportunity to “commemorate the military operations . . . in that historical city in 1864 -65, and to preserve the earthworks and fortifications erected there during what proved to be the longest and bloodiest siege operations in the history of the American Republic.”

The concentration on battlefield heroics and an attempt to attract visitors from beyond the Commonwealth left no room to commemorate the deeds of African Americans who fought at the Crater. In a radio address presented on two occasions in the days leading up to the reenactment, Raleigh Taylor discussed the history of the battle and included an account by Confederate veteran George Bernard in his War Talks of Confederate Veterans. Bernard remembered meeting a “darky” during the countercharge who “begged to be spared, and, on being told he would not be shot, immediately began fanning a wounded Confederate as a way of showing his change of sides.”  As in the case of the 1903 reenactment, African Americans were presented as docile, and more importantly, not committed to fighting for their freedom. Event organizers once again failed to include any overt references to African Americans in their recreation of the battle.

A total of nearly 3,000 men, including 650 cadets from the Virginia Military Institute and 1,200 Marines, played the roles of the combatants.  Rehearsals took place on April 30 to ensure accuracy; a 38-pound charge was exploded in imitation of the mine explosion that had signaled the start of the battle. For the Marines the “sham battle” was an opportunity to finally play the role of the victors: “They obligingly have met defeat in their role of Union troops in several previous Virginia reenactments of battles of the ‘60’s.” Preparations also benefited from programs in Franklin Roosevelt’s NewDeal. Replicas of the flags carried into battle were made by women in the Works Progress Administration, many of whom were descendants of participants in the battle, and camps for the reenactors were constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps.  Celebrations commenced with an opening address by Congressman Drewry, who introduced several of the prominent guests, including Virginia Governor George C. Peery. Douglas S. Freeman provided historical background to the events of July 31, 1864, and with the help of a telephone system pointed out landmarks on the battlefield. Only four men from Mahone’s brigade were in attendance; one of the four was 93-year-old Francis M. Ridout of Petersburg. Invitations to Union veterans who took part in the battle went out, but none attended owing to age. Park officials judged the reenactment a success and were especially pleased that little damage had been done to the grounds. Franklin W. Smith, president of the Petersburg Battlefield Park Association, believed “it was one of the greatest things ever held in Petersburg.” Two days later, a Petersburg paper reported that one army officer still “has not gotten over his thrill of witnessing the reenactment.”

The day before the reenactment an editorial appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch expressing concern over the upcoming event. The writer believed that it would be unfortunate if the National Park Service’s goal was to simply “impress onlookers with the feeling that war is glamorous or in any sense an alluring spectacle.” “We hope the lesson to be learned from it,” continued the writer “will be that we of this generation must avoid such an experience.” On the eve of World War II, the memory of the Crater had taken an interesting turn. Because so much time had elapsed since the battle, the significance of the Crater could no longer be understood simply in historical terms. The generation of Americans that had fought the war was all but gone, and a younger generation stood poised to be sent back to foreign battlefields. Within this context, the writer of the editorial acknowledged that those who attend the reenactment “will doubtless be deeply impressed with the bravery and sacrifice of our forefathers.” At the end of the day, however, “we hope they will highly resolve that no such heroism shall be asked of this generation of Americans.”

0 comments