This is a cute little video that attempts to capture the technology behind an early Edison TV. Edison, or his assistant, can be heard chatting with Gen. Sherman at the end, inquiring whether the General would be attending upcoming festivities with Sen. Conkling. Sherman’s on-again off-again feud with Roscoe Conkling was a running joke in New York social circles.
A Confederate Invasion?
January 6, 2010 By 7 Comments
I‘m behind in my APUS History classes which has forced me to move quickly through the Civil War. You can imagine how frustrating that is given my interests. Regardless, I am very particular about the language I use to describe the past and I expect my students to be attentive to such matters as well. It matters how we refer or describe individuals and events, especially when discussing our Civil War. I’ve already mentioned my preference for consistently referring to the United States rather than the Union or the North.
In my discussions today I noticed a couple of students looking at me funny whenever I referred to a Confederate invasion of the United States. Of course, I was referring specifically to the Maryland Campaign of 1862 and Gettysburg Campaign the following summer. [We could also throw in Jubal Early's little foray in 1864 in as well.] I inquired into their strange stares and one of the students admitted that he was not used to thinking of the Confederate army as an invading army. Not surprisingly, this same student had no difficulty coming to terms with an invasion of the South or Confederacy. A few students embraced Lincoln’s fairly consistent belief that the southern states were in rebellion and therefore still a part of the nation, but they had no qualms with the idea of an invasion.
I guess this has everything to do with the assumption that the Confederacy was simply fighting a defensive war. But it also goes to some of our more cherished beliefs that draw a sharp distinction between Confederate and United States armies. For the latter, we immediately think of Grant and Sherman, who did, in fact, engage in aggressive offensives throughout the war. On the other hand, we do have difficulty acknowledging the same aggressive tendencies in Confederate commanders. We would rather remember them as leading a gallant defensive effort against overwhelming resources rather than as engaged in a war that would hopefully lead to independence for all slave holding states. Invasions are carried out by generals like Grant and Sherman, not by Lee and Jackson. I suspect that my students are dealing with this baggage. If I had more time or if that comment had come in my elective course on the Civil War I could have utilized any number of primary and secondary sources that shed light on this subject.
William T. Sherman Meets Bat Masterson
November 24, 2009 By 3 Comments
This episode of Bat Masterson aired on December 24, 1958.
“The Mythology of Hard War”
November 17, 2009 By 47 Comments
This is the final week of my survey course on the American Civil War. One of the subjects we’ve been looking at is the introduction of what Mark Grimsley describes as “Hard War” policy by the United States in 1864. The class was assigned a section of Grimsley’s book, Hard Hand of War: Union Military Policy Toward Southern Civilians, 1861-1865 (Cambridge University Press, 1995), which allowed us to take a much closer look at Sherman’s “March to the Sea”. Rather than see the campaign as a foreshadowing of warfare in the twentieth century, Grimsley provides a framework that situates it within the history of warfare stretching back to the Middle Ages. [It's always nice to be able to read and discuss the best in Civil War scholarship with my high school students.] He also speculates that this may account for why Grant, Sherman and the rest of the Union army did not regard the campaign as inaugurating a new kind of warfare. I’m not sure I agree with that, but nevertheless, Grimsley’s analysis does provide students of the war with a framework with which to analyze as opposed to our popular memory of Sherman and the campaign that is bogged down in strong emotions that tell us very little about the scale of violence and overall strategy. [Read more...]
Sherman’s March and America
October 19, 2009 By 17 Comments
Anne Sara Rubin is hard at work on a new digital project on Sherman’s March. I first heard about the project at last year’s SHA in New Orleans. It looks to be quite interesting.
Merry Christmas, Mr. President
December 22, 2008 By 7 Comments
On this day in 1864 William T. Sherman secured the city of Savannah, Georgia after marching his army 300 miles across the state. Upon arrival he wired the president the following: “I beg to present you as a Christmas gift, the city of Savannah, with 100 and 50 guns and plenty of ammunition, also about 25,000 bales of cotton.” Lincoln responded: “Many, many thanks for your Christmas gift – the capture of Savannah. When you were leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I was anxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, and remembering that ‘nothing risked, nothing gained’ I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honour is all yours; for I believe none of us went farther than to acquiesce. And taking the work of Gen. Thomas into the count, as it should be taken, it is indeed a great success. Not only does it afford the obvious and immediate military advantage; but, in showing to the world that your army could be divided, putting the stronger part to an important new service, and yet leaving enough to vanquish the old opposing force of the whole – Hood’s army – it brings those who sat in darkness, to see a great light. But what next? I suppose it will be safer if I leave Gen. Grant and yourself to decide. Please make my grateful acknowledgements to your whole army – officers and men.”
In light of the Christmas season, apparently some of Sherman’s men placed tree-branch antlers on their horses and played Santa for starving families. Why can’t Kunstler and Strain paint that scene? (LOL)
Now, back to your regularly scheduled program:
“The Christmas Carol” and “Christmas Blessing” by John Paul Strain
Sherman Book Apparently “Selling Big”
September 15, 2008 By Leave a Comment
It's nice to see a thick Civil War book like Noah A. Trudeau's Southern Storm: Sherman's March to the Sea, sitting pretty at #20 on the NYT's Hardcover Bestseller List. While I did receive an advanced copy I have not yet read it, and to be honest, I have no idea if I will ever get around to reading it. I've already read Joseph Glatthaar's wonderful study of the soldier experience along with Mark Grimsley's analysis of the campaign as part of a broader story of U.S. military policy in the South. Perhaps I would be more interested if Trudeau's thesis challenged what has become accepted by scholars, which is that Sherman's march was not the apocalyptic event that Lost Cause-inspired white Southerners would have us believe. Yes, it was destructive, but it can also be defined by restraint and worked to carry out a specific objective to bring the war to a speedy conclusion. Much of the whining simply fails to convey anything of historical value to the subject, and as John Marszalek is fond of noting, many stories of families caught in the middle of Sherman's "hordes" didn't live anywhere near the avenues of march.
From the reviews I've read [see here, here, and here] it looks like the book will force Civil War enthusiasts to rethink some of their assumptions about the nature of "hard war" and the salient characteristics of Sherman's March. That's always a good thing.
