"We are all Americans, Sir" Spoken by General Do-Ne-Ho-Gew-Weh

[grantcart]

April 9th 1865 “(General Lee), We are all Americans, Sir”

General Parker's Native American name was Do-Ne-Ho-Gew-Weh

There are many iconic phrases that populate the American lexicon and become the subject of memorization by 7th graders in every junior high school in the country. Struggling to keep the continent’s 500 year recorded history straight, bored students memorize different famous statements as a hook to keep differing times and conflicts in order.

Most of these iconic phrases result from the history of war:

“I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death."

“Don’t shoot until you see the whites of their eyes”

“I have not yet begun to fight”

“that government : of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Some speak to the central principle of the Republic;

"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."


These phrases become iconic for what they say by who said it and also for the moment they were first made.

The phrase that isn’t taught to those 13 year olds struggling to stay awake in their US history class as the most important historical phrase is the one that was uttered by Brigadier General Ely Parker on April 9th at the Appomattox Courthouse to Confederate General Robert E. Lee.

General Grant and the Army of the Potomac and the Army of the James had cornered General Lee and the Army of Northern and Southern Virginia and the Army of North Carolina in Petersburg and held them siege for 289 days until March 25th 1865 when the chase to Appomattox began in earnest.

Exactly 144 years ago today the Confederate government was in flight and the surprised residents of Richmond saw that President Lincoln had taken the opportunity to leave General Grant’s camp and visit the liberated city. He was surrounded by joyful freed slaves who fell to their knees and were overcome with emotion. Lincoln pleaded with them to approach him as an equal, “Don’t kneel to me, that is not right. You must kneel to God only and thank Him for the liberty you will hereafter enjoy.”


Gen. Grant closed the door on Lee’s run to Lynchburg and repeatedly implored him to meet to avoid further unnecessary bloodshed. Ironically the final blow was delivered by Gen Custer when he engaged a Confederate supply train and destroyed 4 supply trains at the Appomattox Station.

Meeting at Appomattox

Most of the details about the meeting between the two generals are well recorded. Gen. Lee went to the meeting thinking that he would be arrested. General Grant offered no conditions to the surrendering Army or General but allowed officers to take their handguns and horses and made immediate arrangements for feeding the Confederate Army. In the surrender ceremonies the Union forces received the surrender without cheering or fanfare and responded “honor with honor”.

General Lee had entered the courthouse with deep apprehension about himself, his officers and his men. He had dressed in his dress uniform. How astonished he must have been to see General Grant in a mud caked standard uniform. General Grant talked to Lee about their previous brief encounter during the Mexican War until finally General Lee reminded Grant of the purpose of their visit.

Grant asked the drafter of the articles of surrender for the document and Lee was surprised by the fact that the officer presenting the articles was a Black Man.



Here Parker can be seen on Grant’s left.


General Parker, who had helped draft the articles and in whose handwriting it is in, corrected General Lee, informing him that he was a full blooded Seneca Indian. General Lee apologized for the misunderstanding saying,

"I am glad to see one real American here."

Parker responded, "We are all Americans, sir."

In this painting Parker can be seen handing the article of surrender to Lee’s General. Custer can also be seen leaning back in the chair, apparently already dreaming of his path to the White House.


This phrase spoken at this time by this great man should have become one of America’s greatest iconic phrases. It should have been preserved in song and film and it should appear on every test by every 7th Grade American history teacher in the country.

Remembering Brigadier General Parker

Ely Parker, full blooded Seneca Indian, was born in NY. He learned English at a missionary school. At 14 he became the translator for his tribe. Still a teenager he had a major role in the first anthropological study of Native Americans which brought its professor national fame. (Morgan dedicated the major scientific publication to Parker.)

He joined a law firm to read law but was not allowed to join the bar because Native Americans were not legal US citizens until 1924. He returned to college and became an engineer and worked on improvements on the Erie Canal. The government highly valued his work and sent him to supervise projects in Galena, IL, where he met Hiram Grant.

Parker repeatedly tried to join in the fight in the war to keep the Union safe, even though the Union did not recognize him as a citizen. Attempts to form a battalion of Indian soldiers and to enlist individually were all turned down.

He appealed to his friend, Hiram Grant, known to history as Ulysses S. Grant. After his victory at Vicksburg Grant had enough political power to have his friend join his staff and he became a Captain rising to the rank of Brigadier General, obviously the highest rank ever held by a Native American in the US military.

Grant would become President and while history would record that his friendships would result in him trusting some individuals that would taint his government with scandal (although Grant’s involvement was simply to appoint and trust some people of dishonest character) they overlook the advancements that Grant and Parker would bring.

The single most corrupt agency of the US Government in the 19th century was the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Agencies were auctioned off and given to party financial supporters. They had open check books and overpaid for supplies that never reached the Indians. President Grant stopped that by appointing Parker as Commissioner of Indian Affairs. In order to eliminate the open graft of Indian Agent, Parker suggested and Grant agreed to appoint only Quakers as agents. Quakers were chosen because they had established their own mission to the Indians where they passionately worked to advance the interests of the Indians.

The other major impact that Parker had was on US Government policy towards Indians. After the war many ambitious officers wanted to establish a quick path to the White House by fabricating battles and slaughtering Indians. While historians have recently been reappraising Grant’s Presidency and its passage of the 15th amendment and other efforts by Grant to protect the freedmen they have yet to really appreciate his steps to protect Native Americans. The most famous of these was Custer. Commissioner recommended to President Grant what became known as Grant’s peace policy, designed by Ely Parker.

Commissioner Parker left office an honest man and eventually died in poverty. He left us all richer with his iconic phrase delivered to the General who really didn’t get it, “Today we are all Americans, Sir”. On this April 9th find a bored 7th grader and ask him if he knows what a great American said 144 years ago? Make it interesting. Make him or her see that in 144 years since those words were spoken they never have had as much meaning as they do this April 9th.

Ely Parker’s sympathetic wikipedia page is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ely_S._Parker

A short but more critical (from the Native American perspective) is here
http://www.pbs.org/warrior/content/bio/ely.html

Longer biography here
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_gx5229/is_2003/ai_n19149255/?tag=content;col1

[Xipe Totec]

1. Excellent post!

Thank you!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I am PROUD to K&R this excellent thread!

What a wonderful history lesson you have provided us...

Thank you.

:patriot:

[Dennis Donovan]

4. I'm proud to be #5 - this is such a great story...

...of course, one that has escaped mid-20th century history books,;)

[GrantDem]

3. K&R

[Political Heretic]

5. Wonderful! Thank you for taking the time. K&R

[pnorman]

6. This posting has made my day!

From early youth, I've been fascinated by American history, particularly the overlooked, hidden, and even suppressed parts of it. I was aware of much of the scandals surrounding the Grant administration, particularly concerning Indian affairs, but I was totally unaware of what you've presented here! Thanks, I've Google bookmarked this thread for later study.

pnormnan

[fight4my3sons]

7. Signing in to k&r

Nice to see you grantcart :)

[kestrel91316]

8. Wow. Learn something new every day...........

[bleever]

9. Fascinating.

Thank you very much for this interesting story.

[rasputin1952]

10. K&R...As a CW buff, I appreciate this Thread and how

BG Ely Parker, in an incredibly wise statement, brought the whole thing together in a simple sentence.

Several years ago, my son and I visited Gettysburg. We toured the site on our own, Devils Den, The Peach Orchard, The Wheatfield, Little Round Top, McPherson's Ridge...we finally got to The Angle where the So. Carolinians came across the Union line. I described the battle and the carnage as my aunt Edith had told me many years before...how the Confederate lines came up to the Rail fence, how they were slaughtered by artillery and rifle fire as they crossed the field. How a Company of the 7th VT stood up and laid flanking fire into the Confederates, closing their line and bunching them even closer, so that the artillery had an even easier time pursuing their carnage.

When the So. Carolinians crossed over at the angle, and made it to the Copse of Trees, one Confederate bayoneted a Union soldier into the ground, looking down in horror, he saw that he had just pinned his brother to the ground, and his brother was staring back at him. Both men survived and remained close until their deaths many years later.

Slowly, a crowd had gathered around my son and I as I was describing the battle, and my son asked me, "who were they bad guys dad?" I looked at him and said, "there were no 'bad' guys, they were all Americans who fought for things they believed in. Some were most likely misguided, but they were all Americans." I looked up, and everyone was silently, slowly nodding in agreement. Ely Parker's message, even though spoken 2 years later by the man...and even those who did not know of the man or what he said, still understand that beautiful bit of wisdom.


edited: typo's ...:blush:

[grantcart]

13. thank you for your additional story

BTW who were the brothers?



On the question of "who were the bad guys?" I would have to add that there were a few very bad guys and a lot of "go along guys".

The bad guys?

There was a criminal class that ignited the civil war and they have been whitewashed from history. Who were they?

A group of South Carolinian businessmen wanted not to simply have local states decide to be free or slave (like Senator Douglas and certain factions advocated) nor that they wanted to have the status quo maintained (which is what Lincoln advocated).

These businessmen wanted to use succession to allow them to restart the importation of slaves, the legalization of the slave trade. It was their efforts that caused a change in the status quo.

It is not easy to find in the history books but if you search original source material you can find it like this original reporting from the NYT that indicated that South Carolinian businessmen wanted independence so that they could restart slave trading (which had been outlawed since 1808)

They created the hysteria and pushed it on. North Carolina and Virginia were very very reluctant to succeede and Lee acknowledged that Slavery was . .

... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages


The "bad guys" were the ones that wanted to start importing new slaves. A very very small minority pushed their state and others followed. The ultimate example of a fatal domino theory.

[rasputin1952]

14. It is almost always a small group of exceptionally greedy and

powerful people that set up such things. The firing on Ft. Sumter was absurd, and should never have happened. Passions were on fire, and slavery wasn't the "cause" of the CW, but rather "State's Rights", (one of which was slavery), but there was also a serious clash between agrarian and industrial factions. England needed vast amounts of cotton to keep it's mills going, the cheapest and best source was the South, few people realize that "Cotton Barons" in England helped finance the war before it actually became "hot". The notion was, cotton would be even cheaper if the South seceded, and there lies a large part of why the CW was fought. However, since slaves were used to harvest the crop, and England frowned on slavery, (something Lincoln was well aware of...hence the reason for the Emancipation Proclamation), the South would have to become a sovereign nation if the plan was to go through.

Politics played immensely before, during and after the CW, obviously. But one of the great instruments of change is that powerbrokers can affect changes that eventually prove disastrous. Sam Houston was one of the cooler heads in TX, adamantly opposed to secession, but even Houston could not stop the tide.

[Two Americas]

24. yep

"Rich man's war, poor man's fight."

[rasputin1952]

16. Oh about the brothers, no one seemed to be able to recall the

names, although it had been mentioned by a number of officers and soldiers in letters home that i had read years ago. The Union soldier was from Michigan, and the Southern soldier had joined the So. Carolinians a year or so earlier. I'll do some research and see if I can gather up the names...:hi:

[imdjh]

69. What was the role of robber barons and "London financiers" in playing both sides?

Like most people, my education on the subject has been focussed on the interminable debate of whether the war was about slavery or states rights. Egos being what they are, it still seems a bit like people mostly unwilling to accept that their particular cause or sacrifice simply wasn't important enough to be "the cause" or the objective.

I'm not sure that I accept the notion of a handful of would be slave traders being the puppeteer, though I wouldn't be surprised at them being the puppets. It seems a bit implausible that there would be sufficient demand for a new slave trade when there were already so many here. And if they wanted to engage in that business, then they could and probably did at points south where slavery continued nearly until 1900.

I am more inclined to ask who survived the war with a fortune made from it. Following the money as it were. The war consumed weapons, textiles, food, and transportation. Who made the most? Those are the ones I would most suspect pulling the strings, playing both sides against the middle. Who were they?

[grantcart]

76. The conspiracy to re introduce the importation of slaves is real and had

a dramatic impact on South Carolina's enthusiasm to succeed.

After that it was one domino after another and some of them were very very reluctant.

The argument that was made was that they agreed with Lincoln that the country could not be 'half slave and half free'. They either needed to expand slavery or leave the Union.

Once a single state succeeded it put all of the other slave states in a bind. What ever their odds for maintain the status quo was before South Carolina succeeded the odds were significantly diminished after that. As each state succeeded the remaining slave states had more and more pressure to leave. It was very much like the small snow ball rolling down from the top of the mountain.

Afterwards efforts to give a "more balanced" view in school text books virtually eliminated what was one of the main reasons that succession was started - and the only reason that it was started in South Carolina.

[RoyGBiv]

79. Slave Trade ...

This is complicated, so let me see if I can try to do this with some semblance of brevity. Naturally, given the nature of the subject, this is going to include some language that might be offensive or at the very least insensitive due to its bluntness. Note that I'm simply relating the matter as it was seen by those involved in perpetuating slavery.

There were a lot of slaves already here, it was true, and they were nominally a self-sustaining commodity as long as demand maintained a pace in line with the birth of new people who could be perpetually enslaved. It's called "chattel slavery" for good reasons, one of them being that slaves were very much treated like cattle. They were bred like animals, valued like animals, and bought and sold like animals. They were, in the minds of the slave-holding world, little more than livestock. There is more than the immoral component to this, though. Being thought of as livestock, slaves as a commodity were subjected to the same market forces that rule any commodity, and various laws, policies as well as desired laws and policies were put forth with that in mind.

The end of the international slave trade in the U.S. brought with it an increase in the value of a slave. While the population of slaves still increased, it did so at a lesser rate than when slaves were being imported from Africa. This led to a higher price being paid for slaves, and that sets the foundation for what began to take place next.

With westward expansion the slave population was thinned out over a broader area, and the rate of increase of the slave population was not high enough to account for demand. The price of slaves continued to increase just as demand increased. During the same period the old, established slave-owning families in Virginia especially but all along the coast found themselves with more slaves than they, personally, needed for labor purposes due to various factors, but the slaves still had a capital value due to their demand in other areas, especially in the Black Belt where cotton was truly king. The vast internal slave trade was the result.

Over time, this led to a complete industry in slave trading. Whereas before the end of the international slave trade this had largely been the province of the shipping industry and its agents working closely aligned, afterward what could almost be described as a mercantile class of so-called "self-made" businessmen emerged that dealt in nothing but the trafficking of humans as property. N.B. Forrest was one of the most famous. He made his wealth through slave trading and, ironically, was looked down upon by the "upper classes" for it, just as many in his line of work were. This, of course, didn't stop anyone from using their services. The gentry were fine with what they did but didn't like them "putting on airs" because of the money they made at it. It's the "old money" vs. "new money" nonsense in a different form.

During the period of the internal slave trade, a vast relocation of slaves, in relative terms, from east to the west took place. The "supply" was in the East, and the demand was in the West. Virginia and, notably, South Carolina were slave producers, and their agricultural economy was slowly drifting away or never achieved the kind of economy that demanded the enormous gang-labor systems of the Black Belt region. Supply then dwindled in the East, but demand remained high in the West, and with prospects of further expansion, which was necessary politically if the "slave system" (a complex thing in and of itself) was to be maintained, the demand only promised to grow. By the time of the Civil War, some people had almost their entire wealth wrapped up in the ownership of slaves as a commodity, not in the production of goods by the slaves.

So, at length, the desire to open the international slave trade grew as slave suppliers looked for new sources of slaves other than the relatively more costly and time consuming process of breeding slaves.

[swilton]

70. Wasn't that what the war with Mexico was about?

The expansion of slavery to Mexico. As I recall the tobacco and cotton farming had worn out the soil in the southeastern US - the only economically viable income for the southern gentry was expanding slavery. Politically speaking it was harder to do in the continental US as we know it.

Most of the C/W generals were training in the war with Mexico.

[Two Americas]

93. yes

Abolitionists and anti-slavery Whigs believed that the war on Mexico was fomented by slavery advocates seeking to add more slave territory and slave states.

Some northern Democrats opposed new slave territories, because that would discourage free labor in those territories, which could otherwise act as a safety valve and diminish the growing pressure from class struggle in the East.

"Polk saw in a Mexican War the opportunity to advance toward California and New Mexico and complete the American sweep West. Reports from California suggested that the citizens there would accept American rule. Many Whig members of Congress believed that Polk was escalating a small skirmish into a call for general war for the purpose of expansion and the extension of slavery into the West. However, remembering that the Federalists had destroyed their party by opposing the War of 1812, many reluctantly went along with Polk's demands for appropriations."

"As for the question of slavery in the West, which became the singular focus of US politics after the Mexican War, Polk believed that expansion would preserve the agricultural and democratic nature of the US, and weaken tendencies toward centralized power. He believed these benefits to be the paramount goal of westward expansion, and believed they would be reaped whether the new territory was free or slave. He saw the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in all land north of 36 degrees 30 minutes latitude, as a sufficient solution to the issue of slavery. Some antislavery Whigs vehemently disagreed, especially abolitionists from New England and Ohio, opposed the extension of slavery into the territories on moral grounds. However, a more important challenge to the expansion of slavery came from northern Democrats who feared that extending slavery into New Mexico and California would deter free laborers from settling there. They argued that deterring migration to the West would intensify class struggle in the East. David Wilmot fell into this second category. He was not an abolitionist, nor did he seek to split his party. He simply spoke for the northern Democrats who had been led to believe that Texas would be the last slave state. Polk and his cabinet had given the impression that Texas would be for the slaveholders and California and New Mexico for free labor."

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/american/westwardexpansion/section10.rhtml

[RoyGBiv]

99. A bit of irony ...

Some slavery advocates actually opposed the Mexican War because of the goal of acquisition of territory, among them John C. Calhoun ... Calhoun, the mind behind "nullification," which he admitted in personal letters was a test-bed for the idea of secession, which in turn had the potential to be used as a weapon against those who would limit slavery.

In the aftermath of the war, Calhoun and others of a similar mind on the one issue of territorial domination formed a brief coalition and blocked the annexation of Mexico as a whole. Calhoun's reasons were plainly stated on the floor of Congress and racist right down to their core. Basically, they didn't want the land because it had Mexicans in it. In his commentary, he also reveals rather clearly what was a dominant way of thinking about Native tribes already within U.S. territorial boundaries.

…it is without example or precedent, wither to hold Mexico as a province, or to incorporate her into our Union. No example of such a line of policy can be found. We have conquered many of the neighboring tribes of Indians, but we have never thought of holding them in subjection—never of incorporating them into our Union. They have either been left as an independent people amongst us, or been driven into the forests.

I know further, sir, that we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race. To incorporate Mexico, would be the very first instance of the kind of incorporating an Indian race; for more than half of the Mexicans are Indians, and the other is composed chiefly of mixed tribes. I protest against such a union as that! Ours, sir, is the Government of a white race. The greatest misfortunes of Spanish America are to be traced to the fatal error of placing these colored races on an equality with the white race. That error destroyed the social arrangement which formed the basis of society. The Portuguese and ourselves have escaped—the Portuguese at least to some extent—and we are the only people on this continent which have made revolutions without being followed by anarchy. And yet it is professed and talked about to erect these Mexicans into a Territorial Government, and place them on an equality with the people of the United States. I protest utterly against such a project.

Full Speech ...

[Two Americas]

103. yes

Glad you brought that up.

Not long after Calhoun was saying "we have never dreamt of incorporating into our Union any but the Caucasian race—the free white race" Stephen Douglas was telling crowds in Illinois that the Constitution had obviously been intended to apply only to white people.

But the Abolition party really thinks that under the Declaration of Independence the Negro is equal to the white man, and that Negro equality is an in-alienable right conferred by the Almighty, and hence that all human laws in violation of it are null and void. With such men it is no use for me to argue.

I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to Negroes at all when they declared all men to be created equal. They did not mean Negro, nor the savage Indians, nor the Feejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men. They alluded to men of European birth and European descent, to white men, and to none others, when they declared that doctrine. I hold that this government was established on the white basis. It was established by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others.

[grantcart]

104. And to be frank there were even abolitionists who also felt that after

emancipation that the races would have to seperate.

I think the challenge is not to charge those who could not share our understanding of racial harmony in a past century but to examine ourselves and wonder if there is anything that we still hold to that our descendents will find equally repulsive.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Small point ...

Those were Virginians at The Angle.

The South Carolinians were in McClaws's and Pender's divisions and scattered throughout the artillery and cavalry.

You may shoot me now for being so pedantic. :)

[rasputin1952]

17. Yes, there were mostly Virginians at the Angle,

but the So. Carolinians were the only ones to reach the Copse of Trees, thereby being given the honor of being known as the carriers of the "High Water Mark" of the Confederacy. The Angle is the only part of the Union line that was seriously breeched, and that was for but a very short time.

on edit: I always wondered why they called it "Pickett's Charge", when Pettigrew had the most men on the field, and overall command of the "charge". Pickett had a Division, but Pettigrew had many more, and as they came across the field, they were forced into an ever tightening mass, making it even more difficult to discern units and who was in command of a particular element...:hi:

[RoyGBiv]

20. Whose were they?

You've got brigadiers Kemper, Garnett, and Armistead, and all of their regiments were Virginians. Of course everything became a confused mess, and men intermingled at the angle, but Armistead's men are generally credited with the crossing since they were the final push across the wall, Armistead himself crossing the wall before being shot.

Now, there's a controversy with North Carolinians, who were part of the assault column on the left of Pickett's Division, over who actually penetrated farther.

All the South Carolina infantry troops were either in front of the Wheat Field/Peach Orchard or facing the Cemetery Hill area on July 3rd.

[Two Americas]

18. Armistead?

Armistead's men, no?

[rasputin1952]

19. Armistead was mortally wounded crossing the line,

he would die a few hours later in a Union Field Hospital, not many yards from where Hancock was being treated for a wound to the groin. If reynolds would not have been killed on the 1st, he would have had overall command of the field, not sure how it would have worked out. Meade was good, but not great, Hancock was an excellent field commander, Reynolds was smarter and better than both of them.

[Two Americas]

22. Reynolds

Reynolds is a fascinating figure for me. Shot down on horseback as he was urging the Iron Brigade into position on the first day of the battle I think. I agree that Reynolds was smarter and better, and more aggressive, but not recklessly so, than either Meade or Hancock. You have to love Hancock riding erect behind the lines under fire, steadying the men. "There are times when a General's life is not important" he said, or something like that.

Hancock and Armistead were best friends before the war, if I remember.


...

[RoyGBiv]

25. Reynolds was a soldier ...

He's arguably more responsible for the Union victory at Gettysburg than any of the other Union brass with the possible exception of Hancock. His actions on July 1st allowed the Union army to concentrate and prevent a rout.

Hancock and Armistead were friends. The latter gave Longstreet a package containing his bible to be delivered to Elmira Hancock, Winfield's wife, should he fall in battle.

As a side note, there's an insane conspiracy theory about Armistead that is derived from his friendship with Hancock, as though there weren't hundreds if not thousands on each side with close friends on opposing sides. The basic premise is that Hancock was attempting to thwart the Confederacy from within and had actually fought with the Federals at 1st Manassas. Of course this whole theory showed up in the pages of the Southern Historical Society's journal after the war as a part of one of the many controversies over who was loyal and who was not. They'd print pretty much anything that fueled these controversies. It also originated with Abner Doubleday, IIRC, who was not the most trustworthy of sources.

[Two Americas]

26. so many interesting figures there

Didn't Doubleday walk off and resign after rumors of dereliction of duty on the first day of battle? Replaced by Howard?

First battle for Lee without Jackson, replaced by Ewell.

That first day is one of those scenes I would like to go back and witness. Buford holding off Heath's troops, Reynolds double-timing men up to the lines to hold the Confederates and give the rest of the Union army a chance to get up to the battle, leading the way, fearless under fire.

Then of course Joshua Chamberlain, later to be one of the participants at Appomattox, was there and played a key role with the 20th Maine holding off Barksdale's Alabama troops and preventing them from flanking the Union line.

Many intresting characters with amazing stories were there at the end - Parker, and Grant himself; Chamberlain, Sheridan, Custer.


...

[RoyGBiv]

30. Doubleday ...

He was replaced by John Newton.

This is one of those controversies that can't be distilled into a brief summary unless one knows all the back-story and the post-war environment surrounding various publications about the war.

The story goes that Howard complained about Doubleday's handling of 1st Corps after Reynolds fell. This is hard to imagine, unless it was purely for personal reasons, since Doubleday actually did a decent job. Of course all he really did was continue what Reynolds had started, but that is actually something considering how badly so many commanders performed when thrust into such positions. (On the Confederate side of things for example, when Hood fell and Law took over, everything fell apart. Law was not up to the challenge, and this in effect led to the disaster for the Confederates on the slopes of the round tops.) What actually happened was that Meade sent forward instructions on learning of Reynold's death for Newton to take command. How that came to be is the heart of the controversy. I can't say one way or the other. I've studied many controversies, but this isn't one of them, and I only know the basics.

Some claim it comes from Hancock, others Howard, still others piece of both. The document trail is impossible to follow. All we really know is that Doubleday was irritated and never served in command again. He had no political connections, and many in the Union high command did not particularly like him. He wasn't, in fact, all that likable. He liked himself, I suppose.

The Comte de Paris, who published an account of the Civil War from the perspective of the Union, focusing on Gettysburg, is responsible for a great deal of how the controversy fleshed out after the war and paid special emphasis to this controversy. (He started others as well, publishing a supposed criticism of Lee issued by Longstreet that was really no more than an observation but was contextualized in such a way to generate debate.) He put it all on Howard without delving deeply into what actually happened.

For his part, Howard said he never knew anything about this until reading the Comte de Paris account.

[Two Americas]

98. ok

I knew Howard was connected to the story, but had remembered it wrong. John Newton, yes.

[RoyGBiv]

21. Yes, mostly ...

The situation was so confused, no one can tell with any certainty who, precisely, crossed the wall. After the war, several thousand claimed to have done it, just like you could find hundreds of thousands who claimed to have fought at Gettysburg. Generous estimates put the maximum number that crossed at around 500 out of somewhere between 10 and 12 thousand to have started off.

Armistead's brigade was the final brigade to reach the line, so his men are generally believed to have comprised the majority of those who made it over.

[Two Americas]

23. tragic

Pickett's charge was a terrible tragedy. I got emotional just walking the field thinking about it. I read somewhere that when the surviving veterans tried to re-enact it years later, they couldn't go through with it. Terrible blunder by Lee, don't you think?

[RoyGBiv]

27. Don't get me started ...

My novellas tend to turn into novels when I start off on that subject. :)

I'll just say something provocative that I could probably only get away with partially in a forum such as this where the Southern apologists aren't such a heavy proportion of the virtual population.

Lee showed his true self at Gettysburg and especially on July 3rd. He was stuck in the past in more ways than one, had a very limited capacity to think outside the box, and was stubborn to a fault when angry, emphasis on the latter. He got angry at Gettysburg, and he shut down, devolving to using tried and true tactics that had worked ... in Europe, when Napoleon was wandering the countryside. More than the tactical arrangements at Gettysburg specifically, the manner in which he used (or didn't use, depending on how you look at it) his staff is a prime example and the single-most damning indicator of Lee's outmoded form of command style.

In his defense, I think he recognized this about himself, which is why he made a strong effort to surround himself with exceptional subordinates, especially Longstreet and Jackson. When Jackson died, he only had Longstreet and two other only marginally competent individuals in charge whom he effectively had to babysit. This frustrated him to no end, and as Longstreet said of the situation later, his blood was up. When his blood was up, he stopped listening, even to Longstreet.

So, yes, I believe it was a terrible mistake on Lee's part.

There are many stories about reunions at Gettysburg, and most of them will tear at your heart. One of my favorites is about a "reenactment" that did, partly, take place. The southern veterans started out at the point of woods, marched across the field with the Union defenders shouting and taunting, both groups getting more and more into the moment with some even forgetting themselves and becoming downright angry. A rebel yell issued forth, and the Southerners charged the wall with the defenders screaming obsenities and preparing for the onslaught. Some onlookers feared these now old men were really about to go at each other. At this point everyone stopped, met at the wall, and shook hands, embraced, and the southerners crossed over.

There's actually a very brief film of the end of this somewhere. I've seen it, but I couldn't find it online with a quick search.

I have mixed feelings about all that, though. It's emotional. It's nice to see the sides reconciling, but in the background is the fact that these reunions and stories of reconciliation were used for political purposes in ways that shrouded the reasons the war was fought in the first place. You've got soldiers meeting at Gettysburg and agreeing both sides fought the good fight honorably, and they were all Americans now. Meanwhile, Jim Crow is in full force and blacks are being lynched in the thousands for daring to demand they be treated as human beings with the full rights of citizens.

In the end, there are no feel-good stories about that war or its aftermath.

See ... there I go, yammering away. :)

[Two Americas]

29. great rant

I agree with you on all points here.

Strange dance in the East between the two armies, with the Union generals - who could not afford a "tie" - being cautious, and the Confederate generals - who would win with a "tie" - being aggressive and almost reckless. Lincoln recognized that the Confederate victories were coming at far too high a price for the Confederacy, and said he needed a general who understood that. Even Jackson knew that, saying after Fredericksburg that although they had won, they would not gain anything from the victory.

Longstreet did everything he could short of insubordination to dissuade Lee from that final charge. Longstreet also argued for working around the flank of the Union army and getting between them and Washington.


...

[RoyGBiv]

31. A Book ...

Here's a book you might enjoy:

Blight, David. Race and Reunion : The Civil War in American Memory

Historical memory, how we perceive the past, how history is used, etc. is one of my main interests. I've corresponded with Dr. Blight on various occasions about this book and some of his other projects. He's very insightful. Apologists hate him.

[Two Americas]

35. thanks

That looks really good and I will read it soon.

[grantcart]

34. Also interesting was the dance in the west

Grant was able to win in the West because he was outside of the close supervision of the Generals in the East. That allowed him to try the tactic that would eventually give him the big edge that an offensive army needs against the better positioning that the defensive armies almost always had = he cut his supply line.

Grant excelled in two areas at West Point - mathematics and horsemanship. He was one of the best mathematicians in his class and he is considered one of the best horseman to ever go there, he was a 'horse whisperer' before the concept was known.

Those two skills handicapped him early in his career because he was taken away from the battlefield and made Quartermaster during the Mexican-American War. This handicapped his career, as battlefield successes always get more attention than logistical victories but it gave him valuable experience. It led to his post war depression and drinking and leaving the Army. In the West however when he had the enemy tied up (Fort Henry and Vicksburg) he would cut his supply lines and go around to an unprotected area.

This was perfected when he cut Sherman loose and this was the factor that really got Grant out from a tie.


Thanks for your interesting comments on the thread.

[Two Americas]

36. very good

Yes, the officers in the West were out from under the direct supervision of the war department and the generals in the East and had mush more freedom to adapt tactics and strategy to the conditions and improvise. Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and many others were able to excel in the West and never could have in the East.

Grant cutting loose from his supply lines when taking Vicksburg from the rear changed warfare forever. Even Sherman was a skeptic about it at first, but he paid attention and learned.


...

[RoyGBiv]

41. Another book ...

Have you read this?

Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity, 1822-1865

It's a very good treatment of Grant's background, influences, and contribution to the Civil War. Brooks Simpson, the author, is a good guy and a marvelous historian. He probably knows more about Grant than any other half dozen historians working today.

There's a second volume Let Us Have Peace: Ulysses S. Grant and the Politics of War and Reconstruction, 1861-1868 as well.

Brooks also did a book on the Reconstruction Presidents (called that) that forces one to see Grant in an entirely different light than the traditional narrative of "ineffective and corrupt" suggests.

[Two Americas]

45. another great suggestion, thanks

Keep 'em coming. I am a bottomless pit when it comes to devouring Civil War history lol.

To return the favor, historian Bruce Catton's memoirs "Waiting for the Morning Train: An American Boyhood" is not well known and worth the read. We Michiganders know it, because he grew up there.

What I found valuable about is that he connects the Civil War with the modern era so well - brings it so close and makes it immediate and real. He talks about meeting Civil War veterans when he was young and listening to their stories, and then compares the world they grew up in to the world today and bridges the gap.

http://www.amazon.com/Waiting-Morning-Train-American-Boyhood/dp/0814318851


...

[RoyGBiv]

47. Huh ...

I haven't read that. I thought I'd read everything by Catton. I'll make you jealous. I found a collection of first edition Bruce Catton books in decent condition at a used book store about ten years ago. They were $2 each. The store owner had no idea what they had.

Thanks. I like finding new things, especially new old things. :)

Bruce Catton is one of very, very few journalists who delved into history that did it right. I'll go off on long-winded rants about how journalists fancy themselves historians when they tend to be nothing of the sort. Just hint that George Will knows a single thing about history and go get a sandwich. I'd be writing for hours probably. (I *really* dislike him.) But, Catton knew his stuff and approached his writing both as a writer *and* as a disciplined scholar. There's constant talk of the lack of accessibility to history for most people because historians are either just bad writers or write in a dissertative mode almost exclusively and thus are totally boring, and a lot of that talk is absolutely correct. Historians could take lessons from Catton.

Here's one more suggestion, inspired by the bit above about Gettysburg. It goes into some detail about the North Carolina/Virginia High-Water Mark controversy and why it even matters. I always found the debate silly myself, but to the people involved at the time, it was a high-stakes argument, and it had influences and consequences that reflected a social war in the aftermath of a military war and influenced history as a profession and the interpretation of history as a tool of achieving political power.

It was one of the first books to incorporate intentionally the then emerging "history as memory" paradigm in a professional historical study of the Civil War. (Others had done it, but not so deliberately.)

Pickett's Charge in History and Memory

[Two Americas]

48. Catton

Both my father and my grandfather were Civil War readers, and while I heard lots of discussions when I was younger I was more interested in other things - WWII history, traditional music, European history. Then about 25 years ago, I was recovering from surgery at my parents and bored. My Dad has all of Catton's books, and I started reading. It was great, because they were full of my Dad's and my Grandad's handwritten notes in the margins, so I could see their evolving interest and questions and insights. Since then I have read a couple hundred (or how knows?) histories and biographies, and traveling as a performer over the years, visiting all of the battlefields.

But it was years later that I ran into his memoirs, loaned to me by a Michigan history buff. What a gem.


...

[grantcart]

32. And your point is really the subpoint of the entire OP

After the war America became obsessed with remythologizing Lee and others who had made tremendous errors and could have acted to prevent the war. He thought that slavery was doomed, succession was wrong and still went with the south.

That was the same stubborness that you refer to at Gettysburg.

And because it would take 144 years before America could identify as much with a full blooded Seneca Indian as it could with a stubborn southern gentleman the story of Gen. Parker fell through the cracks.

Just look at the intimate detail that we know about various commanders, while Parker's story is basically unknown. (I accidentally tripped on it reading everything I can about Grant.)

It would be nice if historians could rediscover this great man. If you read the biographies in the OP you can see that he was a man of great intelligence and courage to have done all of the things that he did.

It was a trip that took him away from his Native American roots. After he passed he was eventually moved next to his uncle's remains, a famous Native American orator and oral historian. An irony that I found as compelling as the coincidence of Custer going in and out of the story.

Thanks for your interesting additions to the thread.

[Two Americas]

37. did you know about his stock market career?

Fascinating man, Parker. Later in life he made a fortune on Wall Street, only to lose it again.

[grantcart]

39. Doing the research for this piece I learned of it.

But that was very common and also wiped out Grant's wealth as well. Grant was rescued by Mark Twain who published his outstanding autobiography while he was dying from throat cancer. In the final months he could not speak anymore, finished the book and died the next day. It provided for Mrs. Grant the rest of her life. He really was not a frequent smoker but with his victories admirers thought it better to make his gifts cigars than whiskey and so he had an endless supply of free cigars. Ironically they killed him.

[Two Americas]

43. surprisingly good read, by the way

Grant's autobiography is, as you say, outstanding, and a great read.

[RoyGBiv]

38. I'm very glad you highlighted Parker ...

I did a paper while still in school on the representatives from Indian Territory to the Confederate Congress, which was the first instance in American history of official Native representation in a government body. Very few people not steeped in Oklahoma or Native American history know anything about this, and those who know it casually tend to stop right there with some ill advised conclusion along the lines of "see, Confederates weren't all bad" when the truth of the matter was far more complex.

Nor do most Americans understand how the Union government used the excuse of the Five Tribes nominally siding with the Confederacy to void and re-write the treaties with the tribes with much more favorable terms for the federal government. Indian support of the Confederacy was hardly uniform and largely in self interest with those tribes geographically located closer to Confederate controlled territory (and with a larger percentage of non-full bloods and slave owners) being more inclined to support than others. The tribes themselves fought an inner-civil war with some actually doing much more for the Union cause than that of the Confederacy, not to mention the tribes that gave nothing to the Confederacy at all.

It's all a part of what you highlight here, how we view history, what we're taught to remember and how to remember it, and how, politically, we've defined what it means to be American.

A further note on Custer. I was going to reply with this earlier but thought it might detract from your point. Since I already did this with the tangent about South/North Carolina soldiers, I guess this won't hurt. Besides, it is actually related to an extent.

What happened involving Parker never would have happened had Custer gotten his way. There was basically no chance of that being the case, but it wasn't for lack of trying on Custer's part.

After destroying these supply trains, Custer got it in his head he was going to get the whole Confederate army to surrender to him personally. Under flag of truce he crossed the lines and found James Longstreet and demanded the surrender of the army. Only slightly amused, as Longstreet phrased it, at this "boy's" arrogance, not to mention ignorance, Longstreet heard his demands. He then informed Custer that since he was not the commander of the army, he had no authority to offer surrender. Further, since Custer had a few superior officers who might look askance at his presumption even to have the ability to demand surrender, Longstreet would do him the favor of not capturing him and bringing him to those commanders to let them know of his attempt at treason. (It could have been considered treason trying to override the established chain of command, but I suspect Longstreet was just using that for effect. At the very least, it was insubordination.) He would, instead, let him go back to his own lines but offered that he might want to hurry before some of his men forgot the proper rules of warfare just as Custer had and accidentally shot him. "Hot words" (the equivalent of a stream of "fuck you's") were exchanged, after which Custer left ... rather quickly.

Parker actually would have had more authority in the situation than Custer did, but Custer was all about Custer. Apparently he didn't learn his lesson with his encounter with Longstreet. Hubris got him a few years later.

[grantcart]

40. I had forgot about that with Custer but found his involvement an interesting sub plot

and worked it in a little. The painting that shows the entire staff in that small room is quite hilarious really. Parker is shown to be technically engaged with the articles and Custer seems to be on some kind of opium high in the chair lol.

You are obviously very well informed on the subject - are you a professor of history?

[RoyGBiv]

42. Not a professor ...

Professor Autodidact is what one real professor friend calls me. School taught me the "how and why" but the "what" I've learned mostly on my own.

I've been invited to lecture here and there, give talks occasionally, and I have sort of a side-job as a research assistant for a historian.

I am, for all intents and purposes, a bastardized form of an accountant. (I work in the Bursar's office at a college.) With that putting food on the table, I have to do *something* else to keep my brain from turning to mush. :)

[Two Americas]

46. LOL

"Custer seems to be on some kind of opium high in the chair."

He was some kind of odd duck.

[Two Americas]

44. great story

I never heard that story about Custer and Longstreet. Thanks. Great story there. That is completely in keeping with Custer's character, such as it was.

Custer was the only officer in the army not properly reviewed during the grand march in Washington after the war, as he lost control of his horse while passing the reviewing stand.


...

[rasputin1952]

52. I had never heard about that situation between Custer and

Longstreet. That would be a Custer move, he was the epitome of of the egotistical high ranking fools that get to go their own way. He won some battles, lost some, and in the end...he went down in history as a fool...after being placed on a pedestal by his wife after Little Big Horn.

Lot's of interesting stuff in this thread, and the fog of misconception is lifted in many areas. We often go by what we learned, most of it excellent, but often convoluted through time and the perceptions not just of the participants, but of those who have controlled the versions we receive as time goes by. The Southern "view" of the CW being the "War of Northern Aggression", is one that stands out. When the attempts to avoid the war were dashed by the bombardment of Ft. Sumter, a highly aggressive act, the final stage was not set...shortly thereafter, at Manassas, the stage would be set.

[imdjh]

74. History vs the narrative, it's ever thus

I wouldn't say that General Parker fell through the cracks anymore than many others not in the common knowledge. When we are young, most of history is reduced to the dates, some events, and principle players. When we go to college and/or continue our education into adulthood we get more focussed and specific on our personal interests. I'm into Scotland and England, I wouldn't say that the people I have found to be interesting and the things which I find to be revelations or explanations for all sorts of subsequent events fell through the cracks, it's just that there isn't enough time in school to study everything so closely. So we get Magna Carta, with little or no discussion of major advances leading up to it.

In American history, they breeze by Jamestown and then spend a great deal of time on Plymouth. I happen to think that that's because Plymouth supports the bullshit that this country was "founded for religious freedom" or "founded on Christian principles". A real study of Plymouth doesn't really support that, but it's the narrative. We have a national holiday which plays into the whole Plymouth thing, a similar one for Jamestown would celebrate capitalism, drinking, and playing cards. We couldn't have that, it's not good for the chid-dren.

I liked reading about Parker here, but I was more surprised that Lee referred to Parker as the one real American than I was by Parker's response. Both are huge, IMO, in the contemporary discussion of how things were viewed at the time. Apparently Lee didn't see the American Indian as a savage and Parker didn't see the Celt as the invader.

[suzie]

71. With all due respect to the political purposes of reconciliation,

at the end of the charge the old veterans had done their duty of reenactment for whatever "wannabes" were interested in such things.

After they embraced, they could get back to seeing and talking with their old friends with whom they'd fought. And watching from the sidelines as the ones who fought the least bragged about their bravery to the wannabes and historians.

[1monster]

60. I've visited several of the historic sites from the Civil War period but found Gettysburg to be the

most emotional experience.

We are all Americans and every American should visit Gettysburg at least once in their lives.

[rasputin1952]

67. I have some very odd feelings when I go to Antietam...

especially at The Cornfield. My aunt took me there when i was young, and she described the battle as if she actually been ther. We went to The Cornfield, to the Sunken Road and Burnside's Bridge. All very strange from a tactical point of view, I could thin of at least 3 different ways each could have been taken on at the time, and I was only 12 back then.

The CW was the pivotal point at which we became a nation of states under Federal control, as opposed to the mot likely other scenario of becoming more like Europe as disinterested states fighting each other from time to time. The mortar that put this country together was blended by the blood of both sides.

[RoyGBiv]

77. If there are ghosts ...

They live at Antietam.

This isn't a ghost story, per se, rather a "that's just weird" story.

I went there at night with several friends during a Civil Wargasm (see Confederates in the Attic). We went into the Cornfield and then wandered down the Sunken Road. The place has a somber feel to it during the day, but at night, when there's no one else around, it just goes off the charts. Four of us went up over the lip of the road, through the fence, and out into the field in front of it, two of us going one way, two the another, just to see what we could see.

It was an eerie experience made surreal when the other two came rushing back at a quick march saying nothing but, "Time to go." We followed, felt almost compelled to follow. It was quite the sight, these two people who are rather large in stature, have jobs in academia, and have served in the U.S. military and on artillery crew for reenactment groups and look every bit the part of hardened veterans, almost running away from ... nothing.

They didn't even stop at the rest of the group, just kept going straight to our cars, got in, and sat down to wait for us. I and my other friend who had gone out there with them rounded up everyone else. We decided it was time to go since it's not strictly legal to be there after hours, and you never know when a ranger will come by. We were just wanting to see the place without all the people and on a lark decided to stop on the way back to the hotel in Hagerstown after having had dinner at the South Mountain Inn. The two didn't talk on the way back, so when we got to our rooms and settled in for some drinks and socializing, we asked them to spill it. What the hell happened?

"Nothing," was about all they'd say at first, "nothing" in that way that says it is definitely something. Upon further prodding and a few snifters of brandy one finally offered up, with ample disclaimers and suggestions that it was only a big meal and the liquor talking, that he and his partner had been trying to work out some angles and line-of-sight matters from different positions that would help them understand a few things about the battle. They had been wanting to do this in the dark to approximate problems with sight with low-light and battle smoke. (They were like this with everything. They'd locate the military crest of hills and take us all to see it just for fun.) They were separated by about 50 yards at one point, facing away from each other, when the guy talking said he "just got a feeling" that creeped him out. He turned around, saw the other guy turning to look back at him at the same time with huge eyes, and then they both shared a non-verbal acknowledgment that the other had "felt" the same thing. Without a word or thought, they started on their way back very rapidly.

The guy not telling the story just said, "Yup."

It probably was the big meal or the wine or the awareness we weren't supposed to be there, and that's all they ever said it might be. But I'll note that I've spent many an evening with them at other places where we "weren't supposed to be" with bottles of scotch and fine brandy and have never left before we'd planned to do so.

[rasputin1952]

80. I probably shouldn't post this, as like you, I might have done something

"illegal", but I'll post something w/o names or references that might implicate people.

While my son and I visited Antietam, we eventually made it down to Lower, (Burnside's) Bridge, from the Union side. Amazingly, the same tree that was growing on the one bank is still there, much larger to be sure, but the pic at the site where the tree is takes you right back in history, but I digress.

From the bridge, we could see where the Confederates had complete control of the immediate area, and how it would border on suicide to attempt to cross the bridge. The Confederates held not just the high ground, but had an incredible opportunity to simply blast the Federals at will from intense concealment. from hastily dug rifle pits. Several attempts to cross the bridge by the Federals were beaten back at a cost to the Federals. Finally, after the promise of whiskey, (or was it rum), a final drive pushed the Federals over the bridge and up the steep trail, ousting the Confederates.

So here stood my son and I some 140 years later looking at the scene and wondering what drove men to do such things, especially since a ford was found further upstream, and the ground was much easier to fight on. Then, I suddenly got an "urge" to cross the bridge, it was not that I hadn't intended to cross the bridge, it was an overwhelming feeling, and so i made the trek, thinking about those who had done this under fire so long ago. My focus, as I climbed the trail to to Confederate line was on a "hole" i could see. (Here's where we go "illegal"); I brushed back some leaves in the depression, and saw the glint of metal, OK, this was getting weird. I scraped a like dirt away and found a belt buckle marked CSA. on the reverse, were two initials, (which I won't divulge). I put the buckle in my coat pocket, put the leaves back, and eventually we left the area...w/the buckle.

I called my mom when we got back to AZ that year, and asked her if Aunt E**** had ever spoken of the CW to her when she was growing up. This opened up a long conversation, and I eventually told her of what I had found. There was silence on the other side, the next thing my mother said was something I already knew, I had to send the buckle, no matter what I found out about back, it was a part of history, and should be there for everyone...(she didn't say it, but I could tell from her voice, she was disappointed that I didn't take it to the Rangers immediately). Anyway, she told me about a deal my aunt had had w/the Smithsburg MD Library and Hagerstown Library, where the people of Antietam could be identified, if possible. I contacted the Smithsburg Library, and they directed me to the Hagerstown Library, which went through some records, and it turns out that there was indeed someone who fought at Antietam w/the Confederates that had been wounded, captured and died as a POW in a Northern NY POW camp. When I contacted my mother a few weeks later w/this news, she said she had heard the name before, and that we had relatives fighting on both sides during the CW, although the majority were Federal. (She also asked me almost immediately what i had done w/the buckle, which i had sent to the Hagerstown Library, knowing they would find the best place for it...I didn't want to send it to the Rangers at Antietam, because I figured I had broken Federal Law, and was not sure how far they would go to prosecute...:) ).

What is strange about this entire thing, is that I was more or less, "drawn" to the very area where the buckle was buried, it is something I've never really gotten over, btu somehow, I think that maybe a soul rests easier because of that one little act...:)

[Two Americas]

81. have had similar eerie experiences

I had always been somewhat skeptical about the value of walking the battlefields - couldn't understand what the appeal was for people. Until I finally did visit a battlefield - Stones River - thinking I would spend maybe an hour there. 8 hours later, walking in the rain, I felt like I had just begin to understand what could be learned by being there. Now I spend 2 or 3 days sometimes at a battlefield, walking and meditating and thinking.

Good story, rasputin1952. Thanks.


...

[RoyGBiv]

86. Wow ...

I've rarely heard of Stones River giving that kind of inspiration. I have an appreciation for the place, but I've known a lot of people who have gone there and have come away with a poor perspective on the whole business. I'm not entirely sure why. It may have something to do with how little of it has been preserved.

Gettysburg is the place that irritates me. Having a Hardee's and a McDonald's sitting right on the spot where the 8th Ohio sat all by themselves and suffered just irks me. The commercialism can be a huge turnoff, sort of like Colonial Williamsburg can be.

My favorite major field for meditation is Shiloh. There's nothing around it, and there are places where you can wander off and basically get lost. It's serene and beautiful and horrible all at the same time. I took my mother and daughter there a few years ago. Neither had ever been to a field, and my mom wasn't exactly sure whether she wanted to go. Right up to the time we left our hotel room, she was debating staying in Corinth and doing some antique browsing. But, she went. I took them on a detailed tour, off the beaten paths as much as possible for my mom, but it was the Bloody Pond that did her in.

I think she came very close to fainting.

I'd told her the story of the pond during an earlier part of our tour, and then I had us all approach the area through the trees rather than by the road, simulating as much as possible the trek wounded and dying soldiers made trying desperately to get to water. When we broke through the trees, she gasped and sorta stumbled. She just stood there and stared, not saying a word for probably 15 minutes while my daughter and I walked around. We had a direct ancestor who had fought there, and she said later all she was doing during that time was imagining the horror he went through, and she understood, finally, why he deserted and made his way to what became Oklahoma to start life somewhere else. He'd deserted the Confederate army after Shiloh, then joined the Union army shortly thereafter for the bounty, deserted again and used the bounty to move and establish himself elsewhere. She'd always wondered what motivated him. Something about that pond helped her understand.

My actual favorite place is Perryville, which is in the midst of nowhere in south-central Kentucky. It's a small, state-run park, but I know a guy who owns land there and has made a project of buying up as much as he can for preservation purposes. I actually got to sleep in the Bottom's House, which was used as a hospital during the battle and is preserved with some add-ons (kitchen, bathroom, etc.) in the early 20th century. There are still bullet holes in the walls and a marked area outside the window where I slept where a deep hole was dug to bury severed arms and legs. The previous owners, who farmed the land all those years, avoided digging anywhere near it.

Anyway ... there's no light out there. It's just blackness at night. I wandered off to a hill one evening and just sat there by myself for an hour or so. It's the most deadly, quiet, yet peaceful silence I've ever experienced.

Odd how places of such horror can allow those of us to come after to experience such calm reflection.

[Two Americas]

89. not sure why

Not sure why the Stones River battle field moved me so much. Knowing the details of the battle very well, each part of the field was significant and interesting and it was my first experience walking a battlefield. I was there in late December, which is the time of year the battle was fought, and it was gloomy and rainy.

Perryville is a special place, I agree. Great opportunity for you there - to sleep in the Bottom's House.

I agree with you about the desecration of the battlefields.


...

[RoyGBiv]

96. Perryville ...

You've been to Perryville? You're only the second person I've come across who is not one of my longtime "history friends" who even knows it exists.

To bring this somewhat full circle, Perryville and surrounding areas is also the site of a massive, ancient battle between Native tribes. IIRC, it's actually the site of several wars. The area was prime real estate apparently and situated on the border area between what are believed to have been loose confederations of tribes united mostly by culture years before the invasion of Europeans. It's fascinating the level of ignorance of the significance of the place, even among those whose job it is to know these things. Native American historians know the area for its relationship to Native American history, and Civil War/Military historians know it for its significance to Civil War history. Each tend not to know the significance beyond their own area.

I had no idea about the site's ancient history when I first went there, but I got a quick, visual education.

The guy who owned the Bottoms' property took us out back to the field where they still grow various crops. Every year they plow the soil, and every year after a good, hard rain and the plowing what he was about to show us turns up.

The ground was littered with arrow heads.

He had a collection of them he kept in the house with representative samples that were from different cultures and different eras.

Very interesting place ...

[Two Americas]

97. yes

Perryville was an important, but overlooked battle. Wasn't that the last major event in Braxton Bragg's invasion of Kentucky?

I was not aware of how important that ground is to Native American history. Interesting.

[rasputin1952]

88. battle fields are very strange places...

I've been to some w/friends who have no knowledge or desire to know about a battle, come out with a completely different point of view. Something "happens", something we don't really know, but it is real.

I know of one woman who swears she saw a ghost at Gettysburg, it left such an impression, her description is nearly flawless, turns out, the person was killed on the 2nd day, he was an obscure private from a PA unit, someone that this woman most likely never would have known about, but she ID'd a pic among about 50 from the time period, even described the wound he received, which went with the family history of the event. This family still lives in PA and the surrounding areas, she has left NE only twice in her life, once to go to Gettysburg on a sponsored trip. When she came back, she was a changed person in many ways.

Things happen...we still don't have all the answers...:hi:

[RoyGBiv]

84. Excellent story ...

I'm glad you shared.

I'm compelled to offer another one ... well, two.

I'm glad you returned the buckle. I've found things myself and have been sorely tempted. The only thing I kept, for awhile anyway, was a piece of canon shot I found embedded near the bank of a river/stream near where a land developer was busy tearing up the countryside to build some overpriced homes during the height of the housing boom. (There's my political tie-in. :-)) It wasn't protected land, and the piece probably would have ended up in a landfill or under someone's basement if I hadn't removed it. There had been no major engagement at this location. We were only there because we knew it was the location of some of the minor actions that took place during the Confederate retreat from Gettysburg and wanted at least to see the place before it was transformed into more suburban sprawl. (I won't relate precisely what we did to some backhoes we ran across.)

Afterward, I and some of my associates embarked on a search of information about who specifically had been there, and at length we finally traced it down to a Confederate cavalry regiment, a portion of a Union regiment and a detachment of artillery. My friends with the artillery knowledge looked the piece over, up, down, and sideways, and using whatever magic they use to figure out these things (same guys that had "the feeling" at Antietam), they figured out what kind of cannon had fired it. Using more magic, and their incredibly detailed lists of artillery batteries and what kind of armament they had and when, that narrowed it down to a specific battery. We were finally able to contact a guy who did research on that battery, among other things, and we eventually sent the piece to him, after which he put it in a collection that now sits in a museum in Pennsylvania.

I was rather happy with that outcome.

Regarding souls resting easier, during that trip to Antietam, one of our missions was somehow to help a departed soul. Confederates in the Attic had only recently been published (thus the mention of it earlier), and there was a story in it about an old veteran who had fought with the Confederacy at the Sunken Road and had had his two closest friends die next to him. He survived the war and lived a long life. In later years he talked about wanting to make it to one of these reunions or at least go see the place where his friends had died. He never made it due to a lack of money and poor health, but the story about his wanting to go stayed with the family. A set of his descendants, who were interviewed for the book, were all incredibly poor. They lived as much off family lore as they did off bread and water, and this was one they kept close to them and related to Horwitz, the author of the book.

One of our company got an idea with this and managed to contact the people mentioned in the book. If you've been to battlefields, I'm sure you know the tradition of placing ceremonial flags at important spots. So what we decided to do was take a small, personal artifact sent to us by this family, place a flag, and beneath it bury the artifact. We did this during the day. (We did the night trip thing later and kicked ourselves for not having thought to do it then, although I'm sure rangers have a 6th sense for the presence of a shovel after hours and that this would have got us caught, even if we weren't taking anything.) It was quite the little covert mission to get this done without anyone seeing us and to put it in a place where we could put it deep and not have it easily found or dug up quickly later by erosion. But, we did it, took pictures, and sent them to the family. They were very grateful.

We humans are strange creatures. :)

[rasputin1952]

87. Yes, we are indeed strange creatures...

but usually in a good way...:)

A side story here of different eras, a different war and eventual peace for those involved...:D

A few years ago, there was a young couple going through some woods at what was once a French position during WWI, the woman noticed a rusted, "iron bar" protruding from the dirt. On closer inspection, there was a whole row of the "bars" sticking out of the dirt. Hastily, thinking this may be some unexploded ordinance or other military object that could cause some damage, they went to the local authorities and reported what they had found. Some digging equipment was found, and the next few days proved remarkable for all involved.

After a few shoves of dirt were removed, a forensic team and and an archaeological team from a nearby university were called in. What they found was a human tragedy that no one had thought of for some 75 years. There was a line of French Infantry, in a trench positioned to go "over the top". Rifles were positioned in hand against the wall of the trench, and the soldiers crouched on a small shelf, ready to jump off. What was surmised as happening was that a huge artillery shell exploded closely behind them, burying them instantly, snuffing out 17 lives. The regimental insignia were intact, and records revealed who they were. The surviving families were notified, and a full military burial was given to the men that had been disinterred.

Some of the families notified did not even know they had relatives in the war, and one 96 year old woman remembered her brother, who had "disappeared" during the war like so many others, fate unknown. The whole event closed another chapter in the annals of war history, but no one can imagine what went through those minds as they laid buried , knowing they were going to die in a few seconds...:(

[Top Cat]

11. Kick

[annabanana]

12. THANK you for that, sir. There is so much good stuff that

didn't make it into the kid's history books.

[Two Americas]

28. thanks grantcart

Great post. Parker's story needs to be better known. Amazing man, amazing life story.

[opihimoimoi]

33. K&R...Thank You so much for a very informed and thoughtful post.

we need more.....

[grantcart]

49. kick

[saltpoint]

50. Strongly recommended.

[ColbertWatcher]

51. k+r you said it much better than I did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4311590&mesg_id=4311590

Thank you for posting!

[H2O Man]

53. Outstanding.

The OP is wonderful, and the discussion that follows is representative of DU at its very best. Thank you all.

Nominated.

[H2O Man]

91. Also ....

As noted, Parker collaborated with Lewis Henry Morgan's "League of the Ho-de'-no-sau-nee, or Iroquois." Morgan had authored another book, "Ancient Society," after his social club had requested the New York lawyer to organize their group along the lines of the Iroquois Grand Council. This book influenced Engels to write :Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State."

Ely Parker was a Tonawanda Seneca. His grand-nephew (his brother's grandson) was Arthur C. Parker, New York's first state archaeologist. Among his books that might be of interest to DUers would be "The Code of Handsome Lake, the Seneca Prophet," and "The Constitution of the Five Nations." He also authored books on topics ranging from archaeology to the Iroquois use of corn and related plant foods.

[myrna minx]

54. Excellent post. Thank you for educating me about this honorable man. K&R n/t

[mrs_p]

55. wonderful thread!

and has helped me procrastinate from my other studies. thanks!! (now off to memorize Clostridium spp -- not nearly as fun as history!)

[rosesaylavee]

56. Amazing thread!

Thank you so much and thank you to all the contributors above.

Are you aware of the upcoming PBS series starting this month - We Shall Remain? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/weshallremain/ It's starting here in Chicago on Monday, April 13th I think. It is a five-part series chronicling the first people's interactions with ... and I am having a hard time here saying who we are for some reason ... but with the white-Europeans who took their country. It looks very interesting to say the list. I love the actor Wes Stude - and of course he's playing another villian in this. In the preview he says that after how many native American roles he has played, this is the first time he gets to play a Cherokee which is his heritage. And authentic first people languages are used throughout.

K & R and Bookmarked.

[D-Lee]

57. Thanks! and giving a book recommendation for "Generals in Bronze"

Experts probably know the book already -- it contains the notes of interviews of Civil War commanders of the impressive illustrator / sculptor James Kelly, capturing their recollections in pretty much their own words. There was an impressive television special on the book and Kelly but I can't find the link.

Here are a few links to descriptions and reviews of the book:
http://www.18thmass.com/blog/index.php?itemid=70
http://www.americancivilwar.com/civilwar/spproduct/c001/1883926181.htm
http://www.amazon.com/Generals-Bronze-Interviewing-Commanders-Civil/dp/1883926181
(and I'd recommend reading the links in the order given -- and, oddly, the Amazon site does not have the lowest prices).

Kelly died destitute and the book's editor / author successfully raised funds and installed a headstone on Kelly's grave:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-01-artist-civilwar_x.htm

And, again, thanks for this post and the fascinating thread! Wish everything here were of this quality ...

[Tanuki]

58. Parker was the subject of a PBS documentary a few years ago.

http://www.pbs.org/warrior/noflash/index.html

I found it fascinating, as I had not heard of him before, and felt sad that he was not as well known as he deserves to be.

[grantcart]

75. tks for that

[1monster]

59. Highly recommended, bookmarked, copied and saved, kicked.

Would you mind if my son shared this with his history teacher? If so, do you want your real life name on it? PM if if both answers are yes.

[grantcart]

73. no to both

It was my hope that a few teachers here might want to use it on April 9th, so you have helped fulfill my wish, thank you.

[1monster]

94. No, thank you. This is the kind of story that never seems to make it into the text books that

makes history come alive for students.

History, as it is taught these days, is a dry subject. And that is very sad, because "Those of us who study history can only watch, appalled, as idiots who don't relive it."

[grantcart]

100. I had a great Jr High US History teacher

I loved history but he made it even better - He loved the civil war and had collected dozens of funny stories - all kind of dark humor obviously. I still remember him telling the story of one guy who was to be executed for desertion but they kept botching the firing squad and after wounding him a couple of times they gave up and let him go.

[nevergiveup]

61. "Yes We Are"

Thanks for the fascinating post.

[FailureToCommunicate]

62. Well done. Thank you. We have dragged the kids to lots of Revolutionary War

sites- Valley Forge in winter was a highlight- but we hope to visit many Civil War sites soon. Thanks for the insights on another great American.

[yellerpup]

63. Many thanks, grantcart.

Wado. We must never forget. :kick: K&R!

[glitch]

64. "This phrase spoken at this time by this great man should have become one of America’s greatest icon

iconic phrases. It should have been preserved in song and film and it should appear on every test by every 7th Grade American history teacher in the country." Passing this OP along to some young ones, so that they at least get to know it. K & R

[redqueen]

65. Thank you for posting this. K&R (nt)

[cliffordu]

66. Great work, grantcart. K&R, with enthusiasm...

[swilton]

68. K&R - Superb Post

Please continue to educate us!:hi:

[scarletwoman]

72. Superb OP! And a wonderful thread following it! Many thanks for posting this.

Wow, I've learned A LOT just from reading this excellent thread. This is DU at its very best.

Much appreciated,
sw

[Spazito]

78. Wow! This is one of the best threads I have read on DU in a long time!

The OP and the responses are superb. A major learning moment for me. The Civil War has always been a fascination for me and to read this whole thread has been incredibly educational.

Thanks, grantcart, and all those who posted here, this is DU at it's very best.

Edited to add: I have bookmarked this thread and will use it to show what is, imo, an excellent example of why DU is so invaluable.

[trthnd4jstc]

82. Thank you so much for this post. I am part Native American, and I have seen too much discrimination

and tyranny against Native Americans in the past, and strangely, my full blooded native cousins do not accept me. What a world? May we all work to face our personal demons. Thank you so much for the post. I get so tired of hearing people say negative things about Native Americans, and I am only part-Cherokee.

[grantcart]

85. thank you for your reply and what a beautiful heritage you carry on

[thevoiceofreason]

83. Another Grantcart classic

Good to see you around again, friend.

[grantcart]

101. Good to see you too.

[thevoiceofreason]

102. Hope all is well in the lovely southwest.

We're trying to see if thre is a chance in hell that we could get rid of our idiot-in-chief, Governor Goodhair.

[NorCalDem]

90. This post is awesome.

I feel proud to know this now. Thank you grantcart.
:D

[liam_laddie]

92. Deeply felt thanks!

To grantcart and ALL the follow-up posters for providing a wondrous thread! As has been said, DU at its very best.

[grantcart]

106. thank you

[proReality]

95. Too late to recommend, but I can kick it. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

105. kick

[ieoeja]

107. The "Custer" comments seem odd.

"After the war many ambitious officers wanted to establish a quick path to the White House by fabricating battles and slaughtering Indians. While historians have recently been reappraising Grant’s Presidency and its passage of the 15th amendment and other efforts by Grant to protect the freedmen they have yet to really appreciate his steps to protect Native Americans. The most famous of these was Custer."

Had the last sentence appeared second, it would mean Custer was one of those fabricating battles. Given it's actual positioning it would seem to mean that Custer was one of Grant's steps to protect Native Americans.

Custer was never in a position to fabricate a battle. But he did fight the Nations when and where ordered to do so. So neither makes much sense.