Book Review "Bitterly Divided"

I'm thoroughly enjoying doing these book reviews, and am really starting to find and refine my style and approach. There are lots of ways to break down a book, and for an alternative tack that is very effective, please avail yourself of the Civil War Librarian's efforts or those of Brett Schulte at TOCWOC. I've been following these blogs for some time and find the book reviews to be very well done. Onwards to today's effort...

Dr. David Williams new text, entitled "Bitterly Divided" brought with it the promise of a discussion of dissent within the Confederacy and an examination of the effects of this turmoil on the Confederate war effort. This was a topic I felt had been heretofore underserved in my reading and education on the Civil War, and I thus proceeded with great anticipation.

In his introduction Williams asserts "between 1861 and 1865, the South was torn apart b a violent inner civil war, a war no less significant to the Confederacy's fate than its more widely known struggle against the Yankees." So we have a text setting out to not only illustrate southern dissent, but to show how it had a striking effect on the war's outcome. He then sets out to prove this ambitious hypothesis by working through: the battle over secession, the struggle at home and women's revolts, draft evasion by the rich, desertion and Unionism, emancipation and black resistance, and finally, Indian insurrection.

Dr. Williams takes on a substantial task with his premise not only of a Confederacy riven by dissent, but that this same dissent spelled doom for the Confederate effort. He has a tall order to fill, and we are provided with reams of anecdotal data to establish this hypothesis. By anecdotal, I mean letters, diaries, individual quotes, editorials, etc. These anecdotes do a reasonable job of painting a picture of dissent throughout the South, but let us remind ourselves of the import and relative strength of an anecdote.

While it is a primary source, and thus strong in that respect, an anecdote is the isolated opinion or action of one or a handful of people. They can be very emotive and descriptive, and are used to great effect in many aspects of historical writing (not to mention in today's local and even national news broadcasts.) That said, they are not adequate for describing the overall effect or opinion of a larger body, ie, they are not generalizable. We cannot ascribe the opinion or action in an anecdote to an entire army, population, race, etc. To illustrate from another profession; in the medical literature the anecdote is the weakest form of evidence for proving the efficacy of an intervention.

This same weakness is present in "Bitterly Divided." For example, we are given his descriptions of deserters being tortured, maimed, and killed, women rioting over food, troops writing about their reason for desertion. While these anecdotes are provocative, sad, and illustrative of parts of Southern society struggling with itself, there is no way to generalize that behavior across the Confederacy. What is needed is some data collection and interpretation to help prove this general discord. Why not a map of the Confederacy with locations of food riots pinpointed? How about tables showing anticipated muster numbers with discrepencies and numbers of deserters? Show me the research and the hard data, the population studies and large-scale analysis, this is supposed to be an academic effort!

Each of the components of southern dissent addressed carry multiple anecdotes, but we finish each segment not just without the backing of data, but without any link to outcome either. Recall that Dr. Williams' hypothesis is that this dissent had a tremendous effect on the war's outcome; however, he does not tie these events to reverses in the field or seminal, destructive changes in Confederate policy or war aims. Yes, this dissent existed, but a causal link to the final endpoint of Confederate defeat is not established.

To be sure, Dr. Williams attempts to provide this sort of evidence, but time and again, he places an unsupported statement without footnote or reference into the text. That is something I cannot take seriously. An example: on page 55 in discussing absence from General Lee's army, Williams states "thousands of men like Atkins abandoned the army that fall and winter, but few were volunteering to take their place." No reference is given.

But most egregious is not the fact that these bold statements are not just unsupported, they are inconsistent as well. In addressing the issue of southerners fighting for the Union Army we have the following, all without footnote or reference:

"...the Union may not have been preserved, that chattel slavery may not have ended when it did, without the service of nearly half a million southerners in Union blue." (Pg 7)

Then we have this, "In total, about three hundred thousand southern whites joined the Union armies." (Pg 150-151)

Finally, and in the last sentence of the book, Williams writes, "And so the Confederacy was defeated, not only by the Union's military - nearly a quarter of which was comprised of southerners - but also by southerners on the home front." (Pg 250)

Simply put, the tremendous inconsistencies and lack of references in this series of quotes puts the veracity of the whole premise into serious question. (Note: for some excellent examples of how a rigorous academic analysis is done, please see Joseph Glatthaar's article "Everyman's War: A Rich and Poor Man's Fight in Lee's Army" in the 9/08 edition of "Civil War History", or the appendix of Gordon Rhea's "Cold Harbor".)

As I moved through the sections and saw these same issues of anecdotal glut and broad, unsubstantiated statements, I was hoping that the final chapter called "Defeated...by the People at Home" could somehow tie this all together. Unfortunately, Dr. Williams managed to send this whole train off the tracks when he wrote, without context, notation, or proof:

"Certainly defeats on the battlefield sapped the Confederacy's will to fight, but those defeats came largely because so many soldiers had already lost their will to fight and deserted the army." (Pg 243)

Dr. Williams doesn't prove his hypothesis with good data, and then launches an absurd assertion in the tail end of his book. All I could say when I read that was "What?!" All Confederate General George Pickett would have said (and did say in regards to the Confederate defeat) is "I think the Army of the Potomac had something to do with it."

This book does give voice to the idea of Southern dissent both in the antebellum period and during the war itself, and it is an important voice. Dr. Williams does demonstrate that the South had significant internal strife to deal with, and this is a worthy topic. His effort would have been much better spent in perhaps linking it to our memory of the South today and the Lost Cause mythology. Instead, he attempts to link it to the ultimate defeat of the Confederacy and, on the basis of poor and unsubstantiated data along with some downright bizarre assertions, comes up far short.

My Civil War Community, And Yours Too

One of the best parts of blogging about the Civil War is the feeling of connecting with the Civil War community and landmarks, something that is otherwise difficult to do in California (San Diego Civil War Roundtable notwithstanding). Linking up with other bloggers, historians, park rangers, authors, students, etc and chatting about our shared interest is a huge part of what makes this a satisfying hobby, otherwise I sometimes feel like I'm just spinning my wheels.
All good things start at home, and the import of having The Jess share this interest is far and away the best part. I've also found a few wonderful niche communities out there and have tried to mention them to draw you into these circles as well, if you like. Things like the SDCWRT, Civil War Network (just finished program two, review is coming, but it's dynamite), links to other blogs are all part of this, but I want to be more comprehensive in this project, because it really is a ball. So I've added a label called Civil War Community and will be sure to add it to posts that fall into this category.
This post's contribution is the Civil War History Ring, which I joined today. If you look on the right toolbar, you'll see the blue icon. If you click it, it'll show you other sites that have subscribed. I do not vouch for their content or views, that's for the individual to decide, but there may be something there you enjoy. Remember to click on the red icon above it for the Civil War Top 100 sites, many are daily stops on my web tours. On the same sidebar, I've started a blogroll so you can share other sights that are a frequent part of my Civil War learning. Don't worry, I've included some choice mixology and coffee blogs as well.

How We Remember

Kevin Levin on his fantastic blog Civil War Memory recently posted a segment from Time Magazine's Robert Hughes' series entitled American Visions. This is from the 4th episode entitled "The Gilded Age and is the first of five parts available on youtube. Please watch before moving onto the discussion below.


This video is a fascinating study on the role of historical accuracy versus hyperbole based upon several of the memorials it depicts, so let's unpack it a little bit.
The first scene in the clip after the montage of modernity is footage of a memorial ceremony at Virginia Military Institute. It is held annually on May 15 to commemorate the Battle of New Market, which occurred in 1864. During the battle, 257 VMI students from the Cadet Corps , many of whom were first-year students, were used to plug a hole in the Confederate lines. On a day that would end in Confederate victory, ten cadets died. During the annual ceremony seen in the film, near a monument where 6 of the ten men are buried, each man's name is spoken and a representative from the same company in today's Corps answers, "died on the field of honor, Sir."
The second memorial we see is the monument to the 54th Massachusetts. As we look at it, we get a focused discussion on the regiment's fighting history. The battle spoken of is the Battle of Fort Wagner on July 18, 1863. We are told that "they were killed almost to the last man" and I remember the penultimate scene of the movie "Glory", where Morgan Freeman and Cary Elwes lead a handful of men along the parapet of the fort, only to disappear in a blaze of fire and smoke.
The reality is that the 54th suffered 272 casualties in the assault, including 116 men killed. This was out of a total force of just over 1000 men, so the "last man" notation is not accurate.
This provides an interesting juxtaposition of Civil War memory. The Battle of New Market saw the deaths of 10 cadets, each one tragic and deserving of a somber memorialization. We do not hear about all of the cadets present that day dying, but instead each man is honored. The 54th Massachusetts also saw combat and suffered horrific casualties, but we hear an exponential exaggeration of the facts. This also occurred while examining a sculpture that doesn't directly investigate the fighting at Fort Wagner, but of the journey of the men in the 54th as a whole. That single statement can easily pervert the solemn subtlety of the 54th's monument, and this comparison begs the question of the right way to remember what these troops, and fighting men and women in general, suffer through. To truly honor them, we must do so with our facts in order.
We move next to Lexington, VA and the tomb of Robert E. Lee. Please recall our recent discussion on the Lee Mythology as part of the Lost Cause and how he is remembered compared to how he was. Now, with the video rolling, we are told how he is "the archetypal cavalier" and grieving visitors lay flowers at the base of the monument. Problem is, he is not buried there. His corpse is in a different part of the chapel. Again, we are reminded that memory and reality surrounding Robert E. Lee are two different things in that room and in our culture.
We must also ask the question why Lee is not buried at his home, as was tradition at the time. Well, Lee's home was at a place called Arlington, VA, now the home of Arlington National Cemetery. In 1864, Brig. Gen. Montgomery Meigs declared that a cemetery for Union troops would be established there, ensuring a dignified resting place for casualties of war, but also (and this is well-documented) to guarantee that Lee and his family could never return to their home. There is an undeniable irony that Lee's ancestral home became the eternal home for thousands of men his army, his rebellion, and his treason had a role in killing.
The last monument is of General Sherman and Nike, the goddess of victory located in New York City. This is a man reviled as a demon and a destroyer throughout the South, and yet here he is cloaked in gold, walking with the immortals. I would argue that neither representation is correct, and the deification or damnation of those who came before us does not help us understand their efforts, results, and personalities in context, but instead divides us along lines too long riven between different parts of our country.

A Video Clip About The Gettysburg Cyclorama

As an augmentation of my previous post about the Gettysburg Cyclorama, check out this video report from the Washington Post.

Why We Need A Museum Of Slavery In The United States

If you've been following along with this blog for any amount of time, you've surely noticed that the institution of slavery and its ramifications are frequently addressed. There is no single issue in our nation's history since the 18th century that had as intense an effect and more profound and lasting aftereffect that the "peculiar institution". It brought about a civil war that cost 600,000+ lives and demolished the southern United States, it cast a segment of our melting pot into the role of pariah, and it continues to confuse and poison race relations today.

It is this same size and scope that makes it so difficult for us to come to terms with it, to acknowledge it and say it happened, it was a horrible tragedy, how do we make it something to learn from and move beyond?

So I'd like to repeat an exercise I've employed before. Take a moment and think about how you learned about slavery in America. What was the tone presented by your educator? What perceptions did you take away? What books, artworks, movies, etc were used in the process?

If your primary education on the subject was anything like mine, it received a cold treatment, one devoid of responsibility or healing. There was nothing tangible, nothing to look at to bring home the enormity of what occurred, no way to acknowledge how it lingers in our communities today.

This sort of education makes it difficult to come to grips with issues of race in our country, because the single biggest cause of division remains ethereal and a void remains. To provide thorough understanding and tangible acknowledgment, we need a museum of slavery. We need a place to archive and present the infrastructure of slavery, a space to lecture and learn, a chance not only to read, but to sense.

I can give a personal attestation to the importance of such an undertaking. As a Jew, a large part of my religious education was learning about the Holocaust and trying to understand what it means to the Jewish community. Not until I visited The Holocaust Museum, however, did I understand the enormity of this tragedy. It takes this sort of visual, auditory, and emotional immersion to bring such complex events into focus.
So I was well-pleased to learn that The United States Museum of Slavery is under development in Fredericksburg, VA. Spread over 38 acres, the museum will have over 100,000 square feet of exhibition and lecture space. As I perused the website, I noticed that there was no published date of opening available. Financial support and development of the museum seem to be bogging down in multiple issues with, in an ironic and unsurprising twist, race and perception of slavery near the forefront.
The difficulties in getting this museum off the ground underscore exactly why it is needed. The void in our understanding continues to trip us up as a society, and this museum would be a huge step in the right direction. There is an excellent article from the NY Times working through the museum's history and battle to get it off the ground, don't miss the slideshow that goes with it.

The Unveiling Of The Gettysburg Cyclorama

When The Jess and I visited Gettysburg several years ago, we skipped the visitor's center, aside from a brief foray to set up our tour, for two reasons: first we had only one day and wanted to spend it on the ground (which was exhilarating and both physically and emotionally draining), secondly much of it, including the famed "Cyclorama" were under construction.
The brand-new Gettysburg Museum and Visitors Center opened a few months ago to mostly positive reviews (keeping in mind much of what I read about it comes from other Civil War bloggers) and now the renown depiction of Pickett's Charge is being unveiled after several years of renovation and restoration. This re-release will be part of the official grand opening of the new facility. Here are a few links with images included (click here and here) and thanks to Dmitri Rotov at Civil War Bookshelf for the tip.

Breaking News On The Cocktail Front!

Dinner is almost ready, and The Jess mentioned that she had fresh-squeezed, unpasteurized OJ in the fridge. Duly prompted, I sprung into action, and here's what we're drinking as I write this, and it's really good!

Tipsy Orangeade
1.5 oz Tanqueray Ten gin
1.5 oz fresh-squeezed OJ
juice of 1/4 lemon
one teaspoon simple syrup
Schweppes tonic water

Pour gin, OJ, and syrup into rocks glass. Squeeze in lemon juice. Fill glass to 3/4 full with coarsely crushed ice. Top with tonic water and stir gently with bar spoon. Garnish with lemon wedge.
This one is winner-winner-chili-dinner!