Lieutenant Edward H. Hart, 3rd Alabama Infantry

Here comes the latest in the series on the Hart family, the last individual story in this long, enjoyable project. It began with University of Kentucky basketball, continued to the career of a Confederate veteran, and expanded to describe the careers of five more former Confederates. A study of the family history and a quick conclusion and list of sources for this series will follow.

 Please see the below list of the entries I have already published.  

Derrill Wason Hart

Robert S. Hart

Benjamin R. Hart 

Derrill M. Hart

William F Hart

John S Hart

This story will explore the life and Civil War career of Edward Heron Hart. Edward was born April 13, 1837 in Montgomery, Alabama, the 4th son of Benjamin and Anne Hart. Like 5 of his brothers, he decided to enlist in the Confederate Army. His military career, however, began in an apparently confusing fashion, at least in terms of the paper trail, with a touch of sadness as well.

His records on fold3.com show that he enlisted in Company G of the 3rd Alabama Infantry, the same unit in which his older brother William had enlisted. Edward joined for a term of 12 months and paperwork shows he was enlisted by either J.S. Whitfield or W.G. Andrews. Forms show both names, though more show Andrews. They also show multiple dates, June 16 and 17, but it is clear he enlisted in the middle of June. (The sad part of this time is that his brother William passed away in a hospital in early July, less than a month after Edward had joined the same company.)

Another form, however, shows he joined, or at least attempted to join, an artillery unit, Lee's Light Battery, at the same time. What exactly happened is unclear, but I will review the existing records I found in order to explore the possibilities. 

Some of the confusion about his enlistment starts with the infantry unit he joined, Company G of the 3rd Alabama. Late in 1861, some of the company's men left this regiment and joined an artillery unit. See this link: December 28.  Part of Company G transferred to the artillery.

  Here is another description of this change:

Montgomery True Blues Artillery Battery

This company was organized at Norfolk, VA, January 1862, by the conversion of the first Co. "G", 3rd Alabama Infantry Regiment, to artillery service. The majority of the men were from Montgomery and had served a year in the infantry... 

Officers: Capts. W. G. Andrews (relieved); Edgar G. Lee (Montgomery); Lts. E. R. Spalding (resigned); E. J. Lee (promoted); J. E. Davis; William F. Williams; Sid. S. McWhorter.

Other records show a unit of that name not bring organized until early 1863: The Montgomery True Blues battery, Capt. W. G. Andrews, was organized at Norfolk in January, 1863, and was composed of men from Montgomery, most of whom had served in a campaign in the Third Alabama infantry. I suspect that "1863" is a typo, as the 3rd Alabama was in Norfolk in early 1862, not 1863, and since the artillery group splintered off from the 3rd, it is logical to believe they were in the same locale when that departure took place.

The best explanation of this division may be here. It states that the Montgomery True Blues were a pre-war militia unit that originally became part of the 2nd Alabama Infantry before moving to the 3rd when their enlistments expired. They then split up as the Montgomery True Blues artillery unit and the Lomax Sharp Shooters infantry, which became the "new" Company G of the 3rd Alabama.

A blog post offers an interesting tidbit from the regiment's July election of a new major: Captain Andrews of the Montgomery True Blues (G) already was making arrangements for his company to be detached as an artillery battery. Did this distract him from his infantry role?

Below is one of the documents showing Edward in the 3rd Alabama, enlisted by Captain Andrews.

Here is the form showing Edward with the battery. It is for Captain Andrews' Company, Starks' Battalion, Light Artillery, Lee's Light Battery for the period April 30 to June 30, 1862. It indicates that Edward had enlisted on June 17, 1861 in Montgomery, signed up by the same W.G. Andrews for a term of 12 months. This roll marked Edward as "absent" with the note "retained in 3rd Alabama Reg." Does that mean he tried to join the artillery after enlisting in the infantry and was not allowed to do so? The word "retained" suggests that possibility.

  

The soldiers and sailors site lists William G. Andrews as a captain in both the 3rd Alabama and Lee's Light Battery units, and shows Edward in both units also, clarifying nothing. It lists no history or roster for the battery. Paperwork on fold3.com also associates Andrews with the "True Blues" as does the previous link.

I do not believe Edward tried to join the True Blues. I have not seen "Lee's Light Battery" associated with the 3rd Alabama, though one website mentions them with the "True Blues." That grouping seems to be the exception. 

Nothing in Edward's existing files mentions the True Blues either. It seems likely that the timing of that transfer and the presence of William Andrews as captain in all three units simply serve to confuse the issue, though it makes for an interesting side story to the start of Edward's career. Perhaps Captain Andrews was trying to collect multiple bounties, one for each unit raised or maybe it was Edward who wanted multiple bounties. It is also possible he was confused by the excitement of the experience and signed up twice through an honest mistake on his part. Did Captain Andrews deceive him somehow? No record I have found provides a definite answer, though Edward apparently had no association with the True Blues.

Though I do not wish to stray too far from Edward Hart's career, a quick look at Captain Andrews might provide some perspective. One site says he resigned from the 3rd Alabama on August 13, 1861. He may have done so in order to work on his artillery unit as suggested above. Records on fold3.com include copies of pre-printed muster rolls for Lee's Battery Light Artillery, with "Capt. Andrews' Company, Alabama Light Artillery" written on them. Other forms have "Montgomery True Blues" noted on them. He apparently had multiple military "mistresses."

Further paperwork shows him on furlough and then listed on both special service and recruiting duty. Forms then indicate he found himself in hot water, which included his arrest and refusal to cooperate with higher authorities. At one point, he tried to resign, perhaps due to disability, but Major General D. H. Hill telegraphed Richmond to hold off on the resignation as "grave charges" would be pursued against him. A link posted above listed him as being "relieved" from the battery. Whether or not that means anything in terms of his association with three units, as captain and recruiter, is uncertain. He does not appear to have had a stable career during the war, so perhaps it is reasonable to question his motives in this tangled web of companies and batteries. I may have just found another project for future research.

Back to Edward, no matter what happened in June of 1861, he remained part of company G, the Lomax Sharp Shooters, of the 3rd Alabama Infantry.

He was promoted to corporal on June 15, 1862 and a pay record from June to August 1863 indicates he was an orderly sergent at that time.

Paperwork dated October 30, 1864 shows he had been on detached service, working as a provost guard for Major-General Robert Rodes' division in New Market, Virginia since August 28. The website of the Civil War Trust briefly describes the role of a provost guard: Veteran or disabled soldiers frequently served as a "provost guard" that would enforce discipline in the armies.

This record lists him as 1st Lieutenant, though other records, such as the soldiers and sailors site, show his highest rank as 2nd Lieutenant. An 1864 pay record showed him as a 2nd Lieutenant earning $80 per month. Nothing else on fold3.com shows "1st Lieutenant," so this form likely is mistaken.

It is a bit weird to see that this was from an October 30 report and stated it was under Rodes' authority, since Rodes was killed in September at the 3rd Battle of Winchester. Obviously, the authorization came before then, August 28 at the latest, but it seems strange that it was still listed under Rodes' name. 

The 3rd Alabama lost over 300 men killed during the war. This link provides a history of the regiment. It had been organized at the Montgomery Fairgrounds and was the first Alabama unit in Virginia. It was also the lowest numbered Alabama regiment to exist intact for the duration of the war. It was in Norfolk for a year and after the Confederates evacuated that city, the 3rd Alabama was assigned to what became the Army of Northern Virginia. 

Under this command, it saw action in many of the war's most famous battles. It suffered severe losses at Seven Pines and then again at Malvern Hill. In the invasion of Maryland, this unit was "the first to plant the 'stars and bars' on the hills of Maryland." It fought at both Turner's Gap and then at the Sunken Road during the Antietam campaign.

It was present at Fredericksburg and then Chancellorsville, where it suffered heavy casualties, before moving into Pennsylvania, fighting at Gettysburg and again suffering significant losses. (On a personal note, its position on July 1 was near Oak Ridge, not far from the position of the 3rd Indiana Cavalry, which included my great-great grandfather. The timing, however, makes it seem unlikely that Edward and his colleagues fired shots towards my ancestor, as the 3rd Indiana had moved by the time these Confederates arrived there from my understanding.)

Marker, O'Neal's Brigade C.S.A., incl. 3rd AL, July 1, 1863, courtesy gettysburg.stonesentinels.com

The 3rd Alabama remained active during the rest of the war, seeing action at other major battles including the Wilderness, Spotsylvania Courthouse, Cedar Creek and more. It was also present at Appomattox, though with just 9 officers and 93 men by that time.

-------

Edward's life before and after the war is more mysterious. In 1860, he was a teacher and lived with Thomas Meriwether, a wealthy planter and slaveowner in Montgomery. Their relationship is unknown - perhaps Edward needed a place to stay as he went out on his own - but the 3rd Alabama roster lists Thomas, William and Benjamin Meriwether on it. It could be this man and two of his sons (the 1860 census shows these three as members of one family) providing a houseful of Confederate volunteers, but a quick search makes it appear this is not the same Thomas. Further research is beyond the scope of this post, though it may be another future research project.

Edward survived the war. An 1866 tax list shows him in Montgomery, where he owned 56 hogs, worth $560. 

A family history website shows he passed away July 24, 1868, at age 31. He is buried, along with his parents, sister Martha, and maternal grandfather Wiliam Falconer in the Falconer Cemetery in Sprague, Alabama. 

Book Review: Cain at Gettysburg: A Novel

Cain at Gettysburg: A Novel

by Ralph Peters

copyright 2012

Forge

A Tom Doherty Associates Book

 A few weeks ago, I mentioned the possibility of trying to read more Civil War fiction, in order to try to gain a different perspective on the war and memory of it. Thanks to the folks at TOR/Forge, I just received a chance to do that, with this new book from New York Times bestselling author Ralph Peters.

When starting this book, I did not know what to expect or how I would like or react to it. It's "fiction," not the stuff I am accustomed to and not really "history." At least that's how I've usually thought of such works, but I attempted to put that mindset aside as I took on this new volume.

This is an enjoyable book. I liked it. There is no reason to hide the fact that I enjoyed reading this book and often times just wanted to keep reading and reading and reading it. Some parts were more enjoyable than others, but I appreciated how the author changed scenes and "characters" showing Union and Confederate, Generals and privates, success and failure. Some times I wished he would stay with a certain scene longer, a testament to how well-written those scenes were, but the next section would end up being just as fascinating or better.

In the "author's note" section, Mr. Peters opined that a book like this "must demonstrate war's horror and appeal, while depicting the complex humanity of those who shoulder rifles or lead armies." 

If that was his target, he he it a bulls-eye.

I think it was his ability to explore the humanity of George Meade, James Longstreet, Thomas Blake and others that appealed to me. Meade and Longstreet come across as the most sympathetic figures throughout Peters' narrative, as he explores his vision of their mindset and thoughts during the period of June 28 through July 3. The doubts, fears, hopes, plans and ideas of not only these leaders but of the other men who appear in the book make this such a compelling story. The descriptions of the horrors of war are vivid and make for great reading, but I really enjoyed how he painted the bouts of self-doubt or self-confidence that these men experienced, the ebbs and flows of emotions. Daily actions that all people take (i.e. bathroom breaks) never appear in ordinary history books, but do show up in this story. It's not a pleasant thought, but if "reality" or "truth" is a desired aspect of a book concerning history, it does not get more real than those scenes.

I do wonder if my feeling that Longstreet was a sympathetic character was because of my knowledge of how the battle turned out. Maybe others will view Lee as the great leader, struggling to get an insubordinate Longstreet to follow his orders and to stop stalling and waiting around. Did my preconceived notions of the outcome of Gettysburg influence how I interpreted this book? 

Throughout the story, one character began to question his faith and aspects of his life  before another one suddenly gave him a fresh perspective on this topic. This part of the story was especially fascinating, especially when it reached its zenith. This was the story of "Cain."

A couple brief excerpts that I especially found fascinating and remembered to mark for notation include one on page 257, during the story of July 2, when the author's describes Meade's thoughts amidst the chaos in Union lines: "Grimly, Meade told himself that the Confederate plan was doubtless running like clockwork. Lee's veterans would never succumb to the confusing plaguing the Army of the Potomac." 

Of course, in his narrative, Peters had already shown that not to be the case, but such was Lee's reputation that such a mindset among his enemies seems very plausible.

Peters' descriptions of Longstreet trying to convince Lee to change his plans was a constant theme, and I thought the scene on page 329 was powerful, especially the line "No one would ever tell the truth to Lee" which came across as a realistic portrayal of how the old warhorse might truly have thought during his solo attempts to convince Lee to try a new strategy while others, officers and enlisted men, often seemed in awe of the Confederate hero.

The other instance I noted also involved Meade, on page 352: "The ghosts and hobgoblins of error plagued him." The phrase "ghosts of error" really stuck with me, especially given the struggles the Army of the Potomac had been through to this point in the war. It is just a very appropriate and descriptive phrase, showing a very possible insight into the type of internal struggle Meade was facing during this battle. That might be a phrase I keep in mind for my own writing or thoughts in the future.

The author even managed to add new figures to the story in the last sections of the book, such as Confederate General Dick Garnett and Union soldier Daniel Francis Gallagher, among others. After such a long story involving so many others, this came across as a pleasant and well-done surprise, with new personalities and perspectives tacked onto this tale.

This book covered the days leading up to the battle and the three days of fighting, and touched on many of the legends of Gettysburg, some more than others - Henry Heth's search for shoes, Lee's health issues, JEB Stuart's absence, Longstreet's uncertainty (or slowness, depending on your perspective) and the Dan Sickles-George Meade dispute. Pickett's Charge was featured, with James Pettigrew finding his place in the narrative also, but Joshua Chamberlain's fighting on Little Round Top was not and the absence of Stuart was a fairly minor topic.

I liked that it included a couple of maps of the positions of the contending armies and at times I wished it had included more maps and illustrations, like many non-fiction books do.

As I attempt to review this book without giving away too much or going on too long,  I really must admit this work of fiction did make me think much more about the humanity of the men who met at Gettysburg. I have read many of their writings and reports, their memoirs and biographies and have seen or heard countless hours of analysis of their decisions and though I know this book is based on one authors visions and perspectives of the various personalities in the book, perhaps I need to give more consideration to the human side - the fears, foibles, weaknesses, convictions - of these men, no matter how great or small their reputations are. I did start to develop emotional attachments to many of these men while reading this book, which is a compliment to the author's writing. I do not claim that this book contributed a lot to my quest to understand the memory of the war, but maybe I can think in a new way about the decisions and actions of men so long ago and to see them in a different light, as actual men and women, not just soldiers and historical figures.

For anyone interested in Civil War fiction, this book is an excellent place to start. Granted my experience with this genre is not long, but I have read many enjoyable books and this is certainly one of them.

Disclaimer: I did receive a review copy of this book for no cost. Despite this, the comments in the review are my honest and true thoughts and nobody at the publisher attempted to influence this review.  

Book Review: Plenty of Blame to Go Around

Plenty of Blame to Go Around: Jeb Stuart's Controversial Ride to Gettysburg

by Eric J. Wittenberg and J. David Petruzzi

copyright 2006, 2011

Savas Beatie
StuartsRide.com 

When I first discovered the Civil War blogosphere a few years ago, among the first blogs I found was Eric Wittenberg's Rantings of a Civil War Historian. I probably discovered it through the Civil War Trust's website, but I soon started reading it and enjoyed his stories about Civil War Cavalry, unknown cavalrymen and commentary on Civil War related news. He also discusses his own writing projects, which include several books, and this led me to wanting to read his work and see how I liked it. 

Well now I finally have done so.  Plenty of Blame to Go Around, co-authored by Mr. Wittenberg and another well-known Civil War Cavalry expert J. David Petruzzi, (see Hoofbeats and Cold Steel) is an examination of both Jeb Stuart's famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) cavalry ride at the end of June of 1863 as the Gettysburg campaign was heating up, and the controversy that this ride created. 

Let me start by simply stating: this is a really good book. The writing has a good flow, making it readable and enjoyable, and it contains a lot of information and analysis. The authors clearly did a lot of research through many sources; this thoroughness comes across as they describe and analyze Stuart's ride and the decisions he made. 

The book starts by examining Stuart's rider and the many incidents that occurred during this adventure, including battles, skirmishes, delays and other events. I really like how the authors are willing not only to tell what happened, but to point out future consequences of certain actions. One such example occurred on pages 63 and 64 when they mention a detour Stuart took. They followed that up with the ominous words: "The seemingly insignificant change of plans had far-reaching consequences no one could foresee at the time." 

As a reader, I find that a sentence like that really grabs my attention and makes me anxious to keep reading to see what those consequences are. The authors make similar statements throughout their description of Stuart's ride, showing when questionable decisions were made or actions taken (or not taken), instead of waiting to tell the story and then go back to explain when mistakes occurred. It is similar to how a work of fiction may include the tool called foreshadowing, though this was not at all subtle warning of what was to come. I really appreciated how the authors used that technique in this book. It definitely added to the understanding of the situations in which Stuart found himself and led me to look ahead to what was to come.

After detailing Stuart's ride and the various happenings on his trip that eventually ended at Gettysburg, the authors spend three chapters describing the controversy around Stuart's actions - how it began, continued, and how it still rages to this day. They use excerpts from official reports (some of them are quite long, but add greatly to the text), personal writings, books and other sources. Wittenberg and Petruzzi show how many fellow soldiers at the time criticized Stuart for disobeying orders or seeking glory, but also demonstrate that others defended the cavalry chief, arguing that the cavalier used the discretion that Robert E. Lee had given him and how unplanned circumstances (such as Union Army movements) led him to make the decisions he did. 

I like how they show numerous examples from both sides of the dispute, from the time of the war, throughout the rest of the 19th century, into the 20th century and onto today. They do not rely on just one or two sentences for most of these examples either - they reprint enough of the originals to tell clearly how the original writer felt. The book demonstrates how much controversy Stuart's ride created, but that there was (and still is) no clear consensus on who was responsible for Stuart's absence from the side of Lee.

The authors finish the text with a chapter describing their conclusions. They again use numerous examples from various reports and publications over the years and decades to show the arguments being made and they then analyze these reports and their effectiveness. It comes across as a fair and balanced view, and their conclusion is effectively demonstrated by the book's title: Plenty of Blame to Go Around.

After this chapter, they add appendices  that include information about the units under Stuart's command during his ride, the orders of battle for the battles they fought on the ride and Stuart's entire official report of this time period, including the ride, the battle at Gettysburg and the retreat back to Virginia. They end the book with a driving tour of Stuart's ride. 

The book does include photographs and maps spread throughout the chapters, which is a fine touch and I enjoyed getting additional tidbits in the notes section as well.

This is a very good, informative, in-depth examination not only of Stuart's ride, but also of its aftermath and the controversy it stirred.  It is well-written, thoroughly researched, and shows why and how Jeb Stuart's ride in the days before the battle of  Gettysburg became so controversial that debate still continues over it even almost 150 years after it happened. I gladly recommend this book.

Book Discussion: Antietam Crossroads of Freedom

Antietam: Crossroads of Freedom: The Battle that Changed the Course of the Civil War

James M. McPherson 

copyright 2002

Oxford University Press

 

When I buy a book, I usually read it, then place it back on my shelf. Occasionally I will grab a book to try to find a phrase or claim I remember in the book or to clarify my memory on some subject, but very rare is the book that I read a second time.

Antietam: Crossroads of Freedom became one of those rare books. I read and enjoyed it a few years ago, but have now just re-read it as part of the "Let's Talk about it: Making Sense of the American Civil War" series I have mentioned here before. 

As expected, this book is very readable and informative, written in a style as most of McPherson's books are. It is only 156 pages long as well, so it is a quick read too.

I've entitled this post as a "discussion" instead of a review as I expect this to be more of an exploration of my thoughts of the message of the book than of a more traditional review. I'll try to keep it at a reasonable length and not touch on most of the many other points that can contribute to these thoughts. (I'm even leaving out any talk of  Gettysburg as the turning point - please pick yourselves up off the floor after reading that if the shock overcomes you.)

My main question about this book is if Antietam is truly the turning point of the war as McPherson contends. He does a good job of showing the mood in the north in the months before the war, with the great concern after the failure of the Peninsula Campaign and the route of Second Bull Run. Some leaders in Great Britain and other European countries were watching events closely and momentum seemed to be favoring either recognition of the Confederacy by those countries, or intervention into the war. 

Then Lee's army invaded Maryland. That should have been no way to improve Northern morale.

At this point, the book describes the action of the battle itself, from the famous "lost orders" to George McClellan's equally famous lack of aggressiveness. McPherson shows how that, even before the battle, the Union forces had experienced a sudden improvement in their morale, and were ready for the challenge of a battle on what they considered their territory. This contributed to the ferocity of the fighting, and after the fighting ended, many Union survivors were ready to pursue their enemy and try to inflict even more punishment on them.

McPherson then presents his arguments about Antietam's importance to the outcome of the war, and they are familiar - the Confederates returned to Virginia, Lincoln had the opportunity to issue the Emancipation Proclamation, and foreign recognition of the Confederacy suddenly became unlikely, if not impossible.

They are good, strong arguments, but I'm not sure I agree with them. 

For one, the war was only one-and-a-half years old when this fight took place, yet lasted two-and-a-half years more afterwards. Can it be a turning point if the event lasts longer after it occurs? 

I suppose that raises the question of what is a turning point, as well as the difference between A turning point and THE turning point. 

Also, if Antietam is a turning point because it ended the hopes of foreign recognition of the Confederacy, that implies an assumption that the Confederacy could only win the war with such recognition. Though time proved the Confederates did not get such recognition and did not win the war, I am not convinced that the failure to obtain such recognition doomed the Confederacy. I believe they still had the possibility of gaining victory without foreign intervention. During the summer and early fall of 1864, the Confederates had inflicted many casualties on Union forces in Virginia and had frustrated their foes elsewhere, particularly in the Union's attempt to approach Atlanta. Europe did not offer recognition, but the Confederate armies still bogged the Union armies down and the lack of progress on the part of the Northern forces frustrated and aggravated people at home. Doubt about the war's outcome began to build, and even President Lincoln looked unfavorably at his chances of re-election.

I can understand listing Antietam as one of many turning points in the war, though perhaps that cheapens the importance of whatever is meant by "turning point." In the discussion of THE turning point, my interpretation is of THE moment or event after which Union victory was inevitable. In that regard, I turn back to the middle and end of 1864, and contend that Lincoln's re-election in 1864 was the key event in showing that the Union would prevail. William T. Sherman's capture of Atlanta certainly aided Lincoln's re-election and I have often thought that event was the key, but now I believe the actual election result was the symbol and sign that the northern people were not succumbing to war-weariness; they did not elect a candidate whose party favored peace at almost any cost; they decided to continue fighting until success came.  This spirit displayed by the Northern people dismayed many in the south, and destroyed Southern hopes that the Confederacy could win simply by outlasting the north. The supposed "mechanics" "hirelings" and "wage slaves" of the North had shown a more persistent fighting spirit than their enemies had expected.

That - the failure to injure Northern morale badly enough to convince Northerners to give up on the war - was more important than the failure to get European of the Confederacy as a separate nation. Or at least it was as important, but it was not, at least in my understanding, less important to the Confederacy's chances of victory.

Of course, the "turning point" issue is one of the many questions that will in all likelihood always spur debate on the Civil War and McPherson's book does add to that discussion. It may create new thoughts and perspective too. In high school, I bought the "Gettysburg as the high-water mark" turning-point view, have sometimes accepted the points McPherson makes in his book about Antietam and its aftermath, and have also given thought to Sherman's Atlanta campaign as the so-called "turning point" before settling (at least for now) on Lincoln's re-election as the true key "moment" that demonstrated how the war would eventually end. 

Although I may not agree now  with McPherson's arguments, I thoroughly enjoyed this book and his analysis. I'm glad I read it again and look forward to the discussion it creates at our next "Let's Talk About it" session tomorrow night.

Book Review: Sickles at Gettysburg

Sickles at Gettysburg: The Controversial Civil War General Who Committed Murder, Abandoned Little Round Top, and Declared Himself the Hero of Gettysburg

by James A. Hessler

copyright 2009, 2010

Savas Beatie

One way to produce a fascinating book is to start with a fascinating story and Gettysburg Licensed Battlefield Guide James Hessler certainly chose such a story for what turned into a wonderful book.

Sickles at Gettysburg is a biography of lawyer, Congressman and Union Major General Daniel E. Sickles. It focuses mainly on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg and the controversy afterward of course, but also describes his life before the war as well, giving insight into how he lived and how the controversies during and war and after the war really should not have been too surprising. He simply was a man who could not avoid such issues in his private or public life.

The controversy around Sickles, as explained in this book, starts with when he was born. Was it 1819? Or 1823? Or some other date? No one seems to know for sure, but for such questions to arise over his very beginning seems to foreshadow how the rest of Sickles' life would unfold.

Hessler's writing is very clear and easy to read, and the book is very well organized. The photographs and maps included throughout the text are very helpful. I often turned back to a previous map to help me understand where certain actions were taking place.

This work does not come off either as a Sickles apology or "hater" - Hessler does a very good job of showing both sides of the controversies and offering evidence for every side of the story, which, in come cases, are much more than just two sides (even when coming from the same source). He points out how Sickles consistently overcame adversity (even when of his own making) but also demonstrates how the general could change his story to suit his needs.

That is one way in which this book does an outstanding job of showing the human side of Sickles. This is not simply a biography of a soldier or a politician - it is the story of man who held various positions of influence and power, but who had his share of very public flaws. The last page of the book quotes a commander of a Sons of Union Veterans Camp, including the phrase "he was a real person with real problems and real struggles that we can all identify with." (page 406) That is an excellent description of the story of Sickles and is applicable to how the author covers Sickles throughout the entire book.

One enjoyable and enlightening section featured the author reviewing the evidence to determine if the legend of Sickles smoking a cigar as he was carried off the field - supposedly to help lift the spirits of his troops - was true. He examines several descriptions of Sickles' wounding, from the time it happened and from many years later in order to reach his conclusion, which I will not mention here. 

I also must admit that while reading about Sickles in this book, I also learned quite a bit about the fighting on July 2 at Gettysburg. I have never been totally absorbed in the military details of battles (whose regiment went where against whose division, etc.)  and recognize that as something I need to study more, but the way Hessler describes the fighting - and the maps included throughout the book - really helped me understand what happened on that part of the battlefield on that day and why Sickles' decision was so controversial. 

Hessler also describes Sickles' important role in the establishment of Gettysburg as a national military park, which was something new to me, as I had not realized that he took so much interest in preserving the battlefield and memorializing the men who had fought there. This book discusses this part of Sickles' life very well, providing a lot of interesting information and details about Sickles' action,s in and out of Congress, to support the preservation of this land.

That last point is part of the conundrum of the life of Dan Sickles. He was an unfaithful husband, who murdered his wife's lover, a poor father, a general who made a very controversial decision, then attacked publicly others who did not agree with his choice (even after they had passed away). He was very self-absorbed and egotistical, and never mastered the skills of handling money well (either his own or money he was entrusted with for the benefit of others), yet he also inspired confidence and admiration in his men, and then was a key figure in helping preserve that hallowed ground in Pennsylvania.

(I must pick one minor nit, though. In the book, the author occasionally refers to the book's subject as "Dan" instead of "Sickles." There's nothing wrong with that, but it is different and did stick out to me several times.) 

Sickles at Gettysburg  is simply a very good book that is both very informative and readable and is one that will be added to my list of favorites. It comes across as a well-researched and studied account of the many complicated aspects of the life of a controversial figure and is one I happily and strongly recommend to others interested in the Civil War or American history.

(P.S. For a visual record of Sickle's actions at Gettysburg, visit the  Gettysburg Daily site and in the search box in the right column - page down a bit - type in "sickles." It will bring up a series of posts featuring Jim Hessler at different Sickles-related locations on the battlefield. These entries do include photographs as well as text,  but I found the videos embedded in each entry to be especially helpful in understanding the lay of the land. These videos served as a wonderful supplement to the book.)

Dan Sickles

Dan Sickles, courtesy Library of Congress

I am currently reading Sickles at Gettysburg and will have it finished in a couple of days and a review of it hopefully published soon, but since today is July 2, I thought I'd take a moment to post some thoughts and questions about the fascinating man.

Before reading this book I of course knew a couple basic facts about this character: 1. He had shot his wife's lover, but avoided conviction due to "temporary insanity" and 2. He had moved his line forward at Gettysburg on his own volition, with no orders to do so, causing all sorts of controversy over day 2 of this battle.

I now understand more about him and these two incidents, and I must say this book has enlightened me quite a bit on Sickles and his entire life, not just those two controversies.

Even as I have read much of the book, I still do not know just how to describe him or what adjectives are most accurate. Yes, his wife cheated on him and he killed her lover, but he was not a faithful husband either. In his murder trial, he did all he could to save his own skin, even when it meant publicly injuring his wife's reputation. After being acquitted, he then kept Theresa as his wife, despite public expectations to the contrary.

He was an unfaithful husband, apparently a less-than-top-notch father, a lawyer, a politician, an amateur general and a man who always seemed to manage to escape trouble whenever he got himself into it. He was a survivor and a fighter, battling through all his troubles and living until 1914, when he was about 95 years old (his exact birth year being uncertain.)

As a Union general, he used his status as a "War Democrat" to curry favor with President Lincoln, which certainly helped him rise to the level of Major General, the highest ranking non-West Point officer in the Army of the Potomac. He also got along well with Joe Hooker, so when Hooker was removed from command of the Army of the Potomac, new challenges awaited Sickles.

Sickles' relations with George Meade were not so good, which was probably among the primary causes of the controversy at (and after) Gettysburg. That was not the entire reason, however, nor was the possible lack of clarity in Meade's orders.

Dan Sickles was his own man and lacked no self-confidence. He did what he believed was right, and that is what happened at Gettysburg; he saw what he believed needed to be done, and he did it, despite a lack of orders telling him to move his line. .This is also what happened when he killed Barton Key and in the post Civil-War years when he consistently defended his actions and disparaged George Meade and Meade's generalship. He believed in himself and took actions to back up that belief.

Part of this self-belief was evidenced by his willingness to change his story as needed in order to protect his reputation and he could twist the facts of a story to his advantage as well, particularly in the post-Gettysburg years when the controversy over his decisions flared and interest in the events of the battle were subject of discussion (both in Congress and in public forums such as speeches and newspaper articles)

Of course, he also was rather poor at handling money, whether his own, or that of groups he served on, especially the New York Monuments Commission.

Despite this, he was not all bad. As a general, he did show an aggressiveness that many other Union leaders lacked. He lost a leg trying to defend his country. He also inspired his men, earning their respect and admiration.  (Of course, so did George McClellan, whose reputation as a general is not much, if any, better than Sickles.) Sickles also played an important role in the efforts to preserve the Gettysburg battlefield and turn it into a national park. That was something I had no idea about before reading this book.

Sickles overcame obstacles throughout his life, which is admirable, but, then again, the obstacles usually were there because of his own behavior and actions so how much credit does he get for fighting through them?

With all this biographical background in mind, it is difficult for me to develop a definite opinion of him. My amateur military mind thinks his actions at Gettysburg were wrong, and his non-military life  produced many actions of his that I find indefensible. My instinct is to judge him harshly as an immoral, self-important person who displayed little respect for authority, but something about his life story also fascinates me. How did he create such loyalty in his subordinates and followers? What made him keep fighting through his problems instead of giving in to them? What was it about him that kept attracting people to him and making them trust him? His personality and what we now call "people skills" must have been quite good and enjoyable.

Whatever opinion, if any, I ever decide upon for Dan Sickles is, I know that words like "boring" and "dull" certainly need not apply. He lived a long life as quite a fascinating man through the good and bad. I cannot imagine there being many characters more fascinating or intriguing than Dan Sickles in the American Civil War, or, even American (if not world) history.

More on National Geographic's Centennial coverage

A few days ago, I posted two entries linking some current coverage of the Civil War Sesquicentennial by National Geographic on its website and comparing that to its coverage of the Centennial in a 1961 edition of that magazine. Here is a link to part two of my previous observations- a link to the first part is within part two.

Today, I'm reviewing the coverage they provided two years after the Centennial had stared, this time from the July 1963 edition (volume 124,  number 1.)

This magazine featured two different articles on what had happened 100 years before, focusing on the popular battles of Gettysburg and Vicksburg.

The first article is a brief review of those fights by poet Carl Sandburg, but it focuses mostly on Abraham Lincoln and  Ulysses S. Grant. It particularly focuses on Lincoln's interpretation of those victories, quoting from his famous unsent letter to George Meade about letting Lee "escape" and his Proclamation of Thanksgiving from July 15. The theme of reconciliation, so obvious in the 1961 edition, is not so clear in this article, though the last sentence hints at it when talking about how "we" honor "events that made us not a parcel of quarreling states, but a united Nation."

Following this is a much longer more in-depth article by Robert Paul Jordan entitled Gettysburg and Vicksburg: the Battle Towns Today. In this article, Jordan describes his trips to each battlefield and discussion he has with locals and with tour guides including Frederick H Tilberg and Edwin C. Bearss. Mixed in with pictures from his time as well as wartime images, Jordan's story goes back and forth, describing what he sees in the modern towns, and comparing it to what had happened on that land a century before.

Like Sandburg's piece, Jordan's article does not focus on the concept of reunion or reconciliation, despite occasional glimpses of such thoughts. It pretty much covers his observations about the areas and the people he meets, including comments from local citizens, and a few remarks about battlefield preservation. He does try to find "words" that describe each city and comes up with "All roads lead to Gettysburg" and "We have a long way to go (but had come a long way too)" for Vicksburg.

Both articles are enjoyable, and the pictures definitely add to it. I liked one picture in Jordan's article showing a souvenir table along a road - it had the US flag and Confederate Battle Flag flying from the top of the stand, and the items for sale were similar to what you might see today - bullets (30 cents each), books, small metal busts of Lincoln (I have a couple that resemble the ones on that table), a plastic flute with a Civil War logo glued to it and miniature cannons as well. It really did not look much different than such a table 50 years later does.

Jordan's article does have a picture of a re-enactment of a "Southern ball" from 1862 and though that picture does not look appropriate, it was a recreation of an actual 1862 event. A few pages later, though, is a 1860s picture showing many of the "caves" Vicksburg citizens had dug as shelter during the batter. The contrast of those two pictures - the modern colored photo of people in fancy clothes or uniforms dancing and then the gritty black and white image of rough, muddy shelters is quite impressive. I wish they had been put closer together to make their contrast more obvious, but the differences between the two are still quite stark.

Overall, this 1863 magazine did not focus on reconciliation as the main 1961 article had. Instead, the editors chose to feature the two famous battles that ended in the same month 100 years previously, and chose a good combination of articles and images to convey those towns during the war and during the time of these articles.

Gettysburg Address as a Veterans Day tribute

Abraham Lincoln wrote and delivered this famous speech over half a century before the United States had an official Veterans Day holiday (or Armistice Day, as it originated) but this message is very suitable to re-read  and ponder today, especially the closing paragraphs. The sentiments Lincoln expressed for the brave soldiers who perished at Gettysburg are certainly applicable to how Americans should feel for all of our veterans, whether they perished in war or survived it, including those living today.

Reading this while thinking about Veterans' Day may give you a new perspective on the speech, other than the readings on "normal" days and the usual acolades and interpretations this address receives. The connection of it with Veterans Day (and  Memorial Day, for that matter) is one that just came to mind today, and it seems like a perfect match to me. What brilliant words by President Lincoln and what remarkable feelings they express. This is certainly an appropriate day to take this speech to heart.

(I took this version from http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm)


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

New additions to my library

I have purchased 4 books to add to my library and to my stack of "to be read," a stack which never seems to shrink (that's a good thing.)

The first is The Gettysburg Campaign: A Study in Command by Edwin B. Coddington. This book seems to have a reputation as the best (or close to it) study of Gettysburg - not just the battle, but the time before and after it as well. It looks to have over 500 pages, plus detailed notes, so it may be some intense reading, but since I learned of this book, I have wanted a copy. Who knows when I will get to it, but I'm glad I have it now.

Civil War Commanders: From Fort Sumter to Appomattox Court House by Chester G Hearn, Rick Sapp and Steven Smith provides brief biographies of dozens of Civil War Generals. This will make a nice "quick reference" book to keep around and should be a good read too, especially on some of the commanders with whom I'm not familiar.

The third book is Escape on the Pearl by Mary Kay Ricks describes an escape attempt in the late 1840s by dozens of slaves on the ship called the Pearl. It certainly looks captivating and I am anxious to see how she desribes this event and its effects.

Last, but not least, is Fields of Honor: Pivotal Battles of the Civil War, a chronicle of 14 important Civil War battles from the tours led by famed historian Edwin Bearss. I have never been on one of his tours, but have seen him on various Civil War programs and met people who have been on his trips, so this book is one I'm very happy to have. Mr. Bearss is a legend and I anxiously await the time I get to read this volume.