Preservation Success at Perryville

I found this article on facebook and shared it there and thought it was worth posting here. It's great that more land is being preserved and hopefully that continues.

I'm already trying to think of my 2013 trip or trips to the site, perhaps around Memorial Day Weekend, with side trips to Bardstown, Hodgenville or other local places of historical interest.

Perryville Preservation

Union re-enactors at Perryville's 150th, October 6 & 7 2012

Miscellany (and yes, I'm still here)

Wow. Over a month without a post. I do apologize for that and, honestly, I'm still not sure how it happened. October was a very busy month for me, but not to find time for even one post over the past 4 or 5 weeks is inexcusable, but I am still here and am starting to post again.

I have started some cemetery research again. Whether I post my findings here or I re-activate my headstones blog remains uncertain, but yesterday was a nice reminder of how enjoyable it can be to get out and do some field research, though the difficulty in reading some stones can be quite frustrating too. I do not have a lot of Civil War battlefields or similar grounds that I can walk so easily, but there are still quite a few Civil War veterans buried in the area and hopefully I can start uncovering (no pun intended) some of their stories again. 

I did finish two fine books in the past few weeks, but really did not take enough notes to fully review them, though I will add a few words here.

The Long Pursuit: Abraham Lincoln's Thirty-Year Struggle with Stephen Douglas for the Heart and Sould of America by Roy Morris is basically a biography of the the rivalry between these two political giants from the 1830s through Lincoln's triumph in the 1860 Presidential election. It does discuss some of the aspects of their earlier lives, but focuses on their pursuits of public offices and influence. It did not seem to cover anything really new, but does a fine job comparing and contrasting these two men, their successes and failures and their ways of politicking during the early and mid-1800s. It is a fine book to have and read and reminds us that 1860 was merely the culmination of their long rivalry, not just a race in which they happened to be the candidates.

Gettysburg's Forgotten Cavalry Actions: Farnworth's Charge, South Cavlary Field and the Battle of Fairfield, July 3, 1863 by Eric Wittenberg, a revised and expanded sesquicentennial edition, won the Bachelder -Coddington Literary Award in its first edition. It brings to light some serious fighting on the last day of the famed Battle of Gettysburg, action that has been lost in all the attention paid to Pickett's Charge (or Pickett-Pettigrew Charge if you prefer) and the controversy over General Meade's supposed lack of aggressiveness in the pursuit of Lee's army after the battle. It is a very enjoyable book, with many details about the fighting, what happened, where it happened and why it mattered. The battle descriptions are fine, but the strength of the book, in my opinion, is when Wittenberge analyzes the actions and reports of the fighting and offers his view of what happened. Perhaps that is due to his training as a lawyer, but his discussion of whether or not Elmer Farnsworth committed suicide and his conclusion about "Lost Opportunities" form the strength of this book. That is not to say the discussion of these fights is poorly done - to the contrary, the whole book is very well-written and enjoyable, and it does cover new material that is not often discussed. That is quite an accomplishment for a Civil War book these days. This is an important book and I gladly recommend it to any readers looking for something new or who just like cavalry and/or discussion of Gettysburg.

More on My Perryville Experience

 Well, I had planned to post frequently about my trip to Perryville, but the lousy performance of the Cincinnati Reds during their 3 game slide to end the playoffs and a busier-than-expected weekend kept me away from here.  In a sense, I regret that, as some of the freshness of my trip to that beautiful battlefield has worn off, but, on the other hand, I've had some time to consider what I want to discuss.

Part of my thoughts in my previous message included my wondering about the purpose of reenactments and why people such as myself enjoy them or think they are worth attending. After I posted it, I was fortunate enough to come across a link on Dr. Brooks Simpson's Crossroads blog, addressing similar questions.

The linked article certainly raises legitimate questions and concerns. Re-enactments or similar living-history portrayals of the period (or any period) are imperfect. Not only do the questions he raises, about war causes, the true horror of the death and destruction caused by war, and about slavery and relations are issues not addressed in such settings.

I also agree with the claim that the ability of these events to attract large crowds can be a good thing. Perhaps they do not take full advantage of the possibilities of educating more people, but seeing a few hundred or thousand people on land that once was a battlefield (that's another question - is park land still a "battlefield" just because it once was the sight of a battle?) is far better than seeing another mini-mall, apartment complex or gas station.

Personally, though, attending this event provided a new, unexpected perspective. Seeing so many men in uniform gave me a better realization of the true scale of the actual battle.  Looking at the below pictures, there may be a few hundred re-enactors lining up as Union soldiers, far fewer than 150 years ago, but these scenes really struck me as quite impressive, seeing so many "soldiers" at one time, lined up to go to their (pretend) fight.

However, during the actual battle, perhaps 5 or 10 (or more) times as many men were present on one of these fields at a single time. Walking the park and thinking about thousands of men there is one thing, but to see so many men lined up and how long the line stretches makes it seem all the more awesome to think of how many men fought in battles like at Perryville. Even if I'm seeing 10% of the actual size of the armies, such a perspective about how much room such a line took up was much more effective than to stand at the same place and imagine thousands of troops there. I'm not sure if I'm finding the right words to express what I mean, but the sight of even a few hundred men lined up shoulder-to-shoulder impressed me greatly and drove home the point of how large such a fight was and how long an army's "line" could be. This is not something I have felt on a battlefield visit or even from the best of books or videos - it was something I needed to see, or, to resort to a cliche, "you had to be there."

I think that is a valuable part of such a portrayal. Even the camps, with dozens or tents lined up, campfires around them, soldiers hanging around, added to this feel, as did the living history section of this particular event. My senses of sight, hearing and even smell all experienced different sensations at this event, giving it a sense of reality I could not recall. I knew it was not a real batter and those men lined up marching behind the drum and fife corps were not marching to their death, and that crowds of spectators would not gather around a fight (though it did have a touch of the feel of some of the descriptions about picnickers at 1st Bull Run mention), but it was a different way to see the war and what happened. I can read hundreds of descriptions of men marching, but this was different. When I heard the drums beat and saw the men march behind them, I actually got goosebumps.

Maybe it's because I have not attended a lot of these that I was so impressed, but, even if so, that is a good thing. I have heard the beats of the drums, the cracking musketry and the roar of the cannons, seen the sky filled with smoke and smelled the gunpowder in the air now. Now to think of it being 10 times as big or loud or smelly - wow. Maybe I can say that at Perryville "I saw the elephant" in some sort of way.
 
I was not the only one to add to my education at this event. I overheard several kids asking their parents questions about what was happening ("Are those real guns?" "Why don't they use bullets"). I even had a couple of conversations with other guests at the event about the battle here or the Civil War in general. When I was volunteering on Saturday morning, a man came in and asked "Why was this battle important? Why here?" and one of the  local volunteers, who is a dedicated volunteer at the park proceeded to provide his thoughts on the matter and a couple of others, including myself, joined in the talk. That is not going to educate the masses, but was one small example of the opportunities this event provided. How many such conversations would have taken place without the re-enactment taking place?

I also may add that I stood near the "cornfield" of Perryville and watched the Confederate re-enactors pushing the Union troops back, their impression of the "Rebel Yell" was pretty neat too. Maybe it was just a bunch of guys having fun, but the yelling was loud and attention-grabbing as they moved forward. It certainly added to my enjoyment of the event and was another aural signal that simply cannot be replicated in books.

The below videos may not have the greatest pictures, but they are good enough and the sound really makes them so wonderful

Perryville at 150

Today  marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Perryville. It was the biggest Civil War battle in Kentucky and helped keep the Bluegrass State in Union control through the war. Had the Confederacy taken control of this land and moved the border of Union/Confederate to the Ohio River, Union victory in the war may have been more difficult, as northern states like Ohio, Indiana and Illinois would have been more vulnerable to attack and southern control of the Ohio River would have hindered Union travel and trade in the west.

I just attended the re-enactment of this battle over the weekend and had a great time. I will probably be posting about it multiple times in the next few days as I organize my thoughts and reactions, and more and more thoughts come to mind. There were close to 2,000 re-enactors at the event and attendance was great too, especially on Saturday. Thousands of people filled the park, enjoyed the encampments and other activities and lined up to see the actual battle being "re-fought." It was nice to see such attendance and I hope this event allowed people to see what a beautiful site this park is and will encourage people to help preserve it. Of course, I also hope they learned what happened on this land and why it matters.

That is one of the questions that is going through my mind right now. Now that I have seen a large re-enactment in person, what is the purpose of such an event? Is it just to draw large crowds and raise money? Is it to educate attendees on the actual events of the battle? Or of the Civil War in general?

What does holding a re-enactment say about how we remember the battle? What does attending it say about those who viewed the event? On Saturday afternoon, I had two people spot the "volunteer" tag I was wearing and offer a couple of complaints. One lady said that she had been told to move up the hill to see the battle but that the re-enactors had not gotten there yet and she was disappointed she had moved. I advised her the event had just started 15 minutes earlier and that the "battle" would cover the same ground as it did 150 years, but it would take time to do so. (And it certainly accomplished that - while I was in the same area watching the event, a large group of people suddenly moved up the hill to get in line, moving just as the Federal re-enactors were falling back.)

Another gentleman said he wished they had described the choreography of the re-enactment in the event's program so that he could better follow it and know where to sit as well. I thanked him for his suggestion and said I would pass it on.

What do those encounters say about attendees, or even just those two people in particular? Is this another chance to complain about the "attention span" of modern Americans, used to TV shows, microwave ovens, and fast travel?

I also witnessed parents talking to their children about what was going on, so perhaps many others took advantage of this as an educational opportunity. I heard 2 different mothers explain to their children that the soldiers were using real guns, but only gunpowder and not bullets. One of the children asked "Why don't they use bullets?" I walked away before hearing the mother's answer as I did not want to appear nosy (though that's what I was being) but it was good to see many children (including troops of cub scouts) there, with at least the opportunity for learning.

There was a very nice living history encampment on the grounds too. I was impressed with the Sanity Commission set up, which I had not seen before. There was an impressive display of medical items and equipment, tinsmiths and other exhibits that added to the event.

I know there was more living history taking place in the actual town, but I did not get the chance to visit it since I spent my time on the battlefield, but when I drove through town, a lot of people were along the streets as well.

I also took over 300 photos and videos and will post a few here and on facebook, though I won't ask anybody to go through all of them. Many of them, I'm sure, were of similar sights, so I will pick out some of the better ones to share.

I hope this event did bring more awareness of the importance of this battle to everyone who attended or read about it. Perryville was an important battle and as tee-shirts sold by the Friends of Perryville state: "This Place Matters."

Revised: William Rufus Terrill, a Death at Perryville

I realize this is a bit lazy of me to re-post another entry from a while ago, but I feel the story of General Terrill is worth retelling and this is the best way I know to do so. 

As the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Perryville draws nearer, it is appropriate to review that battle, including some of the participants. One fascinating story from that battle belonged to William Rufus Terrill, a general in the Union Army.

Brigadier General William Rufus Terrill commanded a brigade in the Army of the Ohio during the fall of 1862, including at this fight among the Chaplin Hills of Kentucky. His life and service in the Union army provide just one example of the brother-against-brother nature of the war, especially in Kentucky, a state more divided by the war than just about any other, perhaps with the exceptions only of Missouri or Maryland.

Courtesy of artilleryreserve.org

A native of Virginia, Terrill faced family pressure similar to that confronting another, more famous, Virginian who chose to support the Union and who was present when the armies collided in this small Kentucky town- George Thomas, later known as the "Rock of Chickamauga" and the namesake of a future military base, Fort Thomas, Kentucky .

William decided to serve in the Federal army while his brother James (as well as his cousin J.E.B. Stuart) served as Confederates. According to Kenneth Noe, in Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle, William's decision to stay in the Union army "crushed" his father and the "thought of one son killing another so upset Terrill's mother that she secured a transfer to the West" for him to try to eliminate that fratricidal possibility. (See page 186.)

Now, in early October 1862, here was William fighting in the west, in a state where prominent and nationally-known families like the Crittendens, Breckenridges, the Todds, and, by extension, even the Lincolns found themselves facing similar familial divisions as did the Terrills and Thomases.

At Perryville, William commanded a brigade of inexperienced men who were soon to experience their baptism by fire. In the early afternoon, his men held a position on land now known as the Open Knob or Parson's Ridge. As Confederates commanded by George Maney approached and attacked this hill, Terrill's men could no longer maintain their position. The Confederates captured several cannon, and drove Terrill's men down the back of the hill and through a cornfield. The Union men did not stop until they reached the top of another ridge, where they met the men of John C Starkweather. The Union men rallied here and fought off the Confederates bravely, but eventually the southerners took yet another position from them. Soon enough, though, daylight began to disappear, and the action here proved to be the last fighting in this sector of the battlefield (the Confederate right.) The battle itself would end around two hours later as autumn darkness began blanketing the hills and valleys in the region.



View from Open Knob of route Maney's Confederates traveled



Cornfield was in the valley in this picture

 It was early during this fight on Starkweather's Hill when an artillery shell hit General Terrill, createing a mortal wound for the general who had been trying desperately to hold his lines together and rally his men.

View of Starkweather's Hill from approximate location of cornfield

William Terrill was just 28 years old when he passed away on October 8, 1862. He had been born on April 21, 1834 and had entered West Point in 1849, graduating 16th in his class four years later.

He later served as a professor of mathematics at the academy, but his most notable experience on campus occurred during his cadet days, when he got into a fistfight with Philip Sheridan, resulting in a one year suspension for the future Union hero of the Shenandoah Valley.

According to Noe's book (pages 187-188), Sheridan, who also fought at Perryville,  "despised" Terrill terribly after their time at West Point. Sheridan did, however, later claim that the two men had met on the night before the battle and had ended their feud and enjoyed a pleasant evening.

After graduation, Terrill, besides his teaching job,  fought in the Seminole Wars and spent time in "Bleeding Kansas." His early Civil War career included time as a captain of artillery and as the head of a battery of artillery at Shiloh and in the eventual siege of Corinth. He gained his promotion to Brigadier General in early September 1862, only a month before the fatal fight at Perryville.

His brother James, four years his junior, served in the Army of Northern Virginia in the Virginia Theater after attending the Virginia Military Institute and becoming a lawyer. He saw action at 1st and 2nd Bull Run, Fredericksburg, the Wilderness and other battles before being killed in May of 1864 at Bethesda Church. (See also Battle of Totopotomoy Creek.)

Not only had both brothers served in this war on opposite sides, but both lost their lives during this conflict,  a sad and powerful symbol of the tragic nature of the war, when a "house divided against itself" finally collapsed, leading to enormous suffering, loss and sadness on both sides. Even the best-laid plans of loving mothers could not avoid such tragedy.

---
Thanks to the following links for providing helpful information and details on the Terrills and the battle.

http://www.jfepperson.org/perryville.htm

http://www.battleofperryville.com/ 

http://www.vmi.edu/archives.aspx?id=5657


Further thanks to The Civil War Dictionary: Revised Edition Mark M. Boatner III (copyright 1988, David McKay Company Inc, New York) and

Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle  Kenneth W. Noe (copyright 2001 University Press of Kentucky, Lexington)

Repost: Death of Bull Nelson

Here's a post I am republishing from the fall of 2010. If you use the search function in the right column, you can find a list of sources I consulted for this entry, which proved to be a fairly popular topic.


A few weeks ago, I made an entry about the Battle of Richmond (Ky)  and mentioned Major General William "Bull" Nelson who commanded Union troops during that defeat and who was murdered a month later by a subordinate officer, Brigadier General Jefferson C. Davis.

Recently, I have had a conversation with a friend about that killing and, especially, about the lack of prosecution of Davis for this blatant murder he committed in the Galt House hotel in Louisville on September 29, 1862. 
 

(Photographs of Davis, left, and Nelson, right, courtesy of the Library of Congress)

 As we discussed this, I decided to research it and see if I could find any good answer to the questions of how and why Davis escaped his crime unpunished. As I looked through books and online sources, I found no consensus on any single answer, but, rather, several plausible theories about the affair.  None of them seem to offer a definite solution, but each may have contributed in some way to the end result of Davis going unpunished.
  
In this entry, I will discuss my findings, and then post a follow-up with a list of sources I used to try to solve this riddle. I freely admit that my "research" is only through secondary sources and limited ones at that - books I happen to own, and websites I happen to find. I also make no claim on the reliability of these websites, though most contain similar descriptions so I have chosen to use them for this entry.
(I have edited this post to add a link to my bibliography,  right here )

I also have learned during this effort that a new book on the life of General Nelson is due out later this year. It is The Notorious Bull Nelson: Murdered Civil War General by Donald A. Clark. This book may shed more light or put a new perspective on this incident, so perhaps I should just wait for it instead of posting this now, but this topic has won my interest so I am forging ahead with my exploration of it. Hopefully I will get that book early next year and then can add additional thoughts on the subject to this blog.

Though some of the language used in these sources make it hard to determine if some of these theories are separate or closely-related enough to be the same thing,  I have broken my findings down into five basic categories of thought.

The first is that Davis had very influential friends working on his behalf. These mentions almost always mention Indiana Governor Oliver P. Morton, an influential Republican from the west. Among the sources that follow this line of thought is the Encyclopedia of the American Civil War. See pages 572-3 for a biography of Davis by by Frank Levstik. Also, the book Don Carlos Buell: Most Promising of All by Stephen Engle (pages 297-8) makes it clear that Buell believed it was Morton's fault that no prosecution happened.

I also found two mentions that Horatio Wright had Davis released from his arrest, and I counted that in this same category as people using their power or influence to aid Davis, though I have not seen any specific information about Davis and Wright's relationship.

The second popular explanation of the reaction to this incident focuses on Nelson's personality, and his reputation as a "bully," a word used in more than once source to describe him and his relationships with subordinate officers and soldiers. Though not all the sources specifically claimed this was the reason Davis was not punished for the murder, this information comes up often enough to make it seem at least like a contributing factor. See Kenneth W. Noe's Perryville: This Grand Havoc of Battle (page 93) for one description of reaction to Nelson's death. He does not tie this reaction to Davis's release, and a comment by an anonymous poster on the Random Thoughts About History blog states a belief that this line of thinking is incorrect.

However, this theory ties in closely to a third one I found - that this incident was a "matter of honor" and Nelson's insult of Davis made the shooting justified. With the "Nelson deserved it" line of reasoning, this particular theory may be just about the same as the previous one, but I separated them since the previous one focused on Nelson and his personality and this one looks more at the actual incident. Among the sources mentioning this idea is a recent article by the Richmond Register and a file at the Camp Nelson National Cemetery website.

Another line of thinking believes that the lack of prosecution had to do with happenings in and about Don Carlos Buell's command of the Army of the Ohio.  The Kentucky Civil War Bugle  reports that officials in Washington D.C. were investigating Buell's performance and thus the Davis-Nelson affair received little attention from them. (On September 30, one day after the killing, Union leaders asked George Thomas to replace Buell , but Thomas refused the offer since a campaign was in progress.)

An article from Historynet.com claims that Buell did not have time to handle the court-martial and asked Washington to handle it since his offensive operation was in progress.

The final explanation mentioned in several sources was that the Union army simply needed experienced and talented leaders in the field in the Western Theater and could not afford to have someone like Davis incarcerated, especially with Nelson already dead. Testament: A Soldier's Story of the Civil War by Benson Bobrick reported that Davis's "talent, apparently was deemed too great to spare." (See pages 95 and 96) in the army at this time.

Evidence that perhaps supports this idea can be found in the official records, series one, volume XVI, part two. On page 510, a request from Horatio Wright, head of the Department of Ohio, to General-in-Chief Henry W. Halleck reads: "We have no good generals here and are badly in want of them. Sheridan is worth his weight in gold. Will you not try and have him made a brigadier at once? It will put us in good shape." This was from September 12, almost three weeks before Nelson's death and Davis's arrest.

I also found a copy of Davis's obituary in the New York Times of December 2, 1879 and it mentioned that Davis was "honorably acquitted on the trial." (Please see the link here.) Since every other source indicates there was no trial, I did not include this report in my thoughts on the matter but thought it interesting enough to merit mention. 
 
As I stated previously, some of these are very closely related and a couple could be categorized as being virtually the same theory, but, even so, no matter how someone may list or separate these ideas, it seems clear that no one theory is significantly more popular or seems more accurate or probable than the others, but, rather, that they all worked in combination to form the right atmosphere for Davis to avoid punishment.

One book previously mentioned and that seems to support this "fused" explanation is Engle's Don Carlos Buell: Most Promising of All. On pages 297 and 298, he notes Buell's anger towards Morton, but also points out that Buell did not have time to put together a court-martial and asked officials in Washington D.C. to handle it. It was at this point that Buell believes Morton interfered, keeping it lost in "bureaucratic red tape." Engle then points out "Buell's immediate problem was filling the vacancies" that the murder and arrest had created (p.298), thus touching on most of the theories listed above. (Engle also included a paragraph saying the murder failed to shock some of Nelson's subordinates who were familiar with his personality. About the only one of the categories I listed that was not present in Engle's work was the thought that Davis's act was justified because of how Nelson had insulted him.)


One thought that came to my mind as I pondered the situation and these varying ways of looking at it was perhaps this signaled an overall lack of leadership in the department - no one person took charge of the situation and handled it. Even Buell, who had Davis arrested, found reasons not to handle the prosecution and tried to get officials in far-off Washington to take over the case.  Maybe in this sense it kind of "fell between the cracks" (perhaps Morton widened those cracks as Engle suggests) with so much going on at the time, both in the field and in Washington. Was this Buell's fault since he was the army commander when it happened?  Was it Washington's? This line of thinking may be one theory to add to my list, and it probably deserves more thought and exploration.


The best conclusion I can draw for now is that it was mostly a matter of circumstances and, for Davis at least, luck, that he was not prosecuted or punished for the shooting of Nelson. Davis did have a powerful ally in Morton, while Nelson's few supporters had no such influence or time to exert it since they were in the field. The Army of the Ohio was in the midst of a long campaign that would soon end at Perryville, its commander lacked political support,  and the Union army simply needed all the experienced commanders they could get in the field during the Confederate invasion of Kentucky. Add all these together - and perhaps add the failure of Buell or any other Union leader to "take charge" of the situation - and Jefferson C. Davis managed to continue his career as a Union General even with the murder of Bull Nelson staining his record.

East vs. West

courtesy AmericanCivilWar.com

 Many students of the Civil War proclaim that the "war was won in the west" while everybody was paying attention to Washington/Richmond/Virginia, or make comments about the western and trans-Mississippi theaters beings overlooked. Lee's refusal to leave Virginia is a common example cited to support this position, an argument that perhaps has even become a bit of a cliche by now.

Even if it is a cliche, however, I must ask how much of this is still occurring? Over the last few weeks, much has been written/spoken and/or blogged about the Maryland Campaign, South Mountain, Lost Orders and the Emancipation Proclamation that appeared in the immediate aftermath of Antietam. Before that, 2nd Bull Run and the defense of Washington D.C. were common topics.

Even the recent PBS program about death in the Civil War referred to Gettysburg as "the Confederacy's second invasion of the North." (If those are  not the exact words, they are close and have the same meaning.) Presumably (and if I'm wrong, let me know), they meant Antietam as the first invasion. Well, if an invasion of a border state, where slavery was legal and many people expressed southern sentiments is considered an "invasion of the north," what about the Confederate invasion of Kentucky? Was Maryland "northern" and Kentucky "southern" despite their similarities? Why not count Braxton Bragg and Kirby Smith's trek into President Lincoln's native state? What about the fighting in Missouri? Did the writers of the program just focus only on the east? I have read that critique of the program from others, so is this one, seemingly innocuous remark just another example of that focus?

And I realize that griping about that one line out of the two-hour program may not be fair and my taking notice of it says as much or more about me than the program, but I do still feel this is a  point worth making. Was Maryland that much more north geographically to make that distinction between it and Kentucky (or Missouri)? Or was it just close enough to Washington D.C. to garner more attention, even 150 years later?

Even recently, a well-respected blog just announced some upcoming plans for several battles and campaigns, such as Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. They then threw out a bone for those interested in the western theater by promising a look at Stone's River too. Not a single word about Perryville, though participants described it as perhaps the toughest fighting they experienced.

Granted, maybe I am being a bit oversensitive about this. The Seven Score and Ten blog I mentioned a week or two ago has continued to bring attention to some of the happenings in the campaign that led to Perryville and my personal appreciation of the Perryville battlefield probably causes me to look for items about that one particular fight. Maybe the blogs and articles about the other battles are being written and created because that's what people truly want to study. Or maybe I'm missing out on others that focus more on the west.

Hopefully most of the blogs and sites I follow (including Facebook and twitter) will start focusing more on the west as the  anniversary of events in the region get closer. Many post "on this date" type of stories and though the Kentucky campaign was in full force by this time in 1862, no major fighting had taken place yet, other than perhaps Munfordville. Hopefully as we arrive at October 8, 2012, more attention and writing will focus on the events of October 8, 1862.

I really did not intend for this to turn into a rant, but that one line from the PBS program really did light a fire that had been smoldering and I thought it was time I threw some gas on it and express these thoughts and observations.

Book Review: Lincoln's Sanctuary

Lincoln's Sanctuary: Abraham Lincoln and the Soldier's Home

Matthew Pinsker

copyright 2003 (National Trust for Historic Preservation)

Oxford University Press

Another interesting book from a few years ago that finally found itself in my hands, Matthew's Pinsker's work is informative, interesting and very readable. It is a very good book that explores a different perspective on President Lincoln and his time in the country's highest elected office. 

I apologize for resorting to such a cliche, but since it is so true in this case I must do so - with as much as  has been written about Abraham Lincoln, his life, his career, his family and other aspects of his life, it is surprising to find something different or new. Pinsker accomplished this difficult task,  thoroughly researching this book about the small summer home that President Lincoln and his family used during Lincoln's time in office. 

On the outskirts of Washington D.C., this cottage was on the same land as a home for disabled soldiers who had no other place to stay. A few similar cottages were also located on this ground, a much more scenic area than the main areas of the city. During the summers of 1862, 1863 and 1864, Lincoln, his wife and their son Tad spent several months at this retreat, which had better ventilation and was much cooler than the more crowded areas around the White House.

Pinsker describes how Lincoln would ride into work every day on horseback, describing his most likely route. He also shows how the military eventually developed more plans for the President's security, including stationing troops around the cottage grounds and providing an escort for Lincoln, even though he did not always appreciate the need for such practices. Some of the men who helped guard or escort the President developed close relationships with him and these trips sometimes gave him the chance to discuss the issues of the day in a more relaxed manner. Some also wrote their observations down, providing some of the new sources Pinsker found in his research.

The author also demonstrates that Lincoln was frequently alone at the cottage, enabling him to use it to do work, as well as thinking about major decisions he had to make. Mary and Tad often took trips to the northeast during the times they had moved to the cottage, and their eldest son Robert did not frequent the cottage or spend much time with his father. Lincoln's family life and relationships are a nice secondary plot (for lack of a better term) of this story.

During these months at the cottage, Lincoln was considering major issues, such as emancipation and how to deal with General McClellan, and this sanctuary, as the title labels it, may have given him enough peace and quiet to reach the decisions he made.

Lincoln also conducted meetings at this cottage, and also hosted many different guests who found his somewhat hidden retreat. 

Besides the actual story that Pinsker tells, I also appreciate the way he did so. His writing flows very well, making the book readable, but what stood out to me was how he discussed some of the sources he uses. Frequently, he would mention a story or report, describe the source it was from and then describe how accurate that source may be. This practice, a sort of historiography, is one I've often seen in end notes or in books specializing on the study of history, but seldom within the text of a work like this. Pinsker blends this analysis into the flow of the narrative very well, and it adds a lot to the book. 

One example that I marked was on page 65 when the author discusses two sources that claimed that Lincoln wrote the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation while at the Soldier's Home, as his sanctuary was known. He reviews a story from painter Frances B. Carpenter as well as one by Rebecca Pommroy, who often worked with the Lincoln family, particularly with child care. The analysis he provides and the conclusions he reaches about these sources do add to the credibility of the book, showing that the author did not simply believe and repeat every story he was able to uncover. This is something I have not seen often in such a book, but I really appreciated it and felt it was one of the strong points of the book. It was nice to see that within the text, without having to flip to the back and try to find the proper end note to see if it provided such information.

Overall, I found this book to be a pleasant read, as well as an educational one. Matthew Pinsker provides a new perspective on President Lincoln and his daily life, including the President's professional and family duties and experiences. It is common for authors to describe Lincoln and his career in the White House, but Pinsker shows that the President spent nearly an entire year at the cottage on the grounds of the soldiers' home and that this sanctuary did give the President time to make decisions, meet important visitors and spend at least some time with his family, while avoiding the crowds surrounding the White House. It was also a more scenic and comfortable home during the heat of Washington summers.

This cottage truly did provide sanctuary for the President, and this is a part of Lincoln's Presidency that deserves more attention. He spent significant time there and pondered (or even made) significant decisions while away from the White House. I unhesitatingly recommend this book to students of Lincoln or the Civil War as a different perspective on Lincoln and his life as President.