Military History

I've been active in the OpenHistoricalMap (OHM) project for quite a while now. We've had our ups and downs, but are busy recovering from a major server outage and things are looking better and better for the future.
My early work has been in mapping historic race tracks in North America. There was some complexity in locating them and finding maps and or imagery to allow for mapping them in OHM but ultimately, you dropped them in place and set the start and end dates for their usage, and it was done.
Things have gotten a lot more complex recently. I've been working on mapping the history of the Capital District of New York, starting with Albany, with plans to radiate outwards and map Troy & Schenectady.. This has made things a little interesting. There is a relatively recent episode of Doctor Who in which all of history happens all at once. If you are going deep in time in an OHM project, the editing process consists of trying to map all of history all at once, and the more detail you map, the more challenging the editor becomes to work with.
There is a filter mechanism in JOSM (the OSM editor I use) that helps to some degree - I have a limited ability to ask for things that started or ended before or after certain years - but it could use some refinement. OHM's approach to dating could use some work as well; the Gregorian calendar stops in 1532, and older things may have some uncertainty about when they actually happened. For example, no one is entirely sure on when the northern end of the Albany Basin was filled. We know it was before 1910 and after 1892 but there's a bit of guesswork involved (and the answer may be in some forgotten records in the Albany city archives.)
The other project I've started on is the Antietam Battlefield from 1862. But that's a topic for another posting.

John Buford is one of those generals from the Civil War who deserves to be much better known than he is today. He almost became better known when he was played in the film Gettysburg by Sam Elliott, but I suspect nearly everyone leaving the theater came out without actually knowing Elliott's character's name. The two books about Buford that I am discussing here are:

General John Buford: A Military Biography, Edward Longacre, Combined Books, 1995

"The Devil's to Pay": John Buford at Gettysburg, Eric J. Wittenberg, Savas Beatie, 2014

I just finished Longacre, the older of the two, and decided a comparison and contrast would be more interesting than a straightforward review.

Longacre and Wittenberg are authors who have devoted much of their time to Cavalry operations, and both have spent a lot of time on Gettysburg in particular. Since Buford's finest hour as a Cavalry commander was certainly the first day of Gettysburg, both authors deserve to be taken seriously.

Longacre's book appeared in 1995, 2 years after the theatrical release of Gettysburg; Longacre served as an advisor for the film. In his Introduction, he explains that there is a dearth of some traditional primary documentation - Buford did not leave much in the way of written correspondence. Longacre had long regarded writing a Buford biography as unreasonable, but the film production persuaded him to try. The lack of correspondence can be seen in how the book is written, as in some places Longacre has to speculate mildly about things that a letter might have made clear (if there was a letter).

Wittenberg has a different task. He is focusing on Buford's military operations through Gettysburg, which are well documented.

Both authors hold Buford in high regard, and they are correct; Buford was almost certainly the finest Federal Cavalry commander of the Civil War (Custer's PR not withstanding). Longacre is a nice biography, but a bit light on maps. Wittenberg is more focused and detailed, and has a number of excellent maps. Wittenberg is in print, Longacre is something you'll need to find used.

Both are good books, it depends on what you're looking for.

Decoration day being the original name for the holiday we now call Memorial Day.

Earlier today I shared this link on G+ and Facebook: Frederick Douglass on Decoration Day 1871. I've been pondering somethings about this address, and the context in which he gave it, since.

In 1871, Reconstruction was in what passed for full cry. Ulysses Grant had been president for 2 years. It was Grant's avowed goal that he would accomplish two things - reconciliation, and protection of the rights of the former slaves. The great tragedy of Grant's administration doesn't have anything to do with political cronyism or corruption. It has to do with the fact that Reconstruction succeeded in bringing the ex-confederate states back into the Union, while failing to do very much to protect the Freedmen.

At the time of Douglass's speech, many still had hope. They believed that Grant, still a popular hero, could pull it off. The problem was that the best opportunity to take care of the former slaves came at the end of the war in 1865, and and it was already gone, lost in the disputes between Andrew Johnson and the Radical Republicans. Civil government was being restored to the southern states too quickly, on terms that were too easy, resulting in political and racial violence that was very difficult to deal with.

So when I read Douglass's speech, I think about the hope for the future he had at the time, and I am saddened for all the death and destruction of the Civil War, and doubly saddened that the opportunity to provide protection and justice to the Freedmen, gained at such a terrible cost, was fumbled.

the other thing that happened 150 years ago was the surrender of the Confederate forces in Vicksburg, Mississippi to Grant, after a brilliant campaign. Vicksburg would have a number of effects:

• Grant's reputation would be cemented, leading to his becoming General in Chief


• The Confederacy would be cut in half as the Federals regained control over the Mississippi River


• Federal commerce on the Mississippi would be restored

It is hard to over emphasize the impact of this victory, which is overshadowed by the fact that Gettysburg happened at the same time. Grant would go on to fix the situation at Chattanooga that had resulted from Rosecran's bad day during the Chickamauga campaign before heading east. And Grant was the first commander in chief to truly understand what would be needed to end the war.
Grant had intended to command from the west, but after taking command, he would decide to place Sherman, his most trusted subordinate, in command in the west, while he shadowed Meade & The Army of the Potomac.

150 years ago today - the day after the battle
First, some things missing from the film
I already talked about day 1. For day 2, the film focuses almost entirely on Joshua Chamberlain and the 20th Maine on Little Round Top. So what's missing? Well, lots.
Chamberlain's Regiment was part of Strong Vincent's Brigade. Vincent's Brigade was rushed in to cover Little Round Top after General Warren discovered it was uncovered and that the Confederates had figured that out. All the regiments in Vincent's Brigade were heavily involved, and Vincent himself was killed that day. Now why was Little Round Top uncovered? Because General Dan Sickles had ignored instructions and moved his forces forward from Cemetery Ridge to the Peach Orchard and the Wheatfield. Sickle's forces were not sufficient to extend to Little Round Top, so they were anchored on Devil's Den. There was intensive fighting in the Peach Orchard, the Wheatfield and Devil's Den, none of which is covered in the film. And the film doesn't cover any of the fighting going north along the line, wrapping around Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill.
Day 3 in the film is all about Pickett's charge, but ignores all kinds of other fighting that day.
Context
Generally missing from most Gettysburg discussion (film or otherwise) is context. Meade is often criticized for failure to pursue, but actually the Army of the Potomac followed Lee for 10 days, almost trapping Lee against the Potomac River. Meade seems to have come up about one day short on catching Lee, but Lee's escape wasn't exactly a cakewalk.
Some recommended books
Gettysburg: The Last Invasion Allen C. Guelzo
Gettysburg Stephen W. Sears
Plenty of Blame to Go Around: Jeb Stuart's Controversial Ride to Gettysburg Wittenberg & Petruzzi
One Continuous Fight: The Retreat from Gettysburg and the Pursuit of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, July 4 - 14, 1863 Wittenberg, Petruzzi & Nugent
Protecting the Flank at Gettysburg: The Battles for Brinkerhoff's Ridge and East Cavalry Field, July 2 -3, 1863 Eric Wittenberg
Gettysburg's Forgotten Cavalry Actions: Farnsworth's Charge, South Cavalry Field, and the Battle of Fairfield, July 3, 1863 Eric Wittenberg

Most of the focus will be on a small town in South Central Pennsylvania. What happened there is significant and fascinating, but generally it is overemphasized at the expense of the real action.
In the western theater, forces under General Grant had successfully executed his novel campaign plan, with the result that he had Confederate forces under siege in Vicksburg Mississippi, and the Confederacy was about to be split in two as the Federal government gained complete control over the Mississippi River. Arguably this was far more important to the course of the war than what happened at Gettysburg.
Vicksburg
By July 1st, Grant's brilliant campaign had settled into a siege. The defenders of Vicksburg had no way out and it was only a matter of time until they ran out of supplies. This moment would be coming soon. In addition to splitting the Confederacy, Grant & Sherman would also start to set a pattern for future operations that would carry through Sherman's march through Georgia in 1865. The pattern? Unable to occupy Jackson Mississippi, Grant would send Sherman to raid Jackson instead, and Sherman would destroy the railroads, the warehouses and the factories, leaving nothing in Jackson of value to the Confederacy.
Gettysburg
The events of the first day are only partly described in the film. The film omits entirely the intense fighting on the west side of the town which lasted until the two Federal Corps were overwhelmed by Confederates coming from the west and the north. The Federal forces would stream through the town and settle on Cemetery Hill, where the remainder of the Army of the Potomac would arrive for the second day's battle.

One of the things I've enjoyed has been touring battlefields with knowledgable leaders. They can help a lot with framing, visualization and context.
Lately I've been working on my own understanding of the Saratoga Campaign of 1777 and it seems to me that a tour which covers the approaches to the battles as well as the battles themselves might make for a worthwhile exercise. I'm considering whether to try for one in early August of this year or the spring of next year.

The tour would entail carpooling with 20 to 25 participants, and the fee for the tour would be a contribution to Gift of Life. We'd meet for breakfast somewhere in the Glens Falls or Lake George Village area, where I'd do a presentation explaining the British strategy for suppression of the rebellion in 1777, and why Burgoyne led British forces south via Lake Champlain. I'd also provide a brief explanation of the British attempt on Lake Champlain the year before, and what happened at Ticonderoga in 1777 (Ticonderoga is too far north to include on a one day tour.) We'd then head to sites (that fit the schedule) where we'd talk about what happened at these locations and how they influenced the progress of the campaign. These sites would include at a minimum the Bennington Battlefield (in Walloomsac, New York), the Saratoga Battlefield and a number of other spots that influnced the battle (perhaps Fort Miller, the San Coick Mill in North Hoosick, and so forth.)

Topics:

Framing & context- why were the armies here and what were their goals and objectives? who were the commanders and what were their strengths and weaknesses? what were the strengths and weaknesses of the campaign plans?

Interpretation (meta discussion) - what are the issues with how we interpret the campaign? how has the interpretation changed over time?
have we been misled by conventional wisdom into oversimplified pictures of what happened? (e.g., were Burgoyne and Gates really as bad as their reputations would lead us to believe?)

Compare and constrast: the Bennington Battlefield and the Saratoga Battlefield, two very different experiences. How has battlefield preservation & interpretation changed over the past 100 years? Which approach do you think is better?

One of the Civil War figures most frequently misrepresented and misunderstood is Ulysses S. Grant. The historical memory of Grant contains significant contradictions. His reputation in history ranges from extremely high highs to some very low lows.

[note: I am an amazon affiliate and if you buy books through these links, I do receive a pittance]

And Keep Moving On: The Virginia Campaign, May-June 1864 is a campaign history, but a larger history than just of Grant's Overland Campaign of 1864, as it also discusses campaigning in the Shennandoah Valley and on the Peninsula; Grimsley is making the point that the Overland Campaign was part of a larger strategic concept, and Grant was General-in-Chief, not commander of the Army of the Potomac. It provides a good outline of the progress of the campaign, and some valuable analysis of the command structure and relationships in the Army of the Potomac. This analysis includes insights into why Grant's campaign failed in its intended purpose, but succeeded in that it ultimately trapped Lee's army in the entrenchments around Petersburg.
The book first appeared in 2002, but is still where I would send folks wishing to learn about this campaign. Grimsley's insights about the differences between Grant's command approach and those of the generals he inherited in the Army of the Potomac are quite valuable as they explain why it was so hard for Grant to get the army to execute his plans.

The Man Who Saved The Union: Ulysses Grant in War and Peace is a pop history of Grant. It is a decent book if you are looking for an introduction to Grant, but it contains no new information or analysis and is of no great interest to the serious student of the Civil War, who presumably is already familiar with McFeely, Simpson, etc. However, even for someone just looking for an introduction to Grant, I'm really much more inclined to recommend the following work:

U. S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth is not as detailed a biography of Grant. The book is in two parts, the first half being a biographical sketch of Grant which is a pretty fair introduction. The second half is a little different.
In 2002, David Blight's Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory launched the modern study of Civil War Memory. Still a developing field, the idea is to examine the changes in our memory as a society of the Civil War, to look at the varying views of the war and its key figures and events, and to try to understand why those views have changed over time and how they originated. The second half of Waugh's book is an examination of how the memory of Grant changed over time, how a man who was nearly elected to the Presidency for a third term, and who was hugely popular at the time of his death somehow became Grant the Butcher and Grant, President in a corrupt administration, and continues by looking at how Grant's reputation seems to be on the rise. These insights are again, quite valuable and a good reason to pick up a copy of Waugh in preference to Brands.

Remembering the Battle of the Crater: War as Murder isn't directly about Grant, but it is very directly about Civil War Memory. The Battle of the Crater occurred towards the beginning of the ten month long "siege" of Petersburg. It was an attempt to breach the Confederate fortifications by detonating 8000lbs of gunpower in a tunnel which the Federal forces dug under a Confederate fortification. The detonation was tremendously destructive, but the Federal attack which followed up floundered due to various bad decisions on the part of the Federal command. One of the most notable features of the Federal attack was the extensive use of soldiers from the USCT (United States Colored Troops). The USCT troops were not correctly used, however (It's that bad decision making; Ferrero's USCT Division been trained to lead the assault and should have led it, but were replaced by untrained white troops the day before the battle, and a lack of training and leadership in that initial assault made all the difference. Ferrero's troops were instead in the later waves, fed into a attack that had already turned into a disaster.)
Levin's first chapter outlines the battle, but he is not attempting present a detailed history (Hess is good for that.) Levin focuses on what came after the war, how the memory of the battle evolved, how the role of the USCT was largely omitted from historical accounts until the 70s and 80s, and the reasons why that happened. This book is a fine and well focused example of the current state of the study of Civil War Memory.

Savas Beatie has become my favorite publisher of Civil War history. Failure in the Saddle is a good example of why that is:



The standard narrative of Chickamauga is that Bragg's Army of the Tennessee won in spite of Bragg rather than because him. The litany of complaints about Bragg's generalship is long and colorful. But most of the literature on the campaign focuses on Bragg's failures, and the cavalry operations are given little attention. Powell is the first serious examination of these operations in quite some time (ever?). He makes a strong case that considerable blame should also be placed on the commanders of Bragg's two Cavalry Corps, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Joe Wheeler.
Forrest is a challenging subject. He is deified by many, vilified by many others (Note: I'm not going to address here any of the issues related to atrocities like the Fort Pillow Massacre or his involvement in the early years of the KKK). His advocates consider him a military genius. Forrest had little military training, but a gift for independent operations. The Chickamauga Campaign exposes his flaws; as a freshly promoted Corps commander he was placed in a position for which he did not have the training, instincts or preparation. He found it difficult to stay out of low level tactical details, often didn't fully understand his role or the role of his corps, and made key mistakes in intelligence collection. This is not to say that he was consistently awful; there were a number of things that he did well in the campaign.
Unlike Forrest, Joe Wheeler, who did have the professional training requisite for the job of Corps commander, was just plain awful. He was lazy, insubordinate, and sluggish in responding to orders.
Failure In The Saddle examines the operations of the cavalry in the campaign fairly carefully. Chapters at the end provide assessments of both the commanders and of the historians. And in a nice touch that is becoming common in books from Savas Beatie, an appendix contains a driving tour with GPS coordinates for those who would like to go see the locations of the campaign themselves.

I moved to the Albany area for college in 1976, and have stayed here year round since the fall of 1978. Grant has been one of my Civil War heros (along with Lincoln) ever since I started learning about the war (which my Grandfather Thomson never knew, he probably would have been horrified, or at least deeply disappointed).
But I didn't visit the Grant Cottage on Mount MacGregor until this past weekend. I'm glad I finally made the time.
It is a unique place, preserved ever since Grant's death in 1885, mostly unchanged (except for new period-correct wallpaper done in the 1940s.) The furniture and fixtures are more-or-less what they were when Grant died. The flower arrangements are the actual ones sent for Grant's funeral, treated in a unique method which has stood the test of time.
Though Grant only lived here for the last 6 weeks of his life, his dying presence as he struggled to finish his memoir is quite palpable. The office, where you enter the house, is the room where Grant sat with Mark Twain reviewing the manuscript. The next room, with two chairs face to face, is where Grant spent most of the last 6 weeks, sitting up because of the risk of choking to death as the cancer filled his mouth and throat. Finally, there is the deathbed in the next room, where the bed and bedspread are preserved.
Grant's Memoirs are a treasure, both as a military autobiography and as a work of literature. Grant Cottage in Wilton New York is where he completed them, in his last act before he died.

Keith Harris at Cosmic America discusses how General Grant got the nickname Unconditional Surrender Grant at Ft Donelson, and reminds us that U.S. were not Grant's actual first and middle initials. He is quite correct.

At birth, Grant was named Hiram Ulysses Grant. Why, then, do we know him as Ulysses S. Grant?

Grant's appointment to West Point involved a bit of indirection. The Congressman for his district, Thomas L Hamer, was a former friend of Grant's father, the two of whom had fallen out over politics years before. Grant's father was unwilling to write to Hamer requesting the appointment, so he wrote to Senator Thomas Morris, who evidently forwarded the request to Hamer (the appointment was Hamer's to dispose of after all.) Hamer did make the appointment — but he didn't remember Ulysses's full name. He knew his mother was a Simpson, so he put U. S. Grant on the paperwork. When Ulysses reported at West Point, that is what was on the register. And so he became Ulysses S Grant.

Reviewed:



In addition to the Amazon link, copies are available for purchase from the author.

Eric Wittenberg has become one of my favorite writers on Civil War topics. His recent The Battle of White Sulpher Springs is a brief book, focused on a little known action in western Virginia during the period when the modern state of West Virginia was being formed.
The cast of characters alone is rather intriguing: the Federal Cavalryman, William Woods Averell (assigned to West Virginia after serving as a scapegoat for Hooker's loss a Chancellorsville), Colonel William "Mudwall" Jackson (a rather less successful 2nd cousin of Stonewall Jackson), and Colonel George S. Patton (grandfather of the famous WWII General.) Wittenberg also devotes some attention to the nearly unknown Captain Paul Freiherr von König, a German serving on Averell's staff, killed during the battle.
The book focuses on a raid in August 1863, led by Averell, to seize a law library at Lewisberg, West Virginia, for use by the newly formed state government of West Virginia. It follows the path of Averell's raid until he encounters Patton's forces at White Sulpher Springs and the ensuing battle, and then covers Averell's subsequent retreat.
The book is very clear, well written and well researched, and gives considerable insight into one of the smaller dramas of the sort that are frequently overlooked.

i have the following items in hand, recently acquired (either as gifts or because i bought them myself.) What should I read and review next?

Discussed:

Jeffry Wert has written a number of good books on various Civil War topics; in particular I am familiar with his biography of James Longstreet which is quite good.

In A Glorious Army he takes on one of the most written about figures of the Civil War, Robert E. Lee. His focus is Lee's impact on the Army of Northern Virginia from the point where Lee took command during the Peninsula Campaign, through the defeat at Gettysburg. This period covers one year, one month, and a couple of days, from June 1st, 1862 to July 4th, 1863. It is quite astonishing to realize that the period which made Lee's legend was so short. In this time, the Army of Northern Virginia fought major battles: Mechanicsville, Seven Pines, Gaines Mill, Glendale, Malvern Hill, Second Manassas, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, and finally Gettysburg.

One might wonder why Lee is being revisited yet again. It turns out that it is worthwhile; there has been a significant movement in Civil War scholarship in recent years, exemplified by Joseph Harsh's important studies of Lee's campaigns in 1862 (Confederate Tide Rising and Taken at the Flood.) Much reassessment has taken place; while Freeman's massive studies of Lee (R. E. Lee and Lee's Lieutenants are still respected, certainly, there is recognition that Freeman was deeply rooted in the Lost Cause Mythology and this colors his perspective. The reexamination has been refreshing, and much of the new scholarship has been outstanding, turning up things that have been overlooked for 100 years or more.

Wert chooses to focus on Lee and his relationship with the Army of Northern Virginia, how Lee influenced it and used it during its period of greatest success. He is attentive to modern work such as that of Harsh, although occasionally he still references things that modern scholarship takes issue with (e.g., Henry Heth's claim that his division was heading to Gettysburg to look for a cache of shoes.) These are minor issues that do not detract from Wert's overall thesis.

Wert's assessments of Lee and his immediate subordinates (Longstreet, Jackson, Stuart, Ewell, A.P. Hill, etc.) seem fair. I wouldn't come to this book looking for an assessment of George McClellan, but that's not really what it's about. The things Wert is trying to do in this book, he does well.

some quick comments on three naval/military museums we visited in Virginia last week:

Casemate Museum/Fort Monroe (Hampton)
Fort Monroe is one of the third system coastal forts, completed shortly before the outbreak of the Civil War. The US held it throughout the war, even after losing Norfolk, and used it as a base (along with Fort Wool) to block Confederate access to the Atlantic.
The Casemate Museum is located in one part of the old fort, in a series of old casemates. It has a number of displays relating to the evolution of coastal artillery through WWII (when it was finally realized it was obsolete), as well as displays relating to the post civil war incarceration of Jefferson Davis (I'm not sure i agree with some of the interpretative material on Davis, but i haven't done the necessary research yet before i make a serious effort to challenge it). An added bonus is the opportunity to walk the circumference of the fort on top of the earthworks; it is a very well preserved example of a system three fortification (most are long gone.)
Fort Monroe (the old fortification) is on the grounds of Fort Monroe, an active Army post. It is scheduled to be turned over to civilian authorities in the Fall of 2011 but until then, if you wish to visit the old fort and museum, drive to the gate and indicate that you want a day pass to visit the museum. you'll need valid id and car registration information. the museum is free but donations are requested.

Nauticus Museum/Hampton Roads Military Museum/USS Wisconsin (BB-64) (Norfolk)
Nauticus is on the waterfront in downtown Norfolk. The Hampton Road Military Museum shares the building, but appears to be independently run by the US Navy. The Iowa-class battleship USS Wisconsin is moored alongside, with gantries leading from the museum to the ship's decks.
Nauticus has quite a few interesting exhibits about marine topics (what did you expect) and about the battleship, and the naval museum is outstanding. This more than makes up for the fact that access to the battleship is severely limited; for the standard Nauticus ticket, the only access is to a limited number of exposed decks. A rather steep fee schedule is in place for tours and a visit to the interior of the battleship. I like the Nauticus museum and the Naval Museum a great deal, and recommend them, but if what you want is to see the inside of a fast battleship, other museums provide better value -- the New Jersey in Camden, and the Massachusetts in Fall River, to name two. An added bonus to visiting the New Jersey is the opportunity to tour the USS Olympia across the Delaware on the Philadelpha waterfront. (The museum operating the Olympia is in somewhat dire straits due to the actions of an ex-director and could use some love.)

The Mariners Museum (Newport News)
Last, but far from least, this was my favorite of the trip. The Mariner's Museum has an extensive collection of ship models that need to be seen to be believed, and excellent displays relating to the history of the Chesapeake Bay area. But the real prize is the USS Monitor Center.
In the middle of the 200x's, the US Navy and NOAA successfully recovered significant components of the USS Monitor from the bottom of the Altantic, where the ship went down in December of 1862. The conservation effort is ongoing at the Monitor Center, and the museum provides a wonderland of displays for geeks like me who love this stuff. I would be remiss if i didn't mention the Monitor Center blog, which i have been following for some time and which provides much insight into the issues of conserving artifacts brought up from the sea.