Civil War History - Gettysburg ForumGettysburg! It's not just a National Park. It's a Civil War Battlefield. For some it's historic and storied past are almost an obsession! All related discussions are welcome here!
Dear readers,
I was wondering if anyone could tell me anything about John Chamberlain's supposed presence at Gettysburg. I have only heard things about this subject, but nothing serious. If John, which would make three Chamberlain brothers, was actually at Gettysburg, was his roll so small that Michael Shaara thought it not important to add John into the lot of characters in his novel, The Killer Angels, or is his roll one of little available information? Any answers to these questions appreciated.
Aimee, just off the top of my head, I know that John Chamberlain was a civilian Sanitary Commission or Christian Commission worker who got together briefly with his brothers at one point at Gettysburg. Lawrence spoke famous line about "a hard day for mother" on this occasion. Let me do a little digging and get back to you, I know that I read about it in the Truelock biography - if I can only find it in my bookshelf now!
Aimee, just back from a brief web surf and here are three sites to look at. The first is a paragraph or two about John Chamberlain. The second is a link to a painting representing the "hard day for mother" incident. And the third is a Civil War Round Table presentation which would be worth the time of anybody interested in Chamberlain's myth vs. his facts.
Zou, thanks for the links about the Chamberlain brothers. I found of special interest the last one, which mentions the "myth" of Chamberlain and of Shaara's "Killer Angels" just like I compared KA to a myth in my post in the Book and Movie Review Tent. The meaning I gave to the word was positive and I guess I sounded like Pollyanna, but I'm convinced the concept does have a positive spin, as long as one is aware the narrative is *idealized*.
Desjardin's comments were meaningful and moving for what pertains to J.L. Chamberlain's real achievements, but for the rest I found them a bit dismissive of whatever positive there may be in a more popular diffusion of these stories (once again, as long as one takes them with a grain of salt, as he himself says). The presentation is a bit confused in some parts, for example it's not clear to one who doesn't know the facts whether Shaara won the Pulitzer for history and fiction; and it has its own imprecisions, because Armistead really never does call Hancock "Winny Boy" in KA (maybe he does in "Gettysburg"; unfortunately I have a dubbed edition). But I guess this may come from the fact that the presentation looks like the transcription of a speech and so may have kept some slips of the tongue.
I'm very interested in this kind of things, that is the way we perceive these facts today and the emotional significance we attach to them. It's a fine balance to keep between finding an ideal meaning in them and staying true to history.
A dubbed edition? How interesting. Yes, Armistead does call Hancock "Winny Boy" in Gettysburg. I believe that was when he as speaking with Longstreet...
Aimee, thanks, that's interesting. So the movie, by now at least thrice removed from the facts (reports of the battle > book > movie) takes even more liberty. Is this "mythology" getting so heavily influenced by interpretations that in five centuries, say, it will be hard to distinguish it from legend, like the Arthurian myth? I don't think so, after all now we live in a time when records are preserved much more carefully. Still it's another interesting thought.
Yes, I have "Gettysburg" in Italian, a fairly good dubbing, though alas not the real thing. I'm planning to give myself a Christmas present and buy the original DVD with added scenes... now, I'd only need a DVD reader!
Aimee, thanks for the best wishes! I'll have to get a new desktop computer soon, so maybe I'll manage to have a DVD reader installed within it. Can't wait.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
