Chamberlain The real victory of LRT

No no, I said he didn't remember if he said the word charge, he clearly told people he was about to order a charge and then said the word bayonet, his regiment being so eager that they might not have let him finish his sentence hardly means he didn't order it. And again according to other members of his regiment he did indeed say the word charge.

What forums we have are based on those willing to volunteer to host them, but I notice you are none too upset about a Nathan Forrest forum, some how Chamberlain is more controversial. shrug.

Well, as I had said in my post, it doesn't matter if he actually ordered a charge or not -- that's not my point. He was still elected Governor of Maine, still received tons of fame (while, I may add, still unsure of the whole thing himself, which shows it didn't really matter to the public whether or not he actually ordered the charge), and is still hailed as a hero today. I'm not saying he isn't a hero, but I believe he's gained what's essentially a ridiculous amount of fame for his actions, versus others. I'm mostly attributing it to The Killer Angels.

And the reason I haven't complained of Forrest is the fact that I don't know enough about Forrest to know whether or not he's done enough to achieve his fame; which is my point, really. I see Chamberlain way more often in my reading than I do Forrest, which is saying something.

If you've really done your homework instead of insisting it is a matter of Spears V Chamberlain on veracity I think you'll find post war Charlie Spears seems to have become a little unglued on the topic of Chamberlain. No idea why- Spears actions that day were incredible, beyond heroic. He should have died several times. For whatever reason no one will ever understand the anti-Chamberlain bonanza is sourced from his writings. So why insist he is telling the truth and it is Chamberlain who is not?

I believe you're also missing my point. It isn't whether or not Chamberlain had involvement in the charge or was a hero, but it's the fact that he receives an overwhelming amount of fame -- unnecessarily so -- for an act that is still up for debate. If Spears believed that some roles were exaggerated, that's something to put into consideration, regardless of if he's correct in saying so or not. And besides, the same can be said for yourself, really; why insist Chamberlain is telling the truth and Spears isn't?
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm aware to some extent, like the Fort Pillow Massacre, but not much beyond that; regardless, I'll take a look at this, thanks.
I'm sure given a little more time you will soon recall you were actually a NBF expert all along. Right after someone tells you all about him that is.
 
His ordering of the charge or lack thereof isn't something that necessarily swings fame by a large margin. If he didn't actually order the charge, and that information was known by the common reader/viewer, I don't think his fame would be altered much, then and now. As you said, he didn't really remember if he ordered a charge or not, so it clearly wasn't of importance to the people whether he actually ordered it or not, as his fame shows.



I believe you missed the part where I acknowledged the fact he was definitely a hero, but that the amount of fame he's acquired for his heroism is a bit lopsided compared to that of others. For example, on the front page of the site, when looking at the biography forum, his name is on that list, which is...well, a bit ridiculous, really.

No, I didn't miss your acknowledgement of his heroism. I don't think any person has control what others think of them, right or wrong. Chamberlain, like any soldier, did his duty as he saw fit and moved on with his life. He did his duty better than most. Take care.
 
Great character in Killer Angels. He represents all the immigrant soldiers and I think that was Shaara's intent, no?
Yes, and also to represent himself and a more modern thinking audience, or at least a 1970s era audience. That's why you see him questioning Chamberlain's idealism a lot.
 
Yes, and also to represent himself and a more modern thinking audience, or at least a 1970s era audience. That's why you see him questioning Chamberlain's idealism a lot.

Good point. This leads me to ask, why would we need to question idealism? The CW was fought in a time of idealism and if one reads the letters of the soldiers they will see that they saw the war differently than we have. The northern soldiers were invested in the Union and the southern soldiers were states' rights advocates. The problem for them was, it was the right to own slaves. Freeing the slaves came later in the war.
 
Good point. This leads me to ask, why would we need to question idealism? The CW was fought in a time of idealism and if one reads the letters of the soldiers they will see that they saw the war differently than we have. The northern soldiers were invested in the Union and the southern soldiers were states' rights advocates. The problem for them was, it was the right to own slaves. Freeing the slaves came later in the war.
Oh gee, you know I feel like I probably answered this better somewhere or other. I'm not really sure where, I would have to look over Buster's quotes again and recreate it. But I'll try to answer it the best I can off the top of my head.
The whole people were naturally good, divine spark idea of Chamberlain's era didn't sit well with Vietnam War era generation, maybe they wanted to believe it, but they just didn't see any evidence of it in their world. I see Buster as the voice of Shaara questioning Chamberlain about it. Of course Shaara twists Chamberlain's words into an anti slavery argument, and I don't really have any evidence of using that particular idea that way, he more used it in reference to soldiers. This is a great topic for an English class though, I'm sure many a paper could be written about it, with people reading a lot into what Shaara meant. Hard to say if authors ever meant all the things English teachers say they did.
 
I'm sure given a little more time you will soon recall you were actually a NBF expert all along. Right after someone tells you all about him that is.

Well, I sure hope so. Right after I'm told all about him, I'll be sure to flaunt my new information about.
 
Oh gee, you know I feel like I probably answered this better somewhere or other. I'm not really sure where, I would have to look over Buster's quotes again and recreate it. But I'll try to answer it the best I can off the top of my head.
The whole people were naturally good, divine spark idea of Chamberlain's era didn't sit well with Vietnam War era generation, maybe they wanted to believe it, but they just didn't see any evidence of it in their world. I see Buster as the voice of Shaara questioning Chamberlain about it. Of course Shaara twists Chamberlain's words into an anti slavery argument, and I don't really have any evidence of using that particular idea that way, he more used it in reference to soldiers. This is a great topic for an English class though, I'm sure many a paper could be written about it, with people reading a lot into what Shaara meant. Hard to say if authors ever meant all the things English teachers say they did.

I agree. I read a little book by McPherson that quoted letters from soldiers (What they Fought For). Slavery wasn't the biggest issue with most of the soldiers of the north. It was all about the preservation of the Union. Now, the states' rights argument falls apart at the slavery question. Edited for modern politics by chellers.
 
I agree. I read a little book by McPherson that quoted letters from soldiers (What they Fought For). Slavery wasn't the biggest issue with most of the soldiers of the north. It was all about the preservation of the Union. Now, the states' rights argument falls apart at the slavery question. edited for modern politics by chellers.
I had started a thread with some quotes from Chamberlain as to why he went into the war.
http://civilwartalk.com/threads/why-you-fightin-this-waar.92300/
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm aware to some extent, like the Fort Pillow Massacre, but not much beyond that; regardless, I'll take a look at this, thanks.

Please feel free to visit the Forrest forum, where we try to make people welcome and encourage polite discussion. To address your question about why there's a Chamberlain forum...forums are partly based on need due to sheer numbers and interest...as judged by "hits" and the site owners, and partly by whether someone will volunteer as host. There are four hosts of the Forrest forum, which is here in large part because of our late member Larry Cockerham, and we will all happily answer your questions. That's a host's job and we all enjoy it very much.
 
Please feel free to visit the Forrest forum, where we try to make people welcome and encourage polite discussion. To address your question about why there's a Chamberlain forum...forums are partly based on need due to sheer numbers and interest...as judged by "hits" and the site owners, and partly by whether someone will volunteer as host. There are four hosts of the Forrest forum, which is here in large part because of our late member Larry Cockerham, and we will all happily answer your questions. That's a host's job and we all enjoy it very much.
I guess it is a bit silly that I got all snarky over him editing his post to say he remembered who Forrest was after all, when I was able to keep my cool the whole while he tried to remember what Melcher had said. But yes do go visit the Forrest forum, Diane has some equally touching reasons as to why she is a fan of Forrest as we have seen in this thread for reasons to like Chamberlain.
 
I see no snark. Nate is correct in saying you do such a service here, and when she shows up here backing up someone who is not here anymore to defend themselves her boots are a lot bigger, especially academically than mine ( and I think she wears like a 5 ). This Chamberlain thing is ridiculous, out of control and no one's done their homework or tried to, just hear what seems to be some scandal and jump on it.

Really doesn't help to have modern day ' historians ' riding the same bus. The thing is I'm obviously no historian. It took me a short time and not-much digging to ascertain what was up.
 
Well, as I had said in my post, it doesn't matter if he actually ordered a charge or not -- that's not my point. He was still elected Governor of Maine, still received tons of fame (while, I may add, still unsure of the whole thing himself, which shows it didn't really matter to the public whether or not he actually ordered the charge), and is still hailed as a hero today. I'm not saying he isn't a hero, but I believe he's gained what's essentially a ridiculous amount of fame for his actions, versus others. I'm mostly attributing it to The Killer Angels.

And the reason I haven't complained of Forrest is the fact that I don't know enough about Forrest to know whether or not he's done enough to achieve his fame; which is my point, really. I see Chamberlain way more often in my reading than I do Forrest, which is saying something.



I believe you're also missing my point. It isn't whether or not Chamberlain had involvement in the charge or was a hero, but it's the fact that he receives an overwhelming amount of fame -- unnecessarily so -- for an act that is still up for debate. If Spears believed that some roles were exaggerated, that's something to put into consideration, regardless of if he's correct in saying so or not. And besides, the same can be said for yourself, really; why insist Chamberlain is telling the truth and Spears isn't?

You are putting ' the act ' up for debate, somehow also measuring ' the act ' against every, single other aspect of Chamberlain's war record. Like that's all there was- could have been enough. There was more- familiarize yourself. Chamberlain was chosen by Grant to accept the surrender at Appomattox for a reason. Your question on ' the act ' it has been answered. If it was not to your satisfaction well, can't do a thing about that.

In the whole Spears V Chamberlain debacle post war Chamberlain never bothered defending himself- did you do your homework? He kept an eye on his old regiment to the point of helping financially, did not slam Spears - Spears had an awesome war record and was one of them. All the poetic rambling Chamberlain does was real to him- idealizing men and principals, backing each other up, brotherhood of war, the whole 9 yards. Spears dissolves into bitterness, no idea why. Like I said, he was an incredible soldier. A few times Spears goes overboard and strays into genuine falsehoods with his accusations. That is why I believe Chamberlain.

And how in blazes is it to be laid at Chamberlain's door if someone wrote a book based on the 20th Maine over 100 years later?
 
I agree. I read a little book by McPherson that quoted letters from soldiers (What they Fought For). Slavery wasn't the biggest issue with most of the soldiers of the north. It was all about the preservation of the Union. Now, the states' rights argument falls apart at the slavery question. Edited for modern politics by chellers.
I don't remember exactly was at the end of my post, however, my apologies for the breach.
 
I don't remember exactly was at the end of my post, however, my apologies for the breach.
I can't remember either and I quoted it. But anyway, looking back on what you said, and I know we have this argument in endless threads elsewhere, but I don't think the reasons that Northern soldiers fought should be confused with what strarted the war. I think Chamberlain covers both topics as seen in this thread

http://civilwartalk.com/threads/why-you-fightin-this-waar.92300/

I'm happy to talk about that more over in that thread as the mods also like to keep us on topic. :thumbsup:
 
Back
Top