A Virginia Bias?

[samgrant]

Someone, Whitworth I think, mentioned that the Virginia newspapers of the time tended to cover the battle news with some tendancy toward emphasis on Virginians. Not unlikely as most papers tend to adddress those things/people from their own area.

But this led me to the thought that, as I replied to Whitworth?:

In retrospect, it would be interesting to delve into the subject of a "Virginia Cabal" of generals, politicians, newspapermen, etc. who may or may have not slanted any glory of CW history, during and/or after toward Virginians as opposed to those of other Confederate states and/or the entire Confederacy itself.

The most egregious, and well known, example might be Jubal Early's excoriation of Gen. Longstreet.

I'd be interested in any views.

 

[MobileBoy]

Samgrant,
There is certainly evidence that the contributions of Virginians were given more press than the contributions of other Confederates.However ,Robert E Lee clearly in my view a talented commander was a stud who just happened to be a Virginian.Do you think Early's attack of Longstreet had anything to do with Longstreets cozy postwar relationship with Republicans.To many exConfederates that made Longstreet a traitor.Were Longstreet a Virginian it's reasonable to believe that Early would still have made the same assertions.Virginia produced Washington,Zachary Taylor, and at the onset of the war the head of the Union forces was a Virginian.Another Virginian Robert E. Lee was offered command of Union forces by Lincoln.Virginia had produced more reknown military leaders than any other state prior to the war and more Presidents.They certainly had the data to back up the brag so to speak.Of course Virginians may have exagerrated the contributions of its native sons but those contributions were stellar indeed.Now poeple try to attack the Civil War Virginians which is fine but jealousy can sometimes lead to inaccurate conclusions.I agree with your original premise though except I think Longstreet was berated because of his postwar actions not because he wasn't a Virginian.

 

[Alabaman]

Ashley & Samgrant,

I'm one of those who have brought the bias idea to bear re: the AOT. Please allow me to elaborate.

I read where Gen. Lee was 'supposedly' asked to take command of the AOT in 1864. Admittedly, I was disappointed to read where Gen. Lee turned down the offer. The possibility of a 'Lee vs. Sherman" battle might have existed, really gathered my attention! My silly bias toward Gen. Lee centers here and I now realize the man couldn't do this. With this said, I'm a great admirer of Gen. R.E. Lee in victory and defeat After all, Gen. Lee gained more respect in defeat than most general's obtained in victory. An Gen. Lee personally placed the word" pride" in the statement, Southern Pride!

The newspapers of the day did seem to slant toward the 'war in Virginia' reports IMHO. Ex: most people today believe the war atually ended with Lee's surrender at Appomattox Court House. The CS AOT & Trans-Mississippi Dept's fought on. As of late, I'm inclined to believe most all of this came about due to the CSA Capitol being located in Richmond. Had the CS Capitol remained in Montgomery, Alabama, I think the scope of popular focus would have been different. Ironically, my land in Wetumpka, Ala. would have been 'Seven Pines' or 'Malvern Hill' type battleground today.

Whether actual bias took place re: Gen. Lee & the ANVa, I can't state with any factual evidence. To say bias was evident by Virginias toward the western theatre would possibly suggest a feeling of an upper-south aristocracy superiority. Several general officers of the AOT were in this economic class and this wouldn't hold water. The answer IMO was that Richmond, the CSA Capitol, was in Virginia.

Most Respectfully,
Rob Adams (Alabaman)

 

[CChartreux]

Virginia's 'Eminence'

Hi Samgrant -

Reading through this thread, I was struck by another idea that might lend itself to understanding the Virginian 'fixation' (if you will).

I agree by and large with the views/opinions expressed by MobileBoy and Alabaman; however, I would add maybe an additional suggestion (perhaps something of an extension of MobileBoy's point). In addition to Virginia's tendency to breed Presidents, recall also that it was Virginia that brought the resolution (courtesy of Richard Henry Lee....somewhat ironic!) to the Congress in 1776 to declare independence from Britain. [The 'independence' thing must be some kind of genetic quirk in the Lee family! :laugh1: ]

As such, I think there was an already existing 'exalted' status of Virginia for a variety of reasons...probably more readily discernible then than now (of course). In other words, Virginia was in the thick of things, so to speak, and had been for some time. I wouldn't suggest that as a direct reason, but perhaps at least something of an indirect factor. Of course, the fact that much of the Eastern Theatre fighting took place in Virginia...which you already touched on.

 

[nbforrest]

I certainly think there was a Virginia bias...but not so much during the war. Virginians did write the history post-war though.

At the same time, I think the backlash against the Virginia cliche in more recent years as created an equally biased non-Virginia group of ACW students.

Respectfully

 

[larry_cockerham]

The Appalachian mountains (alias Blue Ridge) were the great divider. Virginia folks rarely thought about or heard of the action on the west side of the ridge. That was also true of the folks in the Tennessee river valley. Two almost separate wars. Lee in the north and Johnston in the south. Grant in the north and Sherman in the south. It's just as bad today. I can't get ACC basketball scores in Nashville unless my team is in the top 25. During the Veterans parade, the Confederate re-enactors always level a volley at the local newspaper building in passing.

 

[CChartreux]

Larry - I didn't even think about that, but you bring up a good point. News travelled frightfully slow in those days and topographical 'divisions' (like mountain ranges) would have served almost as automatic 'insulators' (if you will). Good point.

 

[Alabaman]

Larry,

Re: the Confederate reenacors & the volley they fire each Vet.'s Day:

They're loading with minie balls, beware! Word has it they truly desire to keep Nashville in CS hands, this time! ;-)
(I know that you know, but...I'm just kidding...again!)
********************
And yes, Larry,

We sometime forget back 140 years ago, most folk in one area rec'd news via (rare) newspapers & post office or most commonly I'd think, word of mouth regarding the war news. Many families never knew the fate of their husband/son soldier until a long time later, much less the latest in battle news 4 states away.
***********************************
Hi CChartreux: This effective way Larry utilizes in solving problems is THE way I truly appreciate them being 'explained.'
*****************
Hi N.B. Forrest: Yes. I agree. There seems to be a recently formed anti-Virginia bias in some historians. Good point, N.B. Gen. Lee & the ANVA were an awesome group of men!

Happy Thanksgiving To All!
Rob Adams

 

[ewc]

Good points all. I think Alabaman really explains it well in that any bias may have been natural to the conditions of the time, Virginia being the center of government and where critical fighting was occurring, a supply, distribution, and command center, and also the most populous state in the Confederacy.

As to RELee not wanting to go West, I don't see how he can be blamed. he was comfortable with the army he had built and led since Fair Oaks and in whose officers and men he had complete faith. as well as intimately knowing the terrain and logistics. All would be new to him in the West. He stated in a letter to Davis that he would go if ordered, but believed he would better serve the Confederacy where he was. i tend to agree.

About Longstreet's post-war 'indiscretions,' principally he dared to criticize the now godly General Lee. Being a non Virginian didn't help. Pickett the Virginian was also critical of Lee, and Mosby the Virginian also joined the Republicans, but Longstreet is remembered as the anarchist who would do either.

 

[FSPowers]

Let me raise these questions:

Could it be that Northern newspapers, with better access to telegraphs, reported more from ****her theatres than the Southern ones, who were limited to their regions?

Could that have contributed to a more "pro-Virginia" slant when the history was written?

 

[larry_cockerham]

That's my theory also. Nashville, for instance was still a rather small community in 1864 and Atlanta was just a crossroads. Communication links were poor if they existed at all. Chattanooga was just a camp by the river and Memphis was the home of N.B. Forrest.

 

[richard]

Your question contains a lot of truths in it. The press most assured had a local bias. The larger the audiance, the greater the bias (as it is today even). The officers of both sides had bias, generally to there own side. Within there sphere of influence, The men who transcribed the orders, handled the corrospondance, and wrote or transcriped the journals all had bias toward there commander and his home ground.

Yet one must remember, that Virginia was the "mother state" of our country. It still is remains the center of our government today.

 

[Alabaman]

Mr. Powers,

I tend to agree with your post re: the reason for a perceived Virginia bias. Good point, sir!

Sincerely,
Rob Adams