Five Myths

[wbull1]

I, too, am most curious about the last one. In my opinion, the soldiers generally respected each other. The situation could have resulted in violence and it did not.

 

[matthew mckeon]

???? what contemporary account says he gave the order to prevent insults? I'm not aware of any

The only account that I know of that gives Chamberlains reasoning for the order/salute, is his own, and he clearly states it was to offer a salute...…..nothing else

Again if we are going to discount primary personal accounts.......theres little "fact" to base anything on in relation to the ACW

But I suppose you can argue by 1901 he was able to give a more complete recollection of experiences.....or are we to disregard US Grants memoirs concerning the war, due to it being written years after the war as well ? Not sure your position on this.......

I suggest you read the article in Civil War Monitor. It might satisfy your concerns. From Lincoln to Grant on down, it was policy not to insult or humiliate surrendering Confederate soldiers. But that's not the same as the somewhat sentimental account Chamberlain wrote later. Again, I suggest you check out the article itself, instead of spiraling.

 

[archieclement]

I suggest you read the article in Civil War Monitor. It might satisfy your concerns. From Lincoln to Grant on down, it was policy not to insult or humiliate surrendering Confederate soldiers. But that's not the same as the somewhat sentimental account Chamberlain wrote later. Again, I suggest you check out the article itself, instead of spiraling.

not spiraling at all, just noting your lack of evidence supporting your "opinion" as to the reasoning of the order, it certainly doesn't match the known account of the man who issued it.

But personally I seldom think someone has a better idea of what was in someone's mind....then the individual whose mind is in question.....

 

[matthew mckeon]

I, too, am most curious about the last one. In my opinion, the soldiers generally respected each other. The situation could have resulted in violence and it did not.

I suggest you check out the article, and a recent book on Appomattox.

 

[matthew mckeon]

not spiraling at all, just noting your lack of evidence supporting your "opinion" as to the reasoning of the order, it certainly doesn't match the known account of the man who issued it.

I guess its late for me to dig up a bunch of information tonight you're not interested in getting for yourself. Maybe tomorrow.

 

[archieclement]

I guess its late for me to dig up a bunch of information tonight you're not interested in getting for yourself. Maybe tomorrow.

Yes be interesting to see which psychic claims to have clairvoyance or telepathy to know Chamberlains mind better then Chamberlain himself. I will probally still tend to believe Chamberlain had a better idea of his reasoning then anyone else however, to each their own though.

If your curious as to the order itself, I would go to the direct source which was Chamberlain... as he did explain his reasoning.

BTW if asked me why I did something significant in my life 30years ago...…I can still tell you, the motivation behind why i did it, it wont have changed.........

 

[JerseyBart]

@matthew mckeon and @archieclement turn the heat down please.
posted as moderator

 

[Cavalry Charger]

I hope you can summarize the gist of this part of the article @matthew mckeon . It may help to shed more light, but I do remember having this discussion on a prior occasion with an 'esteeemed' former member and the conclusion we came to was that there was nothing to say it didn't happen, as much as there was nothing to say it did. So, I'm inclined to think it was possible, and perhaps with heightened feelings after the war it was not possible to share it there and then. Maybe Chamberlain only felt comfortable to share it many years/decades later when reconciliation amongst the general populace was much more secure.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

the conclusion we came to was that there was nothing to say it didn't happen, as much as there was nothing to say it did.

That sounds like pretty flimsy evidence.

 

[matthew mckeon]

OK, I'm awake and having some coffee.
The article is a collection of five essays. The last one is "The Storybook Ending at Appomattox" and is written by William Marvel.

Marvel focused on two myths about Appomattox.
1) The Union soldiers shared their food, digging into their haversacks to divide their food with the Confederates. Marvel states there is no contemporary account of this happening. There was some contact between the ANV men and the Union V corps, similar to the bantering and bartering that went on between pickets during the war. But the commanders kept the armies strictly separate, divided by picket lines. Grant did authorize issuing 25,000 rations of beef, hardtack, sugar and coffee. Several Confederate soldiers mentioned getting food from the "yankee Govt" or "Federal Army." But some spontaneous division of food is never mentioned in any letter or diary from April, 1865. The story surfaced about 15 years later, in a book about the 32nd Massachusetts written by a veteran, Frank Parker. But Parker had left the regiment in 62 and wasn't at the surrender. He relied on his comrades for their memories. Frank Gerrish, a 20th Maine veteran, writing in 1882 recalled the 20th retrieving three days rations from their "regimental baggage" to distribute. But no contemporary account mentions this. Chamberlain, writing the day after the surrender, doesn't mention any sharing of rations.



2)

 

[matthew mckeon]

OK, I'm awake and having some coffee.
The article is a collection of five essays. The last one is "The Storybook Ending at Appomattox" and is written by William Marvel.

Marvel focused on two myths about Appomattox.
1) The Union soldiers shared their food, digging into their haversacks to divide their food with the Confederates. Marvel states there is no contemporary account of this happening. There was some contact between the ANV men and the Union V corps, similar to the bantering and bartering that went on between pickets during the war. But the commanders kept the armies strictly separate, divided by picket lines. Grant did authorize issuing 25,000 rations of beef, hardtack, sugar and coffee. Several Confederate soldiers mentioned getting food from the "yankee Govt" or "Federal Army." But some spontaneous division of food is never mentioned in any letter or diary from April, 1865. The story surfaced about 15 years later, in a book about the 32nd Massachusetts written by a veteran, Frank Parker. But Parker had left the regiment in 62 and wasn't at the surrender. He relied on his comrades for their memories. Frank Gerrish, a 20th Maine veteran, writing in 1882 recalled the 20th retrieving three days rations from their "regimental baggage" to distribute. But no contemporary account mentions this. Chamberlain, writing the day after the surrender, doesn't mention any sharing of rations.



2)

2) Union soldiers saluted the Confederates as they marched into the village to turn in their weapons and flags. Joshua Chamberlain, whose brigade accepted the surrender, wrote several accounts of this peak moment of his life, and indeed in history. In the letter written just after the surrender, he says the Union troops were standing "at the shoulder;" that is, at attention. In early lectures he "specifically denied" having ordered a salute. Accounts before the mid 1880s make no allusion to a salute or compliment rendered to the Confederate soldiers by anyone in the V Corps. Several Confederates mention appreciating the silence of the Union troops, which they felt was respectful of their feelings on what was a terrible day.

Chamberlain describes his brigade already "at the shoulder" when the Confederates marched by, while Gerrish has Chamberlain ordering "carry arms" as the Confederates marched by. Chamberlain tried to square the circle in 1882, by saying that the order was transmitted by bugle call, as the Confederates approached, but hadn't arrived yet.

Chamberlain's account grew more elaborate, in a 1901 interview he stated Grant had chosen him specifically, and that he had ordered a "marching salute" which John B. Gordon, who led the Confederates, acknowledged, returning the salute with his sword.

 

[matthew mckeon]

OK, this is about an elaborate paraphrase of Marvel's essay that I care to make.

I would draw two conclusions:
Grant and the Union army acted in a way that did not insult or unnecessarily humiliate their foes. It is to their credit, but also the policy of the Lincoln administration.

Officers like Chamberlain and John B. Gordon were committed to reconciliation, and their accounts serve that purpose.

 

[Andersonh1]

In the latest issue of Civil War Monitor, five well known Civil War historians offered what they thought were the five more persistent myths about the Civil War.

1. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a significant and game changing measure.

I'd have said the myth was the exact opposite, that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves. Ask the average man or woman on the street about it, and that's what they'll tell you. It's certainly what I used to think.

 

[Carronade]

1. The Emancipation Proclamation was not a significant and game changing measure.

Is there such a myth? That is, are there significant numbers of people saying or believing that the EP was not significant?

If there is any mythology about the EP, it probably exaggerates its importance, like suggesting that it emancipated all slaves in the USA.

@Andersonh1 and I seem to have upon the same point this morning!

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

Is there such a myth? That is, are there significant numbers of people saying or believing that the EP was not significant?

The common refrain I've heard, not necessarily on CWT, is that the Emancipation Proclamation didn't actually emancipate anyone because it only applied to areas were it couldn't be enforced. As a result, it's viewed as an empty, toothless statement.

The EP reflects an important moment in the evolution of Federal policy in the ACW towards slavery, but to the casual modern observer viewing it with hindsight that's not always apparent.

 

[matthew mckeon]

I'd have said the myth was the exact opposite, that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves. Ask the average man or woman on the street about it, and that's what they'll tell you. It's certainly what I used to think.

Is there such a myth? That is, are there significant numbers of people saying or believing that the EP was not significant?

If there is any mythology about the EP, it probably exaggerates its importance, like suggesting that it emancipated all slaves in the USA.

@Andersonh1 and I seem to have upon the same point this morning!

"The Ineffectual Emancipation Proclamation" by Gerald J. Prokopowicz
The EP provoked extreme responses when issued. F. Douglass "we shout for joy" J. Davis "most execrable measure."
"For generations to follow" Americans responded "as though Lincoln had declared the immediate and universal end of American slavery"
Over the last fifty years, historians have challenged that belief two ways:
1) Lincoln wasn't alone in freeing the slaves. The enslaved people themselves pushed the administration and the brute force applied by the Union Army enforced it.
2) Others argue that Lincoln didn't actually free anyone. Phrased as, "he freed slavery where he couldn't and he didn't free slaves where he could."
The second point is often repeated by progressive historians who view Lincoln as insufficiently abolitionist, and from conservatives or libertarians who resent Lincoln for leading the Union cause and using government power.

Prokopowicz describes the EP as "resolving" the status of people freed by the Union. He states it "remains the most revolutionary act of any American president." We weren't going back.

He also describes tiny copies of the EP circulated among people still enslaved. Didn't know that.

 

[archieclement]

OK, this is about an elaborate paraphrase of Marvel's essay that I care to make.

I would draw two conclusions:
Grant and the Union army acted in a way that did not insult or unnecessarily humiliate their foes. It is to their credit, but also the policy of the Lincoln administration.

Officers like Chamberlain and John B. Gordon were committed to reconciliation, and their accounts serve that purpose.

I would agree he didn't act in a way to insult or humiliate anyone.....

However that doesn't explain why he made the order at all, as nothing you have presented has mentioned he was worried about insults.......Indeed we have Chamberlain himself saying it was specifically done as a salute.

One can choose to discount a first hand account if they wish citing ulterior motive or whatever else they wish.......In which case the reason is lost to all time.....because you choosing to discount his reasoning, in no way enables you with some psychic ability to tell what was then in someones elses mind......someone else's thoughts certainly arn't "provable" unless they themselves gave them

As far as the lecture claim in legal standards unless recorded by Chamberlain himself its simply hearsay, as anyone can allege "I heard".We do know the reasoning in the most detailed account he gave, which he gave in a written article which had the benefit of being able to make a complete recollection much as Grants Memoirs.

I have no problem with you believing what ever you wish....... however if you wish to discount his account, any possible reasoning of what was in his mind or his thoughts is certainly opinion, and not provable, as its counter to his known provision of the reasoning. Who frankly was the only one privy to his thoughts at the time.

 

[Dead Parrott]

I'd have said the myth was the exact opposite, that the Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves. Ask the average man or woman on the street about it, and that's what they'll tell you. It's certainly what I used to think.

I'd agree. Your average person does not have the depth of historic knowledge to know the subtleties of what the EP did, and did not, do - nor the contemporary political considerations on why that was so.

I do wish more people took more of an interest.

- K.

 

[Cavalry Charger]

That sounds like pretty flimsy evidence.

It wasn't meant to be evidence. It was a comment about a conclusion.

OK, this is about an elaborate paraphrase of Marvel's essay that I care to make.

I would draw two conclusions:
Grant and the Union army acted in a way that did not insult or unnecessarily humiliate their foes. It is to their credit, but also the policy of the Lincoln administration.

Officers like Chamberlain and John B. Gordon were committed to reconciliation, and their accounts serve that purpose.

Thanks for filling that out a little more.

Once again there are question marks around the sharing of rations and where they came from. If the Federals captured Confederate rations then the rations could then be considered to be Federal, so where the rations that were shared came from is still, in my mind, inconclusive. Either way, it was a magnanimous gesture.

The conciliatory tone of the happenings appear to have been spoken of at a much later date according to sources. Were they embellished? Or were they held back due to the nature of feelings at the time? There is also the fact of Lincoln's assassination occurring only days after the ending of the war and a renewed sense of hostility in relation to that.

It seems to me that there is a need to 'disprove' any type of conciliatory action on the day of final surrender. Or recognition. That is something that goes deeper than just wanting to discount a myth of a possible salute at the time. Just my opinion, but that is the feeling I am getting and, if that's the case, it leads me to question why?

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

It wasn't meant to be evidence. It was a comment about a conclusion.

Yes. I meant that your conclusion indicates the evidence about the event is flimsy.