The Virtuous Hero Nominees

[J C J Barefoot]

What is heroism and whom do you nominate?

Much has been written here on leadership, generalship and valor.
I find that most enthusiasts of CW history —be the main focus on technology, strategic planning, slavery, battles, arms, the common soldier, religion or politics of the time have one unifying connection. That is the understanding that the men and women of that period, though human, flawed, and sinful as we moderns, speak to all of us about the virtue of the universal hero. So let us unravel this unifying connection.

First, what exactly do you define as the Civil War virtue of heroism? Second, if you could name only one person living some time during the period 1859 to 1866 that exemplified heroism, whom would you choose? I will reply after others first respond.

 

[35th MA InfRegt]

Not so much a rebuttal as a question. Lee unquestionably showed courage during the Mexican war, so he had that quality in spades, but I am having a hard time thinking of his heroic actions during the ACW. Do you have any specific instances in mind? Or just generally his heroic leadership in the face of long odds? When discussing heroism I don't normally think of commanding officers.

I suppose that a discussion of heroism would turn on how we define heroism. I am apt to think heroism can take different forms. One can certainly demonstrate heroism under fire. The commanding officer who doesn't break under the pressure of command in battle (like Grant at Shiloh) in my opinion, demonstrates a form of moral courage. Whether or not Lee showed similar moral courage is open to debate. For what it is worth, I personally don't see Lee as a heroic figure and nor do I think he demonstrated moral courage in doggedly refusing to surrender for long months after he must have realized defeat was inevitable. Others, I suppose, may believe differently.

 

[JerryD]

I suppose that a discussion of heroism would turn on how we define heroism. I am apt to think heroism can take different forms. One can certainly demonstrate heroism under fire. The commanding officer who doesn't break under the pressure of command in battle (like Grant at Shiloh) in my opinion, demonstrates a form of moral courage. Whether or not Lee showed similar moral courage is open to debate. For what it is worth, I personally don't see Lee as a heroic figure and nor do I think he demonstrated moral courage in doggedly refusing to surrender for long months after he must have realized defeat was inevitable. Others, I suppose, may believe differently.

The OP did ask "what exactly do you define as the Civil War virtue of heroism?", so he is looking for us to define what we consider heroic. At first blush I was thinking of physical heroism, i.e., putting your self preservation at risk for a greater cause, with little regard for your personal safety. But you raise a good point about what you called moral courage, which I think is the courage of your convictions. To have to bear great responsibility and to make decisions that impact the lives of thousands, and be willing to make those decisions and stick with them despite what obstacles may arise. Grant demonstrated this type of courage throughout the war, and I think it was Sherman who said it is what separated him from others. I think it went along the lines that Grant could be awakened at 2 in the morning and told the enemy were attacking and his lines were crushed, and he could take that in stride, assess rationally the situation and make clear decisions and not be swept away by emotions.

Other generals may have also had this moral courage (Hood comes to mind), but few had it and applied it as effectively as Grant did. Hood certainly had moral courage, but his application of it was kind of disastrous.

But I guess the question is, is moral courage the same as heroism? I think they are both virtues, but somewhat different and still go back to the idea that heroism is very specifically about physical danger.

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

Not so much a rebuttal as a question.

I appreciate the question.

Lee unquestionably showed courage during the Mexican war, so he had that quality in spades, but I am having a hard time thinking of his heroic actions during the ACW.

Understood.

Do you have any specific instances in mind?

No.

Or just generally his heroic leadership in the face of long odds?

That's more or less it. Similar to MacArthur being awarded the Medal of Honor in WWII. Maybe that's not a good comparison and I need to revise my thinking, but that's the sort of thing I was thinking of.

When discussing heroism I don't normally think of commanding officers.

Understood, and agree up to a point. The other side of the coin is a belief that to whom much is given, much is expected, and that commanders are expected to display courage both moral and physical on a different level than enlisted. It's more of a big picture or totality of circumstances viewpoint instead of looking at an individual act of valor performed in the heat of battle.

Before Grant advocated for him, I suspect Lee expected to be prosecuted and imprisoned if not hanged. And had that been the case, does anyone here really believe he would not have faced it in a dignified manner without complaint?

I know not all will agree. That's fine. It's the way I've always felt, but it's not a position I would argue passionately about either.

 

[Library Lady]

What is heroism and whom do you nominate?

This is a thought-provoking question. At this point, I don't feel comfortable answering it, although I am giving it consideration. My problem is that one person's virtuous hero can easily be another person's terrorist or one person's virtuous hero can easily be another person's mutineer (for lack of a better word). I do have someone in mind for the category of virtuous hero as I understand it, but he is from another war and another time and it would not be appropriate to post that here.

 

[Pollaco]

Hood was "not that good"of a General but he stayed when he easily could have gone home for medical reasons.The fact that he stayed is what makes him a hero.

 

[JerryD]

I appreciate the question.



Understood.



No.



That's more or less it. Similar to MacArthur being awarded the Medal of Honor in WWII. Maybe that's not a good comparison and I need to revise my thinking, but that's the sort of thing I was thinking of.



Understood, and agree up to a point. The other side of the coin is a belief that to whom much is given, much is expected, and that commanders are expected to display courage both moral and physical on a different level than enlisted. It's more of a big picture or totality of circumstances viewpoint instead of looking at an individual act of valor performed in the heat of battle.

Before Grant advocated for him, I suspect Lee expected to be prosecuted and imprisoned if not hanged. And had that been the case, does anyone here really believe he would not have faced it in a dignified manner without complaint?

I know not all will agree. That's fine. It's the way I've always felt, but it's not a position I would argue passionately about either.

I get it. And different folks will have a different take on what is heroic. In another post I discuss whether courage is the same as heroic. I tend to think that they are similar, but still different virtues. But to each there own and far be it from me to quibble over what one thinks of as heroic. Its not a term subject to an exact understanding. At least not IMO.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

If I can nominate one more, with an emphasis on virtue, Richard Kirkland, the Angel of Marye's Heights for his action to risk his life to bring water to wounded US troops at Fredericksburg.

Re virtue, maybe. But need to distinguish a single virtuous action episode from leading a virtuous life. (Did Kirkland display similar virtuous behavior elsewhere?). Thought that's what the question posed in the OP was getting at, at least over the course of the CW period.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Lee's demerit-free years at West Point doesn't necessarily indicate virtuous behavior as such, but could also be interpreted as a willingness to favourably impress his superiors by strict or even fanatical adherence to the rules no matter how inane or irrelevant to his future success in the Army.

Fair possibility (that he might have behaved as a so-called Goody-Two shoes while there). Or possibly Lee chose to lead a virtuous life (demerit free) while at West Point. (Socrates refers to a virtuous person being one who chooses the right good life).

Similarly. In his post West Point behavior, could one seriously question Lee's integrity and virtue. Sure, he made some bad judgements tactically on the CW battlefield, but that's different.

 

[SWS]

In terms of moral courage:

Albert Sidney Johnston's decision to attempt the offensive at Shiloh in spite of logistical delays and fears (from the army's second-in-command no less) that the Union had fortified. He also displayed great physical courage in attempting to exercise tactical direction from the front (as well as in the 1857 march to Fort Bridger), and to lead a charge of Breckinridge's reluctant troops, which proved a fatal decision.

John Bell Hood at Atlanta, though his ability to demonstrate physical courage had diminished significantly with each disabling wound. "Poor Sam," Buck Preston called him when she learned of the circumstances surrounding his appointment to army command. The chief hopes of a fledgling nation (and the destiny of an older one) quite literally became fastened on his shoulders for a period. A freshman corps commander, just turned 33 (the 'crucifixion age,' Shelby Foote observed), and physically-disabled on top of that, was now expected to settle himself into a most unfamiliar and vital administrative (for which he displayed little prior aptitude, and found himself preferring to emulate Lee's 'general-in-chief' style) and strategic role in the midst of an active campaign's most critical phase and devise and execute decisive solutions to the Confederate problem. Namely, he was expected to actively fight an enemy in possession of "all the advantages of position, numbers, materiel, and morale; and further, the command structure he inherited from General Joseph Johnston was weak". To compound Hood's predicament, some of the army's most experienced officers, such as Gens. William Mackall and Hardee, had no love for him, and would sooner resign their posts than endure long service under him. The corps commanders he could ostensibly rely upon were even more inexperienced than he. And yet he did not shrink or collapse from the "grave duties" suddenly imposed upon himself by Richmond, and instead, as the English historian Alfred H. Burne asserted, attempted a "sound -- even brilliant" program for the defense of Atlanta (outside of sending-off Wheeler), being "fully aware of the disadvantages of assaulting a fortified foe. Hood in all three of his attack plans attempted through tactical maneuver to strike an inferior force either out of their works or in their flank and rear". In terms of conception and partly in execution, Burne thought "it would be difficult to find, in the history of any campaign, a more dazzling series of blows" than the ones Hood planned for Peach-Tree Creek, Bald Hill, and Ezra Church. Alas, especially in war, the best laid schemes of mice and men "gang aft agley," and especially for an army such as that of Tennessee.

 

[JeffBrooks]

George Thomas.

When so many of his fellow Southern officers were making the decision to side with the South, he had the moral courage to stay true to the oath he had sworn at West Point to defend the Constitution and remained on the side of the Union. He did this knowing that it would cost him the love and respect of his friends and family, that his chances of glory and promotion probably would have been better had he thrown in with the Confederacy (the North was always going to be suspicious of his Southern origins), and that he would be reviled forever as a Benedict Arnold if the South won.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Hood was "not that good"of a General but he stayed when he easily could have gone home for medical reasons.The fact that he stayed is what makes him a hero.

If referring to Hood's period of command after he suffered the two serious limb injuries, then thought it might be controversial to label him as a hero.

No doubting his physical resilience, endurance and determination, as well as his dedication to the cause, as misguided as it may have been, but personally don't believe his conduct during this time constituted my understanding of heroism (i.e. showing outstanding bravery/courage by selflessly risking one's life to save others in dangerous circumstances). IMO.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

George Thomas.

And would certainly regard him as stoic.

Recalled reading that his sisters never spoke to him again, after he made his decision to fight for the Union.

 

[Sgt. Tyree]

George Thomas.

When so many of his fellow Southern officers were making the decision to side with the South, he had the moral courage to stay true to the oath he had sworn at West Point to defend the Constitution and remained on the side of the Union. He did this knowing that it would cost him the love and respect of his friends and family, that his chances of glory and promotion probably would have been better had he thrown in with the Confederacy (the North was always going to be suspicious of his Southern origins), and that he would be reviled forever as a Benedict Arnold if the South won.

In many ways, you described Philip St. George Cooke.

 

[MDcivilwarbuff]

Since others have multiple nominees, I'm going to add Joshua Chamberlain. The doggedness and courage that he showed at Gettysburg was replicated after the war in Maine where he was governor and stood down a hostile political crowd.

I also think his determination not to let his men see him fall at Petersburg is very valorous and heroic. With that being said I think Little Round Top remains his most iconic act of valor at least during the war.

 

[MDcivilwarbuff]

George Thomas.

When so many of his fellow Southern officers were making the decision to side with the South, he had the moral courage to stay true to the oath he had sworn at West Point to defend the Constitution and remained on the side of the Union. He did this knowing that it would cost him the love and respect of his friends and family, that his chances of glory and promotion probably would have been better had he thrown in with the Confederacy (the North was always going to be suspicious of his Southern origins), and that he would be reviled forever as a Benedict Arnold if the South won.

It only cost him the love of his biological family though. Thomas's wife's family took him under their wing and treated him as their own, he even helped Frances raise her nephew Sanford who'd later serve with him during the war.

Thomas famously didn't take a single day of leave during the war, this had somewhat to do with Grant's distrust of him on account of his southern heritage. The more I learn about Thomas the more I wonder what could've been if he'd been trusted more implicitly rather than his loyalty constantly being questioned.

 

[gary]

E. Porter Alexander - while out west he was warned that the Confederacy would failed, that the resources of the North was too great and the manpower overwhelming, but he had to give it a try anyway.

 

[J C J Barefoot]

What is heroism and whom do you nominate?

Much has been written here on leadership, generalship and valor.
I find that most enthusiasts of CW history —be the main focus on technology, strategic planning, slavery, battles, arms, the common soldier, religion or politics of the time have one unifying connection. That is the understanding that the men and women of that period, though human, flawed, and sinful as we moderns, speak to all of us about the virtue of the universal hero. So let us unravel this unifying connection.

First, what exactly do you define as the Civil War virtue of heroism? Second, if you could name only one person living some time during the period 1859 to 1866 that exemplified heroism, whom would you choose? I will reply after others first respond.

Great response all!


The classic cardinal virtues presented in Plato's Republic, expanded by Aristotle embedded in The Old Testament, and cemented in the New have are the foundation virtues of western civilization: Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Fortitude.
To be the virtuous civil war hero my nominee must possess these four cardinal virtues.

The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause.

This is the virtue most abundant among civil war actors. Yes, we run into a big debate about the defense of "a just cause" on each side. But it's safe to say all the nominees would have fortitude.

Most of the potential nominees were also prudent-exhibiting reasoned judgment to chose the good in their decisions. So Lee and Grant for example are equally and masterfully prudent.

Temperance in control of natural appetites is also present in most. Exception for Winfield Scott Hancock noted!

Justice becomes the virtue that screens out many of my nominees. Why? Because religion is actually a sub virtue of Justice where by one gives to God and his neighbor that which is due him. Justice demands keeping oaths to God and promises to our neighbor. This is why people keep vows and honor contracts. Just men and women do this. For this reason Lee and Longstreet , for example though possessing in strength the other three virtues, were deficient in the virtue of Justice where Thomas and Farragut were both faced with the same moral challenge responded the opposite. All these men took an oath to God defend the United States Constitution and the obey the Orders of The President of the United States( Commander in Chief) and in this oath they also were protecting their neighbor (fellow citizens). So my nominee would possesses the virtue of justice as well as the other three.

Heroism comes in multiple forms. That's why the OP question is open ended - to see where we we come in on it. Many here see it tide to physical courage and the acceptance of risk. That would be the "classical hero" - as some say Sidney Johnson, Hood, Howard, or Hancock.

My nominee for the Civil War hero falls into the Epic Hero class. That person that possesses exceptional talents and uses them in a grand epic achievement for his people, land and nation. I pick the Epic Hero model for the civil war precisely because it was and remains the crucial turning point for the nation and for representative freedom itself. The war was an Epic moral crisis.

As I thought through the virtuous epic hero my list started large but got narrowed down to Chamberlain and Lincoln. Chamberlain because he was not formally trained in the military and was a true citizen-soldier. His pre-war life was lived in exemplary Christian reflection of the four cardinal virtues. He enters the war with the virtues possessed. He became the Epic Hero through his skill and fighting , wounds, medal of honor and nearly died for the cause and nation.
But finally my nominee had to be Lincoln. His powers of fortitude were almost unbelievable given the personal suffering he endured. Most of his life was filled with sorrow. He was Just in his role as President and he grew in that virtue as the war progressed, ultimately coming to a more just personal understanding of the moral issue of slavery and freedom and having the courage to change the meaning of the war in 1862. He also matured and grew richly in his understanding of the virtue of religion in his relation to "Almighty God" as shown in the second inaugural address. Finally, it is the virtue of prudence where he shines most, as his political, legal and executive skills were simply remarkable. His prudence and political skills held together the Union and set the tone for re-Union.

And what for the Hero? He became the complete Epic Hero in April of 1865. For then he displayed charity and mercy to the defeated foe on Palm Sunday. One week later on God Friday his life was taken by one of the committed enemies whom he had already forgiven. For then truly, "he belonged to the ages" . No one could make up an epic ending to a story with this timing. His death was the death of an Epic Hero who had exhausted all his skills, talents and his blood for the just cause.

 

[archieclement]

Great response all!


The classic cardinal virtues presented in Plato's Republic, expanded by Aristotle embedded in The Old Testament, and cemented in the New have are the foundation virtues of western civilization: Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Fortitude.
To be the virtuous civil war hero my nominee must possess these four cardinal virtues.

The virtue of fortitude enables one to conquer fear, even fear of death, and to face trials and persecutions. It disposes one even to renounce and sacrifice his life in defense of a just cause.

This is the virtue most abundant among civil war actors. Yes, we run into a big debate about the defense of "a just cause" on each side. But it's safe to say all the nominees would have fortitude.

Most of the potential nominees were also prudent-exhibiting reasoned judgment to chose the good in their decisions. So Lee and Grant for example are equally and masterfully prudent.

Temperance in control of natural appetites is also present in most. Exception for Winfield Scott Hancock noted!

Justice becomes the virtue that screens out many of my nominees. Why? Because religion is actually a sub virtue of Justice where by one gives to God and his neighbor that which is due him. Justice demands keeping oaths to God and promises to our neighbor. This is why people keep vows and honor contracts. Just men and women do this. For this reason Lee and Longstreet , for example though possessing in strength the other three virtues, were deficient in the virtue of Justice where Thomas and Farragut were both faced with the same moral challenge responded the opposite. All these men took an oath to God defend the United States Constitution and the obey the Orders of The President of the United States( Commander in Chief) and in this oath they also were protecting their neighbor (fellow citizens). So my nominee would possesses the virtue of justice as well as the other three.

Heroism comes in multiple forms. That's why the OP question is open ended - to see where we we come in on it. Many here see it tide to physical courage and the acceptance of risk. That would be the "classical hero" - as some say Sidney Johnson, Hood, Howard, or Hancock.

My nominee for the Civil War hero falls into the Epic Hero class. That person that possesses exceptional talents and uses them in a grand epic achievement for his people, land and nation. I pick the Epic Hero model for the civil war precisely because it was and remains the crucial turning point for the nation and for representative freedom itself. The war was an Epic moral crisis.

As I thought through the virtuous epic hero my list started large but got narrowed down to Chamberlain and Lincoln. Chamberlain because he was not formally trained in the military and was a true citizen-soldier. His pre-war life was lived in exemplary Christian reflection of the four cardinal virtues. He enters the war with the virtues possessed. He became the Epic Hero through his skill and fighting , wounds, medal of honor and nearly died for the cause and nation.
But finally my nominee had to be Lincoln. His powers of fortitude were almost unbelievable given the personal suffering he endured. Most of his life was filled with sorrow. He was Just in his role as President and he grew in that virtue as the war progressed, ultimately coming to a more just personal understanding of the moral issue of slavery and freedom and having the courage to change the meaning of the war in 1862. He also matured and grew richly in his understanding of the virtue of religion in his relation to "Almighty God" as shown in the second inaugural address. Finally, it is the virtue of prudence where he shines most, as his political, legal and executive skills were simply remarkable. His prudence and political skills held together the Union and set the tone for re-Union.

And what for the Hero? He became the complete Epic Hero in April of 1865. For then he displayed charity and mercy to the defeated foe on Palm Sunday. One week later on God Friday his life was taken by one of the committed enemies whom he had already forgiven. For then truly, "he belonged to the ages" . No one could make up an epic ending to a story with this timing. His death was the death of an Epic Hero who had exhausted all his skills, talents and his blood for the just cause.

I tend to agree Lincoln. He never lost sight of all were Americans. Would put up March 4th 1865 "with malice for none and charity for all" as far as virtuous act, example and speech.

Perhaps as well Johnson for largely continuing Lincolns vision after his death against Radical opposition.

 

[7th Texas Mounted Rifles]

Captain Alexander McRae.

KIA at Valverde, 21 FEB 1862.

 

[Fairfield]

E. Porter Alexander - while out west he was warned that the Confederacy would failed, that the resources of the North was too great and the manpower overwhelming, but he had to give it a try anyway.

But he was mean to dogs.