David Donald, Why the North Won (1962)
Beringer, ed., Why the South Lost (1993)
Gary Gallagher, The Confederate War (1999)
Armstead Robinson, Bitter Fruit of Bondage: the Demise of Slavery and the Collapse of the Confederacy (2004)

For your entertainment and review:

http://civilwaranimated.com/

Yellow fever declined dramatically during the war because of the U.S. blockade and the army's sanitation efforts in occupied cities. Because the military could order all ships to remain in quarantine (however loudly the local merchants and shippers complained of delays) the yellow fever was generally contained before it reached the docks. This was all to the dismay of those who had anticipated with some glee that the fever would wipe out the un-fever-seasoned Yankee occupiers. The U.S. returned the favor in several instances by attempting to ship fever-tainted blankets, etc., into Confederate encampments (and they vice-versa). Germ warfare is not a 20th c. invention.

Transcript of HST49 Study Session.

Lloyd Benson has joined the chat.
Phillip Garrott has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[8:00:03 PM]: Hi Phillip!
Phillip Garrott[8:00:07 PM]: Hello!
Lloyd Benson[8:00:38 PM]: Hang on while some others check in.
Ben Delahoyde has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[8:00:51 PM]: Hi Ben!
Ben Delahoyde[8:00:55 PM]: hello
Ben Delahoyde[8:00:57 PM]: how are you
Phillip Garrott[8:01:04 PM]: A group of us are in the classroom watching the conversation on the projector.
Virginia Cain has joined the chat.
Ben Delahoyde[8:01:15 PM]: creative.
Virginia Cain[8:01:17 PM]: Hi Dr. Benson!
Virginia Cain[8:01:19 PM]: Mcphee
Virginia Cain[8:01:28 PM]: Doug and Ashley and I are together with Phil
Lloyd Benson[8:01:32 PM]: Interesting projector idea.
Virginia Cain[8:01:46 PM]: :]
Lloyd Benson[8:02:08 PM]: Doing well here. How is everyone.
Phillip Garrott[8:02:26 PM]: Great!
Ben Delahoyde[8:02:29 PM]: good
Lloyd Benson[8:03:12 PM]: Good to hear. Thanks for your virtual participation. Eleanor the 2 year old says thanks too!
Virginia Cain[8:03:13 PM]: we're doing amazingly cool
Virginia Cain[8:03:25 PM]: HI ELEANOR!!!!!
Lloyd Benson[8:03:26 PM]: :-)
Virginia Cain[8:03:29 PM]: how are you?
Lloyd Benson[8:03:50 PM]: Can't complain. Better than picket duty at Fredericksburg.
Virginia Cain[8:03:58 PM]: amen!
Virginia Cain[8:04:29 PM]: we were at ann coulter, and someone is running for the Constitution party! we thought of this class :]
Lloyd Benson[8:04:54 PM]: Let's jump in. Format: Same as before, structure-wise, with 35ish short answers, a paragraph essay, and a take-home.
Phillip Garrott[8:05:16 PM]: is it open book? :)
Lloyd Benson[8:05:22 PM]: Take-home is choice of two out of three, as before.
Ben Delahoyde[8:05:58 PM]: what sort of things should we be looking to discuss in the one paragraph essay?
Lloyd Benson[8:06:30 PM]: Restricted open book, same rules as before. You can use your notes, the assigned readings, any documents or articles from the syllabus that have been specifically assigned, and anything on the course workspace.
Lloyd Benson[8:06:37 PM]: Hang on, logging in someone.
David Hottel has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[8:07:08 PM]: Hi David!
David Hottel[8:07:14 PM]: hey
Lloyd Benson[8:07:18 PM]: We're just getting started.
David Hottel[8:07:22 PM]: good
Lloyd Benson[8:07:48 PM]: The one paragraph essay will be somewhat like before.
David Hottel[8:08:04 PM]: so it will be like a reflection type essay
Virginia Cain[8:08:17 PM]: when exactly did pope replace mcclellan
Lloyd Benson[8:08:23 PM]: Yes, a reflection essay.
Lloyd Benson[8:09:22 PM]: Hard to be exact about the Pope replaced McClellan question -- see the Sutherland article for specifics.
Lloyd Benson[8:10:00 PM]: McClellan still continued to have nominal command on the peninsula well into the summer, but Lincoln pulled more and more units from him as time went on.
Virginia Cain[8:10:09 PM]: we have gone through that article, and it's still pretty unclear . . . do we need to know specifically?
Lloyd Benson[8:11:20 PM]: (Fact-checking)
Lloyd Benson[8:12:00 PM]: Pope was transferred east in late June and began building his army even before the Peninsula debacle.
Virginia Cain[8:12:25 PM]: so he controlled a totally different army always, or he took over for mcclellan?
Lloyd Benson[8:13:23 PM]: He took over several of the "armies" in Northern Virginia, including commands led against Jackson in the Valley campaign by Fremont, Banks, and Shields.
Lloyd Benson[8:13:41 PM]: And then had elements of McClellan's army added to his.
Lloyd Benson[8:14:20 PM]: The command was technically called the "Army of Virginia" but is always treated in textbook accounts as essentially the Army of the Potomac.
Lloyd Benson[8:15:51 PM]: (More fact-checking....)
David Hottel[8:16:10 PM]: so about McClellan.... He was replaced right after the 7 days battles or what? Im still trying to find some good info about those battles and I was wondering what happened because wasn't McClellan knocking at Richmonds door by this point
David Hottel[8:16:57 PM]: Hey virginia was Ft. Sumpter April 12 or was it a day sooner....
David Hottel[8:17:59 PM]: the confederates arrived there on the 10th I think but i don't know what the official dates for the conflict are
Lloyd Benson[8:17:59 PM]: (Last Pope comment) Pope's army was made up of the 1st, 2d, 3d, 5th, and 9th corps. (I'll not be asking you this on the test)
Virginia Cain[8:18:28 PM]: april 12, far as i know
Phillip Garrott[8:18:32 PM]: it was april 12th, at 4:30 am. according to wikipedia,
Phillip Garrott[8:18:35 PM]: )
Lloyd Benson[8:18:37 PM]: McClellan remained as a general without an army for quite some time on the peninsula.
Lloyd Benson[8:19:17 PM]: April 12 will do more than accurately enough.
David Hottel[8:19:39 PM]: So McClellan was floating around without any specific orders?
Lloyd Benson[8:19:49 PM]: For most of the battles I will ask no more precisely than a month and a year.
Lloyd Benson[8:20:15 PM]: But I might also ask about related battles in the same month or span of time.
David Hottel[8:20:23 PM]: okay good cause i dont have some of the dates for a few battles
Virginia Cain[8:20:25 PM]: 2nd Manassas - why was it so important as a battle in the Northern Virginia campaign
Lloyd Benson[8:21:19 PM]: He remained stationed at Harrison's Landing in Virginia, (technically threatening Richmond) well into the summer.
Lloyd Benson[8:21:33 PM]: (More fact-checking)
David Hottel[8:22:04 PM]: Okay so he never made an attempt at Richmond?
Virginia Cain[8:22:07 PM]: Wilson's Creek - is the important thing that the Confederates were too disorganized and ill-equipped to pursue?
David Hottel[8:23:05 PM]: Thats what I think they were completely exhausted and had many casualties
Lloyd Benson[8:23:24 PM]: 2d Manassas is a way-station to Antietam. Its consequences were (a) yet one more defeat for the U.S. armies in the east, (2) Pope got reassigned -- this time to the Sioux wars in Minnesota (long story) and (3) both armies suffered heavy casualties, esp. the V corps which was so used up that McClellan put it into reserve at Antietam.
Phillip Garrott[8:23:29 PM]: Do we need to know full names, or can we simply know important personas such as A.P. Hill by their more commonly referred to initials?
David Hottel[8:24:00 PM]: about 2nd manasas.... what was the month for that?
David Hottel[8:24:13 PM]: Are you blue for a reason Phil
Lloyd Benson[8:24:25 PM]: Fact confirmation: Mc. remained on the Peninsula until Aug. 3. (You won't be asked this.)
David Hottel[8:24:34 PM]: okay... thanks
Lloyd Benson[8:24:52 PM]: Last names are sufficient.
Lloyd Benson[8:26:13 PM]: Ambrose Powell, in case you're wondering. One of his ancestors, Ambrose Booton, and mine, are the same. AP Hill lived in the Culpeper area, and the Bootons moved across the mountain to Luray.
Virginia Cain[8:26:37 PM]: Emily Franda is here with us now too :]
Lloyd Benson[8:28:06 PM]: August 1862, for 2d Manassas. Note the relationship to changing US military policy, too, including the 2d Confiscation Act, the Militia Act, and the (not yet publicly announced) emancipation proclamation, as well as Lincoln's Greeley letter "save the union without freeing the slaves," etc.
Lloyd Benson[8:28:14 PM]: Hi Emily!
David Hottel[8:28:21 PM]: So as far as our debates on the workspace... will we just need to be clear on what the authors' ideas were from the different assigned readings?
Virginia Cain[8:28:26 PM]: ashley wants to know if we can visit luray caverns and meet your family?
Virginia Cain[8:28:33 PM]: haha
Lloyd Benson[8:29:58 PM]: As far as the virtual debates, your responsibility is to the historians and articles alone, and not to the participant postings. These latter may help you to understand the articles better, however.
David Hottel[8:30:18 PM]: okay i figured...
Lloyd Benson[8:30:43 PM]: Various relatives are indeed buried in Luray, and some in Winchester (but that's a different war.)
Lloyd Benson[8:32:41 PM]: For you Texans in the crowd, I'll just note that this is more or less a period of stalemate, with a U.S. blockade of Galveston and some ambitions to advance into the state but not much change of condition.
Lloyd Benson[8:33:34 PM]: And without the aesthetics of bloody pitched battles, something important (no advance into Texas) hardly goes noticed in the textbooks, (or on 2d midterms in HST-49)
Lloyd Benson[8:34:27 PM]: Any questions about emancipation policy?
Phillip Garrott[8:34:27 PM]: Emily and I think we should focus more on Texas. Like the entire class.... :)
Virginia Cain[8:34:55 PM]: Wilson's Creek - is the important thing that the Confederates were too disorganized and ill-equipped to pursue?
David Hottel[8:35:04 PM]: Im a little confused with compensated emancipation.... is that the preliminary proposal to his official proclamation on jan 1st 1863
Phillip Garrott[8:35:04 PM]: McPhee wants to know if Yellow Fever affected the war in certain ways.
Lloyd Benson[8:35:48 PM]: Alas, lacking any Pickett's charges and other romantic thrills, Texas just gets its history in other moments. Remember the Alamo. And all those John Wayne movies.
David Hottel[8:36:07 PM]: lol
Lloyd Benson[8:36:30 PM]: Wilson's Creek. Look closely at the battle accounts provided on the syllabus and on the ABPP descriptions. Everybody lost.
David Hottel[8:37:30 PM]: yes but the confederates held the field.... important for their pride at least.... wouldn't you agree? Or were the losses too great to take any pride out of that battle?
Lloyd Benson[8:37:34 PM]: Confederates carried the day at Wilson's Creek, and controversial commander (U.S.) Nathaniel Lyons was killed, but the CSA could not advance further into the state.
Virginia Cain[8:37:46 PM]: right. we've made three different sets of battle reviews to focus on different aspects. but as far as importance goes . . . the union loses, but the confederacy doesn't take missouri. is it because of the aforementioned reasons
Virginia Cain[8:38:11 PM]: ohhh okay
Lloyd Benson[8:38:35 PM]: This left Missouri contested ground -- something like an Iraq of the Civil War, where large areas were pacific and under military control, and other areas devolved into guerilla war, community feuds, or worse.
Lloyd Benson[8:39:38 PM]: Why this matters, especially, is that John C. Fremont came in and started tossing around martial law declarations and calling for the emancipation of Missouri slaves -- until Lincoln rapped his knuckles.
David Hottel[8:39:42 PM]: but these were isolated incidents right? They weren't significantly close to any other battles or conflicts
Virginia Cain[8:39:59 PM]: david, why is your type so small?
David Hottel[8:40:03 PM]: i dont know
David Hottel[8:40:17 PM]: there we go
Lloyd Benson[8:40:17 PM]: (See the assigned documents in this regard. -- something of an odd turn for a nominally antislavery Lincoln -- see Burton on this issue, too.)
David Hottel[8:40:59 PM]: i might go gray for a little southern support since phil is apparently union blue
Phillip Garrott[8:41:54 PM]: Okay....if you had to give us one topic, area of focus, person, place, battlefield, etc to focus on most, what would you say? (Answer of "the entire course" does not apply, haha.)
Lloyd Benson[8:42:01 PM]: Missouri, then, represents something of an opposite analytical problem from Texas -- it's just too messy, and too opaque, and there are fewer easily described movements of blue and gray lumps on the map.
Ben Delahoyde has left the chat.

David Hottel[8:42:55 PM]: my group was talking about how Ayers might have a bias being that he is a proffessor at Virginia and that he is from Tenneessee.... He seemed to have a litttle bias in favor of the south
David Hottel[8:44:04 PM]: Or at least he mentioned battles from the augusta perspective a few more times than he did from the franklin perspective
Lloyd Benson[8:44:27 PM]: !st Manassas, Wilson's Creek, Henry and Donelson, Shiloh, Valley Campaign (general facts and significance, not specific stages, units or battles) Peninsula/Seven Days, Antietam, Perryville, Fredericksburg.
Virginia Cain[8:44:48 PM]: YaY! thank you!!!
David Hottel[8:44:53 PM]: thats awsome
Lloyd Benson[8:45:00 PM]: Interesting Ayers bias question. What do people think?
David Hottel[8:45:11 PM]: phil was in my group today
David Hottel[8:45:46 PM]: im suprised that so few people are in here.... this is way beneficial!
Virginia Cain[8:45:59 PM]: everyone has a bias . . .
Lloyd Benson[8:46:04 PM]: It might be useful for you to come up with your own justifications of why the battles I listed might be more consequential than some I did not (Pea Ridge, for ex.).
Virginia Cain[8:46:27 PM]: maybe there were more documents from augusta. but i'm not sure that i agree with that at all. no one here does either.
Lloyd Benson[8:46:33 PM]: Would viewpoint be more charitable than bias?
David Hottel[8:46:59 PM]: yes.... sometimes i have a very limited vocabulary....
Virginia Cain[8:47:01 PM]: these opinions don't necessarily represent the views of virginia cain because this is mcphee
Megan Colvin has joined the chat.
Lloyd Benson[8:47:16 PM]: Hi Megan, welcome in!
Megan Colvin[8:47:33 PM]: Thanks, sorry I just got home from work.
David Hottel[8:47:44 PM]: better late than never....
Virginia Cain[8:47:49 PM]: ...
Lloyd Benson[8:47:50 PM]: Glad to have you present.
Virginia Cain[8:48:06 PM]: so here's the deal I don't feel that Ayers represents one side over the other because he clearly understands the importance
Phillip Garrott[8:48:49 PM]: I am very interested in the biases (viewpoints) of people, because the discussion that we had today focusing on perspective as reality I think is very true. I think it is similar to the discussion that we had of how the perspective of doris kearns goodwin has shaped her opinion of Lincoln. As a professor from virginia, I think that he would be more inclined to have delve into augusta county and take more time to demonstrate the complexities of that county.
Virginia Cain[8:49:23 PM]: of both sides I think that this is the point of the book. More importantly he juxtaposes the two sides to show how things of small towns on both sides operated.
Lloyd Benson[8:49:44 PM]: For Ayers, a central goal of the book and the Valley archive is to present a multiplicity of voices, show their evolution and their paradox, and to explain how "deep contingency" emerged from the contest of different voices as they responded to a range of competing events and motives.
David Hottel[8:50:33 PM]: what was the outcome of the xeven days battles
David Hottel[8:50:55 PM]: and significance... other than McClellan's replacement
Lloyd Benson[8:50:59 PM]: The archive itself is quite even-handed. Ayers and his project associates scoured every available repository to locate every extant document from both places.
Virginia Cain[8:51:09 PM]: virginia back - david, there's a link to official battle records on the front page of the course website
Virginia Cain[8:51:18 PM]: it's REALLY helpful for basic questions
Virginia Cain[8:51:25 PM]: :]
David Hottel[8:51:29 PM]: oh.... thanks.... sometimes i miss the obvious
Virginia Cain[8:51:57 PM]: no problem - i just know that we used them really heavily when studying!
Lloyd Benson[8:52:43 PM]: The 7 Days had several important outcomes, among which I would list (a) For many soldiers and units on both sides, this was their first pitched campaign, their first real exposure to combat (b) this combat was ferocious, chaotic, and nothing like their preconceptions of what battle might be like.
David Hottel[8:53:23 PM]: is the 7 days battles like malvern hill and gaines' hill
David Hottel[8:53:45 PM]: there isn't like a link that IS the seven days battles
Virginia Cain[8:54:03 PM]: yes! those are part of the seven days' battles h00ray
David Hottel[8:54:10 PM]: lol thanks
Lloyd Benson[8:55:16 PM]: (c) it proved both Lee's ability as a commander and his propensity for aggressive full-frontal assaults (ie Malvern Hill) (d) it delegitimized (sp) McClellan. (e) it chewed up the V corps (many Pennsylvanians) but did so fairly early before the Fall elections. (f) it decreased U.S. morale and increaed U.S. desertions, but did exactly the opposite for the CSA, reversing what had been the Spring crisis of the Confederacy, with all the nationalizing policies appertaining thereto.
David Hottel[8:55:56 PM]: thanks... very helpful
Lloyd Benson[8:56:04 PM]: See the (now operational) map of the seven days, on the schedule pages.
David Hottel[8:56:12 PM]: thanks
Lloyd Benson[8:57:57 PM]: The components include oak Grove, Mechanicsville (1st Cold Harbor) Gaines Mills, Savage Station, Glendale, and Malvern Hill. If you know these details, super, if not, know the starting and ending dates.
David Hottel[8:58:20 PM]: okay good
Lloyd Benson[8:59:26 PM]: For the Peninsula/7 days, and more generally, having command of the associated primary documents will also be useful.
Virginia Cain[9:00:19 PM]: are the primary documents just the maps? i'm not sure of which ones you're speaking
Lloyd Benson[9:00:39 PM]: For all of these, the basic concepts are (a) who wrote/created the document? (b) in a sentence, what is the basic idea of the document, and what is the creator trying to accomplish? (c) was it successful in its intent, and (d) how does it compare to other related docs.
Lloyd Benson[9:01:18 PM]: I'm referring strictly to documents that are assigned in the syllabus, but am not expecting to ask map-specific questions.
Virginia Cain[9:01:42 PM]: okay. nevermind. i had them grouped differently. sorry!
Lloyd Benson[9:02:00 PM]: Does that clarify which are in and which are out?
Virginia Cain[9:02:11 PM]: Yessir!
Megan Colvin[9:03:12 PM]: Where does the material start for this test that we need to make sure we have covered? Bull Run?
Lloyd Benson[9:03:17 PM]: It's officially 9:00, but I'm willing to go for another 10 minutes or so to clear up anything in your notes that needs attention, or anything else. Last round, in other words.
David Hottel[9:03:38 PM]: Im good thanks for this... it was a real help
Lloyd Benson[9:03:39 PM]: After Sumter, including the raising of troops.
Lloyd Benson[9:04:22 PM]: And I would add the whole "what is the war about" question.
Virginia Cain[9:04:37 PM]: Thank you *very* much Dr. Benson!!! We hope your wife and daughter are doing much better :]
Virginia Cain[9:05:09 PM]: mcphee: would you say the civil war was, or was not important?
Virginia Cain[9:05:12 PM]: ;-P
Virginia Cain[9:05:23 PM]: j/k
Lloyd Benson[9:05:33 PM]: I am very fortunate, wife and daughter-wise
Virginia Cain[9:06:06 PM]: we're glad!
Lloyd Benson[9:06:21 PM]: Compared to the wheel, or the invention of coal-powered steam engines, perhaps the ACW was of secondary importance.....
Virginia Cain[9:06:32 PM]: hahahahaha
Megan Colvin[9:06:37 PM]: Yesterday it was said that Ghalleger (sp) gave two reasons for why Antietam was not really a defeat one was that there were many US soldiers captured and the other was about Lee but I didn't catch it. Can you explain that please.
Lloyd Benson[9:07:20 PM]: But if it came to your town it would be a life-defining experience, and it's role in setting the national political agenda, national identity, and other things Americans have been grappling with ever since, quite significant.
Virginia Cain[9:08:09 PM]: mcphee: agreed!
Lloyd Benson[9:08:36 PM]: Lee, by staying around on Sept. 18 and allowing his soldiers to bury their dead, despite the eminent dangers of doing so with a flooding river at their back and a powerful enemy at their front, earned their everlasting respect.
Megan Colvin[9:09:28 PM]: That's right, thanks.
Lloyd Benson[9:10:16 PM]: Gallagher suggests (contra McPherson) that Antietam (er Sharpsburg, in CSA context) actually helped create cohesion, loyalty, and fighting spirit in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, rather than crippling its capacities (which McPherson claims it did.)
Lloyd Benson[9:11:00 PM]: In other words, A/S helped extend the war, not shorten it or undermine the CSA.
Lloyd Benson[9:11:33 PM]: (Which is what McPherson claims when he calls Antietam the war's watershed or turning point event.)
Lloyd Benson[9:11:42 PM]: One last question?
Megan Colvin[9:12:02 PM]: I'm good.
Lloyd Benson[9:12:27 PM]: Good luck, everyone!
Virginia Cain[9:12:34 PM]: thank you!
Megan Colvin[9:12:41 PM]: Thanks Dr. Benson, I really appreciate you taking the time to do this.
Lloyd Benson[9:13:04 PM]: Glad to do it.
Lloyd Benson[9:13:25 PM]: See you all in the morning. Try to get some sleep.
Virginia Cain[9:13:41 PM]: YOU TOO
Virginia Cain[9:13:55 PM]: :]
Lloyd Benson[9:14:11 PM]: Bye, all!

The emotional recount of Sam Watkins experience in the civil war with the First Tennessee in addition to Keegan’s explanation on the process of historiography shed light a simple fact that can have profound consequence in the process of historical interpretation, and that is there is quite a difference between history and the past. The past is absolute, concrete, universal; it is the events themselves as they occurred regardless of their interpretive reflection. History on the other hand is an interpretive process using language and imagery to depict the past in a certain manner for a specific purpose. The process of recording history has evolved from brief annotations to intricate emotional reflections. Moreover, the goal of historical writing has evolved as well into a science of re-creating the past as opposed to highlighting specific issues the author deems most important.

Keegan's article provided sound reasoning for the traditional battle narrative: "if soldiers did not learn to fight their battles from reading books, neither is it likely that military historians learnt to write their books from watching battles" (62). Namely by simplifying characters, actions, and motivations, historians are able to compartmentalize and break down otherwise complex and chaotic battles. The Cincinnati Gazette account is a perfect example of this. At the outset, the author apologizes for any faults in the article due to the difficulty of trying to detail a battle so soon after its occurrence. Yet the article contains much detail, including most focus on commanders and leaders, where they died and how. The article oversimplifies the battle perhaps, yet gives the reader a fair idea of the atmosphere with descrimtions like this one:

"Distance concealed the rags composing their uniform; the bright sunbeams glanced from their bayonets flashed like lightning over the field; and the blue flag with a single star waved all along their lines, as proudly as though it were not the emblem of treason, slavery, and death" (8).

Gallantry and bravery are apparent on both sides, despite who is 'right' and who is 'wrong.' War is portrayed as something very honorable. Keegan explains this when discussing Marshall's historical method: "all men are afraid of the battlefield, yet... most, despite their fear, remain products of their culture and its value-system" (72).

Most influential to me was the Gazette's description of the Confederates' loss, as the men of the Tenth regiment, "[o]verwhelmed and confounded" turned their backs "upon the enemy. They will not run; they only walk away, and they are mowed down by scores as they do so" (9).

General Buell’s report of the Battle of Perryville is very precise and concise. He describes the position of the enemy and the way his army was able to maneuver around them on three separate occasions. However, he also realized that he was in desperate need of re-enforcements. His report ends by saying he does not know the number dead, but that valuable officers have been killed and his army has fallen back. It was interesting to read General Bragg’s account of the same battle. He admits that he and his men were outnumbered but were able to drive the enemy (Confederates) two miles back. The total number of dead for the Union was around 2500 compared to the Confederates 4000 +/-. Bragg realized that Buell and his army were receiving reinforcements so he withdrew his troops. Bragg’s report includes his opinion on the South’s desire for independence but their inability to risk their lives and their property for its success. Keegan’s book focuses on the structure of war and the actual mechanics that come into play when armies fight a battle. In this way, both Bragg and Buell’s reports fit into this model by giving specific locations, troop numbers, and distance measures. However, the experience of the soldier as an individual is left out of these reports.

The Watkins account and Keegan's writing coincide with each other. The Watkins account plays on your emotions and gives the individual soldier's point of view, experiences, and emotions on which Keegan focuses. The individual experience with death, and Watkins befriending an enemy to raid a pantry give a view of war that is absent of histories that are written on generals and other authority figures only.

Bragg’s account provides an example of the “typical ‘battle piece’ ” described by Keegan (61) while Watkins’ account represents some, though not all, of the elements of the more nuanced approach described by Keegan. Throughout his account, Bragg describes the battle as a sort of chess match between opposing generals. Bragg seems to follow the pattern Keegan described of a “reduction of soldiers to pawns” and a “high focus on leadership” (61). In fact, Bragg doesn’t seem to mention anyone other than generals and describes all the actions of troops as uniform (e.g. fighting ferociously against overwhelming odds). Rather than giving a more detailed, complicated account which relays possible individual motivations, he simply reports on troop movements and overall numbers of casualties.

Watkins gives an individual account of the fighting which represents what Keegan described as the Civil War’s contribution of “a remarkable crop of soldier’s literature, in which battle had been depicted very much from the private’s rather than the general’s angle of vision” (70). At the beginning of his account, Watkins acknowledged that his was not the typical battle piece since he would not give the stock descriptions of large troop movements or casualty numbers. His is a much more detailed account, mentioning individuals (below the rank of general) by name and describing the horrific scenes, confusion, and fear of battle rather than giving the more picturesque heroic story. However, his account does not seem to coincide with some of Keegan’s characteristics of more modern battle accounts. For instance, he provides few rationales for how individuals overcame their fear in battle. The only reason he gives is a desire to capture the Napoleon guns which is perhaps a result of the Roman influence on soldiers, resulting in a desire to gain glory by capturing the weapons or standards of the opposing unit. In addition, Watkins description of the hand-to-hand fighting seems to contradict du Picq’s insistence that battles did not actually result in “shocks.”

Sorry this is a little late, I was out of town all weekend and this is my first opportunity to post.
I thought that the Cincinnati gazette account of the battle of Perryville was certainly biased and skewed towards the Northern side, obviously. It justified all Northern losses and demonized the Southern forces. Although it did offer a very detailed account of the war, it's bias must be taken into account when trying to determine what really happened. As far as the Keegan book is concerned, I thought it to be a more realistic and personal account. Keegan discusses what really happens to a soldier in warfare, both psychologically and physically. I thought his approach to the actual analysis of the history of each battle was good. He looked at the broader picture and what actually happened before delving into the details. Both of these accounts give perspectives on warfare, but Keegan has a more unbiased, personal approach.

The Sam Watkins piece is undoubtedly of the historical narrative style that Keagan refers too which plays more on emotion and personal experience than summaries of battle tactics and tabulations of casualties. Watkins begins by acknowledging his inability to "give you figures" and "how this General looked and how that one spoke". His account of the battle of Perryville is simply what the average rank and file soldier saw, felt, and experienced during battle. His ability to recount short personal narratives about befriending a Union soldier given lookout duty across the street from him and lying next to a friend of his while he lay dying after the battle provide a much needed emotional perspective to historical accounts of the Civil War. Even with his focus on personal stories he is still able to give what I must assume is a reasonably accurate account of the role his regiment played in the battle, which if used in conjunction with many other similar accounts could probably yield a very accurate battle account.

I thought Keegan's article was an interesting insight into the historiography of battle narratives. I agree with Chris (below) about the management of fear in battle...I see that mostly in war narratives. Especially in Sam Watkin's account, he tells about the battle with very graphic descriptions and very little emotion. Gen. Bragg's account is much of the same, although there is some emotion expressed. I cannot imagine what being in battle might have been like from reading these accounts, not that that is their purpose, but I also cannot imagine being in battle and then writing down all of my memories from those battles years later. I think it is important what Sam Watkins said in his narrative, that he can only tell the things that he saw, but that is what everyone ought to do so that the world may know the truth.

Since I could not be in class on Thursday, I am going to post a brief discussion about the Ayers book here.

I thought one of the most interesting ideas in the Ayers book was the way people thought about slavery and race during the early years of the war. Through his depiction, many peoples’ opinions about slavery seemed relatively unchanged by 1862. Although Republicans apparently moved from attacking abolitionists in the days after John Brown’s Raid to at least a guarded acceptance of some form of emancipation, the Northern Democrats still attacked any abolitionist tendencies in their opposition. Democrats continually blamed failures in the war effort (such as Second Manassas) as the results of Republican focus on emancipation. Although Republicans became more open about supporting some form of abolition, even Abraham Lincoln in March of 1862 could not see blacks and whites living together in peace and called for colonization of freed slaves after compensated emancipation. The Democratic paper in Franklin was worried about the influx of freed blacks after the emancipation proclamation, while the people of Staunton saw it as an invitation to servile insurrection. It seems that many in the North favored the Union as it was since Democrats made a comeback in many northern states running on this slogan. Thus, although the Republican party began to gradually accept making the war at least partly about slavery, emancipation seems to have become a major focus relatively late in the war with many in the North still wholeheartedly against emancipation.

Keegan gives many arguments that are definitely thought provoking. On page 72, Keegan states “that all men are afraid on the battlefield, yet that most, despite their fear, remain products of their culture and its value system.” I think this is a great point to make. As a group in general I believe that people tend to loose sight of the individual’s thoughts and feelings. When looking back on a battle, I don’t think that we normal think that the soldier fighting may be scared out of their mind. We just assume that if they are there and fighting that they know what they are getting into and that they are not afraid. This is why I like the Ayers book so much, it gives a whole new perspective on war and how it affects the individual. This statement also attributes to how amazing it is that people can be so scared and nervous, yet if they know they must do something to protect themselves or someone else, that they can muster up a remarkable amount of strength in themselves to do what they thought they could not do.

Right off the start Cincinnati Gazette article recognizes that it is difficult to produce a report of a battle that is accurate, this is good. I think that the realization of this shows the care that was being put into this article in the attempt to give an accurate a fair report, if that’s even possible. I believe author did well with this piece. It does have some bias to it but everything does. Considering it was written very soon after the battle it does a good job of representing the Union and Confederate soldiers.

When you read any battle account you need to keep in mind the source(s). Combat is a deeply personal experience and individuals will often have vastly differing perspectives and recollections of the same events. Also, as to Keegan's ideas about harnessing and managing fear in battle...he is dead on. There is no soldier who is not completely terrified in a firefight, but that is when you see the benefits of training, discipline, and leadership. Great soldiers aren't fearless, they just have the ability to conquer the emotion and do what needs to be done.