I know that I have been focusing on the Battle of Gettysburg the last few days, but my heart is with the Founding Fathers; and more so than ever it seems in light of recent political events. The founding of our wonderful nation and the promise of hope and liberty that it was founded on, should stir the hearts and minds of even the most acid of patriots. So with these thoughts in mind a letter from July 3rd, 1776 is in order:
John Adams, in a July 3, 1776 letter to Abigail, after the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 2 in Philadelphia:
The Delay of this Declaration to this Time, has many great Advantages attending it. The Hopes of Reconciliation, which were fondly entertained by Multitudes of honest and well meaning tho weak and mistaken People, have been gradually and at last totally extinguished. Time has been given for the whole People, maturely to consider the great Question of Independence and to ripen their Judgments, dissipate their Fears, and allure their Hopes, by discussing it in News Papers and Pamphletts, by debating it, in Assemblies, Conventions, Committees of Safety and Inspection, in town and County Meetings, as well as in private Conversations, so that the whole People in every Colony of the 13, have now adopted it, as their own Act. This will cement the Union, and avoid those Heats, and perhaps Convulsions which might have been occasioned, by such a Declaration Six Months ago.
But the Day is past. The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfire and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.
You will think me transported with Enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the Toil, and Blood, and Treasure that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. Yet, through all the Gloom, I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means, and that Posterity will triumph in that Day’s Transaction, even though We should not rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.



I am proud to present my contribution to the Top Ten Books on the Battle of Gettysburg.
1) Those Damned Black Hats: The Iron Brigade in the Gettysburg Campaign, By Lance J. Herdegen (2008) - This is currently my favorite book on the battle as I really love regimental studies and this is an exceptional one dealing with the Iron Brigade’s presence at Gettysburg. Superbly written and as always a Herdengen touch to it that makes it so readable.
2) The Killer Angels, By Michael Sharra (1974) - has to be on any list. It was my first introduction to the Civil War in High School.
3) The Gettysburg Nobody Knows, By Gabor S. Boritt, ed. (1999) - one of the more interesting books on the battle and one that I refer to often.
4) Gettysburg: The Second Day, By Harry Pfanz (1998) - This was, of course, a monumental work and as John Hoptak noted a “landmark” book that has to be on the shelf of every Civil War enthusiast. He also covers a little about my ancestor, Charles H. Weygant of the 124th NY.
5) Pickett’s Charge in History and Memory, By Carol Reardon (1997) - a fascinating book on the battle’s most controversial and important event.
6) The First Day at Gettysburg: Essays on Confederate and Union Leadership, By Gary W. Gallagher, ed., (1992) - One of my favorite books including numerous essays that are informative and important.
7) Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage, By Noah Andre Trudeau (2003) - a bit difficult to follow at times, but overall I really liked Trudeau’s writing style.
8 ) Gettysburg, By Stephen W. Sears (2004) - his reading style is very accessible. I thought he handled Meade and Lee fairly, but really this book is a favorite as I enjoy his writing style. Gettysburg books can be very convoluted as it was indeed a massive battle.
9) Lincoln at Gettysburg, By Garry Willis (1992) - it seems appropriate to have Lincoln’s Address in here somewhere as it plays an important part in the memory of the battle and it helped to establish some meaning for the place beyond the controversy of whether or not the battle was thee turning point.
10) Gettysburg: July 1, By David G. Martin (2003)





Today we begin a recurring series looking at words and terms that are derived from military history - beginning with a few from the American Civil War:
Photograph Courtesy of the Library of Congress
After seven years of restoration work on paintings in the Pauline Chapel inside the Vatican, the last frescoes Michelangelo ever painted are now more clear and vivid than they've been in centuries. In the process of restoration, a figure that some art experts believe may be a self-portrait by the artist was spotted. The image in question is a bearded figure on horseback in a blue turban in The Crucifixion of St Peter.
Find out more about this intriguing discovery in the article by Richard Owen in the UK Times Online, where you can see the fresco in its entirety and a close-up of the figure in question. And have a look at other portraits of Michelangelo in this image gallery by your Guide.
I. THE LORD having granted us favorable weather from the first, five days' sailing brought us in sight of the Lanzarote Islands and Fuerte Ventura. The following Wednesday, July 5, 1565, we reached the Canary Islands, which are two hundred and fifty leagues from Cadiz, where we stopped three days to lay in a supply of wood and water.
The following Sunday, July 8, our fleet, composed of eight ships, under the direction of our general, left the Canary Islands, and proceeded to the Island of Dominica, which was to be conquered from the Caribbee Indians. Unfortunately, the very evening we set sail, our first galley and a patache became separated from us. For two days we coasted up and down, hoping to rejoin them, but without any success; and our admiral, seeing that we should not be able to accomplish it, gave the order for us to sail directly to Dominica, where we were to await them in case they had not arrived before us. During this voyage a shallop, or boat, commanded by Capt. Francesco Sanchez sprung a leak, and, as it got beyond the control of the crew, he asked assistance from us, but it was impossible to give him any. The pilot wishing to continue to sail with the other vessels until they should arrive at their destination, and have the leak repaired there, the captain and a soldier had recourse to their swords to oblige the pilot to return to port, being fearful lest they should be all drowned. The pilot declared himself unable to do this on account of the rough weather, so they decided to make for the cape on the south-west in order to reach the land as soon as possible.
Thus it happened that we were obliged to leave them, which we did with deep regret and great anxiety as to what would become of them. The five vessels which remained of our fleet had a prosperous voyage the rest of the way, thanks to our Lord and His Blessed Mother. Up to Friday, the 20th, we had very fine weather, but at ten o'clock that day a violent wind arose, which by two in the afternoon had become the most frightful hurricane one could imagine. The sea, which rose to the very clouds, seemed about to swallow us up alive, and such was the fear and apprehension of the pilot and other sailors that I exerted myself to exhort my brethren and companions to repentance. I represented to them the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, His justice and His mercy, and with so much success that I passed the night in confessing them.
You can read the entire account at the link above if this is of interest to you.

By the time of his death Wallace was probably the world’s most famous scientist, but since then his intellectual legacy has been almost completely overshadowed by Darwin’s, largely thanks to the “Darwin Industry” of recent decades. This ‘industry’ has led to a highly “Darwinocentric” view of the history of modern biology, and as a result many of the important contributions made by Darwin’s contemporaries, like Wallace, are currently underestimated and undervalued.

More Wordless Wednesday:
Related articles:I’m working on getting my site back up and running. My plans are to establish this as my personal website of miscellaneous ramblings and thoughts.
Try our original General Knowledge Quiz or General Knowledge Quiz II.
I’ve been asked to contribute to a Top 10 books on the Campaign and Battle of Gettysburg in celebration of the upcoming anniversary. Though I am honored to have been asked to contribute, I feel somewhat unqualified compared to the other accomplished historians. However, I will do my best! Here are the details as described by Brett on his site:
July 1, 1898 - American troops win the Battle of San Juan Hill. Having landed in Cuba in late June 1898, American forces under Maj. Gen. William Shafter began pushing towards Santiago de Cuba. Seeking to attack the Spanish position on the San Juan Heights, Shafter first diverted a division to assault the strongpoint at El Caney. As this attack went forward, he advanced infantry and dismounted cavalry towards San Juan. Holding them in place, despite being under fire, Shafter wished to await the return of the troops at El Caney before moving forward. Taking casualties, the commanders at the base of the San Juan Heights elected to commence the attack. While infantry on the left stormed the heights directly, cavalry, including Lt. Col. Theodore Roosevelt's "Rough Riders," first moved up Kettle Hill before assaulting the heights. Leading from the front, Roosevelt was subsequently nominated for the Medal of Honor. The capture of the heights worked to close the ring around the city and it surrendered on July 17 after brief siege.
Photograph Courtesy of the Library of Congress
I have spent the last few weeks marking AS level scripts for the new AQA English Literature exam, Paper LTA1B, about literature of the First World War. So I thought I’d put a few hints and tips from a marker here, for the benefit of any teachers or students who might happen to find this blog.
I think the paper is a tricky one because it requires some basic historical understanding as well as literary knowledge. In answering Question One, students are given marks for relating an unseen passage not only to other texts, but also to a historical context.
Poorer candidates often fall down because they have no sense that they are writing about a very different world, and one where issues matter. It is hard for an examiner to find marks for the student who wrote: “Sassoon was not a great fan of the war and did not really agree with it.” This is a statement from the slacker politics of vague opinions about subjects you feel disconnected from – hardly seeming to belong to the same world as Sassoon’s passion and courage.
When it comes to History, in almost every script I marked, futility rules. Teachers have given the students a historical framework (maybe based on the interpretation given in Brian Gardner’s Up the Line to Death ) that at the beginning of the War, men joined up in a spirit of mindless patriotism, which continued until the Battle of the Somme, after which everybody became disillusioned, and then nobody had any respect for the Generals.
Many are convinced that British participation in the War was a complete failure. Several students whose papers I marked were surprised that (in a letter to his mother set as an unseen passage for commentary) Owen refers to successful attacks that gained their objectives. This does not tally, they say, with what they have read about the war. Some suggest that Owen was hiding the truth from his mother, and really the attack had been a disaster like all the others. There is very little recognition that this was a war that the British and their allies won. I strongly suspect that the historical knowledge of many teachers is hazy. Maybe I’ll produce a reading list for students to give their teachers, with texts like Gary Sheffield’s ‘Forgotten Victory’, Brian Bond’s The Unquiet Western Front and Dan Todman’s The Great War: Myth and Memory, which question the orthodox literary view that the War was entirely futile.
One particularly poor centre seems to have been trained to divide all war literature into “pro-war” (bad) and “anti-war” (good). All wartime texts are slotted into one or other category, which does not encourage careful reading of wartime texts (such as the Wilfred Owen letter) where attitudes are ambivalent or confused.
Don’t get me wrong. The war-as-futile argument is a respectable point of view, and I happily gave very good marks to students who argued it well. The trouble is that it frequently seemed to get in the way between some of the candidates and an objective reading of the passage they had in front of them.
Many candidates are completely convinced that all Generals were always uncaring, and see evidence for it everywhere. Some prove the point by describing the behaviour of General Melchett in Blackadder Goes Forth, as though that were a documentary. One student wrote indignantly about Tynan’s poem Joining the Colours, in which soldiers go off to war on buses, playing tin whistles and mouth organs that it was shameful that the Generals had not provided them with proper instruments.
Several commented on Robert Graves’s sardonic little poem, The Leveller, about two contrasting soldiers killed by the same shell. It ends:
Old Sergeant Smith, kindest of men,
Wrote out two copies there and then
Of his accustomed funeral speech
To cheer the womanfolk of each:-
“He died a hero’s death: and we
His comrades of ‘A’ Company
Deeply regret his death: we shall
All deeply miss so true a pal.”
Three candidates whose work I marked said that this proved the callousness of generals, who could not even be bothered to know their men individually. They quite missed Graves’s insistence that the Sergeant (a very long way from being a General) was kindly. Very few candidates realised that letter-writing under these circumstances is difficult, and that if the good sergeant had found a formula that would alleviate the pain of mothers and widows, he was probably wise to use it. Well, the candidates are young. One day some of them will have to write letters of condolence. Won’t they too look for words that might ease the pain? Won’t they too be tempted to use stock phrases?
Students are asked to relate the unseen passage on the exam paper to their wider reading, and many do this very well. Problems come when students haven’t read much, and comparisons become forced. Weak candidates display their memory of Blackadder, rarely to useful effect, unless they are able to contrast its style with that of other writing. A lot of schools obviously furnish their students with a book of snippets from World War One literature. This can be useful, but can lead the dimmer students into mistakes. One wrote that there is no conflict between the characters in Journey’s End. Eh? As a marker I was flummoxed by this more than somewhat inaccurate statement until I realised from her further comments that the poor girl had only read one scene of the play (in which the soldiers were getting on well) and had taken this as representative of the whole thing.
Candidates like using big words, but teachers need to warn students that these should be used accurately. I marked one centre where the word of choice was ‘juxtaposing’. They used it in all sorts of ways, such as:
The rhyme scheme is juxtaposing of the content.
What can that possibly mean?
And I lost count of the different spellings of ‘euphemism that students offered.
No, I know it’s probably not fair to make fun of what students write in the stress of an exam (but I can’t help mentioning the candidate who thought the actors in Oh What a lovely War were dressed as pirates. Or the one who wrote about Sorley’s poem, ‘Untilted’.).
If I were preparing an AS-level class for this paper, the thing that I would insist on every lesson is that most people had ambivalent feelings about the War. There were a few unthinking jingoists, and a few outright pacifists, but for the most part most people of Britain believed in two propositions that were difficult to reconcile.
1. They knew that the war was in a righteous cause, and believed that it would have been wrong for Britain to keep out of the conflict in 1914.
2. They knew that the cost of any war was terrible, and that this war’s cost was particularly appalling.
Almost all non-trivial wartime literature can be seen as an attempt to reconcile these two dissonant propositions. (Some later texts, of course, do not accept the righteousness of the cause, and therefore provide a simplified view of the war, the ‘futility’ myth so obviously beloved of many teachers.) If you’re presented with a piece like the Owen extract, it can be useful to see how far the writing endorses these two propositions, and how it tries to resolve the conflict.

"Did they come with any sand to this country? At which point of this country did they enter with sand in their bags to claim they own the land in Namibia?"
Samuel Daniel Nujoma, president of Namibia 21 March 1990 to 21 March 2005, from the article 'Land Issue Gathering Steam' in New African, May 2001.
"Our politicians should be excellent examples of honest and accountable leadership that our youth and the community at large can follow."
Sam Nujoma, president of Namibia, speaking on the seventh anniversary of Namibia's independence at Windhoek, 21 March, 1997.
June 29, 1644 - Parliamentarian forces are defeated at Cropredy Bridge. Advancing along the River Cherwell, the army of King Charles I (right) was pursued by Parliamentarian troops led by Sir William Waller. Marching on opposite sides of the river, neither wished to force a crossing under fire. Learning of the approach of 300 Parliamentarian dragoons, Charles' chief general, the Earl of Brentford, advanced troops to capture Cropredy and Hayes Bridges. Seeing the Royalist column become strung out, Waller launched two attacks with the goal of isolating and destroying Charles' rearguard. Sending Lt. Gen. John Middleton to assault Cropredy Bridge, Waller crossed Slat Mill Ford with 1,000 men. Both attacks were ultimately thrown back by Royalist troops. Defeated, Waller's army became wrecked through desertions and ceased to be a threat to the Royalist capital at Oxford.
Photograph Source: Public Domain
Kevin and Richard have a couple of posts concerning the popular Grant topic of his drinking and whether or not he was a drunk? Kevin is currently reading a new manuscript from UNC on Grant titled U.S. Grant: American Hero, American Myth, written by Joan Waugh. (Interestingly, I wonder if they want Kevin discussing any part of this manuscript in public at all? Apparently they must not mind.) In this manuscript, apparently, Waugh tackles the “myth” of Grant being a Drunkard. Kevin writes, “Anyone familiar with recent Grant studies already knows that the evidence against Grant is weak or inconclusive.”
Richard takes “recent” historiography and Kevin to task suggesting that all we are doing is cleaning the records of Northern heroes while continuing to dismantle Southern ones like Lee. I am simplifying the debate here so read Richard’s post linked above.
I think Richard makes a valid point. However, I have done a little reading on Grant and I have to agree with recent historiography and say that I don’t think there is a lot there. Did Grant drink on occasion? Yes. But to start getting into was he a drunk? debate requires clear evidence of constant drunkenness on Grant’s part and there simply is none that I am aware of. This kind of splitting hairs is what we complain about with those who debate whether or not the flying of the Confederate flag is offensive, a debate I don’t take sides on for the same reason; it’s all about personal points of view (ideology) and not history.
At the excellent Stoke conference, someone mentioned the novel The Feet of the Young Men, by Herbert Tremaine. It struck me that this was a book I had never looked at, and should have done.
It was published in 1917, by C. W. Daniel, an interesting firm which printed a mixture of Tolstoyan-pacifist writings, and what might today be called ‘New Age’ material, about spirituality and vegetarianism. In 1918 it would be prosecuted for another novel, Despised and Rejected by ‘A.T.Fitzroy’ (Rose Allatini). The firm kept going, publishing tracts on alternative medicine mostly, until 2004, when it was taken over by Random House.
The Feet of the Young Men (subtitled ‘A Domestic War Novel’) is rather good. It’s about Harry, a young clerk who doesn’t want to become a soldier. He is not a burningly idealistic pacifist – he just feels no connection with the war, and is suspicious of the hysteria of 1914. He sees the marching men, and is scornful:
Well, it was a pose created by the hysteria of the press. Miserable papers overflowed, guttered with gush about ‘Tommy’; what a daredevil he was, what a brick he was, and how all the girls went mad about him, how he loved his cup of tea, how he always wore a smile. The khaki men – clerks, porters, teachers, students – were mesmerised into thinking that they must behave like those fictional Tommies.
Harry keeps out of uniform as long as he can, despite being sacked by his patriotic employer. In civilian clothes, ‘Harry felt that the citizens were looking at him more than usual and with some contempt and hostility.’ Meanwhile ‘posters glared from the hoardings. Lord Kitchener stared and painted khaki lads shouted ‘Come over and help us.’ Harry suffers the same consciousness of a scornful gaze that D.H.Lawrence felt so bitterly, and records so vividly in the ‘Nightmare’ chapter of Kangaroo.
He starts drinking, and one day, just before conscription is introduced, enlists when drunk. But then his friend comes back from the War, with a V.C. but shattered:
Mostly his nerves, the doctors said. His eyes had a strange frightened look; he sometimes faltered in his speech, but sometimes spoke loudly with a fluent violence. He forgot things. Once Eva had heard a scream when a door was opened suddenly behind him.
Harry is interested in ideas, reading George Bernard Shaw and similar writers, but his opposition to war is less intellectual than instinctive. When he finally joins the Army, things do not go well.
The book that this one most reminded me of was Rose Macaulay’s Non-Combatants and Others (1916). The heroine of that also simply wanted to get away from the War. In the end, however, she is drawn into political action. Harry isn’t, although after he has enlisted he hears a speaker from the No-Conscription Fellowship, and realises that this is where he belongs.
It’s a sad novel, and one that casts light on the sort of people who are rarely dealt with in wartime fiction. Well worth reading.

Has there been a specific study that has dealt with how Union soldiers’ opinions concerning things like slavery, emancipation, ect., change as they transitioned from their homeland and descended South and witnessed, firsthand, the nature of slavery?
Additionally, how did their experiences going South, entering Rebeldom, change their point of view on Negro soldiers, and everything else that was involved in race issues, if at all? For example, here are some quotes from various soldiers from Indiana:
“Mother said she was afraid I would turn to an Abolitionist. If I had been one at home, I have seen enough to make me a Negro hater since I came here.” (Frankfort, Ky., Oct. 15, 1861)
“I suppose you hear plenty of talk about the free negroes I don’t know how the folks like it nor don’t kear [sic] if it will only bring the war to an end any sooner….We are in war and anything to beat the south.” (Jan. 8, 1863, Ft. Barnard, Va.)
“They [sic] is two or three Negro Regts here. They make good Soldiers and save the white soldiers a good deal of hard work. They make a fine appearance on drill. I am in for the Black Soldier. I say bring them on.” (Joseph Hollis, Folly Island, S.C., Sept. 9, 1863)
“Though I live in the negro country, I haven’t changed my opinion of them, only strengthened it. They are not good for anything, unless driven to work, so you don’t need to be afraid that I will fall in love with them, though it is the case with many soldiers.” (Winchester, Tenn., Nov. 6, 1863)
“I seen a new part of the ‘Elephant’ today viz. a squad of Negro soldiers drilling. They did a great deal better than many white troops I have seen with the same opportunities.” (Tullahoma, Tenn., May 31, 1864, p. 142)
“Nearly all the guards along the road are Negroes. They are fine looking soldiers. They always turn out at a present arms when the train passes. Their accouterments and guns are as bright as they can be, and the broad smile that marks their countenances attest their like of the change from Chattels to U.S. soldiers.” (Louisville, Ky., Sept. 17, 1864)
“Up to the time we landed I had not noticed any negro troops, but after we left Akins landing I saw nothing else…They flocked out to see us as we passed, and I never saw a blacker set of Negroes in my life. They beat the ‘Ace of Spades.’” (March 10, 1865)
With these quotes being from different soldiers it’s not possible to measure how they were impacted as they moved South and saw things such as slavery, Southern Women, Southern society, ect., and how that real life, face-to-face exposure impacted them.
If I took 100 or so soldiers and followed their evolution in thinking as they went South, that might make from interesting findings, would it not?
Oh, and if someone has done this please point me in that direction….
June 8-July 26, 1758 - British forces conduct the Siege of Louisbourg. Captured by colonial American forces in 1745, the fortress of Louisbourg was returned to France at the end of the War of the Austrian Succession. With the outbreak of the French & Indian War, the British realized that Louisbourg would need to be retaken in order for a campaign to proceed against Quebec. Sailing in late May 1758, a British force led by Major General Jeffrey Amherst (right) and Admiral Edward Boscawen approached the city. Landing on June 8, against enemy opposition, British forces led by Brigadier General James Wolfe secured the beaches allowing Amherst's main body to come ashore. Approaching the town, the British laid siege and began reducing its defenses. After the French warships in the harbor were eliminated and with the defenses in shambles, the garrison surrendered on July 26.
Photograph Source: Public Domain

Center design of the 6th U.S. Colored Troops regimental flag. The top motto reads, “Freedom for all”. From the Library of Congress Collection.
Sumer is icumen in,
Lhude, sing cuccu!
Groweth sed, and bloweth med,
And springth the wude nu!
--The Cuckoo Song
Have a happy summer!
Very interesting recordings it sounds like are being released by the Nixon Presidential Library. As the movie Frost/Nixon identified, Nixon was a complex man. It stands to reason that we don’t really learn about a President until many years after their leaving office. It will be interesting how our most contemporary Presidents will be judged in years to come: Obama, Bush W., Clinton, Bush H., ect. In these tapes Nixon discusses Roe V. Wade, Equal Rights, and getting more women involved in politics, sort of:
Nixon is heard on a muffled tape recording telling his special counsel that abortion is necessary in some cases - including instances of multiracial pregnancy.
Speaking to Charles Colson after the January 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, the president said: “I admit, there are times when abortions are necessary, I know that.” He gave “a black and a white” as an example.
“Or rape,” Colson offered. “Or rape,” Nixon agreed.
The records show Nixon seemingly resigned to the likelihood of South Vietnam’s eventual collapse even as he strong-armed its president, Nguyen Van Thieu, to accept a settlement that would extricate the U.S. from the massively unpopular war.
He told his national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, he’d do anything to get Thieu to accede, “cut off his head if necessary.”
Nixon historian Luke A. Nichter said the circumstances surrounding Nixon’s acceptance of a flawed peace-deal will probably be what scholars note from the latest disclosures.
“Producing the Vietnam peace agreement took the administration to the emotional brink,” he said. “At the very moment of triumph after finally ending combat operations in Southeast Asia, that process caused deep and lasting fissures among the top ranks in the White House.”
Get a look at some of these marvelous works, and find out more about the exhibition, in these resources:

More Wordless Wednesday:
Related articles: