What is the evidence?

General Lew Wallace, finding himself at the helm of Smith's division in the middle of the conflagration that would become Shiloh, was in the unenviable post of being separated from the rest of the army at Crump's Landing, six miles as the crow files from Pittsburg Landing. Swampy, forested, and cut by a poor circuit of dirt roads made communication overland time consuming. Early fears of the loss of either of the convenient places to land supplies within reach of any move upon Corinth, Mississippi lead to the dispatching of Smith's 6^th Division to three camps around Crump's Landing. In Grant's memoirs, he states he was initially fearful that the confederates might make a move to take Crump's Landing overland and therefore, especially as he wrestled with the object of the confederate attack. He states this as his reason for having Wallace hold his division in readiness to move until he had developed the enemy's intentions.

Grant knew the road network leading to Crump's overland was indirect and communications over it lengthy. Grant's visit to Wallace at Crump's occurred at 8 am, his order to Wallace to move didn't arrive until 11 am over this lousy road network. Three hours was in the balance for Grant, it would take that long for any communication to get to Wallace and take longer for Wallace to get his division to where it was being ordered. In a battle, a moment is too late even when communications are instantaneous. Communications at Shiloh and in any battle of the Civil War was by horse and any communication of orders would have to take into account that whatever goal Grant had in mind for Wallace, it would have to be with the foreknowledge that the battle situation would be different by the time Wallace's division made the field. Was Grant's intention to tuck the 6^th division away at the landing because the course of the battle was unpredictable or, like any field commander, made a judgment based upon the information he had at the time?

In Grant's official report, he states that due to the circuitous route Wallace needed to take, it took him until evening to arrive on the field. It isn't clear if Grant held any ill will towards Wallace regarding his divisions tardiness, but he at least did not communicate any ill feelings in his official report.

Captain John A. Rawlins, an aid de camp of Grant, states that Grant dispatched Captain Baxter to order Wallace from Crump's Landing to move to the right of the line. However, he further states that Wallace refused to comply without a written order and that Grant then dispatched Rawlins with orders for Wallace to march by the river road, crossing snake creek and the bridge over it and end up at the Landing on the right of the line. Rawlins encounters Wallace along the Purdy road and not the River road as he expected and communicated Grant's orders to Wallace who "indignantly" refuted refusing an order written or not. Rawlins further states that Wallace expressed ignorance of the river road and lamely stated that he was on the road his cavalry headed down. He further communicated to Rawlins that as neither he nor anyone on his staff knew of the river road, he would need Rawlins to act as guide.

I find it incredible that Wallace would not have known about this road, having been encamped at Crump's for weeks and in communication with the rest of the army this whole time. Rawlins' statement regarding this seems overly to the point of feeding the idea that Wallace was in a state of poor command. But, the source must be considered here, coming from a close confidant and ardent supporter of Grant throughout the war and his aid de camp, a position given to ones close friends and supporters. More on this in further posts.

General Lew Wallace at Shiloh

On Feburary 29^th, 1868 Lew Wallace penned a letter to Ulysses S. Grant, Wallace's former commander and about to be elected President of the United States. Wallace opens his letter stating that he became aware of Grant's disquiet and disapproval of Wallace's performance at the battle of Shiloh but was counseled to withdraw his request for a court of inquiry, seeking instead to redress in person the smudge to his and his division's honor.

What happened? As the large encampment at Pittsburg Landing was surprised on the morning of April 6^th, 1862 and was in the process of being overrun by Albert Sidney Johnston's Army of Tennessee. Wallace, in temporary command of Grant's 6^th Division in place of an ailing General Smith, was encamped at Crump's Landing five miles as the crow flies from Pittsburg Landing was ordered by Grant personally to prepare to move at 8 am as he (Grant) made his way by paddlewheel up river from his HQ at Savannah. Grant, upon learning of the situation at Pittsuburg Landing sent a Captain Baxter with orders for Wallace's division to begin moving. Here is where the controversy starts. What was the order? By what route to take and by what result to achieve by moving?

Grant, in his memoirs, written after his two terms in office and while dying of throat cancer, had this to say about what his orders where:

Up to that time I had felt by no means certain that Crump's landing might not be the point of attack. On reaching the front, however, about eight A.M., I found that the attack on Pittsburg was unmistakable, and that nothing more than a small guard, to protect our transports and stores, was needed at Crump's. Captain Baxter, a quartermaster on my staff, was accordingly directed to go back and order General Wallace to march immediately to Pittsburg by the road nearest the river. Captain Baxter made a memorandum of this order. (chapter 14, paragraph 10)

Wallace, by virtue of letters in his possession of statements by his former subordinates and by his own statements tells a different tale in his letter to Grant:

…On the contrary, the order I received from your messenger was in writing, unsigned, and contained substantially the following instructions: "You will leave a force at Crump's Landing sufficient to guard the public property there; then march the rest of your division, and effect a junction with the right of the army; after which you will form your line of battle at right angles with the river, and act as circumstances dictate." (Major General Lew Wallace at Shiloh, Bay State Monthly magazine, vol 2 issue 6 1885)

The question becomes, whose memory is correct? Was it the second order, the order Grant dispatched after 1 pm to Wallace - the one that was recorded and signed by him, ordering Wallace to the Landing and not the right of the line? The first order, dispatched in a hurry and not signed and therefore not logged and delivered by Captain Baxter, could it have stated Grant's wish to re-enforce Sherman's pressed division on the right and thus either save it from further retreat or to fall upon the enemy's extended left flank in a coup de main? Wallace collected statements from several of his brigade commanders and those who met personally Captain Baxter as he made his way through the tangle of poor roads leading to Wallace's camps at Crump's.

Of all of the controversies surrounding the battle, this is probably the most well known and the one that is the most reported as Wallace becoming confused or lost on his way to joining the battle. I'll have more on this in further entries.

Working on screenplay

I finished working through my screenplay where I left off at the end of the first act. It took me awhile to figure out what I had been doing those four years ago and where to pick up. I had forgotten that the main plan for the story line came from the book Ten Days to Destiny by Kiriakopoulos, a very in-depth look at the campaign from all sides. The history reads much like a story, and that is more the job of a historian today, telling stories. There are elements to a story that have to be in place before it can succeed and I like the story woven in the history of this battle.

My dilemma is how to treat the Cretan partisans. When we think of resistance movements in WWII we think of the French Underground, or the Dutch, or the Russian, or the Yugoslavs under Tito. But, are they the innocent doves we have been treated to in television and movie? They are innocents compared with the occupying Germans who are the villains in any story. That is not history, at least not complete history. It is public consumption history, trite and lacking in the complexity that is reality.

Our own history vaunts the Minuteman militia companies that met the British at Concord Green. A long tradition of militia service formed our frontiers and acted as a protection from marauding Indians and enemy colonial empires. But, if it were not for the Continental Army would we have won our independence? Our own Civil War had but few examples of disorganized volunteer formations beating formations of regulars, like the battle for Val Verde ford on the Rio Grande in New Mexico. If not for the few regular regiments left in New Mexico and the largely un-reliable New Mexican volunteer formations the Confederate invasion might have been beaten. Yet, there is still a world of difference between a volunteer formation and a militia one.

What is my dilemma? Should the act of sabotage or murder be condoned by merely the target of such activity? Is not terrorism an act perpetrated by irregular formations without legal sanction? Are the Sadrist militia formations in Iraq freedom fighters or terrorists? How about Al Queda? Is there a popular uprising in Iraq or a conflict fueled by adherents to Islam from foreign lands who want to kill American soldiers? Are the resistance movements from WWII on the same par as the Viet Cong? Unfortunately these are not apples to apples comparisons. The French Underground became useful tools to the Allied command, but were they really trusted?

The problem with popular uprisings is they are not affiliated with any ideology save for resistance to the dominating force thrust upon them. They can and did just as easily oppose and become problematic for those they allied themselves with, for the absence of a common enemy can lead to the weapons once supplied being turned upon you. Ho Chi Mhin was once an ally only because we were at war against the Japanese.

The Cretan civilians who fought against the German Fallschirmjaeger and Gebirgsjaeger who took Crete did so out of a long tradition for being independent and ungovernable. Some practiced wonton acts of murder in cold blood against troops who refused to see them as anything other than civilians. This is the problem when factoring in the irregulars who roamed the Cretan hillsides "poaching" at isolated Fallschirmjaeger. Soldiers kill other soldiers, but what is it when a civilian, a non-combatant does it? For our own part, we have called them heroes because they fought the Hun who took their land. But, is it heroism? Sadam's Fedayeen were irregulars, not soldiers paid by their government.

This is going to be the challenge in this script, to depict the Cretan irregulars in a proper but truthful light. I do not want to portray them as angels forced to do it, but as men and women who acted upon their cultural heritage of intransigence. I also have the telling of history to adhere to, for terrorist or freedom fighter history has classified all resistance movements against German or Japanese occupation as such. But, the things happening in Iraq beg the question of activity alone. Are irregulars, no matter who they are fighting, to be treated as combatants or as terrorists?

Book progress

Well, any planning is progress, right?

My wife and I spent some time this last memorial day looking at our plans for publishing the novel. I started out last year working to produce a homeschool curriculum to go along with the novel, believing that it would be the only way I could sell the novel. Being a critic of my own abilities and work, anything to enhance the marketability of the novel was gold in my book. But, as my wife and I have researched further into the homeschool market, fewer families are homeschooling past the junior high and high school ages, exactly the age group I was targeting.

What plans now? The owner of Gravitas Publications, a good friend and advisor to our own project gave us some good advice: get the novel edited and published first. The novel has been complete now for half a year, but the funds to get it professionally edited have been lacking. We have the money now, but I'm having second thoughts. Self publishing has been what we've wanted to do for many reasons, the biggest being more control over all of everything. But, is that enough? Another friend, owner of Precise Edit has given us a quote for the editing, but now that money is involved and a decision to make I find that I am pausing. We know that we want to have a professional edit done, but we now have to sink or swim based upon this choice.

But, my passion for history and to communicate it clearly has always lead me to research and read as much history as I can lay my hands on. I found that I was languishing a bit creatively as I tried to force writing more essays for the workbook into my schedule, essays that I've lacked passion for completing. The end result? I'm spending my weekends working on this blog and completing another project I lay aside to complete the novel, a screen play set in the battle for Crete in WWII and working on the workbook without a deadline hanging over my head.

Shiloh, that battle that has for a long time engaged my imagination and occupied so much research still lays before me, in maps, in books, and in notes that are so old now that the original ruled lines on the loose leafed pages have faded away. Notes on characters that have been abandoned and notes on regiments no longer utilized in the storyline. The battle lives on, thanks to reenacting and the NPS parks that preserve them. It lives on in history books and memoirs, newspaper and magazine articles. It lives on in my characters and my soggy memories of the 135^th Shiloh reenactment in Tennessee that seemed doomed from the start. Hopefully, it will also live on in this blog.

They Met at Shiloh

In 1987 I began researching for a novel I wanted to write about the civil war battle of Shiloh. I'd always been interested in this battle. It was like two different battles on two consecutive days. So went the dramatic turn of events that allowed Grant to salvage a defeat and turn it into a victory thanks to the arrival of Buell's Army of the Ohio and the death of the Army of Mississippi's commander, Albert Sidney Johnston early the first day. It had controversy, legend, sublime and poignant scenes and a casualty list that shocked the country.

I began formulating the story and amassing research but by my graduation from college in 1992 I'd only finished half of it. Too many characters and not enough experience in writing this sort of thing had me drift away from the work to other pursuits of finding a job and getting married. I kept the project in the back of my mind, however. By 1995 I found a local civil war unit and became a federal reenactor, adding to my knowledge of the civil war research on such mundane things as camp life, organization, battlefield tactics, and how a soldier carried himself while on campaign. I soon joined one of the early hardcore battalions, the Army of the Pacific and enjoyed many a time with these dedicated reenactors who taught me how to dig deep and portray a man of war in the Union army. Reenacting most of all helped prepare me for renewing my vision for finishing the novel, adding another dimension that I never would have been able to include had I not first been a reenactor.

Though the research allowed me to envision what it was that the ordinary soldier reported seeing and how he dealt with the horrors of combat, the living historian angle allowed me to catch glimpses I never would have found had my knowledge only been two dimensional. Armed then with experience in the field and more research I picked up my novel once again in 2000 and re-wrote it from the beginning, trimming down the characters, developing the story, and honing my vision for the final product.

I wanted to write something that did not attempt to compete with the histories that have already been written about the battle by historians more talented than I. I wanted to write something from the common soldier's perspective to reveal the rich nature of camp life and interaction between ones pards.

With this as a start, I'd like to over the next week delve into the debate about what happened with Lew Wallace's division encamped at Crump's Landing, a mere five miles away as the crow flies from Pittsburg Landing and why this has, to this day even, puzzled historians and enthusiasts alike.

I know it has been several years since I've last posted on this blog. When I started it, I was just exploring the world of blogging and ran several in tandem but soon discovered how much work they were. At the time I was very busy with drama in my church ministry and at work and I struggled to find my voice.

I have since finished my fictional history novel on Shiloh and as my wife and I explore our avenues of publishing and bringing my passion for teaching people our rich heritage of history, free from as much political correctness and politics in general, I am endeavoring to begin this journey anew. Writing and researching the workbook curriculum to accompany my novel has renewed my love for research and teaching. There is a rich history of military and political questions to be explored regarding the Civil War battle of Shiloh and I've just begun to scratch the surface of what is out there.

This was formerly harder to accomplish as most of these treasure troves of personal correspondence and newspaper, magazine, and journal writings were sitting in thousands of archives scattered about the US. With the internet and the improvements in OCR scanning technology many of these writings are available for easy access and perusal. I've begun searching for articles written by the participants as I uncover controversy and questions of interpretation that are relevant in our current day.

In the coming weeks I'll be writing on some of these things and hopefully starting a dialogue with other historians and Civil War enthusiasts in hopes of creating awareness of Shiloh and talking about my journey in writing about Shiloh.

A touch of Middle Eastern history

I read Debkafile just about every day, they are an Israeli team of journalists with pretty high intelligence connections and always have a bird's eye view of what is happening in this area of the world.

I won't comment much on this piece, but to say that although I support our efforts in Iraq to build up a stronger, and might I add friendly aligned country with our interests, Iraq the "democratization of the country" is more than likely doomed to fail, it is a Westerner's concept and not at all keeping with the history of this part of the world where ones family lineage speaks more to the individual than what we understand ourselves.

Hashemite Dynasty Shows the Flag at Gulf of Aqaba

What is the most telling is the need for symbol and of rights of inheritance that are still felt by the principle parties involved and why they motivate so much. They obviously motivate the Al Queda adherent to sacrifice themselves for their ideal. I suppose Democracy and our ideal of freedom motivates our soldiery to keep their faces towards the enemy and apply courage as the insurgency begins to dwindle down.

Outrageous!

I picked this up from Obnoxiousfumes.com who in turn found it mentioned on another blog.

Hardball with Chris Matthews, Oct 18

I won't pull any captions out of context and leave the reading you to, but as a historian I'm appalled at the lack of restraint exhibited by our former President here. Surely a student of the Revolutionary War would be able to make intelligent comparison and proper analogy when comparing one war and time period to another. But, I suppose the exigencies of politics and dogma win out in any struggle for the pursuit of truth.

I will take a few of the statements made and correct them, for if you watched this interview I hope you at least scratched your head and said, "that just don't sound right". If you didn't, if you nodded your head up and down and lapped up the astounding statements made and accepted them as truth, then I will have to say your understanding of American history (let alone world history) is very shallow.

I will say this, however, Carter was not on Hardball because he was a historian, otherwise one would hope his statements would have been more accurate and his use of history not so mind boggling inaccurate.

Carters statement about the British being misled is wrong on so many levels. It presumes that the British, as a people, had a choice in what the Crown chose to do or not to do, as if the Brit of the revolution was just like the Brit of today. I have to believe that Carter knows the score here, who but only the most bored and dense grade schooler doesn't know that England was ruled by a monarch, a king, a man who held sole power to lead the direction of the country. But that wasn't his point; he used a poor analogy to make his political point. We were a colony, Mr. Former President, a colony in rebellion. We were still not much different from the people “across the pond”, we had not "evolved" egregiously from the people we would then be fighting against.

Carter then launches into our war in Iraq in an attempt to liken it to the British fighting the British in our own war. Ok, not only are the figures of civilian casualties thrown out and increased for effect (there were civilian casualties, but tens of thousands? I've followed the war and I've followed our occupation and unless my mental calculator is broken, I'm sure I would remember 30 to 50 thousand civilian dead). Then he likens our presence in Iraq to the enforcers of a foreign concept of rule. The British where not present in the colonies to enforce a foreign concept, they were holding on to what was being ripped from them.

Now, I don't know what histories Matthews has been reading, but he attempts to lay "democratization of other societies" upon President Bush as if Bush is the sole inventor of this program. The Philippines and Cuba come to mind from our earlier actions since before Bush was ever alive!

Then finally begins the descriptions of the Revolutionary War and another twist in revisionist history, nationalism. It isn't too hard to see where Matthews and Carter are leading to in this pseudo discussion couched in our own history. Not only is this attempt to link the "minutemen" of our own Revolution to the insurgency in Iraq but also a queer maligning of our own "patriotism". Iraqi insurgents: Sadrists - those followers of Mohammed Sadr in his bid to force his way into Iraqi politics and the foreign Al Queda fighters.

Now, a myth which is being further promulgated here is the militia. Every township had a militia; it was for Indian defense and local protection. The militia met when called upon or on a schedule. They were called upon to augment regular forces and saw service off and on during the French and Indian Wars and the Revolution. The militia’s finest hour, Lexington green. Militia companies formed and met and harassed the British regular forces and won the war! No, they dispersed and the British went where they willed. Although used throughout the war to augment, they never filled the role that history and our mythos has given them. Did they answer the call? Mostly, when it suited their needs and they could be drawn away from home. It was the Continental Regulars who stood the test and fought the type of warfare the British were used to. It was they who stood the eventually won us the war, with the final intervention of the French. Carter made sure to put this in, in a snotty sort of way no doubt. French ships and troops arrived just in time for us to deliver the final blow to the British. Let's not get all foggy eyed and sing our favorite French ditty. France intervened for one reason: when we were winning and to deal with their arch nemesis on the European continent, Britain. It would be four long years of struggle before any French troops set foot on our soil.

Carter's last statement caps the "let's embrace the French" and prove to the world that we owe them our country. The French showed up after Washington had already pushed Cornwallis into the fortifications of Yorktown. The French were there for the knockout blow and cannot be slighted for that. But to infer that the French were all that stood in the way of our independence or continuance of being a British colony, I'm sorry but the record does not support the role Carter and Matthews wish to give the French, another Monarchy bent on hegemony in Europe at the time.

Dred Scott vs. Sanford and Roe vs. Wade

I ran across this at History in the News
with a further link to The Wichita Eagle
about President Bush's reference in the last debate
regarding the comparison between Dred Scott vs Sandord
and the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decisions.

I didn't watch the debates so cannot comment directly
on what the President meant, may have meant, or so
forth. What I'm sure is being lost on many as they
scramble to spin this, is the unilateral decision
making power of the Supreme Court justices to effect
all Americans without process of legislation.

Dred Scott was a slave whose master had transported
him and his family through a free state to another
slave state. Dred Scott then contended that due to
having passed through free soil, he was then entitled
to be free himself as well as his family. He then
brought suit against his master for his freedom.

The Supreme court overturned a lower court decision
that Scott could not sue for his freedom as he was not
a citizen of the state of Missouri and could not bring
suit against his master with the following statements:

10. The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court.
11. This being the case, the judgment of the court below, in favor of the plaintiff on the plea in abatement, was erroneous.

Contrary to the myth that this case was decided based
upon the "slave as property" but was in fact one of
the symantecs of what a citizen is and who can bring
suit in a court. That this had the overall meaning and
definition in history cannot be denied and the case as
a whole did become a further turning point in the
eventual abolishment of slavery in the US.

Unfortunatly, it would seem that the analogy was a
poor one when compared with Roe v. Wade. Whereas the
Supreme court then sided with the rights of the states
to define thier own citizenry based upon status (if
for example Missouri had on thier books the following
law: a person of African decent who is born into
slavery will be considered a slave until such time as
they have been freed by thier master but will not be
considered a citizen of the state of Missouri ...). In
the latter Supreme Court decision the rights of the
states to have laws making abortion ilegal were struck
down.

So, in one sense the Supreme Court Justices held to a
strict application of the constitution in regards to
the definition of citizenship as relating to the laws
of the states and what the constitution provided for
who could be counted as a citizen of those states:

4. A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a 'citizen' within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.
5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its 'people or citizens.' Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

Whereas in our latter case the rights of the states
were usurped by the court in the rights to make laws
governing thier citizenry in relation to abortion,
thus as some have argued, passed law from the bench
beholden to no one.

Part II of Star Treck Enterprise: Storm Front

Actor J. Paul Boehmer in the Star Treck Enterprise season opener, part II as a Waffen SS officer. Star Treck Enterprise: Storm Front
Posted by Hello

The final part of the Enterprise season opener aired this last Friday evening and it was overall a decent episode. The writers of the series have taken pains to make the latest captain a bit rougher and grity as compared to the other characters in the successful franchise.

I won't go into the details on the episode, that can be watched and read from the web site or on TV when it is re-aired. What I wanted to comment on was thier always deft treatment of history and in this instance with cause and effect.

It is discovered that someone (a temporal agent) has altered history by assasinating Lenin in 1916. Lennin has been in exile in Switzerland since Tzarist Russia had him expelled for his agitation and political sedition. He is all but quiet however in his exile and has planned a return to Russia when the timing becomes right. He doesn't make it, however, and the communist revolution that Lennin will start never happens. According to this episode, since there was no Bolshlevick Russia to oppose his own National Socialist revolution in Germany, Hitler does not see the east as a threat and as he start war in 1939 he can do so without that threat to his back door. Hitler then is enabled to conquer the west with impunity and take Britain out as well before turning to the United States and to Russia.

Interesting process of cause and effect that does lend itself to creative "what if" scenarios. Without a communist Russia under a Stalin, what would Europe look like today? Quite different I would imagine in both geo-political borders and overall mind set.

Although, with any cause and effect scenario, one can never quite escape the overall fabric of history and must then go even further back in order to describe a valid "what if".

All sci-fi aside, the most pain ful Star Treck episodes to watch have been thier "historical" ones. It is too easy to sacrifice truth and realisim for artistic message and image. The Waffen SS soldiers (elites in the German Army whose prowess on the battlefield earned them both notoriety and respect from all sides of the war) were bumbling idiots as envisioned by the series writers and director.

But, I digress!

Unfortunatly, the nuance of the "Lennin gambit" let's call it isn't as clean as one might think. In 1916 the second year of the stalemate war was in full gear with both the British and French preparing the next big "breakthrough" offensives and the Germans were merely "holding the line" in the west while contending with the Russians in the East and spreading thier resources thinner in other parts of the world to prop up thier allies in the Balkans.

In actuality, a Russia without Lennin would have spelled a prolonging of the "Great War" by keeping Germany's forces spread between two fronts and keeping Austria-Hungry in the war. When the Commintern sued for a seperate peace with Germany, thus taking Russia out of the war, the Imperial War staff of Ludendorf and Hindenberg where brought from the East and allowed a breadth of control over German war strategy that had hitherto been only in the person of the Kiaser himself. The disasterous German spring offensives in 1918 drained thier manpower then in turn lead to a collapse of the western front in the face of the renewed allied offensives in the summer/fall of 1918.

The Lennin gambit lays quite a bit upon the conflict of National Socialisim against Bochlivisim as a guiding factor in WWII. It is no doubt that Hitler cast envious eyes upon the Serf's under Communist rule but it lays too much upon this one singular point of Hitler's war aspirations. It also leaves quite a lot unanswered from the first war.

Qoutes

I found another interesting set of quotes, one duringthe First World War as it pertained to Iraq and onefrom President Bush at the end of Operation IraqiFreedom. It will be noted, the first quote references thecampaign where a British force liberated what is nowIsrael and forced the Turkish army to abandon Iraq. Asan ally of Germany and posing a threat to Britishcommerce via the Dardanelles, Britain had fought acostly and ineffectual battle on the Gallipolipeninsula in 1915 against the Turks and had shiftedthe area of operations to the Egyptian theater. Illsupported and out generall'ed, the Turks and Germansretreated.

****
British General F. S. Maude to the people ofMesopotamia, March 19, 1917, as
quoted by NiallFerguson in "Hegemony or Empire," Foreign Affairs(September
2003):
Our armies do not come into your cities and lands asconquerors or enemies, but as liberators. ... It is[not] the wish of [our] government to impose upon youalien institutions. ... [It is our wish] that youshould prosper even as in the past, when your landswere fertile, when your ancestors gave to the worldliterature, science, and art, and when Baghdad citywas one of the wonders
of the world. ... It is [our]hope that the aspirations of your philosophers and writers shall be realized and that once again thepeople of Baghdad shall flourish, enjoying theirwealth and substance under institutions which are inconsonance with their sacred laws and their racialideals.

George Bush, April 4, 2003:
The government of Iraq, and the future of yourcountry, will soon belong to you. ... We will end abrutal regime ... so that Iraqis can live in security.We will respect your great religious traditions, whoseprinciples of equality and compassion are essential toIraq's future. We will help you build a peaceful andrepresentative government that protects the rights ofall citizens.
And then our military forces will leave.Iraq will go forward as a unified, independent, andsovereign nation that has regained a respected placein the world. You are a good and gifted people -- theheirs of a great civilization that contributes to all humanity.

****

I won't pretend to know the greater strategic goals ofthe campaign in Iraq nor of the greater consequencesdown the road.

Enterprise season opener

Season Opener of Star Treck: Enterprise, Capt. Archer in NY, circa 1944
Posted by Hello


Remember when TV shows used to only take a few months
in the summer for the off seasons then pick back up in
August? I suppose production schedules or other things
keep pushing season premiers later and later yet the
actual programs themselves do not venture too far into
the spring and summer before ending a season.

Anyway, back to the opener.

My wife and I like watching Star Treck and the various
shows that have spun off from the original franchise
(save for Deep Sleep Nine, neither of us could really
get into that one) and we've been watching them for
years faithfully, their writing staff is intelligent
and creative and the palate that they work with (the
future) is always fertile ground to pluck a story
from.

They should just stay away from doing history! I
suppose that entertainment has always cast an envious
eye towards history with the intent of "correcting it"
or "making it right" or twisting it to make some
modern point. I think the worst offender to date has
to be Dances with Wolves, the typical good Indian, bad
White Man, evil Soldier that has spawned many a trite
and terrible tale since the 60's on our cinema
screens.

Enterprise? It was a decent episode and it carried the
story lines along started from the first season even
of the Temporal Cold War, of the relationship between
McDaniel's and Capt. Archer. But what is it about just
doing it like it was that seems to be so anathema to
writers? There are so many things wrong with the
social and military fabric of this episode that I
cringed throughout most of the show.

Social

OK, the Nazi's have invaded the US in 1943/44 and are
on the eastern seaboard and pushing into the Midwest.
We find that Archer is under the care of a black
woman. They are in New York, so no big stretch there.
Archer, well he's "progressive" so he pays it no mind.
We are then suddenly introduced to her compatriots,
three Mafioso types. Three Italians walk comfortably
into her flat (she called it an apartment, not a
typical term for the easter seaboard) and even show
concern for her. I'm sorry writers, but as much as you
wanted to make a statement about race relations in
this alternate time line, you do the truth of our
history a disservice with this casting and plot line.

Why where three healthy looking Italians allowed to
just walk about NY while it is under occupation?
Because it was convenient to the storyline but did
nothing to create the atmosphere of occupation by an
enemy force. If they weren't criminals (which they
hinted they where) they would have been arrested and
concentrated somewhere or forced to labor in the
factories in Europe, thus removing a potential threat
of rebellion, a mistake Germany made with occupied
France in fomenting the conditions for sedition.
Thousands of Frenchmen where shipped off to Germany
under sometimes false pretense for work permits. These
toughs from the episode would not have been allowed to
lolly gag around, idle hands are the devils workshop.

The Germans

Why is it, whenever someone wants to do something with
Nazi Germany that it is always the Waffen SS that is
portrayed? They are shown as cocky, cruel, sadistic,
and everything else under the sun. Where these things
all true? Yes, and just as true and by incident count
for count of any other organization where someone
finds themselves in control over helpless human beings
regardless of what side they are on. American
atrocities are lightly treated and often not even
explored but were perpetrated not only upon the
civilian German populations during and after the war
but also upon German prisoners. It suffices to say
that the one lesson we should have learned from the
Abugrabe prison is that the capacity for cruelty abuse
is an innate thing within human beings. It is also a
curious happening with rear echelon troops verses how
front line soldiers treat their opposite numbers
during and after combat with a level of respect.

So, I suppose it could be argued that it was a Waffen
SS division who held New York, but the more plain and
to me just shocking revelation is that the Waffen SS
uniform is the universal symbol of evil. It is that
due to our sloppy history retelling and the use of
symbols in propaganda to inflame the masses and the
emotions.

Waffen SS divisions where but a fraction of the total
manpower of the Whermacht in WWII. Of the eventual 3
million Waffen SS soldiers of the 9 to 10 million
total serving, most were not even of German decent,
but were volunteers from the occupied countries.
Volunteers who volunteered willingly to fight against
Russia and Bolshevism. If Germany occupied that
country, you can find at least one division raised for
the Waffen SS from there. Latvians, Estonians,
Yugoslav's, French, Swedes, Danes, Russians, and
Duetches Reich or ethnic Germans from these countries
where recruited.

Absurd tactics

I always get upset when our entertainment is based
upon supposition and fooling around with historical
reality to the point where our overall grasp of the
truth is warped by the continual pounding in of the
"perfect" ideal of the filmmaker. The worst of this
was the scene where Commander Tucker and Lt. Reed have
beamed to the surface to track down their errant
shuttle pod. They are surprised by a roving SS patrol
and run. Then, inexplicably and adverse to even
someone with 0 training, the soldiers abandon the
chase and all decide to check out the shuttle. All of
them! Like little children in a candy store, or like
little Germans invading a Polish candy store they all
crowd into the cabin while Cmdr. Tucker proceeds to
detonate the explosives he and Lt. Reed have just
planted. Nice! It may appeal to the sycophantic
obsession we have in any media dealing with the
Germans to see a bunch blown up, but it deals an
insult to the several million German soldiers who
fought and died and their allies for what they
themselves believed in. It is time we admired the will
and spirit of men who fought and did extraordinary
feats of arms in Russia against overwhelming odds and
fanatical wastage of Russian soldiery in massed
attacks against thinly held defensive positions.

The formula good GI, stupid German is an insult to
both us and them and unfortunately in this episode we
continued that formula. Is it so hard to portray
things with at least a little more accuracy and still
keep the premise of the story? Is it that these
writers are just stupid when it comes to this time
frame? Or, as I suspect to be more the case, are they
so steeped in the desire to twist and use history to
front their on social Utopian order that anything is
fair game. Maybe it takes a soldier to appreciate
another soldier regardless of the side or the century.


What if's

The what if portion of this episode was only dealt
with on a superficial level, and that was an
intriguing aspect of this in the historical time line.
Hitler had 0 designers on the US and rightly so.
Despite Operation Sea Lion, the invasion of the
British Isles which was planned for but never
executed, Hitler had no real designers upon Britain
but to force them to capitulate so that he could deal
with his real target, Russia. A majority of the
Whermacht fought and died in the east against an
equally fanatic and tough opponent in the Russian
soldier. Despite the numerical superiority enjoyed by
Stavka, the Soviet high command, the Heer, Luftwaffe,
and Waffen SS formations bested them every step of the
way and but for odd decision making by Hitler would
have taken Moscow before the winter snows. Not quite
the soldiers portrayed before our eyes in movies and
TV shows though.

Although this alternate history does give the aspect
that the Germans wouldn't have gone as far as they did
without the help of these aliens, a falsehood as
demonstrated by history itself up to 1942 when the
resources began to be stretched taut for Germany it
also gives little credit to the Prussian militarist
tradition and the awesome power of will and doggedness
demonstrated by the common German soldier.

Is it any wonder that we look with disdain upon our
history when we flippantly watch something as this
episode and do not feel at least a little
uncomfortable with the portrayals? Not everyone can
have the knowledge I have nor be expected to do the
level of research, but even on a surface level this is
poor history in many aspects and the writers should
just stick to their strengths of the future and social
relations. My wife and I always sort of roll our eyes
when we encounter an episode that picks up on some
modern issue to "spread the gospel" of whatever is
supposed to be the PC viewpoint. They should at least
stick to the "preachy" episodes and leave our history
alone unless they choose to at least portray it
properly.

Quotes from our past

I'm not an FDR man myself, as the past played out he
was a neophyte on the international stage and knew
little when it came to politics in Europe in regards
to the intentions of Stalin, his agreements and
"warming up" to the Russians at Yalta consigned
millions to the shroud of the Iron Curtain because he
"thought" Stalin could be appeased with a little give
and take. The rest is history now, however.

But, I found the following interesting as this is very
much in our modern debate about defense and
initiative.
***

FDR, Fireside Chat, Sept. 11, 1941:

My fellow Americans:

The Navy Department of the United States has reported
to me that on the morning of September 4 the U. S.
Destroyer GREER, proceeding in full daylight toward
Iceland, had reached a point southeast of Greenland.
She was carrying American mail to Iceland. She was
flying the American flag. Her identity as an American
ship was unmistakable.

She was then and there attacked by a submarine.
Germany admits that it was a German submarine. The
submarine deliberately fired a torpedo at the GREER,
followed later by another torpedo attack. In spite of
what Hitler's propaganda bureau has invented, and in
spite of what any American obstructionist organization
may prefer to believe, I tell you the blunt fact that
the German submarine fired first upon this American
destroyer without warning, and with deliberate design
to sink her. ...

I assume that the German leaders are not deeply
concerned by what we Americans say or publish about
them. We cannot bring about the downfall of nazi-ism
by the use of long-range invectives.

But when you see a rattlesnake poised to strike you do
not wait until he has struck before you crush him....

It is clear to all Americans that the time has come
when the Americas themselves must now be defended. A
continuation of attacks in our own waters, or in
waters which could be used for further and greater
attacks on us, will inevitably weaken American ability
to repel Hitlerism.

Do not let us split hairs. Let us not ask ourselves
whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves
after the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the
twentieth attack.

The time for active defense is now.

Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say, "We will
only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in
getting home, or if the crew and the passengers are
drowned."

This is the time for prevention of attack.

If submarines or raiders attack in distant waters.
They can attack equally well within sight of our own
shores. Their very presence in any waters which
America deems vital to its defense constitutes an
attack.
***

A different day for sure, a different President, and a
different set of circumstances. However the principle
should still stand.

History and now

I ran across an interesting link while searching for
history web sites. This was a question posed to a
dozen historians on the historical parallels between
pre-war Europe in 1939 and the Suez canal crises of
1959.

This is the nice thing about history and the
discipline of history. It is a discipline and there is
a training in research and analysis that is bred as
one travels the academic route. There are currents to
historical study and insight and once in a while a
historian shakes free of the dead wood of past thought
and historiography to introduce a new paradigm.

http://hnn.us/comments/8816.html has this discussion
though now stale as far as current events go, it does
introduce a uniquely historiographers approach to the
past and modern times. We hear that this phrase: "if
you do not know the history you are doomed to repeat
it". These men and women didn't truck much with this
concept and they are correct. One cannot duplicate
exact situations from one era onto another for the
variables are always different. Although taking the
strict approaches to this comparison, the lessons are
not totally tied to their time frames.

The lessons of appeasement, of containment, of
mollification and so forth have been learned. The test
now and in the future is how to apply those lessons to
every new circumstance that comes our way. This is
what history and historians are good for, for the
analysis of the past and the interpretation of the
motives and the atmosphere in which decisions where
made. Unfortunately, most will never know the
difference for the voices of historians are mostly to
one another. Historians write monographs that are read
by other historians and they then attack or defend one
another based upon their stature and their expertise.
Few will be swayed by the analysis that is never put
before them.

I don't agree with all of their interpretations, but
that is what historiography is for.

Don't know much about ...

History, we can't escape it but I suppose we can sure
cover it up, subvert it, make it up, fabricate it,
propagandize it, refute it, or just simply investigate
it.

Most of us are too lazy to dig into history, for we
think of history as that stupid assignment Mrs.
Blechly gave us in high school that needed to be
annotated on 3x5 note cards and five pages long! It
reminds us of boring hours spent in a quiet library
and thumbing through index cards:

Peloplenesion war, The
Rise and fall of Sparta, The
Why Athens lost the Peloplenesion war - see also The
rise and fall of Sparta
Athens, City state - see also the rise and fall of
Sparta
Sparta, the rise and fall of - see also the rise and
fall of Sparta, The

We all do not need advanced degrees in history and not
all of us will have the patience to wade through the
mounds of research accumulated throughout the
centuries by other historians. But, what we seem to be
feeding our children and ourselves is a diet of "done'
know much about history ... and don't really care to
know anything." We are content with having someone
else tell us the story and as long as it makes a
little sense we go on our merry way regardless of the
factualness of the statements made.

We eat the steady diet of PC history where white man
is bad, Indian, Black, Chinese, Hispanic are good and
this information is presented in slick History Channel
documentaries and programming that cleverly portray a
stilted view of history that even Mrs. Blechly's text
books would blush at!

Is it that these episodes in history have been short
changed or is it that people with little understanding
of history are deciding what should and shouldn't be
presented to the public?

Areas of history that have been given short shrift
should be explored and explained and portrayed in a
way that can be easily grasped as it pertains to our
modern world. But to subvert the whole message for one
that satisfies the conscience is deceitful and
harmful. It is more than just the bland History
Channel programming, it is the glossing over or
outright covering over of our history that are
inexplicable or unexplainable when faced with our
modern ideas of equality, rights, and post World War
sensibilities.

Instead of explaining the origins of the Civil War in
a broad sense, we teach our children that the Civil
War was fought to free the slaves because it feeds our
sensibilities post civil rights movement.

Our sensibilities breed poor history, our poor history
breeds in-sensibility in our generations and a poor
view of ourselves as time moves onward.

A.S. Johnston or P.G.T Buearegard part II

When looking at the Confederate plans for reclaiming Tennessee from federal incursion and how the history that we read, in light of the articles referenced for these posts, one must understand something of military hierarchy. Although, an understanding of any hierarchy of official capacity is a must. For example, whose overall plan was in effect when the Branch Davidian compound was accidentally burned to the ground? Not having a place at the table during the Clinton Administration, I cannot say at the moment who it was who outlined the strategy for storming the compound. Yet, Janet Reno, the then Attorney General of the United States and in many senses President Bill Clinton have been held culpable for the ensuing carnage when the second attempt to smoke the Davidians out of their compound failed and burned many of the buildings to the ground and killing all of the adults and children who remained behind.

Whether you feel it is fair for either of them to take the blame for the debacle of the first failed raid, the 51 day siege, and the aftermath of the second attempt, they gave their assent and it was their authority that lay behind the planning and execution. It is all about authority.

Having ones subordinates nay-say or second guess ones decisions in the press soon after a defeat is nothing new to military operations during the civil war. That Beauregard should conduct a campaign where he takes credit for the whole campaign twenty years after Johnston's death is something else. He may very well be correct when he states the following.

In writing about his views on reinforcing Forts Henry and Donelson and his opinion as to the critical nature of those two positions:

The adoption, I said, and above all the vigorous execution of such a plan, would not only restore to us the full control of the Tennessee, but insure likewise the possession of the Cumberland, and eventually secure a much better position to our troops as to the defense of Nashville. My views were not adopted. General Johnston agreed to their correctness, in a strategic point of view, but feared that a failure to defeat General Grant, as proposed, would jeopardize the security of our positions at other points, and might possibly cause our forces to be crushed between Grant and Buell. pg. 6

Serial: The North American Review Volume 0142 Issue 350 (January 1886)
Title: The Shiloh Campaign, Part I [pp. 1-25]
Author: Beauregard, G. P. T.
Collection: Journals: North American Review (1815 - 1900)


Later, when presenting his defense to the reading public after the printing of The Century; a popular quarterly Volume 0029 Issue 4 (Feb 1885) in which Johnston's son, William lays some of the blame for the failure of Shiloh at the feet of Beauregard, he writes:

On the same day, February 16th, in answer to a dispatch of mine, asking if any direct orders had been issued to General Polk with regard to the troops at and around Columbus, Colonel Mackall, A.A. G., sent me this telegram: . You must do as your judgment dictates. No orders for your troops have issued from here. And General Johnston, in another telegram, dated February 18th, said: You must now act as seems best to you. The separation of our armies is now complete. pg. 9

Serial: The North American Review Volume 0142 Issue 350 (January 1886)
Title: The Shiloh Campaign, Part I [pp. 1-25]
Author: Beauregard, G. P. T.
Collection: Journals: North American Review (1815 - 1900)


Beauregard intimates here that Johnston gave him leeway to coordinate the troops as Beauregard saw fit, a major portion of that was the abandonment of Columbus, Tennessee by forces under Leonidas Polk's command, a move that Johnston's son had this to say:

When the capture of Fort Henry separated Tennessee into two distinct theaters of war, General Johnston assigned the district west of the Tennessee River to General Beauregard, who had been sent to him for duty. This officer had suddenly acquired a high reputation by the battle of Bull Run, and General Johnston naturally intrusted him with a large discretion. He sent him with instructions to concentrate all available forces near Corinth, a movement previously begun. His own plan was to defend Columbus to the last extremity with a reduced garrison, and withdraw Polk and his army for active movements. Beauregard made the mistake, how- ever, of evacuating Columbus, and making his defense of the Mississippi River at Island Number Ten, which proved untenable and soon surrendered with a garrison of 6000 or 7000 men. pg. 618

Serial: The Century; a popular quarterly Volume 0029 Issue 4 (Feb 1885)
Title: Battles and Leaders of the Civil War: Albert Sidney Johnston and the Shiloh Campaign. By His Son [pp. 614-629]
Author: Johnston, Wm. Preston


Was this hindsight, or did Albert S. Johnston really believe that the abandonment of Columbus, Tn a mistake, a move that Beauregard states was not only suggested by himself but also backed by the Confederate Department of War?

I was then at Jackson, Tennessee, where Colonel Jordan, my chief of staff, had just arrived, after an inspection tour at Columbus. His report, coupled with that of Captain Harris, my chief engineer, about the exaggerated extension of the lines there, the defective location of the works, and the faulty organization of the troops, strengthened my own opinion as to the inability of Columbus to withstand a serious attack, and rendered more imperative still the necessity of its early evacuation. General Polk, who had considered the situation in a different light, and who believed in the defensive capacity of the place, was at first averse to the movement. He changed his mind, however, upon my showing him the saliency of Fort Columbus and the weak points of its construction, and cheerfully carried out my instructions, when, on the 19th of February, the War Department having given its consent to the evacuation, he was ordered to prepare for it without delay. pg. 9-10

Serial: The North American Review Volume 0142 Issue 350 (January 1886)
Title: The Shiloh Campaign, Part I [pp. 1-25]
Author: Beauregard, G. P. T.


In order to understand Beauregard's account as put forth in The North American Review, one has to read the Johnston account in the Battle's And Leaders of the Civil War as published by The Century. If Beauregard takes liberties with the role he played, playing up his own council to his commander and taking credit where it is perhaps undue, his motivation to respond to his thinly veiled detractor becomes clearer.

In the next installment, we'll look a little at what else Johnston says of his father's plans in the campaign and a what official history has to say.

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad