So it was 50 years ago tomorrow that man first walked on the moon. The day before that the Apollo 11 Command Module, along with the Lunar Module and the Service Module, were picking up speed as the moon’s gravity started to have an effect. By the end of the day they would be orbiting the moon.
I had been watching the Apollo missions closely. Well, that is once they got off the ground. Apollo 7 had stayed in earth orbit, checking out all the systems. Apollo 8 flew to the moon and orbited it. Apollo 9 stayed in earth orbit, deploying the LM with two astronauts, testing its systems. Apollo 10, in May 1969, flew to the moon and orbited. This was a full dress rehearsal for the landing. They deployed the LM, flew it to within 10 miles of the moon’s surface, successfully docked back with the CM, and returned. All that was left was actually landing.
Word had it that the USSR was going to launch an unmanned probe to make a soft landing on the moon, and that they were going to get it there before we landed. This was a little drama as Apollo 11launched. Would we make our manned, soft landing before the Soviet’s did their soft, unmanned? At some point, possibly during our flight, we learned that the Soviet craft crashed on the moon, 5 minutes early. That was exactly the amount of time their retro-rockets should have fired to slow it to the soft landing. The cause of that failure was thus obvious (though some think it may have crashed into one of the taller mountains on the moon). The result was we had the moon to ourselves at that time.
I remember July 20, 1969. ‘Twas a Sunday. The moon walk was originally scheduled to take place late. My memory, which may not be correct, was that it was to happen after midnight, maybe around 1 a.m. on the 21st. NASA decided to move it forward, to around 11 p.m. on the 20th, after a four hour rest for Armstrong and Aldrin. But that was moved forward even more so that the moon walk would happen during East Coast prime time. [Note: I can find documentation of only one change in time for the moon walk.]
I remember the transmission, the first words, the astronauts walking on the surface, taking note of their bouncy steps in low gravity. It was all mesmerizing. I consider this one of the high points of my life. It was a privilege to watch this on TV. Oh, and I thank NASA for moving the walk forward, allowing me to watch it in prime time.
Never having seen one of the Saturn V rockets in person, I can only imagine it’s size.
We are less than a month away from the 50th anniversary of the first time mankind walked on the moon. I was 17 years old, about to be a senior in high school. I have some clear memories of it, while other things quite famous I have no memory of at all.
I thought I’d do a brief series (maybe three posts scattered over the next three to four weeks) about my memories of it. I hope my readers won’t mind this departure from my regular posts, which are related to writing.
Those who lived through it will never forget the earthrise photos that came from Apollo 8.
Yesterday evening, after my wife and I watched a 1996 Sherlock Holmes movie, we switched to regular TV to see what we could find. It happened to be the top of the hour, and we saw the start of a National Geographic program on the moon race. That took me back to my first introduction of how we were going to get to the moon.
It was in August 1965. I was at Camp Yawgoog, the Boy Scout camp in SW Rhode Island, my first year to go to scout camp. That week is more memorable for what happened on Sunday, after Dad picked me up and we headed home, but that’s another story, loosely recounted in my short story, “Mom’s Letter”. But I digress.
On Saturday evening, all the scouts, scouters, and staff gathered in the amphitheater for a program. It was done every week of the summer. This particular Saturday the program was about NASA’s space program, specifically about how we were going to get to the moon.
What the speaker showed us that night was a model of the entire LM, not a cutaway like this. It was a complex spacecraft.
I don’t remember the name of the speaker or who he was with. He may have been someone NASA hired to get the word out. He did a fantastic job. He had models of the different space craft that would be used. The Mercury program was over by this time. The Gemini program had begun. He explained how that was for the purpose of testing vehicle docking in zero gravity, extra-vehicular activities, longer times in space such as what would be experienced in a moon shot. The models were large enough for us to easily see.
I remember how he described the many parts of the moon shot: the Apollo rocket to get them into earth orbit; the engine burn of the command module to boost them on a moon trajectory; the separation of the lunar module from the command module; the descent to the moon and landing; the burn of the LM engines to send half the LM back to the command module, leaving half of the LM on the moon; re-docking with the command module; and the return to earth.
That happened 54 years ago, but it is all very clear in my memory. I suppose it is because I found it fascinating. Prior to that, I had of course followed what NASA did. Each Mercury and Gemini flight had captured my interest. It was earlier that summer that the first EVA had happened. While I was at camp Gemini 5 was in space, the first flight to go beyond a few days in space. So I wasn’t ignorant of the space program, but that presentation helped me to understand it better, gave me something to judge progress against as future flights would occur.
I’m glad to have such memories of the space program as it was during it’s early days, and am sorry for the kids of today that don’t have that sort of thing. Space travel still isn’t commonplace, but it doesn’t get news coverage as it used to. And that’s too bad.
The United States Constitution. What a great system of government.
As I mentioned in a previous post, as I’m going through the source documents for Documenting America: Making the Constitution Edition, much good material gets edited out. It winds up on the cutting room floor, so to speak, using the movie industry term. Some of this is good material. I’d love to use it in my book, but, alas, I need to keep the book a reasonable size.
The thought came to me to use it for blog post material. So, instead of just dumping it, I’ve been saving it for use when it’s time to write a blog post and I have nothing else in mind. It could also be newsletter material, I suppose, if I ever take the plunge to writing a newsletter.
But, again alas, something I put into a file last week, from one of the Federalist Papers, is now nowhere to be found. What did I do with it? Did I save it to my Documenting America Vol 3 folder? It’s not there. Did I save it to my Blog folder? It’s not there either. Maybe, without paying attention, I saved it to the root folder of my Documents. Nope, not there either. Did I fail to save it and let it go drifting off into the ether?
Whatever, the excellent item I was going to use for today is not on my computer. I could spend an hour looking for it, but think, instead, I’ll find something else. I saved other stuff.
Here’s one from an anonymous writing from someone from Pennsylvania who didn’t like the proposed constitution.
The wealthy and ambitious, who in every community think they have a right to lord it over their fellow creatures, have availed themselves, very successfully, of this favorable disposition; for the people thus unsettled in their sentiments, have been prepared to accede to any extreme of government; all the distresses and difficulties they experience, proceeding from various causes, have been ascribed to the impotency of the present confederation, and thence they have been led to expect full relief from the adoption of the proposed system of government, and in the other event, immediately ruin and annihilation as a nation. These characters flatter themselves that they have lulled all distrust and jealousy of their new plan, by gaining the concurrence of the two men in whom America has the highest confidence, and now triumphantly exult in the completion of their long meditated schemes of power and aggrandisement.
Whoever wrote this, a small part of a much longer article, was, I think, spot on concerning what happens when power is obtained and then applied to government. Wealthy and ambitious people do tend to lord it over their fellow citizens. They are successful, often from their own work, and they see this as a reason why they should 1) be held in high esteem by others, and 2) have positions of political power.
The writer of the original document seems to have been wrong, however, about the motives of those who wrote the Constitution and about how the government would function under it. Things turned out much better than his dire predictions. He knew things weren’t going well under the Articles of Confederation, and saw this new document as setting up a government of the rich and powerful. I believe most of our 232 year experience with it shows us that this isn’t so.
My Documenting America series focuses on our historical documents, and tries to inspire people to seek the documents out and read them.
Or is it? As I look on Congress today, I see lots of multi-millionaires. I see people who make laws that apply to others but not themselves. I see the rich and powerful say the government should take over your health care while they keep a very nice plan for themselves. Same with pensions and Social Security.
I could go on and on. Can you tell I’m not a big fan of Congress? I think most of the ills in the nation that are often attributed to the president—every president, no matter who it is—are often the fault of Congress, either due to their action or inaction.
So why didn’t this particular passage make it into my book? Simply a matter of space. This document, like all of them I’m using in the book, is chock full of good phrases and arguments. Some turned out to be wrong arguments, some right. It’s all worth reading. If someone reads Documenting America and then digs into the source documents, they’ll see this. All the better. If they don’t, this will remain obscure and unread.
Perhaps my book and this blog will help others to find and read it.
This is close to the cover I want to use for “Adam Of Jerusalem”, but I can’t find the copyright holder of the photo. I’m probably wrong in even posting it here.
In my last post I wrote part 1 of a two-part review of John Locke’s Two Treatises on Government. I said I would do the next part soon. However, soon is not today. Instead, I’m going to write about what I’m writing, and what I’m preparing to write.
I have two books in progress, one complete and being edited, one being written. The first is Adam Of Jerusalem. I finished this in mid-December 2018, let it sit a few weeks over the holidays, then began editing in mid-January. I think those dates are right; it’s all kind of blurry without looking at my diary. I’ve made three editorial passes, and given the book to three beta-readers. I have figured I would publish it then.
But, in January I joined a newly-formed writers critique group. I decided to run AOJ by them. They didn’t like chapter 1 in January or chapter 2 in February. Not enough description they said. Too much getting from point A to point B without flourishes. Alas, that must be the engineer in me.
So I went through these two chapters looking for places to add some description, some of what I call extraneous information that gives the reader a better experience, that makes them feel like they were there when the action was taking place. It caused chapter 2 to increase in length 25 percent. If I did that for the entire book, the novel would go from 72,000 words to 90,000 words. That’s not awful, but I would have to think about that.
Still, I decided to go on with this for a few more chapters at least. Last night I re-edited chapter 5, having completed 3 and 4, and found a number of places to add those flourishes. I’ll type these last edits sometime today and step back and see how it looks to me. I imagine I’ll go on with this while waiting on beta-readers to get back to me.
And, perhaps, a fourth to this one? Yes: Making The Constitution Edition, hopefully in 2019. Update: It will come in 2019!
Then, my current writing project is Documenting America: Making The Constitution Edition. I’ve written about this series before many times, and this particular volume. At some point, around February 12, I began gathering source documents and completed the editing and writing of one chapter on February 18. Yesterday I completed the twelfth chapter (out of 31 or 32) and edited the source document for the thirteenth. I did that in the evening in manuscript, so will be typing that today.
Meanwhile, as I work on DA:MCE, I’m coming across material I realize I can use in a future edition. I don’t know what I’ll do next. The choices are many. I read some inspiring, early abolition works, and thought that a volume on the abolition movement might be good. So I created folders on my computer and began seeking out source documents for that. I’m a long way from doing anything with this book, but maybe, just maybe, I’m starting it the right way. Except, I should start a writing diary for it, even if it will have major time gaps in it.
One other project that I’m (somewhat) actively working on is a Bible study I developed and taught some years ago called Sacred Moments. It’s a study of the sacraments and the importance of them in the life of the Christian. They are sacred moments. I had a little trouble finding the files I created on that years ago. On a shelf in my closet, in an unmarked, green three-ring binder, I found the paper copies—preserved in sheet protectors, no less. Digging around in files transferred from an old computer, I found the computer files. I transferred them into my cloud storage.
I have no schedule for working on Sacred Moments. I feel I must do more research if I’m to publish it as a Bible study. It will be the first of those critters for me, and I would want to do it right. I did lots of research before, and even some after, but too many years have passed since I developed and taught it, so I’ll have to re-do some of that research.
That’s pretty much it. One other, more minor, task I want to work on soon is to get my ideas notebook in shape. I found it this week, on that closet shelf. I can’t remember the last time I looked at it. I’m thinking that may be a Sunday task, with a mug of coffee, in the sunroom.
I had a different post planned for today, but think I’ll go this way instead.
There’s a reason The Independent Man is atop our statehouse: We are independent minded. Or, are we just stubborn?
Yesterday, I thought I was done with my research in Documenting America: Making the Constitution Edition. I had all my chapters lined-out, all my source text found and entered in a Word document. Well, almost all, as the source text for one chapter eluded me. Yesterday I found an alternative (actually, two) and that’s now in the document. I even wrote my commentary on a chapter yesterday. Now up to nine chapters complete out of a probably thirty-one.
I started work on the next chapter, editing the source text. It’s a letter from Thomas Jefferson, while he was in Paris in 1787, to Edward Carrington. TJ made some very good points and I’m happy to have that in my book. I figured writing the chapter around it would be somewhat easy.
But, I wanted to see what Carrington had written to TJ to prompt this letter. I went to the Library of Congress website, which has been my source for so much. It didn’t take too long to learn Carrington hadn’t written to TJ in six years. TJ had re-initiated the correspondence. I decided then to see how Carrington responded.
That was easy to find with the tools on the LOC site. Jefferson wrote Jan 16, 1787; Carrington responded April 24, 1787, a reasonable lag given the time for a letter to sail across the ocean. So last night I began reading the April 24 letter, and enjoyed it until I came to this sentence.
Rhode Island is at all points so anti-federal, and contemptible, that her neglecting the invitation, will probably occasion no demur whatever in the proceedings.
I kept reading, however, as a good researcher should do. I next went to Carrington’s June 9, 1787 letter to TJ, written before Jefferson had responded. It this letter I found the following.
All the States have elected representatives except Rhode Island, whose apostasy from every moral, as well as political, obligation, has placed her perfectly without the views of her confederates; nor will her absence, or nonconcurrence, occasion the least impediment in any stage of the intended business.
And I though, them’s fightin’ word mister! How dare you bash my home state like that. I suppose, however, he’s correct. He’s talking about choosing and sending delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This followed the failed Annapolis convention in 1786. Rhode Island didn’t attend that one, though they did appoint delegates who simply didn’t arrive on time.
Now, however, as the Constitutional Convention drew near, Little Rhody was the only State to boycott it. They liked the ineffective Articles of Confederation just fine, thank, and didn’t want them changed. They liked doing things their way, even if they wound up being a tiny, independent nation.
I think it was the word “contemptible” that rankled me. Yes, Rhode Island is a different kind of state. The top of our statehouse has a statue titled the Independent Man. We have our quirks and love having our quirks.
Then the word “apostasy” also rankled. Carrington didn’t mean this in the religious sense, but rather in terms of politics, that we had fallen away from the sense of cooperation that pervaded during the Revolutionary War. We had ceased looking at ourselves as part of a larger union. Still, the word hurt.
It also hurt that he said it didn’t matter if Rhode Island showed up or not. He said that twice, once in each letter. Was that because of our size and relatively small population? Most likely.
I’ve been away from Rhode Island now for 45 years. I still visit from time to time, and keep in touch with relatives and friends there. I may live in Arkansas, but I still feel like a Rhode Islander.
And I love this research I’m doing for the book. I need to be careful, however. I could research for days and days, enjoying it so much that I’d never get the book written. I need to cut it off and just stick with the writing.
And I will, just as soon as I absorb these Carrington letters.
As I’m working on Documenting America: Making the Constitution Edition, I find that certain topics come back into current American life that have been discussed and, supposedly, settled before. Religious freedom seems to be one of them.
My research suggests that the Founding Fathers did indeed want to keep some degree of separation between religion and government. Their primary focus was preventing the government from regulating religion or restricting who/how/why people could worship.
The latest infringement on the free exercise of religion is US senators asking candidates nominated to various government positions about their religion and how it would affect their performance in office. I first noticed this almost 20 years ago when Chuck Shumer, then a relatively new senator from New York, asked Attorney General nominee John Ashcroft how he could turn off his evangelical Christianity so he could do a proper job as A.G.
I was shocked then and am shocked now when people like Senator Feinstein says to a candidate, “The dogma is strong in this one.” The U.S. Constitution says:
but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
When Shumer asks “How do you turn it off” and Feinstein says “the dogma is strong in this one,” what is that if not a religious test. Shumer is saying you can’t be Attorney General if you’re a practicing evangelical. Feinstein is saying you can’t be a Federal judge if you are a devout Catholic. Shame on these senators!
This was all settled in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson led the way in his writing the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which was later put into law in that state. Religious freedom came in this form.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
Note that religion should not affect their “civil capacities.” In other words, the law shouldn’t punish someone because of their religion. By the time the Constitution was written, this was applied to Federal officials through the religious test clause.
So here we are, 232 years later, fighting the same battles we did years ago. What will it take for this to end, for us to win the battle again that a person’s religion cannot disqualify them from holding a Federal office? Maybe it will take one nominee to refuse to answer a question about their religion, to tell the senator who asks, politely, where to shove the question, to show that the Constitution means something.
I’m hopeful that will happen next time the situation comes up.
My most recently completed novel, Adam Of Jerusalem, is in the hands of two beta readers. Sunday I will put a print copy in the hands of a third. I received a little feedback from one and a little more feedback from the other. That process is working.
I contacted a cover designer while I was in Texas. She responded that maybe she can help me, though she is busy. I haven’t contacted her again; that’s on the schedule for today, though today looks to be very busy.
So, it’s on to the next book, which is the next in my non-fiction series. Documenting America: Making The Constitution Edition is next. In theory it’s the third book in the series, although since I did a homeschool edition of the first it is in reality the fourth. I can’t remember how much I’ve written about it before, so I think I’ll just plunge in and tell about it and where I am.
I then took the first book and expanded it into a homeschool edition.
The book covers the period from 1783 to 1789. The Revolutionary War is over. During the war, the Articles of Confederation worked as a form of government. Now in peace time, however, it turns out they don’t work. The central government was a little too weak, and the states a little too independent, for government to function. Wise men saw there was a real chance of the confederation breaking apart into thirteen nations, or perhaps into a few regional nations.
In 1787 a convention was held to revise the Articles of Confederation. The delegates saw that was hopeless, and went in a different direction. They devised a whole new system of central government and wrote a document that became the Constitution.
The Civil War edition was published in mid-2017.
From fall of 1787 to late 1788 the states considered this new government. One by one they ratified it. Only nine affirmative votes were needed. They got eleven, with North Carolina and Rhode Island being the only holdouts. Electors met in January-February 1789 and elected Washington to be president. He took the oath of office on April 30, 1789, and the new government was underway.
Here’s the status of the book: I’ve done most of my background reading and have identified the documents I want to use and how to organize them into chapters. I have 30 chapters identified, though some of them are tentative. I have four chapters where I have the source documents identified (The Federalist Papers) but I haven’t read the documents. I plan on starting on that tonight.
Yesterday I took a big step. I created my folder on OneDrive, created the book file, and began to seek out digital copies of my source documents. I found most from the first half of the book—all but one. I copied the full documents and added them to my book file. The fourteen source documents are there, 55 pages and 29496 words. Today (if I have time; if not tomorrow or Sunday) I’ll work on the next fifteen chapters and do the same, all except the four chapters I still have some reading to do on. I hope to have all this done by about Wednesday of next week, including the four lagging chapters.
Then comes the editing/excerpting of the source documents. I have that partly done for about eighteen chapters in my copy of the Annals Of America, where I’ve marked paragraphs to use. That’s far from complete, and some of it was done over a year ago and is thus vague in my memory, but it’s at least started.
I won’t excerpt the documents all at once. I’ll start with Chapter 1, which is a document by Alexander Hamilton about the unfair treatment of loyalists It is 5,221 words. I’ll except this down to around 1,000 (plus of minus 250, at least that’s my target; some documents demand more words be kept), then write my part of the chapter. That process is likely to take two to four days per chapter.
That may be a bit optimistic. Documents from this era are in archaic English, and reading/editing can be a chore. In the book they are all in different formats and will have to be reworked. Four days per chapter to re-read, except, write historical commentary, and tie to a current issue may take longer on average. I don’t really know for sure.
So that’s the plan. Now in retirement, possibly it will all go faster. On days when the stock market is open, and I’m making or watching trades, I plan on doing this work simultaneously. Maybe it will go faster than I think. I’m not ready to look ahead and project a publishing date. Perhaps in two weeks I’ll be ready to take a stab at that.
Oh, one thing I haven’t done yet is create my book journal. That’s another task I hope to get done today.
During World War 2, my dad had an interesting story. Older than the average G.I. at 26 when the war broke out for the USA, he found himself in North Africa, staging to go on the invasion of Italy. Just before he embarked, he was transferred to the Stars and Stripes, the G.I. newspaper and on his way to Algiers to set type. Before long he was in Italy, setting type on the mobile unit of the paper: within sound of the guns.
Rick Atkinson is an excellent war historian and writer.
So, some years ago I found The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy at some discount store, I grabbed it. It sat in my reading pile for a couple of years, until I finally read it beginning last fall and ending in early January.
I’m glad I did read it. Rick Atkinson has done a wonderful job of making the war in these areas come alive. He deals with the generals and the soldiers. He helps the reader see what it was like to be pushed forward by Patton. Or how impossible missions were undertaken in Italy and men slaughtered as a result. I had never read any detailed information about the campaign in Italy. Atkinson brought it alive for me.
I’ve read some of the reviews on Amazon. Most are positive, though a few are that are negative. At least one criticized Atkinson for using obscure words. He did have a few of those, but, in my mind, not many. I only looked up one or two. I was able to pass over the others without loss of meaning. A few seemed to be military technical terms.
This book is a keeper. I have a fair collection of WW2 books. Most I’ve never read, and those I’ve read I haven’t retained as well as I wish I had. Someday in the future I might pick this one up again, and re-read it. Or, if I ever do get around to writing that memoir of my mom and dad, this could be source material for the conditions Dad worked in.
If I review this on Amazon, I’ll give it 4 or 5 stars.
The Confederate monument on the square in downtown Bentonville
Once again, removal of Confederate monuments, symbols, and references from the states that were part of the Confederacy is hot in the news, even in the city I work in, Bentonville, Arkansas. Actually, it’s not just the states of the Confederacy that have such monuments. The border states, the ones that were slave-holding but stayed in the Union, also have a fair number of Confederate monuments. And, a few such monuments exist in states that made up the Union side—not many, but a few.
In addition to monuments, you have: schools named for leaders of the Confederacy; military bases named for leaders of the Confederacy; US Navy ships named for leaders of the Confederacy; streets named for…you get the picture. These are everywhere, at the Federal, state, and local level.
It’s hard to see, but behind the landscaping recently added, in big, bold letters is “CONFEDERATE”
Should they be removed? And, if so, how far should you go? In the city of Lowell, Arkansas, which is in the county where I live and work, a street is named for William Henry Harrison, 9th president of the USA. At two city council meetings I attended in that city, during public comment time, a certain man stood up and demanded that the street be renamed, because Harrison was a slave owner (I got the impression this man did this in every city council meeting). Is that a good idea? If so, you should also rename streets named after George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, etc., who were also slave owners.
How this monument gives praise to a public servant.
But focusing for a moment on the monument issue, should they be removed from public land? Most such monuments are to the leaders of the Confederacy, such as General Robert E. Lee and President Jefferson Davis. But not all of them are. The monument in the square in Bentonville is to a man named James H. Berry. Originally from Alabama, he was raised in Bentonville and eventually became a legislator, governor, and U.S. senator. But, before that, during the Civil War, he enlisted and became a junior officer. Being wounded in one of his first battles, he came home and took no further part in the war. The monument, however, isn’t really about him. The statue is of him, and his name appears, with a plaque that details his years of public service. But elsewhere on the monument is this inscription: “1861-1865 To the Southern soldiers” On the base of the monument, on each of the four sides, the word “Confederate” is prominently displayed. This was erected in 1908, forty-three years after the end of the Civil War. On the base of the statue, on all four sides, “CONFEDERATE” appears in the largest letters on the statue.
A movement is now afoot to remove this monument. Should it be removed? The funny thing about this, there was absolutely no clamor about removing this monument until Sunday, August 13, 2017. In light of what had happened in Charlottesville, Virginia on the two previous days, a group of concerned people got together in Bentonville to make a public statement against hate. They did this in the center of the city, which is the square in front of the courthouse, the square where this monument is. As they got together, they stood on the paved path that encircles monument. They held hands as they sang and prayed for unity, peace, and giving up hate. I was unable to go due to an after-church meeting. From what I can tell based on reports, the “demonstration” was beautiful. The venue, however, was the worst possible place in the city to hold such a gathering. You decry racism and hate while encircling a Confederate monument? The event organizers should have thought that one through a little more. At the end of the “demonstration,” a number of people started chanting “Tear it down!” What else could you expect?
What it says on the monument around the corner. The other reason for it, perhaps the main reason.
But I ask again, should this monument be removed? As I said in an earlier post on this blog, I say no: don’t tear down this monument, or any other. I say that as a man of mixed race but who knew nothing of the black component of my heritage until I was 46 years old, who never faced racial prejudice, who was raised in the north but who has spent most of his adult life in the south. This monument wasn’t erected to be a symbol against me or my people. So I can certainly understand that the feelings of others that are contrary to mine are valid, and perhaps more valid than mine.
Again I suggest that we not tear down this monument in Bentonville, or those in other places. Rather, add to them to tell the full history. To this monument in Bentonville, I suggest adding these words. If they won’t fit on the monument itself, find another way to prominently display them so that they will be seen equally with what’s already there.
This man, while honorable and a public servant, fought to preserve slavery. That may or may not have been his intent, but that’s what he did. That’s what all the enlisted soldiers did. They fought to preserve white ownership of blacks for no other reason than skin color. Remember this. Learn from it. Never let such an injustice happen again.
The print book is now available.
Do that in Bentonville. Do that in Charlottesville. Do that in Richmond. Do that at Stone Mountain, Georgia, along with an image of a white overseer whipping black slaves. Do this, and the full history will be told. Do this, and maybe, just maybe, we will make sure no such injustice happens again. And maybe, just maybe, the hate that these monuments seem to promote will be lessened, or even done away with.
We won’t expunge history, but will tell it fully and openly. We won’t forget it. And learn from it.
As I mentioned in a couple of prior posts, I recently finished a book about General Robert E. Lee’s Gettysburg campaign. In that book, Last Chance For Victory, the authors speak much about the second day of the battle. The first day was also covered extensively, though the third somewhat less than the first two. On the first day, the Confederate army and the Union army met almost accidentally at Gettysburg. A major clash wasn’t expected quite that soon by Lee. So the ebb and flow of the battle had to do with standing orders for both sides, and with soldiery and generalship, and less to do with strategy.
Lee’s gamble of marching north, to take the pressure off Virginia, and to force the North to end the war, didn’t pay off. This book suggests it came very, very close.
But, on the second day, it was all about strategy and tactics. So say Bowden and Ward, the authors of LCFV. Lee spent much of the night of July 1-2 working on his strategy, even before he knew for sure what the Federal positions were and which of his own forces would be available for battle. He consulted with his corps commanders: Longstreet, Hill, and Ewell. They had ideas of what to do, especially Longstreet. Lee considered that, then set a plan for a frontal attack from the west against Cemetery Ridge, held by the Union. A “demonstration” in force by Ewell’s corps from the north was also part of it, which Lee meant to develop into a full attack, depending on how the Union reacted. These plans took most of the morning to prepare, and were to launch in the early afternoon.
But, when Lee and others made a final check of the front. It was discovered that General Sickles, a corps commander for the Union, had moved his corps down Cemetery Ridge into a forward position along the Emmitsburg Road, over a mile closer to the Confederates. And, his new line had a “kink” in it; it wasn’t a nice straight line as armies are used to forming. It also left the Union susceptible to flanking movements, either around Sickles to the south or between Sickles and the next corps, commanded by General Hancock.
Bowden and Ward say this was a stupid move on Sickles’ part. This is echoed in other accounts that I’ve read, limited as they are. Sickles was too exposed, his new line too hard to defend. Yes, it was a stupid. The results of the battle “prove” this true. Sickles’ corps was decimated by Lee’s attack. They fell back—the ones that weren’t killed, injured or captured. That stupid Sickles cost the Union a functioning corps.
Except, because of Sickles’ move, Lee changed his battle plan. Instead of a full, frontal attack simultaneously by two corps, he went with an en echelon attack, that is, an attack that progressed from one end of the line to the other, not simultaneously, but sequentially, division by division or brigade by brigade. This took an hour or so to put together and issue new orders. Thus, the Confederate attack didn’t kick off until about 4:00 in the afternoon. It went well, but fell apart as dark was approaching, giving Lee no time to take corrective action.
So Sickles’ move cost the South about an hour of battle daylight. Lee famously said that they needed another half hour to make the attack successful. Why didn’t he have the time he needed? Because of Sickles’ move. So, even though his corps took heavy, heavy casualties, wasn’t his move what saved the day for the Union?
Bowden and Ward didn’t discuss the time factor, the time Sickles’ took away from Lee by changing his position. Yes, his casualties were heavy, but it seems to me it was the key move by either army in the whole sequence of the three-day battle. While Lee was adjusting his strategy and orders, the Federal army was able to bring up more troops that were arriving, and make other adjustments. Also, troops badly beaten the previous day had an extra hour to get their act together. Many were still not battle-worthy, but with an extra hour of rest, and time for their officers to rally them, they had to be in better shape at 4:00 p.m. than they would have been at 2:00 p.m., when the battle might have kicked off according to Lee’s original plan.
So, was Sickles’ move folly, or genius? Everything I’ve read says it was folly. Is their no one among the battle’s historians who see this as a good move—a costly move, but a good one in that it bought time, time that the Union desperately needed. Who am I to question military historians, a novice such as I am?
I have much more reading to do on this to know for sure. And, I don’t know that that time will ever present itself for me to be able to do this. I hope, some year, I’ll get to read more on it, and maybe write something from more knowledge.
Word had it that the USSR was going to launch an unmanned probe to make a soft landing on the moon, and that they were going to get it there before we landed. This was a little drama as Apollo 11 launched. Would we make our manned, soft landing before the Soviet’s did their soft, unmanned? At some point, possibly during our flight, we learned that the Soviet craft crashed on the moon, 5 minutes early. That was exactly the amount of time their retro-rockets should have fired to slow it to the soft landing. The cause of that failure was thus obvious (though some think it may have crashed into one of the taller mountains on the moon). The result was we had the moon to ourselves at that time.
