Tag Archives: Week 4

   I’m not sure that this is an acceptable blog but it’s something that has been on my mind for the past couple of weeks.  During class introductions I stated that I am steeply indoctrinated into the Lost Cause vision of the Civil War and Reconstruction.  Later I was deeply offended by Tony Horwitz’s Confederates in the Attic because he seemed to find nutcases and fanatics in the South and seemed to portray them as representative of most southerners.  But I have to admit he forced me to consider the impact of the Lost Cause upon my own attitudes and opinions and how they have effected my life.  In working on defining/identifying the Lost Cause for our final, I have struggled to define this in myself.  What do I consider to be the Lost Cause?  How did I become indoctrinated?  How has it impacted me?

The Lost Cause, as we have learned, has meant different things to different times and places and even to individuals.  I have never held to the Lost Cause belief that slavery was a positive situation for southern society.  The idea that slavery was moral and appropriate seems outrageous and ignorant (yes, I used that word).  Slavery is an embarrassment to me and my ancestors.  (I do know that in the 1790s my forefather included his slaves in his will.)  Nothing can justify slavery.  It is something that one must acknowledge,accept, and deal with as an ancestor of a slave holder.  Nor do I adhere to the racism that accompanies the Lost Cause.  Unfortunately, I was raised in an environment or racism, something I have worked hard to overcome.  I still must guard my thoughts and attitudes at times because those early learning experiences become deeply rooted in our pysche.  My parents and many adults (and a few peers) exhibited racist attitudes and expressions as I grew up and through High School.  However through education and experience, that racism does not live on through me and my sons faced little exposure to those attitudes.

The aspects that I carry with me of the Lost Cause consist of the admiration for the courage and determination of the Confederate soldiers and the military leadership of the South.  My middle name is Lee which is very common among southerners. (This was left out of how we remember)  However I never viewed Lee or Jackson as some kind of superhero or idol.  My admiration for Lee resulted from his successes on the battlefield.  I agree with Gallagher that the military superiority of Lee was not a myth.*  He really was a remarkable military commander that achieved some pretty impressive victories over superior numbers.  That admiration toward Confederate courage and intelligence provides a sense of pride in my southern identification.

A second influence of Lost Cause indoctrination has resulted in my prejudice toward “Yankees.”  I still catch myself being critical of people from ‘the North.”  I’m not even sure what I exactly mean by “the North.”  The concept of the aggressive, intrusive, “nosey” Yankee comes from the Lost Cause influence that presents the North as a society of hypocrites that wanted to remove the “splinter from the eye of the South, but could not see the plank in their own eye.”  This comes from southern responses to the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the enforcement of desegregation (something I strongly support).

I’m not sure how I was indoctrinated.  I think it was more informal rather than being miss-taught  at school.  I heard of the heroics of Lee, Jackson, and Stuart through my parents.  The brief mention of them peaked my curiosity and I became an avid reader of Civil War material.  I did have a Civil War  professor from Mississippi that definitely taught the Lost Cause filled with great admiration of the Confederate cause.  But that really reinforced what I had already accepted.

I guess by accepting some of the Lost Cause I still adhere to it as a historian and teacher.  Through this class I have recognized my bias and the need to be careful how that impacts my memory of the past and how I present that view.  But I am not convinced that admiring the valor and the superior military leadership of the South somehow is demeaning.  I still identify myself as a southerner and that heritage is something of which I am proud.  I resent being looked down upon by some because I speak with a twang or am not quite sophisticated as others.  I enjoy a simpler, less complicated life.  I would rather attend a BBQ than a ballet production. (Sorry, Dr. Epps).

The only other thing that I can think of that may be a result of the Lost Cause doctrine is my conservative political views.  But those came as I got older and being opposed to a larger more powerful federal government doesn’t seem to be a uniquely southern view.

* Gary Gallagher, “Sharing Public Memory of the Civil War,” in The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture, ed. Alice Fahs and Joan Waugh (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2004), 58.


When I was researching for my paper, I found something that I hadn’t thought much about before.  In Harrisonville, Missouri, which is a short drive from where I grew up, they have several interesting ways of commemorating the Civil War.  Harrisonville is the county seat of Cass County, which sits on the Kansas state line.  The county was the scene of really brutal violence before and during the war.  According to the website for the Battle of Lone Jack battlefield (about 20 miles from Harrisonville), the war really started in the region in 1854, when “Dishonorable men, clothing themselves with the contentions of patriotic citizens, crossed the State line from both sides and committed crimes of every kind from larceny to murder.”[1]

General Order Number 11, which I wrote about two weeks ago, turned the area around Harrisonville into a veritable wasteland.  Families had the option of leaving their homes outright, or swearing allegiance to the Union and moving to within one mile of a garrison town.  In Cass County, this meant that there are virtually no antebellum structures still standing.  The county, along with Jackson County, Bates County, and part of Vernon County, became known as the “Burnt District,” because all that remained were blackened chimneys.[2]  The monument today is a chimney, made from stone taken from the homestead of Henry Younger.  Younger was the father of bushwhacker Cole Younger, who, after the Civil War, joined Jesse James’ gang.  In Harrisonville, he is somewhat legendary.[3]

In the square in Harrisonville, murals surrounding the County Courthouse depict scenes from the Civil War era.  One mural is of “Jennison’s Jayhawks” looting the town in 1861.  Another is of the future outlaw, Cole Younger, and his family fleeing a farm put to torch by Union soldiers.  A third mural depicts “significant events, places and people of the Civil War in Cass County,” including burning buildings and what appear to be guerrillas.[4]

It is interesting to see these examples of memory shaping in the area where I’m from.  Growing up, I knew vaguely of the sentiments that these memorializations represent, but I had no idea these examples existed.

[1] “General Order #11,” Lone Jack Historical Society, accessed July 5, 2012, at

[2] “The Burnt District Monument: Inscription (left side plaque),”, September 1, 2009, accessed July 5, 2012, at

[3] “The Burnt District Monument,” Cass County Historical Society, 2012, accessed July 5, 2012, at

[4] “Civil War Murals on Harrisonville Square,” Cass County Historical Society, February 14, 2011, accessed July 5, 2012, at

The American Civil War experienced greater casualties than any other American war thus far. Totals are estimated to be around 560,000 deaths with twice the number of deaths caused by disease than battle wounds, several thousands more were left with injuries that would impact their daily routines for the rest of their lives.[1]

As mentioned above the majority of fatalities were not accrued on the battle field, but in the camps where unsanitary conditions created breeding grounds for disease. The most common disease during the war was chronic diarrhea due to vitamin deficiencies.[2] In order to understand the significant toll of disease on the Union army here are some statistics to create a clear and distinct picture. A total of 6,000,000 illnesses were treated in the North alone however only 425,000 of those occurred on the battlefield. In addition, diarrhea/dysentery affected 711 per 1000 men and various camp fevers affected 584 per 1000 men. Some further enlightenment, in one Union regiment of the 937 soldiers only 79 were healthy enough to fight after disease had spread through the camp in only a few short weeks.[3] Clearly, disease was a seriously detrimental issue of the Civil War, no man was left unaffected by these ailments and as the statistics show it’s hard to believe that any were truly healthy.

Unsanitary conditions and lack of understanding about the importance of cleanliness also contributed to mortality rates. Author Richard H. Shryrock, of the article, “A Medical Perspective on the Civil War,” quoted Philadelphia surgeon W. W. Ken, “ ‘We operated in blood-stained and often pus-stained coats. . .with undisinfected (sic) hands. . .We used undisinfected (sic) instruments. . .and marine sponges which had been used in prior pus cases and only washed in tap water.’ ”[4] The main cause of death after an injury was hemorrhaging and infection. A chemical named Lister was used during the war but surgeons only used this once they realized the wound was infected. This method was reactive rather than proactive; if surgeons had sterilized wounds from the onset the casualties would have been greatly reduced.[5] Surgeons lack of knowledge regarding medicine practices certainly attributed to the number of deaths however as compared to previous wars the medicine practice had improved during the Civil War.[6]

At the time of the war and even today there is a negative stigma attached to Civil War surgeons. The inadequate supplies, tools, sanitary conditions, and medicine however was the leading cause of death during the war. True many surgeons had little schooling but many did the best they could under the circumstances. There was little in the way of numbing medicine (often whiskey or morphine, both in short demand) so many men felt very distinctly the pain or surgery.[7] The Civil War was a hard time to be a soldier, medicine and surgery notwithstanding

When I first started researching medicine of the Civil War I was hoping to find more information on amputations but the statistics are unclear. Many amputations were unsuccessful due to hemorrhaging and infection. If a soldier was shot in the abdomen region his chances of survival were slim. Often it was better to be shot in the leg or arm where hopefully the broken bone would be amputated, leaving a soldier with a missing limb but alive nonetheless. The minie balls were especially harmful to soldiers, the size and weight nearly always left the soldier with irreparable injuries.[8] The number of pictures of amputated limbs of the Civil War would make many believe that the majority of deaths were a result of battle injuries. Today modern medicine has found several treatments for disease virtually eliminating it as a source of death in combat, instead wounds and injuries are the leading cause of American military deaths today, a complete reversal of 150 years ago.

* An interesting side note from Swiss physician Edwin Klebs in the 1880s: “ ‘. . .the greatest and most admirable success has been attained by the North Americans in military medical work. This history of the war of the secession has to show a display of medical and scientific activities that leave anything that ever since has been achieved in Europe way in the background. . .’ ”[9]

[1] Harold Ellis, Review of Civil War Medicine: Challenges and Triumphs, by Alfred Jay Bollet, British Medical Journal 325, no 7356 (2002), 170 (accessed July 4, 2012).

[2] Ellis, 170.

[3]  Michael A. Flannery, “Civil War Medicines: Approaches for Teaching,” OAH Magazine of History, 19 no. 5 (2005), 42 (accessed July 4, 2012).

[4] Richard H. Shryock, “A Medical Perspective on the Civil War,” American Quarterly, 14 no. 2 (1962), 162 (accessed July 4, 2012).

[5] Shryock, 163.

[6] Shryock, 164.

[7] Bollet, 170.

[8] Shryock, 162-163.

[9] Shryock, 169.

Like most memories, the memories of the American Civil War in the West appear to be fading with time. However, the memories of the American Civil War in the West are in far fewer numbers than the memories of American Civil War in the East. Therefore, I have taken this opportunity to try to preserve and share a local memory of the American Civil War in the West.

 While recently visiting the El Pueblo History Museum in Pueblo, Co, I came across a research document that accompanies the howitzer cannon at the El Pueblo History Museum. In the research document, historian Dustin Clasby writes about the El Pueblo History Museum’s howitzer cannon in the following information:

Mountain Howitzer Cannon – El Pueblo History Museum

“The 12-pound mountain howitzer that sits in the international hall of the El Pueblo History Museum has a long and varied history. The cannon was forged in 1847 in Boston, MA, by Cyrus Alger Iron Company. Cyrus Alger was a big name in the manufacturing of arms for the United States military. He is best known for making shot and artillery during the War of 1812, but his cannons were also used in the Mexican-American War (1846-48) and the American Civil War (1861-65). Alger was the first to create a rifled barrel cannon in the United States.”[1]

“The particular artillery piece that sits in the museum is designated as a mountain howitzer because of its small size and weight, making it mobile enough to traverse rough terrain in the American West. The cannon is made of brass and weighs 220 pounds. It is capable of shooting a twelve-pound shot over 1000 yards with a half pound of black powder.” [2]

 “This howitzer was inspected for military use by James Wolfe Ripley. The ‘43’ on the front of the barrel is the inspection number and Ripley’s initials ‘J.W.R.’ are imprinted on the cannon. Ripley later became chief of ordnance of the Army and was instrumental in the modernization of the American artillery.” [3]

 “In 1861, the cannon was surrendered to the Confederate Army of Texas. It was then commissioned for use in the Army of New Mexico led by Henry Hopkins Sibley. The cannon may or may not have been used in the major engagements of the campaign. When the Confederates retreated back to Texas, supplies were destroyed at the Battle of Glorieta Pass. The retreating soldiers buried their remaining artillery and used the carriages to transport their wounded and supplies. The artillery was buried in Albuquerque, NM in 1862.”[4]

 “In 1892, Trevanion Teel, the artillery commander for the Confederates in the Army of New Mexico, led an expedition to recover eight buried cannons. In 1898, four of the cannons were donated to the state of Colorado. The Pueblo howitzer was kept in Denver, except for a short display at Fort Garland, until 1993 when it was officially given to the El Pueblo History Museum.”[5]

 As you can see from the photograph of the mountain howitzer cannon and the information provided within Clasby’s research documentation, the El Pueblo History Museum has in its possession a unique and interesting artifact from the great American Civil War. Upon closer inspection of the artifact’s history, revealed is a history that can be traced across the United States. Teachers can use the howitzer cannon as a tool to help carry on the memory of the great American Civil War and how the war affected the West.

 The El Pueblo History Museum also has a “History Mystery” educational activity, which is a fun way to learn about the museum’s howitzer cannon. The educational activity can be used with a variety of ages. For more information on the educational activity or to schedule a school field trip/large group, please contact the museum. Contact information for the museum can be found at the following web link:

Click for El Pueblo History Museum – History Colorado Website


In closure, I hope that by sharing this information, I have helped preserve the memory of the American Civil War in the West. I believe, when a person learns about something that they can relate to first, it then opens them up to the mental urge of wanting to learn about broader topics because they now see how the broader topics relate to them personally.



[1] Dustin Clasby, “The Howitzer Cannon at El Pueblo History Museum” (Research Documentation, El Pueblo History Museum, 2007)

[2] Clasby, 2007

[3] Clasby, 2007

[4] Clasby, 2007

[5] Clasby, 2007

After reading Gary Gallagher’s book, I grew more curious about the Lincoln statue controversy. Gary Gallagher details in Causes Won, Lost & Forgotten how many southerners rose up in opposition to a statue depicting Abraham Lincoln and his son Tad in Richmond, Virginia – the former capital of the Confederacy. Supporters of the statue argued that including it at Richmond was a: “historical symbol of unity and reconciliation.”[1] The Sons of Confederate Veterans considered the statue to be “a slap in the face of a lot of brave men and women who went through four years of unbelievable hell fighting an invasion led by President Lincoln.”[2] Protestors of the Lincoln statue held up signs depicting Lincoln on a wanted poster and others comparing Lincoln to Hitler, Bin Laden, and other war criminals.[3] There was even a small plane with a banner with Sic Semper Tyrannis written on it. John Wilkes Booth uttered these words shortly after fatally shooting Lincoln.[4]

Abraham Lincoln has long been considered a divisive figure to southerners. When Lincoln traveled to Richmond, the city was still aflame from the Union capture and hostile Confederates were still nearby as Lincoln and his 12 year old son toured the city.[5]

In opposition to the statue, the Sons of Confederate Veterans would also sponsor a symposium where scholars critical of Lincoln were invited to discuss their negative views of him. [6] It is difficult to believe that Lincoln is still treated with such animosity nearly 150 years after his death. There have always been claims that when Lincoln was assassinated Southerners remarked that his death was the “Worst thing for the South” and this is echoed in Gallagher where he states that Lincoln desired an easy transition for the South in returning to the Union.[7] I was under this belief. That Lincoln’s death was met with great sadness in the North as well as the South. Is the hatred that the SCV has shown towards Lincoln misdirected? Further, is the SCV so fanatic that they will lash out publicly against anything representing Non-Confederates? What can we learn from this controversy and as teachers should we lend credence to Southern sympathies?

[1] Gary W. Gallagher. Causes Won, Lost, & Forgotten: How Hollywood and Popular Art Shape What We Know About the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008), 209.

[2] Gallagher, 211.

[3] Gallagher, 212.

[4] Gallagher, 212.

[5] Frank James “Lincoln Statue Fuels Controversy”. The Baltimore Sun, March 13, 2003. [Accessed July 4, 2012].

[6] Ibid.

[7] Gallagher, 212.

Cavalry Bugler

Legend has that it in July 1862 Union General Daniel Butterfield had enough.  The military bugle call at the time, a calling derived from a French bugle melody, found its way into the mouthpiece of every bugler.  Used in reveille, lights out, and the honoring of the fallen, the French tune irritated Butterfield to no end.  Thus, he conceived to compose his own bugle call.  At Harper’s Landing, Virginia, Retired Lieutenant Colonel Michael Lee Laming writes, “There he made what may be his most lasting contribution to the military.”[1]  Laming is astute in this observation as Taps, the bugle call credited to Butterfield, has survived the Civil War.  Historical memory has remembered Butterfield and the story of the creation of Taps well.  However, Taps isn’t the only military song of the Civil War to have a colorful history.

One of  the most famous military songs to come out of the Civil War is not “Taps”, and maybe even more shocking, not even Northern.  The Confederate ‘national anthem’, Dixie, is well known today and has entered the American psyche as a powerful statement of rebellion.  In fact, the song is so famous, it is played by the modern United States Military Academy Marching Band.  The song was composed in 1859 by Dan Emmett who composed a lot of music for minstrel shows and appeared many times in blackface.[2]  Emmett, a native of Ohio, said in composing the piece, “Like most everything else I ever did, it was written because it had to be done.”[3]

The tune, in historical memory has taken on epic proportions.  In Gone with the Wind, the song is heard as a rallying cry after the fall of Fort Sumter, and again after the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg.  In the latter, the camera focuses on a band corps playing the tune to strike up pride in the Confederate cause.  The scene becomes disagreeable as a young band member sheds a tear as he plays.  In reality, the song found its origins exclusively on the minstrel stage, and not in the hearts and minds of Southerners.  The Lost Cause pride in the anthem is laughable when considering the true first lyrics of the song and not the longing to be back in the South:

Dis worl’ was made in jiss six days,

an’ finished in various ways,

Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie land.[4]

When singing the song today it is only fitting when beginning the Confederate anthem to sing in the original minstrel fashion, and remember the stereotypical black dialect written by Emmett:

I wish I was in de land ob cotton,

Old times dar am not forgotten,

Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie land.[5]

The racial undertones of Dixie come through when examining the lyrics of the piece, which seems to be seldom done.  Historical memory concerning the song has forgotten these undertones and instead focuses on the upbeat nature of the piece, made even more impactful by nature in which the song has been played in recent years by bands belong to the United States military.  However, as memorable as Dixie is, it would be inappropriate to leave out the fact that the Union had a similar prideful tune, minus the racial undertones of course.


Battle Hymn of the Republic was composed by an individual that can be considered the exact opposite of Emmett.  Composed in in 1861 by Julia Ward Howe, Howe may actually be considered less of a composer and more of a lyricist.  Around this time she heard a group singing John Brown’s Body, a popular marching song of the day.  This tune proved to be so popular that numerous lyricists wrote variations on the lyrics.  Howe’s lyrics, as the legend told by her goes, were composed while her infant slept.[6]  Published in 1862 in The Atlantic Monthly, the Battle Hymn of the Republic evoked pride and nationalism.  Interesting to note, Howe herself was an abolitionist and devout evangelical.  Her lyrics and the song, like Dixie, have survived the years and entered into American memory, serving as a song of rally during the World Wars.[7]



While Battle Hymn of the Republic remains in the repertoire of military bands this day, few recall the biblical passages associated with the song.  The lyric, “He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;” most assuredly comes from Revelations 14:19 which reads, “And the angel thrust in his sickle into the earth, and gathered the vine of the earth, and cast it into the great winepress of the wrath of God.”  The translation, this blogger asserts, is that Howe contends that the institution of slavery has laid over the land for too long and the wrath of God has festered and has now been unleashed upon the South.  Not all marching tunes of the Union, it should be noted, were steeped in abolitionism.



Another famous rallying tune for the Union was a very old song to the soldiers of the Civil War.  When Johnny Comes Marching Home was an Irish folk song of the seventeenth century and, interestingly enough, was at first an anti-war song.[8]  In 1863, Patrick Gilmore wrote the lyrics to the Irish folk song and became the song we know it as today.[9]  Being a folk song, the tune is less of a military march and more of popular tune.  Much like Johnny Comes Marching Home, Richmond is a Hard Road to Travel, composed in 1863 by John Thompson was less of a marching song.  Thompson’s composition, as Historian Chandra Manning notes that the song, “Mocked the Union Army’s failure to capture Richmond in 1861 and 1862.”[10]  Unfortunately, this wonderful backstory has faded from memory and now resides only with historians.



Songs of the Civil War are numerous and varied and all of them have interesting stories.  Whether Union or Confederate, abolitionist or pro-slavery, the music of the Civil War is intriguing.  As it is played today, Civil War tunes are much different in terms of connotation, but knowing these stories will elucidate the impact of the Civil War on music of the day.  Concerning music, perhaps  Ulysses S. Grant said it best when he claimed, “I only know two tunes: one of them is ‘Yankee Doodle’, and the other isn’t.”



[1] Lanning Lt. Col., The Civil War 100 (Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc., 2008), 345.

[2] Steven H. Cornelius, Music of the Civil War Era (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 2004), 30.

[3] Dan Emmett, quoted in Steven H. Cornelius, Music of the Civil War Era (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 2004), 30.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Diane Ravitch, The American Reader: Words That Moved a Nation, Rev. 2nd ed. (New York, NY: William Morrow Paperbacks, 2000), 257.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Mark Aldrich, A Catalog of Folk Song Settings For Wind Band (Milwaukee: Meredith Music, 2004), 36.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Chandra Manning, What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War, 1st Vintage Civil War Library ed. (New York: Vintage, 2008), 53.


“The Peacemakers” by George P.A. Healy

Now that we are close to the end of this class, it seems that an inordinate amount of time and energy was spent working to vindicate the South. The results of the work of the United Daughters of the Confederacy is the most tangible in terms of the many, many monuments erected as memorials to Confederate leadership, museums, portraits, etc.  It appears that no equivalent campaign was needed in the North because they, after all, were the victors.  In the century and a half since the war ended the Union generals and other leadership are no longer held in such high regard.  Certainly the Lost Cause propaganda served to tarnish their reputations and that legacy continues in the minds of those who were exposed to that version of Civil War memory in the classroom.

In the post-Vietnam decades, as the culture has become increasingly anti-militaristic, the popular culture attempted to cast the military in a less than favorable light.[1]  For a while, interest in the Civil War ebbed to such a low point that many publications focusing on that subject had such a decline in readership that they considered suspending publication.[2]  There has been a resurgence of interest in the military because of the recent high levels of operations.  The large audience for Ken Burns’ Civil War series on PBS piqued public interest.  The sesquicentennial anniversary of the Civil War has received a great deal of coverage in the press and in general interest magazines.  I am optimistic that sufficient numbers of families, children especially, will have visited battlefields and other historical sites, reversing the trend of declining interest in the Civil War.

Upon reading Gary Gallagher’s book, Causes Won, Lost, and Forgotten: How Hollywood & Popular Art Shape What We Know About the Civil War, I was reminded of the negative reputation that many Union generals still hold today.  Gallagher, when referring to public demand for Civil War artwork, suggests that there are almost no prints of these leaders are either sold, or created.[3]  He confirms that this represents a reversal of the immediate post-Civil War trends, in which they were popular figures for artwork in the North.[4]  How is it that the memory of these men became so tarnished in the North?  Obviously, figures such as General William T. Sherman became the target of so much southern vitriolic as a result of his march to the sea.  However, he held in similar low esteem by many in the North.  Is it legitimate to demonize him and other Union generals?  I would suggest not; they too became victims of the aggressive Lost Cause re-write of Civil War memory.



[1] Gary W. Gallagher, Causes Won, Lost, and Forgotten: How Hollywood & Popular Art Shape What We Know About the Civil War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2008), 4.

[2] Gallagher, 5.

[3] Gallagher, 142-143.

[4] Gallagher, 184-185.