Clio Muses

The Ardennes Counter Offensive is officially dated from 16 December 1944 to 25 January 1945. It was not exactly that precise, especially for the participants. Historical periods are chronological aids; actual history knows no such precise periodization. However imprecise, carefully dating periods gives history structure. A historical period is like a grid on a map: the dates are the coordinates that show you where you are. The Ardennes Counter Offensive is popularly known as “The Battle of the Bulge”, which unfortunately is misleading. A “bulge” is journalistic slang left over from World War I. If generals are supposed to fight “the last war”, then journalists tend to wright about “the last war”. I adhere to the formal name, Ardennes Counter Offensive, because it best defines the sequence of events that we are studying. One of the most obvious but little noticed characteristic of history is how ordinary it is. Living during the 1940s with a world war raging was not, as some like to...

There are several obstacles to achieving an understanding of a particular historic event or era. The first obstacle I will discuss is the lack of you own knowledge about the specific event or time period. Because that obstacle is relatively easy to overcome but often time-consuming one is tempted to take short-cuts. We have a tendency to read something and think that is “enough”. Too often we know only “enough” for an opinion but not “enough” for historical understanding or interpretation. The best place to begin our journey toward understanding the Vietnam War is by reading one or more general surveys of the war. Here we are in luck. Recently there has been a boom in Vietnam War histories. Below are the most recent and frequently recommended general surveys of the Vietnam War. The study of history reminds me of long distance running. I have been a runner most of my life but the first mile of every run is the most uncomfortable and far from enjoyable. However, once my body warms ...

Forty years ago America withdrew all of its soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen (except for the contingent of United States Marines at the American embassy) from South Vietnam. For the United States Armed Forces the war was over. Two years later the war was also over for South Vietnam. They were invaded and conquered by North Vietnam. Within a year the new, unified Vietnam was renamed the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. For forty years, Americans have struggled to come to some sort of individual if not collective understanding of what the Vietnam War meant. Discussions about the meaning of the Vietnam War have in various fora including public media; literature; art; works of history; political parties and focus groups; classrooms; churches; veterans associations; the family dinner; and over the back fence. Most discussions have generated as much contention as consensus. Mark Lawrence in his recent survey, The Vietnam War: A Concise International History (Oxford University Press...

The Battle of Gettysburg, 1-3 July 1863. One hundred and fifty years ago the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia clashed at a farm village that was also an important road junction in southern Pennsylvania, a few miles north of the Mason-Dixon Line. While Gettysburg, the most famous Civil War battle, was a tactical success for the Union, it achieved no Union strategic aim. However, the day after Gettysburg, 4 July 1863, the Union achieved its greatest strategic success of the war when General Grant forced the Confederate Army to surrender the important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi. Once the Confederacy lost Vicksburg it no longer could win the war. Had Lee been able to defeat the Army of the Potomac enough to keep that huge Union army north of the Potomac River, it is possible the South could have hung on until the election of 1864; an election Lincoln may have lost. The loss of Vicksburg, however, cut off wheat, corn, and horses from Texas destined for the Confedera...

I recommend an excellent book by Dr. Kenneth J. Heineman, Civil War Dynasty: The Ewing Family of Ohio (New York: New York University Press: New York) 2013. For anyone with an interest in Ohio history or politics, or Ohio’s important contribution to the Civil War, this well written and meticulously researched work will be a delight. The book chronicles the politically important and powerful Ewing family from Lancaster, Ohio. Thomas Ewing, the family patriarch, practiced law in Lancaster, Ohio, served as a U. S. Senator, the Secretary of Treasury, and the first Secretary of the Interior. Thomas Ewing’s three sons, Thomas Jr., Charles, and Hugh (all born in Lancaster, Ohio), served in the Union Army finishing the war as generals with highly distinguished careers. In 1829 Charles Sherman, a successful lawyer who sat on the Ohio Supreme Court and close friend of Thomas Ewing, died leaving his widow with 11 children and no inheritance. Thomas Ewing took in the 9-year old boy, William T...

On Saturday, 19 July 1862, the Daily Ohio State Journal , Columbus, Ohio, published an article entitled “Report on Recruiting”. The article was a detailed set of instructions for establishing and conducting recruiting stations in Franklin County, Ohio. Its author, Captain Riley, had been tasked by the Franklin County Military Committee to provide a memorandum of standard operating procedures for orderly recruitment in Franklin County. This recruiting drive was a response to President Lincoln’s 2 July 1862 call for 300,000 volunteers. National defense policy, derived from the experiences of the War of 1812 and the Mexican War, 1846, established a small standing army but gave the President power to call for volunteers. How those volunteers would be recruited was the responsibility of individual states. The process used by Franklin County, Ohio, is summarized below from Captain Riley’s memorandum of instruction. First, Captain Riley’s memorandum instructed that there will be a recr...

This concludes the series of Civil War Sesquicentennial Notes I published in 2011 in family emails focusing on the last days of the Civil War. Sunday, 9 April 1865 . It was Palm Sunday. As Grant had mused the previous day, Lee was considering a fight. Lee thought an attack against Sheridan’s Cavalry Corps north of Appomattox Courthouse might provide time and space for the rest of his army to retreat toward Leesburg. Confederate scouts and pickets reported that two more Union corps had maneuvered behind Lee, blocking his exit. Some of his staff officers urged that they let the men exfiltrate to fight as guerrillas. Lee, it is believed, rejected the idea saying that they would just become marauders and would be hunted down by the Union cavalry. Guerrilla warfare, or “bushwhacking”, was more dishonorable than surrendering. Even so, Lee said that he “would rather die a thousand deaths” than surrender to General Grant. Lee, of course, did no such thing. Rather he sent a dispatch through ...

On Saturday 20 May 2012 I visited the Chancellorsville National Battlefield Park and used the “Chancellorsville Battle App”. The app is available from the Civil War Trust at Civilwar.org/battleapps/, and features interactive GPS enabled maps; three GPS guided battlefield tours; maps; text; primary documents and photos; video presentations by an expert historian; orders of battle; time line; information about the park; and information about other historic points of interest in the area. This app, which is free, is the result of a joint venture of the Civil War Trust, The Virginia Department of Transportation, and the developer, NeoTreks, Inc. The project directors were Rob Shenk of the Civil War Trust and Michael Bullock of NeoTreks, Inc. The historians for the project were Robert K. Kirk, who appears in the videos, and Eric Mink, historian at the Fredericksburg-Spotsylvania National Military Park. This app is designed to be used on the battlefield or as a stand alone educational p...

No word from Lee. Tension rises at Union headquarters. Grant has a persistent headache. Mead is suffering nausea. Around noon a reply comes from General Lee. He asks Grant for a discussion concerning “the restoration of peace”. The wording is vague, but it is clearly a request to negotiate a political solution. Grant immediately replies that he has no authority to negotiate a political settlement and his request for Lee’s surrender stands. President Lincoln anticipated this moment. On 3 March 1865 (the evening before he gave his second inaugural address) he sent a letter to General Grant in which he specified that if Lee were to surrender, Grant had no authority other than a military surrender of Lee’s army. Lincoln would retain the power for political negotiations if any were required. This is an important document because it affirms Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution that places the President, a civilian, in command of the armed forces, and thus responsible fo...

Friday, 7 April 1865. The action yesterday at Saylor’s Creek had cut off a third of Lee’s army, captured 6,000 Confederate soldiers, and destroyed most of the wagon’s in Lee’s supply column. This morning all three columns of the Army of the Potomac continue to advance. General Grant sent a messenger under a flag of truce through the lines with a letter to Lee. Grant asked Lee to surrender immediately. Lee responded by asking what were Grant’s terms? Grant replied that his terms would be the same as he offered at Vicksburg in 1863: parole until exchanged. Lee and Grant both knew that Lee’s surrender would virtually end the war. The offer of parole was a formality. The day passed without a reply from Lee.

Let’s catch up to General Grant’s pursuit of Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia (ANV) in the closing week of the Civil War. On, Tuesday, 4 April 1865, President Lincoln visited Richmond. I have told this story along with my visit to Richmond in 2007 in Clio Muses, “Lincoln’s Walk”, 6 December 2007, and invite you to scroll though this blog and read that essay. On 3 April 1865 the last of the Confederate forces evacuated Richmond and various Union cavalry units moved into the city. Richmond had been under siege for several weeks; many buildings had been burned, some by the Confederates as they retreated; and the Confederate government (along with most white residents) had fled the city. Lincoln had been visiting Grant and on his return to Washington, D. C., he stopped at Richmond. Accompanied by Admiral Porter and a Navy guard, Lincoln walked from Rocket’s Landing on the James River to the Capital and President Davis’ house. He walked around Davis’ office and, according to eye-wi...

As General Picket is attempted to withdraw from yesterday’s devastation at Five Forks , General Grant directs the Army of the Potomac (AOP) to pursue Lee in three columns. The center column composed of three infantry corps and part of the Sheridan ’s Cavalry Corps will follow the main body of the Army of Northern Virginia (ANV). The columns to the left and right (or north and south) will use forced marches to outflank and outmarch the ANV in order to circle around it. The first objective of the southern column was to interdict the Richmond & Danville Railroad south of Amelia Court House thus preventing supplies from reaching the ANV or from the ANV using the rails to flee south. At this point, the ANV consisted of about 30,000 troops, 200 guns, and around a 1,000 wagons. If Grant is successful in the next couple of days, those wagons will not pick up supplies at Amelia Court House. It has been over 72 hours since Lee’s soldiers have eaten. Their horses are becoming so weak from hun...

1 April 1865: The retreat to Appomattox continues. Sheridan renews his attack on Lee’s flank at Five Forks , VA. Lee orders General Picket (of Gettysburg fame) to “Hold at all costs.” By evening the cost to the Army of Northern Virginia is 5,000 casualties, the loss of General Picket’s division, and a valuable road network that now would serve to speed up the Union attack. “. . . the Army of the Potomac , officers and men, were so elated by the reflection that at last they were following up a victory it its end, that they preferred marching without rations to running a possible risk of letting the enemy elude them. So the march was resumed. . . .” General Ulysses S. Grant, The Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant William S. McFeely, ed. (De Capo Press: New York ), 1982, p. 543.

It is Friday, 31 March 1865. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia (ANV) has withdrawn from the trenches around Petersburg, Virginia  and is retreating to Appomattox Court House. Lee must reach Appomattox quickly because he desperately needs the rations that have been moved by train from Danville , Virginia to Appomattox . On 30 March General Grant released General Sheridan’s cavalry to move fast and turn Lee’s left flank. Philip Henry Sheridan, born in Albany , New York in 1831 and graduated from West Point in 1853, had been given command of the Cavalry Corps of the Army of the Potomac (AOP) the previous year. In September and October 1864 Sheridan , in a swift and hard hitting campaign, defeated General Early and drove him out of the Shenandoah Valley . For the entire war the Valley had been the “bread basket” for the ANV. Now, about five months later, Sheridan strikes hard on the left flank of Lee’s retreating army at White Oak Road, Dinwiddie Court House, Virginia agai...

Pearl Harbor Day. 7 December 1941. Americans were outraged and angered seventy years ago today when the Japanese Imperial Navy (JIN) unexpectedly attacked the United States Navy Base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. At the time the success of the attack was perceived as a major military set back for the United States. No one at the time, however, knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be the JIN’s last (and only) naval victory in World War II. Pearl Harbor for the Japanese was a catastrophe. Even though the attack at Pearl was well planned, practiced, and well executed, it was far from being tactically brilliant. The most important targets at Pearl were not the six battleships, which were obsolete, but the fuel tanking station, the maintenance shops, dry docks, and ship yards. Six months after Pearl Harbor, 4 June 1942, the United States Navy won a decisive victory at the Battle of Midway sinking all four of the JIN’s largest carriers, a heavy cruiser, and 322 airplanes. While the JIN was trying...

“What explorations or discoveries did each of the following named persons make? Give the date in each case. a. De Narvaez. b. Coronado. c. Marquette. d. LaSalle.” A candidate for the 1909 plebe class of West Point would have answered such a question on his (there were no hers) written entrance exam. The candidate would also have been asked questions on algebra, plane geometry, English grammar, English Composition and Literature, geography, and history. In order to prepare, a candidate would have found sample questions from the encountered year’s exam in the Official Register of the Officers and Cadets of the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York, June 1909. For the history questions, it advised, “Candidates must be thoroughly familiar with so much of the History of the United States, and of Ancient Greece and Rome as is contained in good high-school text-books on these subjects, and must have a good knowledge of the important facts in General Ancient History and...

December is the month in which popular journals publish their “Ten Best Books of 2009”, as the New York Times did last week. I too use December to consolidate my reading for the year (which is usually between seventy to eighty books, some that are new and some that I am re-reading), collect my notes, and update my bibliographic and research software (I use Citation – but there are several good programs available). Never wanting to be upstaged by the New York Times , here is my list of the “Ten Best Books I Read This Year”. Appleman, Roy E. East of Chosin: Entrapment and Breakout in Korea, 1950. (College Station, Texas: Texas A&M University Press), 1987. Baggini, Julian. What’s It All About?: Philosophy & The Meaning of Life. (New York: Oxford University Press), 2004. Bak, Per. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality. (New York: Oxford University Press), 1997. Coyne, Jerry A. Why Evolution is True. (New York: Viking), 2009. Faust, Drew Gilpin. This Re...

In a recent post I called attention to three history books that were based on primary sources and, through the scholarly apparatus, let the reader check the interpretation against the sources. Moreover, all three books contributed a new and deeper understanding of their subjects and a provided fresh interpretations. The direct relationship between the usefulness of the interpretation and the reliance on primary sources is unavoidable. Let us consider a recent history book that was well reviewed and successful in the market place that did not contribute a new and deeper understanding or suggested a fresh interpretation: David Halberstam, The Coldest Winter: America and the Korean War (New York: Hyperion), 2007. Halberstam was a long-time, successful journalist, a capable narrative writer, and winner of many awards. He was intelligent, a good interviewer, and an above average writer. The book is based mostly on secondary sources with a few author interviews. Halberstam’s book has 20...

Educated readers and students often ask, “How do I select a good history book?” Michèle Lamont, in her new book How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts), 2009, explores how various disciplines evaluate scholarship within their fields. Drawing upon her research on grant proposals, she suggests that within the “humanities”, historians as a professional group are more likely to agree on the quality of a particular research proposal or its product, a book, than are other fields. That is to say, historians know a good history book when they read it. Understanding how historians agree on what are good books helps the non-historian in selecting books. Why do historians have a wider agreement on superior scholarship than do scholars in political science, sociology, or literature? Dr. Lamont’s answer is no surprise to historians: history is evidence based where other fields are theory based. For the historian...

A good friend with whom I served in Southeast Asia (SEA) in 1968 and 1969, made, during a recent email conversation, an observation about many in the draftee Army of that era. He wrote that many of the men with whom we served were draftees (as he was; I was RA and we were both enlisted) were upset about being drafted, being in the Army, and being in SEA. They resented that their lives and careers had not only been interrupted, but put on hold; that they had been placed in conditions that were at worst very dangerous and at best very miserable. Many, such as my friend, were college graduates who wanted to get on with the careers. Many had some college or technical school and wanted to complete their degree. Many were married or engaged and wanted to move on with their personal lives. They all had lives that markedly differed from the Army’s agenda. However, my friend went on to write that the vast majority of those with whom he served no matter how much they hated the Army, hated being ...