Civil War Memory

Reconciliation and Reunion at the Crater

In 1907 a large contingent of Pennsylvanians representing the 48th Pennsylvania Regiment, including the governor, traveled to Petersburg where they were greeted by Virginia's Governor, Claude A. Swanson and the A.P. Hill Camp Confederate Veterans.  The veterans traveled together on the city's new electric street cars to the Crater where they unveiled a new monument to the regiment and listened to addresses by the two governors.  William Wells, who served in the regiment, also addressed the audience.  His speech is a wonderful example of the theme of national reunion that eventually overshadowed the "emancipationist legacy" of the war.  This is significant given the racial aspect of the battle of the battle of the Crater.

Here is a short excerpt from his speech:

Nearly a half century ago, we men of the Northland struggled here against the brave men of the Southland in trying to gain possession of this hill crest; but we struggled in vain.  Had our opponents been men of inferior civilization or race, our task might have been accomplished; but we contended with men who were nurtured as we were nurtured, imbued with like sympathies, possessed of similar aspirations, descendants of the same original ancestry, each contending for that, which with different surroundings, he believed to be right.  Time, that healer of all dissensions among men has, during the forty-three years which have intervened since we last stood here, face to face, thrown the mantle of charity and partial forgetfulness over these stirring events; and the bitterness of those days in which brother fought against brother, and father against son, has happily passed away, we hope and believe, never to return, while a new generation, with new ideas, new aspirations, new ideals, has come upon the scene of our activity, and we who fought here are enabled without the loss of manly dignity, to grasp each other's hand in national pride, and to recall the events of 1861-1865, in which we took so conspicuous a part, only to laud each the deeds of the other.

Why I Will Never Write a Biography of William Mahone

I can't tell you how many times I've been asked if I plan to write a biography of William Mahone.  The problem is not a lack of material.  You can find a massive collection of Mahone's personal papers at Duke University and a smaller collection at the University of Virginia.  In many ways Mahone would make for an ideal study.  He was a successful Confederate general and probably the most important Virginia politician of the nineteenth-century.  Given the evolution of studies of the postwar South and race relations it is clear that a modern study of Mahone is long overdue.  The last biography was published back in the 1930s.  I enjoyed spending time at Duke with the Mahone collection and on an article that was published back in 2005, which is currently chapter 3 in my Crater manuscript.  No, the problem is Mahone's penmanship.  To put it bluntly, it's like reading an EKG scan.  Here is a sample of Mahone's writing and although you may be thinking that it's not so bad, I assure you that this sample is from one of his better days.

I simply can't imagine spending the necessary amount of time trying to decipher his writing.  Life is too short.

Sons of Confederate Veterans Hope to Purchase Mahone's Tavern

The members of the Urquhart-Gillette Camp No. 1471, Sons of Confederate Veterans in Southampton County, Virginia hope to raise enough money to purchase the boyhood home of William Mahone, which is currently on the market.  Mahone's family moved into the home following "Turner's Rebellion" in 1831 and established a tavern a fairly successful tavern.  While I applaud the SCV for taking on this cause there is something just slightly humorous about their decision to utilize Mahone's home for your standard SCV/UDC events:

The group holds monthly meetings in a private restaurant room in Franklin, and [Tommy] Simmons said Mahone’s Tavern would provide a meeting place and activity center for the local SCV camp, as well as for the local chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and other community historic and civic groups.

As many of you know I've spent considerable time reading and writing about William Mahone's postwar career, and while he was involved in various kinds of commemorative events his goal was almost always to further his business and political interests.  Mahone led a veterans organization made up of men from his Virginia brigade and he authorized biographies as a means to attract interest in his plan for railroad consolidation.  His forays into the past usually resulted in controversy owing to his abrasive personality and political convictions.  The point is that Mahone did not languish in the Lost Cause or weep over the death of the Confederacy; rather, he was optimistic about the future and confident that he could bring Virginia into the modern age.  Such a goal stands in sharp contrast to our memory of white Southerners in the postwar period who stood up defiantly against the modernizing tendencies that they so valiantly fought against for four years. 

Most interesting, of course, is Mahone's politics and position on issues of race.  One has to wonder what Mr. Simmons has envisioned when he references using the home as a "meeting place and activity center."  How many members of this particular chapter of the SCV are aware of Mahone's leadership of the Readjuster Party from 1879 to 1883 which was the most successful bi-racial third party in the postwar South?  Do they know that Mahone was considered to be a "Judas" by much of the state and even the men he led into battle for bringing about a political coalition with black Virginians that led to important advances within the public sphere?  Black Virginians attended public schools in the largest numbers and served in local governments around the state, while Mahone served as senator in Washington and voted with the Republican Party:

In 1858 occurred the raid of John Brown and the raid of Mahone and the Readjusters in 1879, though less bloody was more dangerous than that of John Brown.  Both raids occurred in Va, and the negro was in both cases the instrument relied on to destroy the old order of things. [George Bagby’s pamphlet, John Brown and William Mahone: An Historical Parallel, Foreshadowing Civil Trouble]

The Revolution gave us but one Arnold, during the whole seven years of its course, while the Confederate war failed to yield a single one on either side until after it had been fought out.”  Though many of Virginia’s native sons “held out long and well. . . at last some of them succumbed, and are now found, Arnold-like, leading their old enemy against their old friends and associates. [The Richmond State, 1881]

Reconstruction came late to Virginia and it came not at the hands of so-called "Carpetbaggers" but at the hands of one of the most successful Confederate generals.  As a result, white Virginians consciously erased Mahone and the Readjusters from their public memory well into the twentieth century.

Again, I wish the SCV all the best in raising the necessary funds to purchase the property, but I am not at all confident that Mahone would want them in his home.

Sons of Confederate Veterans Honor Black Union Soldier

This Saturday a ceremony will take place at St. Catherine's Cemetery in McConchie, Maryland to unveil a grave marker to Corporal George Brown, who served in Co. I, 19th USCT.  Apparently an SCV chapter has helped with the organization of this ceremony: ‘‘We like any veterans with unmarked graves to be taken care of,” said Jim Dunbar, commander of Sons of Confederate Soldiers Pvt. Wallace Bowling Camp 1400, in 2006.  The article includes some comments by Ben Hawley who reenacts with Co. B, 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment in Washington, D.C.  I interviewed Mr. Hawley as part of my research on the Crater and memory.  Check out the story here.

Honoring a Union Man in the Heart of the Confederacy

I had a great time last night in Fredericksburg where I spoke to the Rappahannock County Civil War Round Table.  My friend and fellow historian John Hennessy gave me a very gracious introduction and the audience seemed very receptive to the topic of the Crater and historical memory.  This is my second time speaking to this particular group and both occasions have been well worth the drive from Charlottesville.

Before the evening's program got underway I spoke with a gentlemen who is working with the National Welsh American Foundation to honor Sergeant Henry Reese of the 48th Pennsylvania with a Medal of Honor for his roll at the Crater.  Reese was actually recommended for the medal but for some reason it was not conferred.  Here is the recommendation:

Having performed a conspicuous act of gallantry on July 30, 1864.  In the undermining and destruction of the Rebel Fort No. 5 in front of Petersburg, Va, the fuse leading to the magazine had been spliced about 15 feet from the face of the mine, where the fuse was first lighted, it burned to the splice, when the fire went out, and, after the time set for the explosion had elapsed Sergeant Henry Reese volunteered to enter the mine and relight the fuse at the splice, which he successfully accomplished, and returned to safety to the mouth of the mine, and in one minute after the explosion took place.

Speaking Engagement

Tomorrow evening I will be speaking to the Rappahannock Valley Civil War Round Table in Fredericksburg, Virginia.  My topic is memory and the battle of the Crater with an emphasis on the racial component of the battle.  See here for details. 

Alan Axelrod's Crater

The following review of Alan Axelrod's The Horrid Pit: The Battle of the Crater, The Civil War's Cruelest Mission is slated to appear in the Journal of Southern History.  Writing for the JSH does not leave much room to explore specific points in any detail, but in this case everything that needs to be said is included.  Anyone familiar with Noah A. Trudeau's volume on the Petersburg Campaign will notice immediately Axelrod's use of extensive quotes from the Committee's Report on the Conduct of the War.  Axelrod also utilizes extensive quotes from various reports that make for a very choppy read.  I find this to be incredibly distracting.  It is the job of the historian to interpret for the reader and while I sympathize with the idea of allowing historic figures to "speak for themselves" I personally find it difficult to keep track of the author's analytical points.  In the case of the Joint Committee Reports the inclusion of extensive passages can be misleading given the fact that the individuals in question are pointing the finger and covering their asses.  In this case analysis is essential. 

The final year of the war in Virginia has received a great deal of attention from historians over the past few years. This can be explained, in part, by the move away from the Lost Cause assumption of the inevitability of Confederate defeat following the Gettysburg campaign; more importantly, however, historians are asking more analytical questions about the evolution from “limited” to “hard war” as well as addressing interpretive themes stemming from the “New Military History.”  The Petersburg Campaign and the battle of the Crater in particular offer an ideal case study with which to examine the relationship between the battlefield, home front, and politics along with important questions surrounding the introduction of United States Colored Troops to the battlefield.  Unfortunately, the battle of the Crater - best known for the failed attempt on the part of the Union Ninth Corps to break the growing siege of Petersburg by tunneling and detonating 8,000 pounds of explosives under a Confederate salient followed by a massive attack – has received only scant attention by historians.  The publication of The Battle of the Crater: “The Horrid Pit” (Lynchburg, VA, 1989)) by Michael Cavanaugh and William Marvel remains the only book-length study of any merit, although its focus is limited almost entirely to the battlefield.   Although a timely release, Alan Axelrod’s similarly titled book adds very little to our understanding of the battle or how it fits into the broader campaign.

While Axelrod clearly intended to write for the general reader, even on that level this book falls short.  Analysis of the battle rarely moves beyond the basic outline of the planning and execution of the mine as well as accounts of the horrific fighting that took place on July 30, 1864.  Archival materials on the Crater abound, but unfortunately, Axelrod bypasses these sources altogether along with much of the secondary sources that are readily accessible to historians.  Instead Axelrod relies overwhelmingly on the Official Records as well as the reports from the Committee on the Conduct of the War; the result is a top-down picture that never penetrates to the level of the common soldier and his experiences both in the earthworks and in battle. The absence of research materials in this study makes it impossible to say much of anything about how this battle was experienced by the men on both sides as well as the residents of Petersburg who were directly affected by the fighting. The most significant oversight in this regard is Axelrod’s failure to acknowledge the importance of the presence of black Union soldiers, which Confederates clearly acknowledged as nothing less than a slave uprising and a threat to the South’s white racial hierarchy.   Analysis of the racial aspect of this battle can tell us much about the changing racial boundaries in both the North and South brought about as a result of the Emancipation Proclamation.  Similarly, Axelrod offers very little analysis in terms of how this battle fits into the Petersburg Campaign or the evolution of the war through the end of 1864.

A Tough Review

Yesterday I completed a review of a new book on the battle of the Crater for the Journal of Southern History.  It was one of the most difficult book reviews I've had to write in recent years, in large part, because I could find nothing positive to say about it.  No doubt, the fact that I wrote it for an academic journal shaped my assessment of the book.  I had to critique the formal argument (to the extent that there is one) along with an analysis of how the study contributes to our understanding of the Civil War and fits into the relevant historiography.  Throughout the review I was conscious that I was writing for fellow historians and not a general audience.  This is not to suggest that a reviewer does not have an obligation to offer an honest critique for a non-academic audience, but clearly their interests diverge at some point.  I should note that most of my points would have been included regardless of venue.  Given the dearth of studies on the Crater the book at least provides a basic overview of the important figures involved as well as the planning and execution of the mine along with the flow of battle.  I have no doubt that for most general readers their interest in the battle ends here.

The most difficult part of a negative review is that it falls far from my feelings of admiration for anyone who can complete a book-length work of history - even if I don't have anything positive to say about it.  I have found it very difficult to muster the kind of focus necessary to finish my own book project on the Crater.  It takes a certain ability to isolate one's self for long periods of time and to block out potential distractions.  I am not very good at this as I love to play my bass guitar, browse blogs, watch bad television, and hang out with the wife whenever possible.  So, if you happen to be the recipient of a negative review by me know that you have my utmost respect for your accomplishment.

A Curious Mahone Reference

I came home from the SHA with an armful of cheap books, one of which was a collection of postwar letters by John S. Mosby.  Mosby's letters are a real gem; he resisted the Lost Cause tenets that assumed the infallibility of Lee and denied the central role that slavery played as a cause of secession.  In a letter dated January 21, 1910 Mosby wrote the following:

You know [William] Mahone rode a mule up to heaven one night & returned before daybreak but nobody but a prophet could do that. (p. 97)

Peter A. Brown, who edited the collection, acknowledges in a footnote that he cannot explain the reference.  Any idea?

William Mahone, Nelson M. Blake, and the Journal of Negro History

Access to JSTOR through my school's library has made life much easier.  I recently came across a wonderful review of Nelson M. Blake's 1935 biography of William Mahone which appeared in the Journal of Negro History [Vol. 21, No. 2 (Apr., 1936)].  The reviewer was J.H. Johnston who taught Virginia State College (now University) in Petersburg which was the site of both Mahone's postwar residence and the site of the battle of the Crater.  The content of Johnston's review reflects a vibrant black countermemory of the war and Reconstruction; his main points are clearly decades ahead of the interpretive agenda of much of the historical community.  Blake's William Mahone of Virginia, Soldier and Political Insurgent [Garrett & Massie Publishers, Richmond, 1935] is still the only biography available.  It is clearly dated in certain respects; unfortunately no one that I know is planning to write an updated account though it is desperately needed.  Most of Mahone's personal papers are located at Duke University while smaller collections can be found at the Library of Virginia and the University of Virginia. 

What I find so interesting about Johnston's review is that he clearly understands what the publication of this biography means within the context of memory of Mahone.  He references the monument of Mahone that was placed on the Crater battlefield which makes no mention of his role as a Virginia statesman.  His suggestion that "The author [Blake] has thus dared to render long deserved service to Mahone's memory" points to the extent to which white Southerners (particularly white Virginians) worked to erase Mahone from public memory of the war and Reconstruction.  After all Mahone was the "Hero of the Crater" who led the most successful bi-racial coalition which controlled Virginia's government for four years and resulted in his election to the U.S. Senate where he aligned himself with the Republican Party.  Johnston understands all too well that this biography, which devotes only one chapter to his war years and eight to his postwar career, does not compliment the Lost Cause version of the war.

The Readjuster Party was overwhelmingly supported by the Negro voters of Virginia; and because of Mahone's political association with Negroes this former Confederate officer was despised, and until now an effort has been made to consign him to oblivion. (p. 215)

Johnston seems pleased that Blake does not relegate blacks to the background, but acknowledges that made "intelligent use of their ballot."  It should be remembered that the standard account of Reconstruction argued that black Americans were ill-equipped to exercise the vote and/or that corruption ran rampant because of their involvement in the Southern states.  Few correctives could be found at this point, though W.E.B. Dubois's Black Reconstruction in America, 1860-1880 had been recently published. 

As much as Johnston praises Blake's study he does acknowledge serious shortcomings which today would be inexcusable, but at the time understandable.  In particular, Johnston criticizes Blake's handling of the Crater and a reference to USCTs as "half-drunken negroes."  The reviewers frustration with Blake is perhaps a function of the fact that although Blake is able to praise blacks for voting for Mahone he is unable to take the next step which would involve a more sympathetic portrayal of African Americans more generally.  Much of the literature about the Crater was written without any interest in the black perspective and the specific reference to "half-drunken references" was one way white Southerners could make the point that unless blacks were drunk or forced to fight by evil yankees that they remained loyal.  Blake would have had to spend considerable time looking for the limited amount of archival material that is available which may have given him a different perspective.  Perhaps he did not know to even question this reference.  Along similar lines while Johnston praises Mahone for completing his railroad from Norfolk to Petersburg before the war and under very difficult conditions he fails to "mention the black workmen in the swamps that helped Mahone build his railroad."  Finally, Johnston cites what he perceives to be a major weakness in Blake's analysis of Mahone's political success in his failure to reference those black politicians who worked in the Readjuster Party.

The biography of Mahone will be completed only when it makes it clear that these Negro men were the authors of the bills and the makers of the laws that brought these gifts to the Negro people of the state.  This book, then, while it is a deserved tribute to William Mahone and gives a far better picture of the Reconstruction in Virginia than one finds in other such works, must be supplemented with a treatment of the participation of the Negro in the Readjuster Movement. (p. 216)

I've spent a considerable amount of time going through the Journal of Negro History in JSTOR.  Given the broad assumptions that defined the nation's understanding of the Civil War, Reconstruction and race a perusal through Carter Woodson's journal serves as a reminder that black Americans took an interest in their history and worked hard to counter the overtly racist assumptions that were so prevalent at the time.  Not until the 1970s would there be studies of black politicians during the Readjuster Era along the lines envisioned by Johnston.