471A3--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday

Throughout the book Desjardin points out that there are many meanings linked to Gettysburg and virtually anyone can find relevance and support for their own thoughts and feelings towards it. As historians, we try to peel back the layers of information related to something and portray the most accurate story. While reading this book, however, I began to wonder if that's always the best thing to do (at least in Gettysburg's case). There are, clearly, so many connections that people of all histories and backgrounds make to Gettysburg that manage to make it this magical place (like Disney World, as Desjardin points out in his intro). Of course, people have conflicting views about many different places and events, but what I got from the reading was that Gettysburg was the extreme of this situation. What do you think historians should do? Should they research and break down Gettysburg and portray only one "accurate" history or should they continue to let it remain a place of many meanings? --Carly W. In response to Carly, I always thought that any given time in history will forever be up for interpretation and allow different meanings. For Gettysburg to be at the heart of the debate is not surprising. All of the examples given of people having their own connection to the battle only strengthens the argument. I think its important for history to have different meanings, if anything it gives a more complete look at a particular event.- George H I found this reading extremely interesting. I've visited Gettysburg numerous times and I learned so many things from this reading that I never knew. Works like Desjardin's show the issues that surround historiography and how different historians can effect the way "truth" is viewed and also that some historians&#160;use primary sources to satisfy their own perception of an event or an era. --Mary O. I agree with Mary, I thought that Desjardin's book was a great read. My favourite quote was that Gettysburg "is a multiple choice battlefield. If you don't like a particular version of events, just read on a few pages and you're likely to come upon a different one." (xxi) I just thought that this quote not only summed up Gettysburg, but the entire Civil War. -Meg O. In his introduction Desjardin presents the conundrum associated with the memory of Gettysburg. “Gettysburg mythology generally traces its roots back to the earliest eyewitness accounts of the battle, borne out in thousands of diaries, letters, and memoirs written by veterans after the war. Before later generations could reshape the story into images that satisfied their own needs, the people who experienced the battle firsthand held the only possible link to a factual truth.” (p. xix) This is true of any battlefield, what make Gettysburg so different? Why is Desjardin pointing this obvious fact out to us? - Jason Responding to Jason, I think what Desjardin what pointing out was that people make Gettysburg and Little Round Top such a big deal because of the heroism and bravery displayed. It is by far the battle that everyone is taught. No matter what state you're from, I think Gettysburg is made to be bigger than the rest. -Hannah Desjardin goes into great depth describing how people, untrained as historians, influenced the memory of the battle of Gettysburg. “It may not be far from the truth to say that the work of a few novelists and journalists has had a profound effect on society’s understanding of Gettysburg than the total product of all trained historians combined.” (p. 188) I have visited the battlefield on many occasions and heard the stories of Col Vincent (?) spotting the Confederates from Little Round Top, how Col Chamberlain ordered the bayonet charge against the numerically (and heroically) superior 15th Alabama, how the shoe factory was the aim of the Confederates, how Ewell’s lack of action on the first day cost the Confederates the high ground, and how Longstreet’s hesitation caused the defeat of the Confederates during “Pickett’s Charge.”  I have always heard that Gettysburg was the turning point, but like Desjardin points out, how can that be the case given the fact that the war raged for another two years? - Jason I thought that when Desjardin’s descriptions of veterans memoirs was interesting. I liked reading about the different myths that came about from different aspects of veterans’ memory of the war. I also was just very amused by some of the stories, such as the “Barlow-Gordon incident” It was hard to believe that some of the stories took so long to disprove. However it is also amazing to me that these stories are a part of people’s memory of the Civil War. I think that these stories just show how things can change in people’s memory. –Kayle P I'm with Kayle on this one, I really thought that the different stories Desjardin gives in Chapter 3 were really interesting. I compared it in my head with the South's Lost Cause and often would stop to think about how these stories shaped different people's perspectives. I know we talked in class about the veterans wanting their children to know their side of the story, but I thought it was interesting how he also compared it to event such as Woodstock. -Meg O. Going off what Jason said, the next line says “Before later generations could reshape the story into images that satisfied their own needs…” (xix) Desjardin also says “The truth about Gettysburg is buried beneath a layer upon layer of flawed human memory and our attempts to fashion our past into something that makes our present a little easier to live in.” (xvi) I think Desjardin is pointing out how much influence the public plays into the memory and the knowledge that people have about Gettysburg. I think that is why he points about the roots, because public knowledge may not be based in documents and eye witness accounts. –Kayle P It was a bit disheartening to read that some of my favorite stories about Gettysburg may not have been true and that they are subject to interpretation. Though it makes sense that even on a battlefield memory can be shrouded in bias I always assumed that the National Park service researched these stories and found them to be true because they were allowed to continue to be told.-Sean The Sickles controversy as always been one of the more interesting aspects of the battle of Gettysburg to me. His stupidity in moving positions is contrasted with his bravery and guts in the moment when a cannonball severs his leg but he lights a cigar as the stretcher carried him away. However, it was the battle over the memory of Gettysburg that Sickle effected that is the most interesting. One has to wonder, if the Union had lost, would Sickles narrative have taken hold?-Sean It fascinates me to read about John Bachelder and his attempts to gain the "facts" and create a map of the battle fields. The concept of mapping history through landscape recognition and mass consensus by soldiers and generals seems, to me, to be the best way to gain the closest-to-factual account as possible. I understand Desjardin's point when he discusses soldier's confusion and memory and this would seem to create a problem with Bachelder's approach however, this problem is consistent in all approaches to seeking the "facts". Bachelder is actively, and during the war itself as well as taking tours with the soldiers afterwards on the fields, seeking the raw information through consensus. This way of dealing war history, to me, has some of the best chance at attaining the closest-to-"truth" as possible. --Matt A. I found the chapter 3 "The Struggle Over Memory" particularly interesting. Desjardin points out that the accounts of the veterans had skewed the memory of Gettysburg. He notes the work by Gary Gallagher and states that a lot of the blame isn't on Lee directly, it goes on his subordinates, Ewell and Longstreet. Knowing that the years following the war Lee had been made into an almost mythical creature makes me see how much of the literature at the time wouldn't blame Lee for any shortcomings. George H I found the chapter about John Bachelder particularly interesting because the man frustrated me so much. On one hand, I sympathize with him for taking on such a daunting and controversial task as chronicling Gettysburg; but on the other I am so annoyed at his failure. Before reading this book, I knew very little about the myths associated with Gettysburg and was surprised to find out that Bachelder was behind alot of them. I know he was a painter rather than a trained historian, but it irks me to no end that he was able to compile such wealth of information and first-hand accounts and not follow through. However, because of his collection of resources, I agree with Desjardin when he says that Bachelder was the most important Gettysburg "historian". -Cameron F. I liked that I knew what I was going to expect by, "That's the great point of Gettysburg I nearly always point out. It is a multiple choice battlefield. If you don't like a particular version of events, just read on a few pages and you're likely to come up with a different one." I like that it feeds all of the different imaginations. -Hannah Chapter 9, "Where's Buster Kilrain Buried?", was very fitting and I thought it would make for interesting class discussion. We talk a lot about pop culture and how they grab onto ideas and continually evolve them and adjust them to more modern social and political ideas. The arts and movies that portray the importance of Gettysburg are no different, and in some ways, Desjardin shows that Gettysburg is a perfect example of this. I found the story of Buster Kilrain and the tourists who seek his grave quite interesting but the one I personally connected with the example of Gettysburg in "Remember The Titans." This may be because it was a product of my generation, and this would fit in with Desjardin's point, but it is amazing to see how the symbolic nature of Gettysburg represented so differently. For "Remember the Titans," it pushes a reconciliation narrative as well as emancipation at the same time. This I found to be genius at how they combined the two so well. --Matt A. Desjardin brought up an important factor on the veterans' memory of war when he discussed the "fog of war" and how survivors of Gettysburg were largely unable to describe and/or comprehend what exactly happened. We see this in any traumatic event someone endures and makes the task of piecing together their memory all the more difficult. The amount of time in between the battle and when veterans were able to talk about their experience, many things could have happened to shape their accounts. -Cameron F.

I really enjoyed his personal recollections of the war. It fits well with our discussions, which by necessity draws on our personal experiences. I think he articulated well what we have been trying to express, in terms of combining our personal experiences with a scholarly interpretation. - Carly B. The one chapter that really interested me was the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy of John Badger Bachelder. It surprised me that I had never heard of the work….until I got to the end of the chapter. Most of all, I am surprised at how much effort Bachelder put into creating a myth that fit his book, “Bachelder decided to himself that Gettysburg was that ‘great battle which would naturally decide the contest’….Once he had chosen this battle as the war’s decisive event, he endeavored not only to chronicle it but also to elevate its importance and thus confirm his choice by making sure that generations to follow agreed with his assessment” (86). That’s pretty conceited of him in my (and so it seems Desjardin’s) opinion. The chapter seems to agree that it’s astonishing that he even had a little fame during his writing. I also have to say I’ve never heard of a copse before. On that note, I’ve never heard of Chamberlain… so I guess that makes me less of a Civil War historian as I’d like to thing? To be honest, I’m not really interested in differences in battle stories, so maybe that’s why I’m not too concerned with the little details. His overall argument, however, holds more weight. -- Brooke

In addition, I think Desjardin did a good job of articulating the purpose of classes such as this one, as well as scholarly discussions about the war, on the last page. He writes "instead of teaching us every detail about an event that is largely unknowable, what the place and its story can tell us is that we have a distinct and observable way of making our history. Learning more about that process, we can understand an immeasurable amount about our past, our present, and even our future" (206). - Carly B.

I enjoyed the chapter Rascality and Stupidity. I found the Sickles controversy particularly interesting. I think that Desjardin was correct in stating that it would effect popular history for decades. -Ana Y.

In the chapter titled The Struggle Over Memory, Desjardin discussed how veterans of the Civil War reshaped their stories to benefit themselves and the roles they played in the War. Desjardin states, “There’s an enormous controversial literature that was created by former Confederates who fought here, endlessly replaying at Gettysburg in search of villains and scapegoats, and trying to explain why (General R.E. Lee lost here when R.E. Lee was a peerless soldier…” (42).  I took an oral history class here and it’s something that we as historians struggle with.  How do you tell whether what someone is saying is true or if they are embellishing, and if they are does it makes their account any less credible?  --Kelly F.

One of the chapters talked a little more about the film Gettysburg and also about Kevin Burns, and also about art. We have talked a lot about film and movie making, but we have not really made much focus on the art from the civil war. Although there was only a little bit included I would be interested in reading more about how art of the Civil War, in this case Gettysburg, influenced the memory of it. (185) – Ana Y.

I thought Desjardin's focus on Union General Dan Sickles was particularly interesting due to the fact I had no prior knowledge of him or what he did during the Civil War. To me, General Sickles reaction to his poor decisions during the Battle of Gettysburg was something most of us would do: We would attempt to justify our actions to make ourselves feel less inclined to failure or guilt. Unfortunately for Sickles though, his actions negatively affected his superior officer General Meade's reputation, making him another ill advised, forgettable Union officer. However, unlike us, General Sickles, a professional military leader, should not react similarly to non military people. -- Donald P.

I became interested in General Sickles and his insubordination during the Battle of Gettysburg because he appeared to be another failed Union officer, who caused carnage for his men in order to garner personal success. During the battle, his blunder, moving his men to an ill-advised position where they suffered immense causalities, resulted in him getting wounded. By 1897, however, he received the Medal of Honor for his "heroics" during the battle. Reading about General Sickles personal life, made me realize his actions during the Gettysburg were not out of character. His life was riddled with scandal, including a murder charge. The General Sickles story during the Battle of Gettysburg is a fascinating and questionable part to Civil War history and one that I never knew about until Desjardin's book. -- Donald P.