The Last Battle: Palmito Ranch (May 12-13, 1865)

 

https://digital.utsa.edu/digital/collection/p9020coll008/id/3031/

For many, the end of the Civil War comes with the surrenders of Robert E. Lee’s and Joseph Johnston’s Confederate armies in April of 1865. Indeed, these events sealed the death of the Confederacy. However, the war did not properly end until early summer. There are two reasons for this. First of all, news traveled slower back then, even with the recent introductions of new railroads and the telegraph. Thus it took some time for Confederate forces further west to receive word that their war had been lost. Secondly, defiant elements in the Confederate government, President Jefferson Davis among them, refused to admit defeat. Since the head of government never confirmed an overall surrender, the still sizeable Confederate force west of the Mississippi was unsure as how to proceed. Some steeled themselves for a final stand, but most got the sense that things were indeed coming to an unfortunate conclusion. They were keen not to start any hostile actions which could prove to be unnecessary wastes of life. Yet such an unnecessary battle would occur.

On May 12-13 a Federal colonel who had managed not to see any action in his four years of service led three regiments along the Rio Grande, his purposes still up for debate. The result was the last proper battle between the forces of the Union and the Confederacy. It was light in hard casualties of killed and wounded, but lasted hours and generated controversy. This was the Battle of Palmito Ranch, fought in the most backwater theatre of the war.

 

The Border Front

Perhaps “backwater” would not be an entirely accurate term. The Rio Grande, as it does today, forms the boundary between Texas and Mexico. It was the one border of the Confederacy that the Union Navy could not blockade. If they dared send ships up the river, they would violate Mexico’s neutrality. This neutrality was only in regards to the American Civil War itself, for Mexico was undergoing its own civil war at the same time, one injected with a strong dose of foreign invasion as well. Eager to capitalize on the United States’ internal conflict, French Emperor Napoleon III sought to expand his nation’s global influence by intervening in Mexico’s always volatile politics. He backed the conservative Mexican faction, who wanted a monarchy, against the republican Juaristas.

Peter Stark's Gallop Toward the Sun (book review)

 Stark, Peter. Gallop Toward the Sun: Tecumseh and William Henry Harrison's Struggle for the Destiny of a Nation. Random House, 2023.

In Gallop Toward the Sun, writer and historian Peter Stark argues the importance of the on-and-off war between Tecumseh's Pan-Indian movement and the aggressive American land drive headed by William Henry Harrison. He believes that this was the critical moment where the Indians, uniting under Tecumseh's strong political and military leadership and his brother Tenskwatawa's revolutionary religion, could have halted America's westward drive. Stark obviously sides with the Indians, understandably so as their lands are invaded and their health and culture eroded by the proximity of American settlements and whiskey. To his great credit Stark, while sympathizing with the Indians, does not shy away from some of their more barbaric attacks on settlers. In a way this makes him admire Tecumseh more, as the great chief abhorred torture and excessive cruelty and actually halted and prevented massacres of captured American soldiers. Tecumseh was also a great traveler, visiting other Indians as far afield as the Deep South and Kansas (the central action in this book takes places in Northwest Territory, or the Midwest).

Toby Wilkinson's Ramesses the Great (book review)

Wilkinson, Toby. Ramesses the Great: Egypt's King of Kings. Yale University Press, 2023.

Though Ancient Egypt is a subject with mass appeal, it is not too often that historians zero in on one figure when writing a book, instead presenting generalized overall histories or broader cultural surveys (usually on religious practices and/or architectural feats). One figure who has gotten singular treatment is the famed pharaoh Ramesses II, also known as Ramesses the Great. Egyptologist Toby Wilkinson has written an easy-to-red biography of this tremendous figure. It runs under 200 pages. As Wilkinson explains in his introduction, it is very difficult to actually determine and present the character of ancient people in the past, especially when they were carefully propagandized as God-kings. Though he confesses that he can accomplish no such character revelation, he does try to provide a few insights on Ramesses II. While he never outright argues it, Wilkinson's monograph suggests an egomaniac who was so determined to be remembered that spent his country's resources on vast, self-aggrandizing construction projects.

Wilkinson argues that Ramesses was not a first-rate military leader nor the most successful backer of artistic achievement. There were other pharaohs who conquered much more territory and led much more prosperous leaps. But thanks to his astonishingly lengthy reign of over sixty years, Ramesses provided Egypt with a period of stability and greatness that sustained its existence for centuries afterwards.

Eric Jay Dolin's Black Flags, Blue Waters (book review)

Dolin, Eric Jay. Black Flags, Blue Waters: The Epic History of America's Most Notorious Pirates. Liveright, 2018.

Black Flags, Blue Waters is a general history of pirates, particularly those who interacted with the British colonies in North America. The author, Eric Dolin, seeks to present an accurate history that is nevertheless incredible and fascinating. He largely succeeds, though some of his mythbusting may produce disappointment when it comes to certain tales. This most of all applies to Edward Thatch, better known as Blackbeard. Blackbeard's method of applying fuses to braided facials hair and his Rasputinian duel to the death were thought up in Charles Johnson's General History of Pyrates, a history which like many of its time did not adhere to a scientific method of inquiry and was a mix of truth and fancies. You might also be surprised to learn that the Jolly Roger is only an approximate guess of what a pirate flag looked like. Reports of the time mentioned a black flag or a flag with death motifs such as skulls, but no physical flags or even drawing of them have been preserved (quite surprising).

On the other hand Dolin humanizes most of the pirates. Leaders like Blackbeard were very minimal in their use of violence. They did it enough to intimidate prey without forcing costly sea battles. The crews themselves included many sailors who escaped tyrannical sea captains and wanted a freer way to conduct business, albeit a way which often involved theft and violence. When boarding ships, they would ask the crews how well their captains treated them. If they had been mean and dictatorial, they could expect to be killed, perhaps after some nasty torture.

Series Review: Hell on Wheels

 

Hell on Wheels is a highly fictionalized version of the building of the Transcontinental Railroad that ran on AMC from 2011 to 2016. Americans had long envisioned a railroad line from the Atlantic to the Pacific. This would go a long way in connecting the East and West coasts and speed up settlement out west. For years the construction of such a railroad was held up by sectional disputes. Predictably Southerners wanted to go south and Northerners vice versa. When the Civil War broke out the absence of Southern clout in Congress removed any obstacles to beginning the railroad. The undertaking was so daunting that the government felt it had to support the Union Pacific, going west from Omaha, and the Central Pacific, going east from San Francisco. The two railroad companies also took much longer than planned to start as they sought further financial backing. Construction was rough, with obstacles ranging from high mountains to deserts to hostile American Indians. The railroad was completed, but both companies soon went bankrupt for their troubles, and practiced unethical shortcuts as they raced each other. The title of the show comes from the name for the Union Pacific’s traveling town, Hell on Wheels.

History is dramatic enough, but the show understandably takes it to another level. Foremost there are a lot more shootouts and murders (the latter was not unheard of). Let’s just say that certain happenings in the show would have been legendary fixtures of American memory if they really happened. The cast of characters is also quite colorful. Most are fictional and they explore all the different perspectives of western life. There are Irish immigrants, pimps, hookers, Mormon settlers, preachers, scheming businessmen and politicians, black laborers, American Indians, Chinese immigrants, etc.

Movie Review: Cleopatra (1999)

 

With the recent controversy over Netflix’s heavily ahistorical Docudrama Cleopatra unfolding, I decided to check out another live-action adaptation. The most famous onscreen version of Cleopatra is Elizabeth Taylor’s 1963 epic, a movie that was both a box office hit and flop thanks to its ludicrous budget. Whatever its flaws, the movie has a special place in popular culture. More recently there has been the aforementioned Netflix series produced by Jada Pinkett-Smith. Despite its claims to be a documentary, it’s even more inaccurate than most fictionalized dramatizations, from its clownish portrayals of major Roman figures to its blackcasting of the Macedonian Ptolemies (and Egyptians) to the claim that Cleopatra was the true brains behind the Julian Calendar.

Having already seen the 1963 epic with Elizabeth Taylor as the famous queen, I watched Hallmark’s two-part mini-series from 1999. I got it from the library on DVD, but it is readily available for viewing on YouTube. Its general story structure is heavily derived from the Elizabeth Taylor film. For example, movie is split into two parts with the first focused on Cleopatra and Julius Caesar and the second with her and Marc Antony. Like the 1963 epic it begins with Cleopatra exiled while her sister Arsinoe and her literal kid brother Ptolemy hold the throne of Egypt.

Despite the general plot similarities, there are many differences in how Cleopatra is portrayed. Like with other film adaptations Hallmark plays up her beauty by casting Chilean actress Leonor Varela. Many historians actually disagree with the idea that Cleopatra was particularly beautiful, as several ancient sources suggest that it was her wit and personality, not her looks, which ingratiated her with the male power players of her day. Still, having a beautiful queen is better for dramatic purposes. Despite Netflix and Jada Pinkett-Smith’s attempts to say otherwise, Cleopatra was Macedonian and thus white. Leonor Valera is a brown Latina, but does look like she fits into the Mediterranean environment unlike the pasty white Elizabeth Taylor and black Adele James (from the Netflix docudrama). What’s actually distracting is that she has her Latin American accent. The mini-series does not really make any firm attempt to delineate the different peoples with accents. For example, most of the Roman characters have the usual British accents, but Marc Antony is definitely American. Cleopatra’s advisers and handmaidens likewise sport American and British accents while she, again, sports a Latin accent.

Back to Cleopatra, her character is not as in control of things as usually portrayed. She has her moments of power, but also suffers some major political losses when contending with Rome. One criticism I have is that when things do not go her way she can get a little too visibly emotional when expressing her distaste to Julius Caesar or one of her advisers. Of course, this is a Hallmark production.

Cleopatra, like most great political leaders, would have been able to control her emotions and not show weakness. This Cleopatra also has a couple moments where she gets in on the action. One might complain that this veers into girl boss territory and it is correct that the real Cleopatra was no warrior. In Hallmark’s defense, however, she only fights when directly attacked and also this was not, like the Netflix series, purported to be a documentary.

The other two major characters are Julius Caesar and Marc Antony. Julius Caesar is played gloriously by Timothy Dalton, an actor I always love to see. One standout moment involves him dramatically rising out of a bath in slow motion. The relationship between Cleopatra and Caesar here is filled with much more tension than is usually seen in other adaptations. While they enjoy each other’s company to the point of having an affair, Julius Caesar clearly has the upper hand and tends to support Cleopatra’s power plays only as far as it stabilizes Egypt and ensures its protection payments to Rome.

Dalton’s performance is by far the best part of the mini-series. When his character gets assassinated at the halfway point the movie gets noticeably less engaging. At this point Cleopatra begins her proper relationship with Marc Antony, played by Billy Zane. I do have to commend the mini-series for introducing Antony relatively early on. In the 1963 film he took forever to show up and had almost no interaction with the title character until Caesar was dead. Here he escorts Cleopatra to Rome and defends her against an assassination plot. Thus when they ally with each other and become true lovers, it feels more natural. As with many other adaptations Cleopatra is shown to have a genuine romance with Antony, even though their relationship had as much political motivations as that of her and Caesar’s.

One final character of note is Octavian (Rupert Graves), later to become Augustus Caesar. This miniseries continues the odd trend of portraying Octavian as a haughty semi-villain. I think the issue is that filmmakers (and those directing Shakespeare’s plays based on the period) like to make Cleopatra the protagonist. After all, how many powerful queens became major players in the days of Rome? As a result Octavian, who challenges her and Antony, has to be put in the light of antagonist. It is ironic because in the days of the Roman Empire Octavian was portrayed as the hero who prevented the wicked foreigner Cleopatra from taking over the world through Marc Antony. It should also be noted that Cleopatra and Antony tend to get the role of underdogs. In reality they controlled the eastern, more prosperous half of the Roman Empire. It was the superior tactics of Octavian’s favored commander Marcus Agrippa which produced so many defeats for Cleopatra.

As far as production values go Hallmark’s mini-series is not too bad despite the constraints of television. CGI helps create the vistas of Alexandria and Rome while the interior sets are good. I did notice a couple costume gaffes with the Roman army. I believe the feathery helmets did not appear until centuries later. The battle scenes are not too bad despite their limitations. The highlight is Julius Caesar personally getting into the fray while fending off Arsinoe’s army at Alexandria. I doubt he was that personally involved in the actual combat but it’s cool to see thanks to Dalton’s performance. The Battle of Actium was a major naval clash, but with its limited budget the mini-series mostly focuses on the action aboard Antony and Cleopatra’s ships respectively. Trevor Jones’ musical score is also quite good.

Overall Hallmark’s Cleopatra is a solid three hours of entertainment. The second half is not as engaging as the first and the portrayal of the lead character is mixed. But it is much more faithful to history than the supposed documentary on Netflix and tries to treat its historical figures with a measure of respect.

Rating: 6/10

Colt's Revolving Civil War Rifle

 Samuel Colt’s revolver is one of the most revolutionary and well-known weapons. The revolver was a pistol that held a revolving cylinder with six chambers. Once a shot was fired, the cylinder would turn, lining up the next bullet with the barrel. This meant that a man could fire six shots without reloading. Colt had figured out how to mass produce them, and revolvers became a stable of the United States military. What is not well known is that Colt’s Patents Fire-Arms Manufacturing Company attempted to apply the same principles to a rifle: the Colt New Model Revolving Rifle. When people think of repeaters in the American Civil War, the Spencer Carbine and Henry Rifle (predecessor of the famed Winchester) usually come to mind. So why did a rifle based on one of the most famous pistols not gain the same recognition? As it turns out it was not as great as it looked on paper.

The 1855 Colt Revolving Rifle

Production

The Colt Fire-Arms Company produced two versions of the revolving rifle for the military. The first was the Model 1855 Colt Revolving Rifle. It was not the first revolver rifle in history (with Colt having produced a hunting revolver rifle over ten years earlier), but it was the first such weapon to be adopted by the U.S. Army. This version was more closely based on the pistol model, with a six-shot cylinder holding .44 caliber bullets. When the Civil War erupted, Colt modified the rifle so that its cylinder held five .56 caliber bullets. The transition of the revolver concept from handgun to rifle was not smooth. To reduce weight, Colt fluted the chambers. This means that the manufacturer created space that allowed for more flow of gas. This would create problems for the soldiers who wielded them. As with the revolvers, the rifles included a ramming lever beneath the barrel. Unlike the more well-known Colt Revolvers, the rifles could also hold bayonets. This feature was absent in several Civil War repeaters.[1]

The revolver was applied to carbines, some of which, evidenced by the photo of a Virginia cavalryman, found their way into Confederate service. In fact, the carbine model appears to have been more utilized, with Colt rifles appearing more in reports of cavalry actions.[2] Colt of course produced thousands of pistols for the Army. It did not just produce revolver weapons, but also helped fill demands for muskets when the war started. In 1861 there was a great need to quickly arm the infantry with this more conventional weapon. Colt helped out, producing 100,000 of these and 80,000 more in 1862.[3]

A soldier posing with his Colt Rifle (https://www.loc.gov/item/2010648931/)

The Revolving Rifle’s Drawbacks

With their use becoming more widespread, the Col Revolving Rifles, particularly the second five-shot model, revealed an explosive issue. Likely due to the fluting which enabled gas leakage, the cylinders could go off unexpectedly. If the cylinder erupted, it could damage the arm or hand of its wielder. Most susceptible was the left hand that held up the barrel. When the cylinder erupted, it would sometimes severely mangle the hand and often necessitated amputation. Lead shavings from the bullets could also fly backwards into the soldier’s arm or face. This could potentially end in a mangled face, if not death.[4]

Berdan’s Sharpshooters, a unique Civil War unit of accomplished shots, had acquired 1,000 of these rifles. Their commander Colonel Hiram Berdan, however, hoped that they would eventually instead receive the Sharps Carbine. His wish was soon justified. Shortly there were reports of all five or six bullets firing off at once. The cylinders also had a tendency to overheat after a little use, making them dangerous to reload. This was the first recorded case of the Army’s dissatisfaction with the weapon.[5] A later report would state that “although the Colt rifles are a very good arm in time of action, they are difficult to keep in order specially [sic] during rainy weather.”[6]

 

The Rifle in Action

Despite their apparent issues, the Colt Revolving Rifles still saw significant use in actions from late 1861 through 1862. The first recorded instance was late in 1861 at Mill Springs, Kentucky. Pickets of the 12^th Kentucky used the rifles in a brisk skirmish, with a 50% accuracy rate. On March 7, 1862 at least two Union units went into action with colt repeaters at Pea Ridge, Arkansas. In this action the Confederates managed to advance into the Union rear, forcing the Northerners to scramble their units piecemeal into action. The 1^st Missouri Cavalry protected a battery with Colt revolving carbines. On another part of the battlefield, in the dense thicket of Morgan’s Woods, the 37^th Illinois utilized Colt Repeating Rifles in a furious shootout. In this case the rifles proved to be an advantage, giving them a higher rate of firepower that slowed the Confederate advance and bought time for the surprised Federals to send in reinforcements.[7]

In April, on the other side of the Confederacy on the Virginia Peninsula, General George B. McClellan’s Army of the Potomac had stalled in front of Yorktown (under the mistaken impression that it faced a large, dug-in force). During the following siege warfare, Berdan’s Sharpshooters, still waiting for their Sharps Carbines, had to use their Colt Rifles. They played havoc on Confederate batteries, silencing them by killing and wounding their crew. This had more to do with the men’s incredible marksmanship than any inherent advantage of the weapon itself. An illustration in Harper's Weekly did not show the Sharpshooters using the rifles, suggesting that many of the marksmen used their own privately bought weapons instead.[8]

The Colt Revolving Rifle was still used by some infantry units as late as September 1863, this time at the Battle of Chickamauga, Georgia. The 21^st Ohio was one of many units that faced off repeated Confederate attacks on Snodgrass Hill. Each man had 95 rounds of ammunition. In the protracted fight they acquitted themselves well, but eventually ran out of ammunition, enabling the Confederates to overwhelm and capture a large portion of them.[9]

The Colt Rifle appeared to have more involvement in the actions of the Union Cavalry. On July 1, 1862 at Booneville, Mississippi, Phil Sheridan put 160 men with the rifles in a line to confront a Confederate cavalry charge while more of his men slipped around the enemy flank. The five-shot chambers enabled them to pour in significant fire before a hand-to-hand fight ensued. Here the men used the Colt Rifles as clubs. Their higher rate of fire did not always translate into victory. At Brice’s Crossroads on June 20, 1964, skirmishers fired at Nathan Bedford Forest’s Confederate cavalry from behind logs and trees. Though the rifle’s rate of fire helped them repulse two attacks, Forrest still managed to break their line.[10]

 

The Abandoned Repeater

Overall, the Colt Revolving Rifle provided welcome advantages in several battles with its higher rate of fire, but was plagued by several technical issues, a couple which could cause lifelong injury or death to its wielder. With more efficient and less dangerous repeaters coming out as the war progressed, the War Department now looked to get rid of the Colt Rifles. They sold them off at 42 cents apiece, a cheap price for a firearm even back then. To put the reduced price into perspective, some units in 1861 purchased them at prices up to 45$ apiece. This best exemplifies the interesting failure of the Colts Revolving Rifle and explains why it is not as readily known as the more famed Spencer Carbine or Henry Rifle.[11]

 

Sources

Canfield, Silas S. History of the 21^st Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry in the War of the Rebellion. Toledo, Vrooman, 1893.

Davis, William C. Rebels & Yankees: Fighting Men of the Civil War. Salamander Books, 1999.

Hogg, Ivan V. Weapons of the Civil War. Brompton Books Corp., 1995.

Macaulay, John D. “Colt’s Model 1855 Revolving Rifle in the Civil War.” https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-s-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/

Marcot, Roy M. U.S. Sharpshooters: Berdan’s Civil War Elite. Mechanicsburg: Stackpole, 2007.

Shea. William L. & Hess, Earl J. Pea Ridge: Civil War Campaign in the West. University of North Carolina Press, 1992.

---

[1] John D. Macaulay, “Colt’s Model 1855 Revolving Rifle in the Civil War,” https://www.american-rifleman.org/content/colts-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/; Willlaim C. Davis, Rebels & Yankees: Fighting Men of the Civil War, (Salamander Books, 1999), 64-65; Ivan V. Hogg, Weapons of the Civil War, (Brompton Books Corp., 1995), 36.

[2] Davis, Fighting Men, 64-65.

[3] Hogg, Weapons of the Civil War, 34.

[4] Hogg, Weapons of the Civil War, 36-37; Davis, Fighting Men, 64-65.

[5] Roy M. Marcot, US Sharpshooters: Berdan’s Civil War Elite, (Mechanicsburg: Stackpole, 2007), 48, 50.

[6] Macaulay, “Colt’s Model 1855,” https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-s-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/.

[7] Macaulay, “Colt’s Model 1855,” https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-s-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/; William L. Shea & Earl J. Hess, Pea Ridge: Civil War Campaign in the West, (University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 121-122.

[8] Marcot, US Sharpshooters, 68.

[9] Silas S. Canfield, History of the 21^st Regiment Ohio Volunteer Infantry in the War of the Rebellion, (Toledo, Vrooman, 1893), 141-145.

[10] Macaulay, “Colt’s Model 1855,” https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/colt-s-model-1855-revolving-rifle-in-the-civil-war/.

[11] Davis, Fighting Men, 65; Marcot, US Sharpshooters, 50.

The Battle-turned-Massacre of Baxter Springs

 On October 6, 1863, the site of Baxter Springs, in Kansas just a couple miles from the Indian Territory border, hosted one of the more infamous moments of the Civil War. It saw the only clash of, up to that time, two of the most successful military commanders of Trans-Mississippi theatre. About a hundred Federals, along with a fair number of civilians, marched with Major General James Blunt to Fort Baxter, en route to Arkansas. As fate would have it, a few hundred guerillas were also nearby. Their leader was none other than Colonel William Quantrill, the most feared and notorious bushwhacker from Missouri. This clash is classified as a battle, but most prefer to call it the Baxter Springs Massacre.

Quantrill Heads to Texas

William Quantrill, the son of an Ohio schoolteacher and migrant to Missouri, began his career as a bushwhacker near the end of 1861. Starting with just ten men, he built up a fearsome reputation with an impressive series of raids. By the end of 1862 he directly commanded over 150 men. After wintering in Arkansas with General Sterling Price’s Confederate soldiers, they returned in spring 1863 to pick up where they left off.[1] This time the guerillas faced more formidable opposition. Major General Thomas Ewing Jr., a former judge, commanded the Federal District of the Border. Kansas had long been the victim of Quantrill’s raids and he was determined to stop them. He undertook harsher measures to contain and hopefully stop the scourge of the border.

Movie Review: Last Samurai (2003)

 Last Samurai, directed by Edward Zwick, is inspired by real historical events in 19th Century Japan. Japan has recently opened up to the outside world and is rapidly modernizing. In order to accomplish this successfully, the Meiji government brings in many foreign advisors to build them up. The main character is Captain Nathan Algren (Tom Cruise), who comes to Japan to train its army. He is also expected to help lead it against the titular Last Samurai, rebellious warriors under Lord Moritsugu Katsumoto (Ken Watanabe) who believe that Japan's rapid modernization has enabled corrupt and greedy individuals to gain power over the Emperor at the people's expense. Impressed by Algren's ferocity and courage, Katsumoto has him taken prisoner rather than killed after a major defeat for the government. Algren, suffering from personal demons, becomes fascinated by the samurai and finds renewed purpose by helping them instead. It's a bit like Dances with Wolves.

This movie is heavily inaccurate, yet it's awesome and I recommend watching it. It's inspired by the 1877 Satsuma Rebellion, in which incorruptible samurai Saigo Takamori led a revolution. It also combines elements with the Boshin War (1868-1869). Katsumoto, the coolest characters thanks to Watanabe's performance, is based on Saigo. Like the character in the film, Saigo felt that the Meiji government was moving too fast, and that this enabled many to enrich themselves at the expense of good governance. He and other samurai were also distressed by the loss of privileges they once held, such as guaranteed rice payments and the right to carry swords anywhere. The movie's inspired version on the other hand is more purely conservative, with him and his followers effectively maintaining a pre-modern lifestyle. Thus their war with the government in the film borrows elements from the Boshin War, in which the more conservative shogunate warred with the Meiji faction. Even then the Shogunate employed modern weapons in its armies. Only politically and culturally was it old-fashioned.

Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzfrieg, Idelogy, and Atrocity (Alexander B. Rossino)

 

In Hitler Strikes Poland: Blitzkrieg, Ideology, and Atrocity, Alexander Rossino argues that the war in Poland was in fact the first shots in a war of ethnic annihilation that resumed against the Soviet Union once Adolf Hitler believed that the western powers were no longer a threat to his ultimate goals. In addition to describing the ethnic cleansing carried out by the SS death squads, the  Einsatzgruppen, he does a good job criticizing the myth that the regular Germany Army, the Wehrmacht, was generally opposed to the atrocities for humane reasons and that the soldiers refused to participate or flat-out resisted the killings. He furthermore argues that many of the soldiers committed them quite willingly, with no repercussions for dissent.

The officer class is often romanticized as reluctant victims of Hitler’s control. This was thanks to their post-war memoirs, where they distanced themselves from the Nazis. They also portrayed themselves as competent victims of the Fuhrer’s regime, forced to do Hitler’s bidding. These men do not escape Rossino’s critical eye. When German and generals lower-ranking officers protested the looting and killings carried out by SS men, they were not shocked by the ideological atrocity, but the manner in which it was carried out. They believed that such actions undermined discipline and distracted the troops from their more purely military goals. Many generals did not appreciate Poles and Jews being killed without their authority and without “the court-martial process and other formal procedures”. In other cases, officers in the Wehrmacht collaborated with the Einsatzgruppen in weeding out and disposing of undesirables and had no qualms doing so.

Battle of Belmont (November 7, 1861) Part III: Grant on the Run

 

Grant had finally given his men a battle. They had for the most part acquitted themselves well, though discipline broke down once they reached Camp Johnston. They had tasted victory. Now they would taste defeat and its consequences.

 

Comic strip I found (https://emergingcivilwar.com/2021/08/05/the-battle-of-belmont-as-told-in-a-comic-strip/)

From Advance to Withdrawal

One consequence of the Federals’ premature celebration in Camp Johnston was that the Confederates, lying along the riverbank to the northeast, had time to collect and rally themselves.[1] Though he groused about it in his memoirs, Grant did not mention his force’s breakdown in discipline in report. He instead claimed that Belmont was on low ground and would be battered by enemy cannon fire. With no wagons to carry all the captured goods, he ordered the camp set on fire. The Federals carried with them captured horses and dragged off three artillery pieces. Just after the flame started the Confederates opened fire from across the river. They reasoned that since the camp was coming on fire there was no Confederates there. One shell from the Lady Polk, one of the larger pieces, struck the ground and caused Grant’s horse to whinny and rear up.[2]

When the Confederates later returned they found burned bodies of wounded men left behind in the tents. They believed the Federals had murdered them upon discovery and then left their corpses to burn alongside their dwellings. More likely the Federals failed to notice them or forgot them, so that they were burned alive. In addition to the rumors that they had bayoneted many of the wounded, this incensed and drove the Confederates. [3]

Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln (Jonathan W. White)

 

In Emancipation, the Union Army, and the Reelection of Abraham Lincoln, Jonathan White presents a more cynical but probably more realistic take on the Union Army in regards to the motivations of its soldiers. He challenges the popular historical consensus that the overwhelming army vote for Lincoln in the 1864 election reflected solidarity with Republican war aims of emancipation. While he directly addresses James McPherson’s works, which trumpeted the army as a force of emancipation, he also criticizes Chandra Manning’s What This Cruel War Was Over, and in doing so challenges her thesis as well. In her book Manning claimed that by looking at hundreds of Union and Confederate letters, the soldiers obviously fought for the issue of slavery. As regards the Federals, she believes they for the most part put Unionism I the background in favor of destroying slavery. White believes that she and other historians inferred too much from a considerable, yet still fractionally small pool of letters and diaries. I add that they also failed to take differing ethnic and regional backgrounds to account (for example, a soldier from southern Illinois would not be as inclined towards abolitionism as a Massachusetts man or radical German immigrant). Furthermore, he believes that soldiers’ views change back and forth in response to events. Historians can fall into the trap of taking a few diaries and letters and making them representative of the whole army. He avoids being representative himself, stating that he only wishes to flesh out those who did not vote against Lincoln and not make any monolithic claims.

He argues several general facts that challenge the popular narrative. Using voting statistics, he shows that 20% of soldiers eligible to vote chose not to do so, showing either disinterest or disgust with both parties. Many who voted for Lincoln did so because they did not approve of the Democrats’ anti-war platform and just wanted to win the war. Finally, in the age of public ballots, there was an atmosphere of intimidation that dissuaded Democrat votes. Some Republican officers rigged pro-emancipation regimental resolutions to appear unanimously in favor. Soldiers who wanted to vote for McClellan could be stopped out of fear of riling up their comrades and being accused of disloyalty. Officers could have their careers stalled or destroyed if they expressed too much criticism of abolitionism.

Through his work White concludes a common historiographical trend. Often there is a prevailing view of a historical event that stays entrenched for decades. Then a revisionist makes a stark counter-argument that becomes the predominant view, only later on for a third “neo-revisionist” work to argue a middle ground. For a long time the Union soldier was presented for fighting primarily for preservation of his republic. Then it became emancipation. White shows that “for many northern soldiers, restoring the Union was the only true goal of the war from beginning to end.” Though his lack of time on it may not reveal it, he argues that many soldiers indeed came to see emancipation as the higher cause, but perhaps just as many prioritized preserving the Union without any concern for blacks. He argues that the Union Army was an army of emancipation not from some popular “bottom-up” movement by the soldiers, but from a top-down implementation of policies by Lincoln, the War Department, and then the generals and other officers.

White’s book does a good job of providing a more nuanced view of the Union army and showing that there was not a strong pro-emancipation majority, but there are a couple flaws. White makes the same mistake as Manning in not differentiating the different types of ethnicities and regions making up the armies. In reading this book I noticed that the soldiers with the strongest anti-emancipation views came from such states as Illinois and Ohio. General Sherman’s 1864 army, which was made up of westerners, refused to accept any black soldiers. Westerners had stronger economic ties with the South, and may have shared more of their racial views as a result. My second issue is that some of the officers and soldiers that were dismissed for disloyalty were directing some very bold criticisms and insults towards Lincoln and abolition. White never suggests that they might have twisted the stories behind their comments when presenting them in court. A pillar of the United States is free speech but one wonders if such blatant attacks on war aims and the commander-in-chief would have been accepted or still are.

Regardless this is a great book from the recent Dark Turn in Civil War historiography. While not pleasant, it is essential for White and others to challenge some of the comforting narratives. White also better accounts for the fact that history is made up of individuals, not collectives. While group pressure can shape an individual, he, especially an American one, is likely to have some degree of difference in views. Federals soldiers’ views on emancipation varied widely from outright abolitionism to pragmatic emancipation to complete disinterest to even anti-emancipation.

The book can be bought here. It's price has gone down significantly since I had to get it for my Master's course.

Rating: Highly Recommend

Rating System

Must-Read: Definite read for history in general

Highly Recommend: Definite read within a certain subject

Recommend: Good for further information or info on a certain topic

Adequate: Useful if looking for further information certain topic

Pass: Awful, only useful for examining bad or ideologically-tainted history

Battle of Belmont (November 7, 1861) Part II: Grant on the Attack

 

The Battle of Belmont can be divided into two phases: The Federals on the attack and the Federals on the retreat. This section covers the former. It was Grant’s first significant battle and the only one where he would be around the front line. Despite this, he is fairly absent from the drive on Belmont. Even in Nathaniel C. Hughes’ comprehensive study of the battle it is usually McClernand or Dougherty who make the wider decisions. Grant appears to have been content to devise the general battle plan and then let his subordinates take initiative. Most accounts place him staying in close proximity to Dougherty, and he did come under fire many times, with one horse shot out from under him. Likely he gave general directions to his brigade commanders and approved their choices, which were sound up to the taking of Camp Johnston.

Battle of Belmont (November 7, 1861) Part I: The Set-Up

In late 1861 Grant sported a longer beard. This photo also shows him well-dressed. This is a stark difference from the more humbly-dressed and shorter-bearded soldier that most are familiar with.

In most of the years between his departure from the Army and his return in the Civil War, Ulysses S. Grant had become a sad, obscure figure. His attempts to forge a career consistently came to naught, and in 1861 he was working as a clerk at his father’s store. Thanks to his West Point background and Mexican War experience, he suddenly became valued when war erupted. Even then it took special help from Illinois Congressman Elihu Washburne to get him a commission as colonel.

Grant quickly settled back into the role as an army officer. He performed creditably in Missouri, whipping his regiment into shape, fostering good relations with the civilians of a divided state, and looking for scattered pro-Confederate militia to defeat or drive off. Though he had fought no considerable battle, he got a promotion to brigadier-general and command over the District of Southeast Missouri. Soon one of America’s most famous generals would have his first battle as commander.

 

Where Three States Meet

Grant’s jurisdiction was not just southeast Missouri, but the southern tip of Illinois and possibly the Kentucky shore on the Mississippi River.  At first it seemed that his main opponent was General M. Jeff Thompson. Thompson commanded a division of the Confederate-aligned Missouri State Guard. Instead of uniting with Price’s main army of militia, Thompson waged guerilla-style warfare in his part of Missouri. As for Kentucky, both sides of the Civil War wooed it, but the border slave state remained inflexibly neutral. Union and Confederate forces struggled to restrain their desires to plant troops in the state. Whoever violated Kentucky’s neutrality first could send it into the arms of the opposition (see my post on Mill Springs for more background on this situation). Fortunately for the Union, the Confederate commanders in western Tennessee were not the Southern Cause’s best.          

                                Gideon Pillow                                                             Leonidas Polk

One of them was General Gideon Pillow. Pillow was the only general which Grant openly despised in his recollections of the war. Pillow was of aggressive temperament and yearned for glory. In the summer of 1861 he planned to fortify Columbus, Kentucky. With its high banks, Columbus provided an ideal place to control traffic along the northern Mississippi. It was also close to Cairo, Illinois, which stood at the junction of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. North and south of Columbus stood 150 foot high bluffs. To the south were the Chalk Bluffs. To the north were ones with strains of iron. These were called the Iron Banks, and stood between Columbus and any Union thrust from Cairo.

The History Behind the Unique Units of Age of Empires II: Aztec Jaguar Warriors

 This is hopefully the first in a series in which I take a historical look at the unique units in the real-time strategy game Age of Empires II. In this game the different civilizations share mostly the same units, with different civilization bonuses and varied accessibility to certain techs and upgrades making them unique. Each civilization can build a castle, where it trains a unique unit (some get secondary unique units in other buildings). These units are a big part of what makes each playable civilization unique. I will attempt to go in alphabetical order of the civilizations included in the HD edition and explain the background of each unique unit. I will also include a comparison to the in-game and real-life units.

First up is the Aztecs. They get the Jaguar Warrior. It is an infantry unit with an attack bonus against other infantry. The Mesoamerican civilizations in Age of Empires II also get the Eagle Warrior, which was in reality another warrior class equal to the jaguar warriors. I will get back to the in-game unit once I’ve gone through their history.

The Jaguar Warriors were called Cuauhocelotl in the Nahuatl language. For easer typing I will simply call them jaguar warriors. The main primary source comes from a Spanish writer. Bernardino de Sahagun, a Franciscan friar, arrived in Mexico a few years after the fall of Tenochtitlan the Aztec capital, and the assumed extinction of the jaguar warriors. He took great interest in the natives’ culture and, using native sources and artists, wrote the Florentine Codex, a history and ethnography of the Aztecs in their own Nahuatl language. Along with the later Mendoza Codex, this source is referred to by all historians of the Aztecs. I have looked at several scholarly works on the Aztecs (as well as a couple heavily illustrated histories) and actually found some dispute over a couple widely accepted facts about the jaguar warriors and their wars.

Mini-Series Review: I, Claudius (1976)

 I, Claudius is an adaptation of Robert Graves' novel of the same name and its sequel Claudius the God. This twelve-part TV series follows the Julio-Claudian Dynasty of emperors, from the first emperor Augustus himself to the assumption of the throne by Nero. The story is primarily told from the point of view of Claudius (Derek Jacobi), who was the fourth emperor of Rome. Claudius is born with a twitch, lame leg, and terrible stutter. It is eventually revealed that he has actually acquired control over most of his issues and is quite the intelligent historian and observer. However, to survive the intrigue-filled, blood-soaked events engulfing the imperial family, he persists in playing the fool to avoid any fears that he might come for the throne himself. This keeps him alive until he shockingly becomes emperor.

It should be stated that Graves' novels and its adaptation are not meant to be straight historical presentations. The plot is that the aged Claudius is writing down the true history of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty and thus there are dark secrets that historians have failed to uncover. For example Livia (Sian Phillips), Augustus' wife, is a schemer who arranges the deaths of many characters in order to guide the empire to what she perceives is the best course. The historical Livia was a notably intelligent woman who Augustus usually consulted when making decisions, but there is no evidence that she was a masterful villainess. Graves also plays up the horrific stories about Tiberius (George Baker) and Caligula (John Hurt). Historians have questioned many of theses tales, such as Tiberius' transformation of the island of Capri into his personal and perverted pleasure garden (complete with young boys). Caligula in particular is shown to be a psycho from childhood while even historians who believe all the salacious stories about him credit his madness to a bout with a severe illness as well as outrage over the assassinations of much of his family (in this show he actually helps kill his father Germanicus). Despite these liberties, this is still a fascinating look at early Imperial politics and drama, as Graves kept his narrative possible within accepted history.

McClellan’s War: The Failure of Moderation in the Struggle for the Union (Ethan S. Rafuse)

McClellan's War is Ethan Rafuse's 2005 attempt to truly decipher what Union General George B. McClellan, the first commander of the Army of the Potomac, was doing in the early third of the Civil War. For most of Civil War historiography, McClellan has been blamed for the Union's lack of success in Virginia. He was too egotistical in dealing with the President and other political leaders. He was needlessly cautious, displaying a mental handicap that prevented him from dealing several critical blows against Lee's Confederate Army. It does not help that McClellan was often in opposition to the deified Abraham Lincoln, even to the point of running against him for president. Historians and documentarians thus have depicted him as something of an arch-nemesis. Rafuse is one of several historians that have found this view of McClellan to be flawed, perhaps even cartoonish. In his 400 page tome he focuses primarily on McClellan's political and strategic beliefs and how they influenced his conduct of the war from 1861-1862.

The first quarter of the book fleshes out McClellan's background. He grew up in a Whig family. Many within the Whig political party, such as Henry Clay, emphasized compromise and careful rational thinking to solve political problems. When the Whig Party met its demise, McClellan shifted his views over to the Douglas Democrats. Like the Whigs, Stephen Douglas of Illinois stressed compromise to smooth over partisan differences and oppose extremism. He viewed both Secessionists and Republicans, especially Radical Republicans, as extremely dangerous. Though he sided with the Union, he was deeply concerned by the growing influence of abolitionist politics on war policy. He believed that this would stiffen Confederate resistance because of fears of a race war.