I can't spare this man, he fights.

Another stock ACW soundbite traced to its' source, in this case much more reputable. Alexander McClure reports them in 1892, in response to his attempt to have Grant removed (although Lincoln never did intervene, and it was Halleck that reinstated Grant to avoid McClernand getting an army). Brooks Simpson has shown it also to be false.

Also of interest is Lincoln's response to the suggested gerrymandering of the 1864 election in Pennsylvania (ref),Lincoln is concerned that unlike Sherman, Grant might not actually selectively furlough Republican voters. Lincoln thinks Grant is incorruptible; I regard this as high praise for Grant.

Lick 'em tomorrow though

One of the stock quotes from the battle of Shiloh is:

Sherman: "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

Grant: "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

I recently tried to trace the original source of the quote and came to the conclusion that it is a later invention. This soundbite enters ACW historiography in 1960, in Bruce Catton's "Grant Moves South". It is not present in any previous history, nor in either Grant nor Sherman's memoirs.

Thanks to the large scale digitisation of millions of books we can do keyword searches. I've found the phrase only once before 1960, in Charles Wingate's "What Shall Our Boys Do For a Living":

We can assume this is the ultimate source of the soundbite, and we have to assume as Catton was not big on citations. The Napoleon quote also doesn't seem to appear until around the time of the Civil War (when it appears in American magazines).

Thus it appears that the phrase was invented by Wingate ca. 1898, used without citation or verification by Catton in 1960 and has been promulgated unquestioned ever since.

Some musings on the "politics" of ACW history

This is basically some thoughts I've been having, and they've only partially coalesced.

I've recently been thinking a lot about the "political" spectrum of ACW history, historians and general enthusiasts. One well known extreme is the "Lost Cause" and many a neo-Confederate can be found on any internet forum on the war. What is less recognised is that the Lost Cause in fact occupies one wing of a spectrum of ideology about the war. For simplicity I shall put the Lost Cause as the extreme left wing of this spectrum. The extreme polar opposite I shall labelled the "Radicals" since they espouse the ideologies of the wartime Radical Republicans. In the centre would be the Conservatives.

The left and right wings are polar opposites. For example, the cause was economic or slavery at these two ends of the spectrum, neither side will acknowledge that both had an impact. Another example is Sherman's scorched earth policy, condemned as ethnic cleansing on one side, and the righteous punishment for daring to leave the Union on the other.

This ideology even extends into what theatre of war is regarded as the one of prime import. The left wing (Lost Cause) focuses heavily on Virginia and the likes of Robert E. Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson, whilst the right wing (Radicals) focus on the Mississippi theatre (and, to a lesser extent the Tennessee-Kentucky theatre) and the likes of U.S. Grant and W.T. Sherman. Neither side likes any criticism of their marble men, and decry their opposites as "butchers".

My train of thought has been taken down this road by "meeting" a very extreme example of a radical on a forum. It was fairly obvious this individuals opinions were as extreme as the most ardent Lost Causer, at least as flawed but not stigmatised to the same extent. I thus got to thinking about where popular ACW history sits. To me at least it seems the vast majority of the popular histories sit to the right of the centre, although some would be centre-right, although there is every possibility I simply missed some far left schlock (I just wouldn't have read it, and thus forgotten picking it up). An example of far right schlock would be Edwin Bonekemper and his terrible books. For a position on the right the far left looks a lot more dangerous than the far right, so you attack that. The myths of the far right thus go unchallenged.

Meanwhile the centre (Conservative or Moderate) tends to get pilloried from both sides..... I'm still ruminating.

Phil Kearny's Words

Many popular histories contain the following phrase, or a variant on it:

"I, Philip Kearny, an old soldier, enter my solemn protest against this order for retreat,- we ought, instead of retreating, to follow up the enemy and take Richmond. And in full view of all the responsibility for such a declaration, I say to you all, such an order can only be prompted by cowardice or treason."

I say variant because this is the original form that appeared, and no author I can find has referenced the original source since 1944. The original of this statement is in Rev J.J. Mark's "The Peninsula Campaign in Virginia" (page 294). This is an interesting work in its own right and deserves to be read (more later). Modern authors do not use the original source; McPherson in his "Battle Cry of Freedom" references Catton's "Mr Lincoln's Army", whilst altering the form of the statement slightly. Catton references Kearny's grandson's work on his grandfather, which was reviewed that "the work as a whole must be dismissed as lengthy family glorification" (ref). Thomas Kearny so objected to the review that he sued (ref). Sears in his "To the Gates of Richmond" alters the quote (although not materially) and does not reference it. The current keepers of the wikipedia page on Kearny not only alter the quote and fail to reference it, but insist he actually wrote it.

Apparently in the 1860's there was considerable controversy about whether Kearny had actually uttered these words, as John Watts de Peyser actually comments on it dismissing such claims (ref). In the 1860's the quote was used to criticise Kearny for "over-rashness" (while admitting McClellan's "over-caution"), since it is plainly obvious that Kearny is actually wrong (ref).

On of the major problems with Rev. Marks' story was that he wasn't there. He had volunteered to remain behind with the field hospital when McClellan began his change of base and had to abandon them. He never actually returned to his unit, going to Libby Prison with the wounded, and resigning his Commission upon return to the north. This was pointed out and Marks replied it was confirmed by an (unnamed) "officer of high rank".

I've no idea whether Kearny said the above or not. It seems in keeping with his character certainly. I do however object to the fact that everyone references Catton, who is not using the statement in its' original form.