Q & A July 2021
The following are more questions and/or comments I have received from readers over the past year. Some are questions for which I had no ready answer, usually because I had not researched the specific person or event. Some comments challenged the historic accuracy of one of my posts or suggested my research for an article was incomplete. I answered every correspondence from readers, sometimes glad to learn more myself and, occasionally, to try to correct a mis-conception by a reader. In any case, I am always pleased to hear from the followers of my articles or my books.
This first comment (it was not a question) came from a relative of George Armstrong Custer. He had read my article last October, and the writer’s insights into Custer, his brothers, and his wife were very much appreciated. His comments over two emails are printed below in their entirety.
(Q) I read your article on the Custer boys. I found it interesting and generally positive. I commend you for bringing to attention the General’s brothers, especially Tom, the first American soldier to win two Medals of Honor. And also mentioning Libbie (his wife), an amazing story in her own right. Her survival post 1876 (after the death of her husband) was one of many challenges, the biggest at first being money. Her initial pension ($35) was not enough to survive on. Her story of reinvention and retiring wealthy is a good one. She passed in 1933 on Army Day. I agree with your pretense, that the General has unfortunately been judged by many by his actions during the last day of his life, thus completely over looking his career and family. I did however disagree with your opening remark. “…some partly true, some mostly false…” I wasn’t sure if you intended to imply that Custer himself often told mostly false stories or that historians often told mostly false stories. In either case, with some exceptions, I would respectfully disagree. It’s true the General had a ton of press during the war, but you would be hard pressed to find a negative comment. And in general, Armstrong was not a boastful man. He did of course, have his moments. Primarily though, I thought you undersold the young Brigadier’s performance at Gettysburg. …”the two forces met in more of a collision than a battle…” While it’s true one charge was described this way, the battle at the east Cavalry battlefield was way more than that. It was a series of timely charges against a superior experienced Rebel force under Stuart that was remarkable given the Generals lack of experience and at Brigade command. It was also the first time the renown Stuart had been repulsed, and at a time when Stuart’s goal was to rout the Union rear during Pickett’s charge. This is certainly not …”one of many small turning points…” Your allegation of casualties lost was egregious, suggesting the…”worst casualty rate of any Union force…” Your stats suggesting 257 casualties …”of his 400 men…” is misleading at best. Brigade strength was likely 1200 men or more. KIA 32, wounded 137. Missing (which could mean ill, deserted, or never found) 78. You leave an impression of a 65% casualty rate, which is simply not true, thus suggesting reckless leadership. Custer’s achievement at Gettysburg was remarkable and at a crucial point on the third day of combat.
Ok, on balance I congratulate you for a wider look at the Custer brothers, especially beyond the last stand, which subject frankly bores me anymore. And thank you for your work on your article. Anytime we put ourselves out there, meaning expressing an opinion or writing an article, we open ourselves to criticism. This of course has happened to me. So I hope you take my criticism lightly, it isn’t intended to be anything other than a correction.
You might find it interesting to note that the rebel battle flags that Tom captured during the Appomattox campaign still exist today. Unfortunately, very few have ever seen them. They have been in the basement of the American Civil War museum (formerly the Museum of the Confederacy) for over 100 years now. They have never conserved them, and to the best of my knowledge never displayed them. (To their credit they have protected them) In the history of MOH artifacts, these are true gems. It is shameful they have never seen the light of day, and may never will.
A minor point. The fourth brother, Nevin, had a 50% share with Armstrong of their 100 acre farm in Monroe, Mi. He cancelled his trip on the Little Big Horn expedition at the last minute due to an asthma attack. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be here. He was my great great grandfather.
(A)Sometimes there is a gem among the e-mails I receive. This was one. First, I was referring to the hundreds of articles about Custer written over the course of his life, and even today, which often exaggerate his story; I was not implying he was untruthful. In my comments about the casualties of the one charge at Gettysburg, I focused on the viciousness of that singe attack, not Custer’s over-all tactics in other engagements over the three days. (I wanted to illustrate that he was willing to take risks and placed himself in the center of harm’s way and did not think him reckless so much as committed to mission). However, I verified from one battle report the casualties I quoted, so I will stand by my comments. I am grateful that you took the time to help me expand on the true story of the Custer boys.
(Q) In your article about the 128th Illinois Regiment which was disbanded for “utter lack of discipline” which had allowed 700 of 900 soldiers to desert, you indicated that your great-grandfather was an officer in that regiment. I have several questions. In what company did he serve? Why was your G-grandfather allowed a discharge (favorable) while other officers were dismissed (unfavorable)? Did your G-grandfather have relatives or siblings in the unit? Why didn’t he consider joining another Union army unit? Was he considered a veteran? Where is he buried? Why no photograph?
(A) Lt. Josiah M. Dorris served in company B according to the muster rolls, both in and out. I believe he received a discharge (honorable) because he continued to serve until the unit was disbanded and it appears that most of his company remained on duty as well, according to the muster-in and muster-out rolls which I have. Josiah had two brothers (John and Smith) in the 128th, and had several cousins. I found 10 Dorrises listed on the 128th rolls. I do not know why he chose to return home rather than join another unit; however, he was 31 years old, had 4 children and a farm to run. It is also possible that, as a resident of Williamson County, he was opposed to the Emancipation Proclamation as that area was heavily Democratic. He is considered a veteran and his grave site is in the Masonic cemetery in Shakerag, outside Johnson City, Illinois. Despite extensive research, I have not found a photograph of Josiah. I know my grandfather’s (his son) home burned to the ground in the early 20th century and we only have one copy of a photo of my grandfather and grandmother taken before the fire, which was given to me by another relative a few years ago. It is certainly possible no photograph exists, but I am still looking!
(Q) I believe Sojourner Truth, which was not her real name by the way, was an illiterate radical who lived in communes, practiced strange religious rites, was manipulated by abolitionists, and made a lot of money selling her little calling cards to sympathetic whites. She abandoned former slaves who were ill-equipped to fend for themselves. She was not the person you depicted in your article. Your lack of research and bias shows.
(A) First, I stand by the facts in my article; however, I admit that it is almost impossible to capture all of the facets about a person’s full life in four pages. I am not sure you captured her persona in your few sentences either, but only some of what you write is correct. She did change her name to Sojourner Truth to match her mission in life, but also to drop the name used when she was a slave. I would probably have done the same. She was illiterate for much of her life, but through self-help and support by others, she learned to read and write. I am not sure what you mean by “radical” but she did support full emancipation and voting rights for all Blacks, not just former slaves AND voting rights for all women. She did live for a while on a collective farm, but that was not uncommon for groups of Blacks and some Whites to pool their labor and resources to survive in difficult times. She was a devout Christian and at various times was a Methodist, a Baptist, and a Seventh Day Adventist, none of which practiced “strange” religious rites. Certainly, the organized Abolitionists “used” her because her story was compelling and they believed she helped their cause. She did make money raising contributions from dispensing her “Shadows” which she called her calling cards; but I am not sure why she sould be criticized for that. Finally, I cannot quantify how much she helped former slaves although she tried for years. However, the forces by Whites in the South to limit progress by former slaves certainly, and tragically, far out-weighed her efforts. I believe she was a remarkable woman who made a positive impact on the world in which she lived, despite the racial limitations which stood in her way. I am sorry you feel differently.
(Q) NOTE: this question was in reference to an article published in May about the CSS Hunley, the Confederate submarine. Do you suppose other countries (Japan, USSR, Germany) may have developed submarines prior to this?
(A) There were attempts at building a viable submarine for at least 100 years before the Hunley. The builder, H. L. Hunley borrowed liberally from those designs such as ballast pumps, iron hull instead of wood, and the hand crank propulsion system. He even copied the pole borne bomb for delivery There had been earlier attempts to sink an enemy ship by submarine, but all had failed. Germany, Russia, England, Japan, and even Columbia built prototypes, but Hunley's was the first to actually sink an enemy ship. Twenty years after the Civil war ended, in the1870s and 80s, four developments, not available to Hunley, made submarines safer for their crews and useful as a weapon. (1) diesel fuel engines were developed which required no spark to ignite, (2) better batteries for underwater propulsion (which were charged when the submarine was on the surface using diesel engines), (3) self-propelled torpedoes, and (4) the process for manufacturing oxygen and filtering air when submerged for longer periods. I believe a Russian submarine in the 1880s, which ran on the surface using a diesel engine to charge the batteries, was the first to sink an enemy ship (Turkish) when completely submerged, running on batteries underwater, and using a self-propelled torpedo. That basic design was used by every Navy in the world until the nuclear submarines were developed in the 1950s.
(Q) In earlier introductions to new articles you mentioned a new book you were working on. Was it published or still pending?
(A) Unfortunately, neither. I suppose it was not meant to be. After printing a few demo hard copies, the publisher and the printer closed during the early stages of the pandemic and never re-opened. The book, “The Lincoln Era – Glimpses of Humanity in Chaotic Times” was finished in 2019 and is available on Kindle; however, it will probably never be published in print. Further, the Kindle version is not well composed so I do not promote it. I plan to issue a few of the chapters next year as part of these regular posts. Thank you for asking.