Q and A September 2022

The following are more questions and/or comments I have received from readers over the past year. I answer every (almost) correspondence from readers, except I have stopped responding to a few outlandish vulgar critics. The subjects this time are (1) Was the friendship between a Union General and Confederate General real. (2) More about the Richmond Bread riots. (3) Was Union General Dan Sickles respected by others. (4) Why do I use derisive terms such as neo-Confederate which may be offensive to some. (5) clarification of Fredericksburg monument to a Confederate soldier’s compassion.

(Q) You wrote a few months ago about the friendship of Lewis Armistead, a Confederate General, and Winfield Hancock, a Union General. In your version, the two were very close, noting that Armstead as he lay wounded, inquired of another Union officer if his friend was safe and then gifted his bible to Hancock’s wife. I recently read an article that said the two were not that close and that their friendship was another exaggerated Civil War story. I thought it was poignant, but is it true or not.  

(A) There has always been some dispute among historians about the nature of their friendship. I wrote my opinion in article #106 – “Friends, But Now Enemies” and I stand by my version. To those who claim the two men were not close, I noted that when Armistead was mortally wounded, he was worried about Hancock. It would seem to me that, in those final moments of a soldier’s life, his thoughts would be of someone he loved such as a family member or a close friend. There is a tendency of some historians to debunk human interest stories that have survived the Civil War as melodramatic. However, I find that not every personal interaction at that time was violent, and some were inspirational. I’ll keep re-telling the ones I believe are true.

(Q) I had not heard about the Richmond Bread Riots in the South, until I read your article. You mentioned that there were other such confrontations in a few other Southern cities, but I wonder if there were similar food riots by wives and mothers in the North?

(A) The riots in Richmond in 1863, were led by women who could not obtain enough food for their children as it was either not available or priced out of reach. The Southern economy was in tatters and, in most cases, the men from the households were fighting in the Confederate Army and most of those were not getting paid. That left many families in dire situations. There may have been instances in the North where food supplies were inadequate, but I have not found any documentation. The economy of the North actually expanded during the Civil War and few northern towns bore the hardships seen in Southern communities. (The reader refers to article #111)

(Q) I read your article about Union General Dan Sickles. What a melodrama. The title captured the saga; Politician, General, and….Murderer? Someone should write a TV series, it would certainly fill five or six episodes. Do you think his military accomplishments were respected by fellow Union Generals, despite his notorious behavior off the battlefield?

(A) The short answer is that some did respect Sickles, but many did not. However, no one respected Dan Sickles as much as Dan Sickles! Much of the military controversy surrounding Sickles was due to an incident at Gettysburg where he did not follow an order given by General Meade, either on purpose or not. General Meade criticized Sickles in official reports, which started a feud between the men that lasted long after the Civil War was over. Generals loyal to Meade defended Meade’s action, including Generals Ulysses Grant, Irwin Mc Dowell, and William Sherman. On the other hand, a few Generals noted that Meade’s order may have been misunderstood (or wrong) and Sickles actions (or inaction), whether intentional or not, actually worked in favor of the Union. I doubt that either support for or criticism against Sickles by other Generals was driven by his earlier killing of his wife’s suitor or his acquittal as temporarily insane. It was more likely based on whether they believed Sickles’ or Meade’s story about Gettysburg. (The article was # 112)

(Q) I am offended by your frequent use of the term neo-Confederate and your recent use of the term irrational rationalizers to describe those of us who honor our Southern heritage. Why is it wrong to remember our ancestors who fought courageously for an ideal against overwhelming odds, and feel pride in their sacrifices. These people fought and many died for what they believed. Of course, slavery needed to end, but I am not sure an invasion of the South and a Civil War that killed hundreds of thousands was the best plan.

(A) It is not my intent to offend Southerners who simply wish to remember and honor the courage of their ancestors, IF, they do not overlook the Confederate attempt to perpetuate slavery. After all, my family came from North and South Carolina, Tennessee, and Southern Illinois and they were fine folks.  On the other hand, in addition to neo Confederate and Irrational Rationalizer, I also use the terms Southern Avengers and Lost Causers to describe those who say slavery was a benevolent labor system, or that it would have died out sooner or later (with no regard for when it might end for the four million enslaved), or that the Civil War was fought over tariffs, or that Lincoln was a tyrant who invaded the South over money, or that the Confederate leaders were primarily interested in states’ rights rather than their real purpose of keeping slavery intact. I hope you are not in their camp and, if you are not, then the terms, as I use them, do not apply to you or to the large majority of Southerners who may take pride in the courage of the Southern soldier, but not in the Confederate position on slavery. And, I do believe most common Southern soldiers and a few of their officers honestly felt they were fighting invaders from the North, and made enormous sacrifices to defend their homes. However, I believe they were misled into an unwinnable conflict by a selfish slaveocracy of hundreds of plantation owners and politicians (including Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens- his VP) who were determined to retain slavery and even expand it into other regions. They chose to lead their states to secede rather than face the growing moral and political challenges to slavery. I just wish more of the neo-Confederates would include those simple facts as they reverently remember the courage and sacrifice of those who were misled into secession and the resulting Civil War. I will say that there are two truths often spoken by todays neo-Confederates who try to cloud the issues: (1) that the North, led by Lincoln, did not fight to end slavery. That is true as, at first, he only intended to break secession and maintain the Union and his commitment to end slavery, as a result of the war, only came later. (2) that, by in large, the Southern soldier did not fight to perpetuate slavery. That is also usually true, however, the plantation elite and Confederate politicians did intend to protect and enforce slavery. But those two truthful points only prove that one can leave in a little truth while constructing a big lie. So, I think it is fine to honor your Southern heritage and the courage of your forefathers, I just hope you temper your pride in your ancestors with some understanding of the inherent immorality of slavery and the peril the Confederate slavocracy placed upon a young nation. The United States was fortunate to survive. As for today’s neo-Confederate, Lost Causer, Southern Avenger, or Irrational Rationalizer, I believe those people are instilling divisions to new generations and are undermining our country. (Sorry for the long answer, but this topic can get me wound up like no other!)

Q) I have been to the Gettysburg battlefield and thought there was a monument to a Southern soldier who went into no-man’s land to give water to wounded Union soldiers. In your story, you named a Sergeant Kirkland, and wrote that the event took place at Fredericksburg, not Gettysburg. Were there two such very similar incidents? Has my memory failed me, again?

(A) I can’t speak to your memory, (I know mine is sometimes wobbly), but I am not aware of such a monument at Gettysburg.  The story I wrote was about Confederate Sergeant Richard Kirkland, who became known as the Angel of Marye’s Heights at Fredericksburg, for his extraordinary courage in going into no-man’s-land to give water and blankets to wounded Union soldiers. That was in December 1862, but the Gettysburg battle to which you refer was in July 1863. There is a moving monument to Sergeant Kirkland at Fredericksburg which depicts him cradling a wounded soldier in his arms and giving him water from a canteen. If any reader knows of a similar monument at Gettysburg or any other battlefield, please let me know. I can tell you there are numerous stories of individual soldiers giving comfort to a suffering enemy out of pure human compassion. They probably all deserve a monument. (Note, this article was #108 published in November 2021.)