"Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the Petersburg Campaign" Topic
18 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleThe fascinating history of one of the hobby's major manufacturers.
Featured Profile ArticleA Civil War boardgame is adapted to miniature wargaming.
|
Tango01 | 12 Nov 2015 10:29 p.m. PST |
His Supposed Charge from Fort Hell, His Near-mortal Wounding, and a Civil War Myth Reconsidered. ""Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain earned the sobriquet "Lion of the Round Top" for his tactical brilliance leading his 20th Maine Infantry on the rocky wooded slopes of Little Round Top at Gettysburg on the evening of July 2, 1863. Promoted to brigade command, he was presumed mortally wounded during an assault at Petersburg on June 18, 1864, and bestowed a rare "on the spot" battlefield promotion to brigadier general. He survived, returned to the command in 1865, and participated in the surrender of Lee's veterans at Appomattox. Chamberlain went to his grave a halfcentury later believing he was wounded while advancing alone from the future site of "Fort Hell." His thrust, so he and others believed, was against the permanent fortifications of the Dimmock Line at Rives' Salient, near the Jerusalem Plank Road, through a murderous flank fire from what was soon to become Confederateheld Fort Mahone. This narrative has been perpetuated by Chamberlain scholars and biographers over the past century. Chamberlain's wounding and Rives' Salient are now fused in the modern consciousness. This interpretation was given an additional mantle of authority with the erection of a Medal of Honor Recipient's placard near South Crater Road by the Virginia Department of Historic Resources on November 8, 2014. In fact, author Dennis A. Rasbach argues, a careful review of the primary evidence left by Chamberlain and his contemporaries suggests that Chamberlain was mistaken regarding the larger context of the engagement in which he fought and fell. An overwhelming body of evidence, much of it derived from Chamberlain himself, demonstrates he actually attacked a different part of the Confederate line in the vicinity of an entirely different road. This part of the Petersburg campaign must now be rewritten to properly understand the important battle of June 18, 1864, and Chamberlain's role in it. Richly illustrated with photos and original maps, and documented with extensive primary accounts, Rasbach's Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the Petersburg Campaign dispels a wellestablished Civil War myth, and sets the historical record straight."
See here link Amicalement Armand |
TKindred | 13 Nov 2015 6:10 a.m. PST |
Sure it does. Seems to me more of a case of the author having a particular view, and using the bully pulpit og his book to both plead his case and line his pocket. I'll wait until I talk with some folks up to Augusta before I borrow this book for a read. I've read most of Chamberlain's accounts i their original material self. The majority of his papers are at Bowdoin College (along with O.O.Howard's and a few others) and the rest up to the Maine State Archives. Chamberlain, although a master publicist and wonderful author, is pretty darned accurate in his accounts, so It will take some serious scholarship for me to believe anything other than his accounts. |
Landorl | 13 Nov 2015 7:53 a.m. PST |
Revisionist history at work… |
DisasterWargamer | 13 Nov 2015 9:39 a.m. PST |
Another piece about Chamberlain – one link more neutral than the other. link link The 15th Ala still doesn't have a monument at Gettysburg – I first read about this years ago in the pages of "Blue and Gray" Perhaps Chamberlain or Oates are mistaken in their accounts like many have been colored by perception. |
Tango01 | 13 Nov 2015 9:46 a.m. PST |
Thanks for share!. Amicalement Armand |
OCEdwards | 19 Nov 2015 11:42 a.m. PST |
I wonder whether the unhelpful bias is running the other way, chaps – from the preview I don't read that the author is saying that Chamberlain lied, was not wounded, or anything similar. It may well be academic makework – I'm in academia and there's enough of that – but it's makework relating to the precise positioning of units in a way that might change the way we see a battle, not whether Chamberlain was a decent chap. He may well have been misinformed or confused about details; being generally right or being a good guy doesn't prevent that. (I also note with some irony the fact that it will take some persuasion to change your mind, which is of course precisely what the book is seeking to do – you'll know whether it succeeded AFTER reading it, not before!) |
bschulte | 25 Dec 2015 10:05 p.m. PST |
Anyone panning this book without even giving it a chance might want to refrain from commenting until you have a chance to read it. I was offered just such a chance to read the manuscript earlier this year, before it even had maps. The author makes his case so well I was convinced in the first few chapters. And I've also had a chance to see the maps. They're excellent, and the result is a micro-tactical history of the Fifth Corps units that day. Chamberlain didn't write about the charge at "Fort Hell" until the 1890's. The author never insinuates that Chamberlain was lying. He only believes Chamberlain waas confused, and explains that he was writing about the battle 30 years later, a battle where he was so severely wounded that he was knocked out of combat for months. In those months the terrain changed greatly due to new earthworks being thrown up and timber being taken down for fires and construction. If Chamberlain made the charge at "Fort Hell" as he claimed, he would have been completely unsupported way out on the Union left. The author found numerous, numerous sources of units to Chamberlain's left. He also found numerous, numerous sources (all thoroughly and correctly cited) which taken together show conclusively (in my mind at least) that Chamberlain couldn't have attached where he thought he did. The whole genesis of this book is that the author's ancestor was in a Fifth Corps unit which fought near Chamberlain on June 18, 1864, the 21st PA Cav. (dismounted at the time). He was genuinely interested in what his ancestor had done and read everything he could get his hands on about the fighting that day, including many primary sources. Once he did, the things Chamberlain wrote about the charge at Fort Hell weren't really matching up well with what everyone else had said. He studied further, asked a lot of questions and connected a lot of dots, and the result is this book. As for "lining his pockets," the author is a surgeon. I sincerely doubt he needs the money. I've also been told by more than a few people, Eric Wittenberg included, that writing books about the Civil War isn't exactly lucrative, even if it's Gettysburg. This is far from Gettysburg. If none of the above convinces you to read the book, just ask Siege of Petersburg expert Bryce Suderow and others who have studied June 18, 1864 in detail. He consulted with four or five others with intense interest in the campaign and asked if they thought Chamberlain actually charged where he wrote he charged. Not one believed he did based on their reading of primary sources. June 18, 1864 is incredibly misunderstood and confusing. The author of this book, Dennis Rasbach, just untangled a significant portion of the fighting that day. He should be, and I sincerely feel he will be, applauded when all is said and done and the book has been thoroughly critiqued. Brett Schulte The Siege of Petersburg Online |
bschulte | 25 Dec 2015 10:18 p.m. PST |
PS You know that monument mentioned at the top of this thread? It was recently agreed to move its location based on evidence you'll find in the author's book. I completely forgot about that fact, but it really is the strongest case for the book pre-release. |
TKindred | 26 Dec 2015 7:00 a.m. PST |
Ah, I was wondering when the apologist fanboys for this revisionist amateur would arrive. |
bschulte | 26 Dec 2015 8:59 a.m. PST |
LOL. All of this without ever reading the book? And after reading what I wrote, including the fact that NPS Historians and others were convinced enough by the author's work to actually move a monument a mile to the northeast? Call me whatever you want, but we'll continue this discussion once the book is available to read. I promise. |
bschulte | 26 Dec 2015 9:32 a.m. PST |
Also, for those of you who are interested in actually reading a book before disparaging it, I just learned via email that Wil Greene, the author of a fantastic book on the Ninth Offensive at Petersburg and an upcoming detailed two-volume look at the entire Siege, "has given an enthusiastic endorsement." By my count, we have the following people who were convinced by Dennis Rasbach: *Julia Steele, NPS Historian at Petersburg National Battlefield *Bryce Suderow, foremost researcher on the Siege of Petersburg living today (Noah Andre Trudeau used him extensively for his Petersburg book) *A. Wilson Greene, published Petersburg author and expert and Executive Director of Pamplin Historical Park and the National Museum of the Civil War Soldier near Petersburg, Virginia *Ted Chamberlain, living history reenactor and JLC impersonator All of these experts (with the possible exception of Ted Chamberlain) have actually read the book. |
bschulte | 30 Aug 2016 8:33 a.m. PST |
Here's a quick update. I was able to interview author Dennis Rasbach about this book, due to release in September 2016. He answered 21 questions for me, and was fairly forthcoming in the answers. You can begin to get an idea of what his arguments are in the book. Author Interview with Dennis Rasbach
|
Trajanus | 30 Aug 2016 9:22 a.m. PST |
Not arguing the case for or against here but I think from time to time its justified to look at reported history. In circumstances where one is asking about source reporting where the person concerned wrote things down thirty years after the events of a day where he had the proverbial 'near death experience' I don't think its unreasonable to ask if it was right. To my mind, the manner of the asking and the care of the conclusions are what matters in these instances rather than jumping in with "revisionist" which has now become a totally pejorative term. |
donlowry | 31 Aug 2016 5:55 p.m. PST |
Note that it is published by Savas Beatie. I don't think they'd publish anything that wasn't well-founded. |
bschulte | 24 Sep 2016 10:29 a.m. PST |
Dennis Rasbach agreed to post a few "mini-blogs" at The Siege of Petersburg Online over the next 10 days or so. His first, on Chamberlain and June 18, 1864, is here: link |
bschulte | 23 Jun 2018 10:44 a.m. PST |
Update: The "revisionist amateur" has the support of the National Park Service and managed to get Chamberlain's marker moved to a more suitable spot. Update 2: Wil Greene's first volume on the Siege of Petersburg appears to agree with the "revisionist amateur" with respect to where Chamberlain's Brigade attacked. I guess he's also a revisionist amateur. Interesting. That said, people can come to their own conclusions. |
ScottWashburn | 29 Jun 2018 5:54 a.m. PST |
Does it actually matter? I mean if the author could prove that Chamberlain had been shot by an angry pimp while returning form a brothel, then this might matter. But this seems to be dealing with trivia. |
bschulte | 11 Jul 2018 8:06 p.m. PST |
Yes, it does, for multiple reasons in this instance. First, you have people above lazily calling out the author when they clearly hadn't read the book, and then it turns out the author was right. That's a massive pet peeve of mine. Second, we aren't talking about feet or yards here. Chamberlain thought he was OVER A MILE away from where he actually was. That's a major difference and completely changes the narrative of June 18, 1864. Third, it matters at least as much as where every single company of every single regiment was at Gettysburg every hour of every day. Fourth, this is a message board about miniatures wargaming. If the correct location of brigades on a battlefield doesn't matter here, then nothing matters here. |
|