Memorial Day Origins

Note:  This was written on my wife's PC around Memorial Day and of course it is now posted much later.  I still hope you all enjoy.

 

On this Memorial Day weekend, I feel led to share a story of local lore that I hope you all will enjoy.  During the American Civil War, one of the multitudes of actions taking place occurred on June 9^th, 1864 just south of Petersburg, VA.  While most of the regular Confederate troops in Petersburg were facing east against advancing Union infantry, a column of Union cavalry approached Petersburg from the south along the Jerusalem Plank Road (modern US 301 or Crater Road).  The only troops available to stop this advance were literally personally armed citizens.  Only around 200 citizens were poised to stop or stall over 1,300 Union cavalry.  These citizens had the advantage of strong field fortifications as well as a single obsolete artillery piece while the Union cavalry had none.  These 200 citizens sustained losses, but gained valuable time to allow Confederate cavalry to drive the Union cavalry out of Petersburg.  This battle gained the title of “The Battle of Old Men and Young Boys” since they were the ones who fought the fight.

During the next few weeks while the armies pulled back from fighting, the local populace lionized their fallen citizens at nearby Blandford Cemetery.  Several funerals were held at the local churches with the burials taking place at the cemetery.  Less than ten days later, the troops returned and put Petersburg under the crosshairs of war for the next nine months.

When the armies left, they left behind their dead.  While the Union army had the Quartermaster Corps to remove the dead and established Military Cemeteries, the Confederates had no system to inter their dead.  So the ladies of Petersburg set out to collect all the remains of the fallen southern soldiers.  They kicked off their efforts on June 9^th, 1866, one year after the Battle of Old Men and Young Boys.  One of the men who attended the ceremony was Maj. Gen. John A. Logan, a Union general.  He observed the ceremony, called Remembrance Day and decided that the Union veterans deserved a ceremony of their own.  Logan was also in charge of the Grand Army of the Republic (G.A.R.) and the largest veterans group in the U.S.  He lobbied and got the Memorial Day holiday observed on the last Monday in May.

By the way, the ladies got the funding going in 1870 or so to reinter the Confederate dead.  They believed that they would find 5,000 remains and the project would take a year.  25,000 remains and fifteen years later, the process was completed.  So the next phase was to restore Blandford Church as a monument to the Confederate dead.  They did so with the help of Louis Comfort Tiffany’s famous glass manufacturing company to create stained glass for all the windows of the church.  Every state that provided Confederate troops to the war effort was invited to sponsor a window.  The only one that did not was Kentucky, only because they were focusing on more local monuments.  The church stands to this day as only one of four buildings with all Tiffany stained glass windows in them.  This lovely church has personal significance to me because it was where my lovely bride and I were wed.  We couldn’t find a more beautiful or historic location to have our wedding.

A Stonewall Jackson "What if"

I’m sorry for lack of posts recently, but when the Internet connection at home doesn’t work and now you have to transpose to the library’s computer, fun times indeed.  At an hour at a time, I don’t want to be constrained by time.

This blog has been on my mind since early May and I’ve been pondering it for a while.  Back in early May (the 10^th I believe), someone asked on Facebook the question whether Jackson’s death would have changed the Civil War.  The answer choices was yes; no, but it certainly didn’t help; and no.  Most of the answers were yes or no with the caveat.  At the time I posted, I was the only person who said no.  This got me thinking of all points of view on this.

There were a few other folks who posted on both, so I do have a place to start.  The yes folks went with the standard “Gettysburg” answer, and this does deserve a little respect and insight.  If Jackson were alive, it is indeed possible.  Lee would not have reorganized his army and with Jackson in command, things may or may not have been different at Gettysburg.  There is precedence that Jackson may have engaged the Federals on the first day of Gettysburg (assuming events continued as followed).  Heck, there may not have even been a battle at Gettysburg if Jackson were alive.  But assuming the events continued and it was Jackson in command the first day instead of Hill and Ewell, I do believe it would have made a difference.  Jackson would not have allowed his corps to be spread out (ex. 2^nd Manassas) and probably could have overwhelmed Buford’s and Reynolds’ troops.  He could have also taken Cemetery Hill, unlike Ewell, mainly due to his inspirational leadership and his understanding of Lee’s “suggestive” orders.  Even more believe that Jackson would have prevented Pickett’s Charge.  While this is a bit thin, again, this all depends on events occurring as we know them.  Jackson may have “advised” Lee to not invade the North, but simply threaten Washington as he did the previous summer after Manassas.    

Why I ended up saying No is very simple.  I think Lee wrecked his army in 1862 by his desperate campaign around Richmond in the Seven Days Battles.  The situation was only made worse by the remaining 1862 campaigns and 1863.  Looking at casualties, Lee’s army sustained 20,000+ casualties during the Seven Days, 10,000+ for the 2^nd Manassas Campaign, 12,000+ for Antietam Campaign, 5,000+ for Fredericksburg and 12,000+ for Chancellorsville.  Those are some massive casualty rates.  What makes it worse is the casualty rates among officers.  Lee could ill afford to many casualties and you have to examine how many of these battles were offensive in nature for the Confederates:

Seven Days Battles (necessity in order to save Richmond, but truly excessive casualties)

2nd Manassas Campaign (again, offensive in nature, but still could have been avoided by defensive fight)

Antietam (not offensive in tactical nature, but strategic offensive)

Chancellorsville (truly aggresive and losses showed it)

Lee had one mission during the Civil War and it was the same as his ancestor (by marriage) from the Revolution...not lose.  He didn't have to score the knockout blow, he didn't have to conquer the North, he just had to outlast the Northern populace (like the colonies did to England).  But what made this notion change during the 80 odd years?  One man...Napoleon Bonaparte.  Napoleon scored decisive victories time and time again, but it ended up costing him, such as Lee.  The Grande Armee of 1805 was not the same force by 1812 or even 1809 because of Napoleon's excessively aggressive tactics.  Napoleon conscripted "allies" in order to sustain his army for so long; Lee could not.  What Lee had in terms of population was it.  Additionally, and to me this is most important, Napoleon still lost.  It may have taken the Allied coalitions nearly twenty years, but ultimately they triumphed and forced Napoleon into exile.  Didn't Lee think about this as he studied Napoleon's command and battles?

If you want further proof, take a look at my attached link.  Great empirical study of Lee and Grant's command styles.