Jump to content
Shiloh Discussion Group

Perry Cuskey

Administrator
  • Content count

    2,268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    88

Everything posted by Perry Cuskey

  1. Shiloh Troop Movement Maps

    Below are links to information and troop movement maps provided by CivilWarLandscapes.org. Check them out, as they are pretty good maps... First, their main page for Shiloh... http://www.civilwarlandscapes.org/cwla/states/tn/sh/shf.htm Next, their maps for the first day's battle... http://www.civilwarlandscapes.org/cwla/states/tn/sh/tm_time/sh_day1f.htm And finally, their maps for the second day's battle... http://www.civilwarlandscapes.org/cwla/states/tn/sh/tm_time/sh_day2f.htm Perry
  2. Visiting Fort Henry

    The day after the Fort Donelson hike with historian Tim Smith, a few of us ventured out to the site of Fort Henry along the Tennessee River (now Kentucky Lake). This was my first time visiting the area, and I certainly hope it won't be my last. If you've heard folks talk about how beautiful is the Land Between the Lakes, there's a very good reason. And the history speaks for itself. Part of that history is the incredibly unfortunate location of Fort Henry. There are reasons that explain why the fort was situated where it was, but none of them change the fact that it was a lousy spot for a fort. The number one problem - and number two, three, four, and counting problems - was very simply that the ground near the river chosen for the fort was far too low, and prone to flooding. "Fort," "river," and "flooding" should never go together in the same sentence, especially if you're basically depending on that fort to protect the entire length of the river behind it. But that was the situation at Fort Henry. Perhaps it's fitting then, if somewhat sad, that when the Tennessee Valley Authority dammed up the Tennessee River in the 1920's and 30's to create Kentucky Lake, what remained of Fort Henry was forever submerged beneath the waves. The only thing left above water are some of the outer trench works. Here's an image from Google Maps, showing the approximate modern-day location of Fort Henry (on the right) and also Fort Heiman (on the left, on the Kentucky side of the river). It probably goes without saying that the Epic Crayon Drawings are not exactly to scale... And here is an absolutely beautiful painting titled "Battle of Fort Henry," by a talented artist named Andy Thomas. I'll provide a link to his website at the end of this article, as he deserves the credit for one thing, and he has a number of other paintings that you will most assuredly want to see for another. But this is probably what the fort looked like at the time of the Union gunboat attack. You can see what everyone means when they describe this fort as being flood-prone... In fact, when the fort finally surrendered, the Union officers accepting the surrender actually entered the fort in a boat, rather than on foot. Two days later, the entire thing was underwater. I still can't decide if that's funny, or sad. Even though the modern-day Tennessee shoreline isn't the same as in 1862, you can still get a sense of how problematic the location was for the defenders when you visit there today. Here's a picture I took during our November visit. My best-guess is that this is looking right into the heart of where the fort would have been. Note how flat the shoreline is, and compare it to the Andy Thomas painting above... Here's another view, with more Epic Crayon Drawings. The yellow line is supposed to represent the fort (not to scale - as if you couldn't tell ) and the red circle shows the location of a navigation buoy in the river, marking the approximate northwest corner of Fort Henry. So you can use that to gauge where the fort was, and roughly how large it was... Here's a view of the much better situated Fort Heiman, across the Tennessee River from Fort Henry. I've labeled the fort's location. Even though it's a fair-distance away, compare the shoreline with that around Fort Henry. Simply put, there is no comparison. Jumping across the river, here's another incredible Andy Thomas painting titled "The View from Fort Heiman," looking back at Fort Henry from Fort Heiman during the gunboat attack... And finally, here's a very rough approximation of that same view today... Note that you can only get this particular view after descending a pretty steep embankment, so be very careful if you decide to try it. I'd rough-guess it to be about a 45-degree angle about halfway down, and then a sheer drop the rest of the way, just below where I took the picture from. I'm stubborn, which is why I tried it, but just be aware that I'm most assuredly not recommending anyone else do the same thing. If you do, proceed at your own stubborn risk. All in all it was a great visit, and very instructive. It isn't really any different from what we've read, but as is usually the case, seeing the ground in person gives you a greater appreciation for what the folks had to deal with at the time, all those years ago. Here's a link to Andy Thomas' main website. I promise you won't be sorry you checked out his paintings: http://www.andythomas.com/ You can view his Civil War paintings here: http://www.andythomas.com/civilwarprints.aspx And his Fort Donelson, Fort Henry, and Fort Heiman paintings can be found here: http://www.andythomas.com/fortdonelson.aspx Perry
  3. Spain Field Ravine & Gladden's Wounding

    If you've ever visited Spain Field, you've seen the monument to General Gladden, placed about where he was supposed to have been mortally wounded by part of an artillery shell fired from a nearby Union battery early on April 6th. The monument's location always struck me as being incredibly close to the two Union batteries, Munch & Hickenlooper, supporting Miller's line, and I wondered if perhaps the monument and position markers were in fact a bit too close together. Here's a picture I took last week of the monument as seen from Munch's battery position along the Eastern Corinth Road. Spain Field is through the trees to your left.... <a href=" title="P4040014 by wrap10, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7206/6930639894_ae47d3d66e.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="P4040014"></a> As you can see, you could pretty much throw a rock from one to the other and hit it. Not that I did this, mind you, and not that I suggest someone try it. Just saying that they're that close together. I asked Bjorn about this a few years back, and as I recall the conversation, he seemed to think that Gladden was probably wounded farther to the south, on land that is currently outside the park. This makes more sense to me than where the monument is located. And in fact, it's possible - possible - that Reed placed the monument where it is because to place it closer to the actual wounding site would have put it outside the newly created park, on land that they were not able to acquire. I don't know this, of course. It's a guess. But as Bjorn pointed out at the time, the monument is almost literally right inside the park's southern boundary along Spain Field. So I do think it's possible that Reed compromised here by placing the monument as close to the likely wounding spot as he could, while also locating it within the park. Although the wording on the monument does say he was wounded "here," and not farther to the south. Gladden's men approaching Spain Field along the east side of the Eastern Corinth Road had to cross a small ravine before reaching the field, and would have been subjected to a deadly fire when they reached the other side of the ravine. Miller's initial line, in fact, appears to have been set up to overlook this ravine. You can see the ravine quite well if you walk along the fence on the south side of Spain Field, but from the road it can be difficult to spot. Especially if you're driving. And the road itself does not really cross through the ravine, which appears to end shortly before reaching the road. So on the road itself, you don't really get a good sense of what Gladden's men were up against. I took a couple of pictures of the ravine from Spain Field, but they really didn't turn out very well. So here's a couple that I took from the Eastern Corinth Road, zoomed in some, and looking mostly along the ravine from west to east. In this first picture, the Confederates were approaching from the right, and crossing the ravine to attack Miller's brigade in Spain Field, which is to your left and somewhat behind you.... <a href=" title="P4040021 by wrap10, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5328/6930644668_c955309be1.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="P4040021"></a> The ravine is, or at least was, on private land outside the park. The property appears to be abandoned now, but I don't know the story behind that. Hopefully someone else can help there. Here's another shot of the ravine, taken from near the same spot as above, but not zoomed in as close.... <a href=" title="P4040020 by wrap10, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7258/6930640576_631a1cfc48.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="P4040020"></a> You can see how hard it is to spot from the road, if you're not looking for it. Speaking of which, in this next picture, you're basically looking straight down the ravine. Or at least you would be, if you could see it.... <a href=" title="P4040018 by wrap10, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5349/7076717707_835ecb2f77.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="P4040018"></a> So if you're on the road and don't already know that ravine is there, you probably won't ever see it. As for where Gladden was likely wounded, assuming it was in fact outside the park, a good possibility would seem to be around that ravine, and perhaps along or near the road. Here's a shot looking south along the road from Gladden's monument..... <a href=" title="P4040024 by wrap10, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7128/7076718599_bf980cec40.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="P4040024"></a> My best wild-guess is that Gladden may have been struck near where you see the road curving back toward the left, near the far end of the picture, which is also about where the ravine is located relative to the road. That would still have placed him awfully close to those Union cannons. But not basically right on top of them, as his monument seems to suggest. He may in fact have been hit right where the monument is located. It depends a lot on when he was hit, in fact, or at least to me it seems that way. But I suspect he was probably hit outside the park's current boundary. Either way, it was an awful experience for him that morning, and for the men he commanded, as they came up out of that little ravine and faced a line of men ready and waiting for them. It was, in fact, an awful morning for everyone there, on both sides. Perry
  4. Hello From Kentucky

    Welcome aboard, Derrick.
  5. Prentiss Shiloh Report

    Trying to anticipate, are we? There's a lot more involved than this report. It does come into play, but it's only part of the story. Perry
  6. I didn't watch, but I that's okay. I don't need Jack Nicholson to explain to me what revisionist history is, and how badly the term gets misused. And I'm looking forward to it more. Perry
  7. Well, as I mentioned, I'll have more to say about revsionism, and Prentiss, when the time comes. It will be more than just a little that I have to say. Perry
  8. I don't think we could find a more dedicated defender of Benjamin Prentiss than you've proven to be, Hank, even though I don't see him the same way. But I think he'd probably appreciate your standing up for him. As for the, um, "revisionism malarkey" at Shiloh, I'll have more to say on that subject, as well as on Prentiss, when the time comes. For now though, I'll add my own little trivia question - who was one of the earliest revisionists of the battle of Shiloh? I don't want to give away his name, but here's a hint: his initials are Benjamin Mayberry Prentiss. Perry
  9. Christmas Bells

    Here's a link to the original poem, below, including stanzas that weren't included in the song when first published in 1872 by a British composer named John Baptiste Calkin. Even though two stanzas are missing and the others rearranged in the musical version, the spirit of the original poem is maintained. I think that video has the most beautiful version of the song I've ever heard. http://www.hwlongfellow.org/poems_poem.php?pid=40
  10. Christmas Bells

    Sometimes from the depths of anguish and despair emerges something beautiful and inspiring. Such is the case with a Christmas song that started out as a poem, written in the middle of a seemingly endless war by a man who was no stranger to either anguish or despair. I'll let the video below tell the rest of the story. It's very much worth a listen. However life may find you as we near the end of 2017, I wish you better days ahead, and a truly wonderful 2018. Merry Christmas, folks. Perry
  11. Epic Trek 2017: Update

    Sorry for the long delay, everyone. Here's the information for our upcoming Lew Wallace hike with historian Tim Smith (Please note - if you plan on joining us, please post a reply here, or send me a PM or an email, so we can get an idea of how many to expect. Thanks.) - Date - Saturday, November 11th, 2017. Starting time - 7:30 a.m. Meeting place - Shiloh National Military Park visitors center parking lot. Price - $30 per person. (See below for payment information.) This two-part hike will focus on Lew Wallace at Shiloh. The morning portion of the hike will cover Wallace's ill-fated April 6th march to the battlefield from the Crump's Landing/Adamsville area, and will be a combination of driving and walking. We'll meet at the visitors center parking lot, get everyone paid and checked in, then carpool out to our starting point at Crump's Landing. From there we'll be stopping at various locations to cover on foot some of the actual route that Wallace and his men took in 1862, including areas that are not usually accessible to the public. Tim is one of the few people to re-trace the route in its entirety, and will have some great insights about this controversial march. We'll end this part of the hike back at the visitors center parking lot, where lunch will be provided once again courtesy of Mona. You might consider bringing along a fold-up chair of some sort that you could leave in your car, unless you're okay with eating while sitting on the ground or on a curb. The afternoon part of the hike will re-trace Wallace's division in their advance across the western portion of the battlefield on April 7th, as they continually outflanked the Confederates and forced them back, in conjunction with the rest of the combined Union armies. Though lacking the same level of attention as the April 6th march, there is still some controversy surrounding Wallace's April 7th advance, and we'll be delving into that as we cross this section of the battlefield. We will probably end this hike in the vicinity of the church, so we'll make arrangements to carpool back to the visitors center from there. We'll plan on ending around 5:00, although it may be somewhat earlier or later than that. (Last year's Fort Donelson hike ended early, and we all remember the flashlights from 2012.) As is normally the case, this two-part hike will cover quite a bit of ground, but will also include less walking compared to our previous hikes. We will likely be traversing Tilghman Branch Ravine during the afternoon hike, the second-largest ravine in the park, but overall, this hike probably won't be on the same "strenuous scale" as some of our previous outings. (Like say, the Chalmers hike.) On an easy-to-difficult scale, I'd probably classify it as moderate overall, with some moderate-to-difficult sections on the afternoon hike. But it will certainly hit the mark on the "great learning experience" scale, and the "getting to see things most folks won't see" scale. I think we'll handle the payments the same way we did last year at Fort Donelson - so everyone just plan on paying on the morning of the hike. We don't take checks, but we do take cash. Payment must be made prior to leaving the visitors center parking lot, and is non-refundable once the hike actually begins. I hope you can join us for what should be another great day of Epic Trekking with Tim at Shiloh. If you have any questions, feel free to post them here, or contact me via PM or email. Looking forward to seeing everyone in November. Perry
  12. Epic Trek 2017: Update

    Just a reminder that we're meeting in the visitors center parking lot at 7:30 on Saturday, and we'll head out to Crump's Landing once we've got everyone checked in and paid. Right now it looks like our good-weather luck is going to hold for another year, with a projected high in the 60's and only a slight chance for rain on Saturday. So keep your fingers crossed. Perry
  13. Epic Trek 2017: Update

    Sorry to hear that Alan. Best to you and Mark, and I hope you can both make it for next year's hike.
  14. About Those Confederate Monuments...

    A thought-provoking article on this subject by David French at National Review - http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453338/john-kelly-civil-war-comments-confederate-honor
  15. About Those Confederate Monuments...

    (Note - this blog post delves into modern-day issues. Issues related to the Civil War, to be sure, but modern-day issues just the same. Which as many of you are probably aware, is an off-limits subject on the discussion board. The same rule does not apply to blogs however, so if you are a member of the board, wish to start up your own blog and talk about such things, you're welcome to do so. Just don't start advocating violence, or endorsing groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis, Antifa, and the like. That will get your blog shut down, as it still resides on the SDG's site. Aside from that, you're free to express your views. And you are of course aware that you alone are responsible for your views.) Let me start here by making a few points: First, I'm a card-carrying Republican, and have been since 1980. Second, I firmly believe, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that slavery was the foundational cause of the Civil War. Third, had it been up to me, I would not have built Confederate monuments anywhere outside of battlefield parks. And fourth, I am not in favor of removing those Confederate monuments. More on that later. Going all Political I mention my political affiliation because I think people make a lot of assumptions based on such things, and I'm not sure I always fit those assumptions. For instance, it seems to me that a lot of people assume that if you're a Republican, that automatically means you think the war was about states' rights. And if you're a Democrat, you think the war was caused by slavery. Neither of those assumptions apply to me. I'm a Republican who believes, quite strongly, that the war was caused by slavery. (I agree that this is a simple answer to a complex issue. But it's also an accurate answer.) I also believe that the states' rights argument is and always has been a giant smokescreen to hide that fact. Does that mean that I don't believe in states' rights at all? No, of course not. (Hello? Republican? ) But states' rights wasn't the cause of the war. My being a Republican doesn't change that. (On a side note - I tend to think of myself as more of a classic liberal, although that's of little importance here. To be sure though, I am not, and never will be, a modern-day liberal. There is a difference.) As far as slavery causing the war, my belief there is based on a brutally simple idea - evidence, rising to the level of what I regard as irrefutable proof. That's why I say that slavery caused the war. Not because I necessarily want to, but because that's what the evidence points to with screaming clarity. Declaring the Cause What evidence? Well, there's a lot of it, but a good place to start might be the declarations of causes issued by four of the original seven seceding states, where they outlined the why behind the what. Secession took place in two rounds so to speak, with the first round occurring in response to Lincoln's election and prior to war breaking out. Tellingly, six of these seven states were in the Deep South, where slavery had its strongest grip, with over 48% of the total population being enslaved. (The outlier among these first seven states to leave was Texas. But as we'll see, they were not an outlier when it came to Deep South kinship.) Here's a link to an 1860 map from the Library of Congress, based on that year's census, showing the distribution of slaves in the South as a percentage of the total population: https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3861e.cw0013200/ It's broken down by county. And here is a screenshot from that same site, below the map itself, showing the percentage breakdown by state: If the fact that almost half of the Deep South's population was enslaved is an eye-opener for you, you've got a lot of company. I think it's an eye-opener for everyone when they first learn about it. (In two of those states, as seen in the table above, the slave population was more than half of the total. The order in which these two states left the Union? First - South Carolina - and second - Mississippi.) And it speaks volumes as to why this region was the first to leave - all six states - in response to the first president in American history to be elected on an anti-slavery platform. This is not a coincidence. Which brings us to those documents explaining why they left. Here's a link where you can read through them, courtesy of the Civil War Trust: https://www.civilwar.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states (Note - you can view these documents elsewhere online by doing a search, if you wish to compare them. Virginia's is included here, although they did not secede until after Lincoln's call for volunteers following Fort Sumter.) To be sure, there are defenses made for secession's legality. They wanted it clear that they believed they had the right to do what they were doing. But of interest here is the why behind it. Some key excerpts, starting with Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world." South Carolina: "A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction." Georgia: "The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by [the North's] leaders and applauded by its followers." Texas: "In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color - a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States." Perception vs. Reality It's worth pointing out that some of these claims about the North championing racial equality are wide of the mark. There were certainly exceptions, especially among the abolitionists. By and large though, white northerners were lukewarm, at best, about racial equality, even though they were also mostly anti-slavery. (It was entirely possible at this time for someone to be both anti-slavery and anti-black. Which speaks to the complex nature of slavery and race-relations in 19th Century America.) But as often happens, perception (in the South) was more powerful than reality (in the North), and what drove them is what they believed. And it should be added that the South was indeed right about one thing - Lincoln's election pointed toward slavery's eventual, if not immediate, eradication. By 1860, words like "eventual" and "immediate" were distinctions without a difference. Collectively speaking, the South simply didn't care, or even believe, that Lincoln and the Republicans were not out to bring an immediate end to slavery in the South. The threat to the institution was real enough, to be sure. To southern leaders, that made it immediate, and that's all that mattered. Davis and Stephens More proof of slavery-as-the-cause can be found in the words of the men who became president and vice-president of the Confederacy. Here is an excerpt from future Confederate President Jefferson Davis's farewell address to the U.S. Senate on January 21st, 1861, following the secession of his home-state of Mississippi: "It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races." He then goes on to explain how, in his view, the Declaration was never meant to do any such thing. We can argue back and forth about that if we wish, but the point here is that Davis is accusing the North in general, and Lincoln and the Republicans in particular, of wanting to bring about racial equality. And this - in Davis's own words - "made the basis of an attack upon [Mississippi's] social institutions." Translation: Mississippi wasn't going to sit idly by while the Republicans tried to impose racial equality on the country. Ending slavery and bringing about racial equality - this was the threat, perceived or real (it was a little of both), that Davis and the collective South were responding to. It represented a nightmare scenario for the South, and was a threat that was far too important to ignore. Here's a link to the entire speech, via the Papers of Jefferson Davis, at Rice University: https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/archives/documents/jefferson-davis-farewell-address And then we come to Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephens, and his infamous Cornerstone Speech in Savannah Georgia, on March 21st, 1861. Here is the key paragraph, which speaks entirely for itself: "Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery - subordination to the superior race - is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth." Here's a link to the speech, from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette's web site, along with an excerpt from another, similar speech he gave the following month to the Virginia secession convention: https://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/stephens.html The Defining Difference Stephens in these two speeches hit upon the single most important difference between the United States and the Confederacy, and he did so knowingly and deliberately. It's a difference that cannot be emphasized strongly enough. And it comes down to this: In all of human history, there has only ever been one country - one - founded on an ideal. That country is the United States. And that ideal upon which it was founded is the ideal of freedom and equality. This bears repeating - there has never, before or since, been a country that came into existence based on the ideal of freedom and equality. The list includes one country and one country only – The United States. The emergence of this incredibly unique country was, quite literally, a world-changing moment. In looking at the Confederacy, we find a nascent country that was also founded on an ideal. But - as Alexander Stephens pointed out - with an all-important distinction. Whereas the United States was founded on the ideal of freedom and equality for all, the Confederacy was founded on the ideal of freedom and equality for some. This critical difference is exactly what Stephens meant when he said that the Confederacy was the first country in the history of the world based on the inequality of the races. What Stephens referred to as “this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” The exact opposite of the United States, in its ideal form, as the native southerner Stephens well understood. Human nature being what it is, the United States has clearly, and unsurprisingly, not always lived up to its lofty ideals. (Within the context of world history, the surprise is that the ideal was proclaimed as a nation's founding principle.) But it is far closer to them, in no small part because the foundation was already in place. The foundation on which the Confederacy was built, in contrast, allowed for no such evolution. As I said to a friend in a recent conversation on this same subject, the Confederacy could never have evolved into what the United States has become without a complete reversal of its fundamental reason for existence. (This is an argument that I've made before, and I'll continue to make it because I firmly believe it. It also speaks to why protests against the American flag are misdirected. The flag represents America's ideals, symbolizing why it came into existence. The ideals do not exist to protect the country. The country exists to protect the ideals. This matters.) The Monuments There is far more evidence then just what I've outlined here for slavery as the cause of the Civil War. I may cover some of it in future posts, but this entry is long enough already, so we'll leave it here for now. But the bottom line is this: the Confederacy came into existence because of a threat to the future of slavery. The record on this is not simply clear, it is starkly clear. Post-war and present-day arguments to the contrary notwithstanding. And there have been many. Slavery was the main strand in the social and economic fabric of the ante-bellum South, and to remove that strand would be to completely unravel the South itself. They viewed this as simply too much to risk. The irony is that by seceding and engaging in a long and bloody war, the end of that society came much faster and with more violence than what, almost certainly, would otherwise have been the case. So now you know why, had it been up to me, I would never have built any Confederate monuments aside from those in the various battlefield parks. I have no issue with, and in fact support, acknowledging and honoring the courage displayed by these men and their northern counterparts. As well as trying, however imperfectly, to understand what all of them endured in those hellish nightmares in places we now stroll across in silent wonder. But I would have raised no monuments to their leaders. To people who set out to ensure permanent, government-sanctioned inequality based on skin color, ethnicity, religion, or anything else. The Confederacy represented an attempt at such a thing. Thankfully it failed. Our role as students of history is to take the entire story and learn from it, so that we might better understand ourselves, where we come from as both a people and as individuals, and find a way to move ever closer to those ideals on which this country is based. Ideals that represent fundamental truths about humanity and life that transcend any border. It's a tough assignment. But that's why we drew it. Our Choice So if I'm against monuments to Confederate leaders, why did I also say that I'm against removing them? Because they're part of our history. We can learn from them. I would not have put them up, but since they are already there, use them in our quest to understand. Place them within the context of the times in which they were built. What do they tell us about those times? About those people? About ourselves? About human nature in general? They're silent stone and marble, and yet they can speak to us, and teach us. If we're willing to listen and to learn from them. Maybe we can't always agree on the lessons to be drawn. But the conversation has to start somewhere. So let it start with us. Perry
  16. Great Moments in Hiking History

    A little fun from some of our Epic Treks.... (Photo credit: Michele) (Photo credit: Ed Wertz) (Photo credit: Mike Talplacido) (Photo credit: Michele) (Photo credit: Michele) (Photo credit: No one claims this one) (Photo credit: Mike Talplacido) (Photo credit: Michele) We'll be doing another Epic Trek this November. Why not join us? You'll have a great time, and who knows, you might wind up as a caption. Perry
  17. My New Book

    I was able to include a link to your Facebook page in your original post. Best of luck to you with your new book. Perry
  18. Epic Trek 2017: Update

    Got all of you marked down, so thanks. Look forward to seeing you in November. Also, if anyone else is having problems getting a hotel room near the park or looking for an alternative, you might look into AirBnB as an option, if you don't mind staying in a private residence. There were several options available near both Savannah and Corinth last time I checked, although it's been a little while now. The price ranges were also pretty varied, ranging from not bad to I don't think so. Perry
  19. Epic Trek 2017: Update

    Look forward to seeing you guys there.
  20. 2017 Epic Trek Topic Announcement

    Hi folks, You can find the updated information on this year's hike at the link below. I hope you can join us...
  21. 2017 Epic Trek Topic Announcement

    Hi Folks, After heading up to Fort Donelson this past fall, we're returning to Shiloh for our next Epic Trek adventure with historian Tim Smith. This time we're going to focus on Lew Wallace and his controversial role in the battle. Tim is going to lead us on a combined driving/walking tour of Wallace's infamous march from Crump's Landing to the battlefield on April 6th, and explore the controversies surrounding this march. After lunch, we'll then re-trace Wallace's fighting advance on April 7th as part of the Union counter-attack. In 2005, Tim led a small group of rangers and historians on what was likely the first complete re-tracing of Wallace's march since the battle, so he knows the ground and the subject well. The hike will take place on Saturday, November 11th, 2017 - Veterans Day. We'll have more information later, but I wanted to get this out there so everyone can start planning to join us. It should be another great hiking adventure, so mark it on your calendars and make plans to be there! Perry
  22. Name that Road

    This is a picture I took at Shiloh last fall. Who wants to take a crack at naming where it is? Here's a kinda sorta hint: It's not the Sunken Road.
  23. Name that Road

    Circumstances and common sense. That's how and why the Sunken Road was chosen for a defensive position, and why The River Road was chosen for the same reason later in the day. That's about as complicated as it gets. Perry
  24. Healing the wounds...

    I understand the reason behind this post, and while it's okay in and of itself, if it starts to get out of hand it's going to be closed. We're not discussing modern-day issues on this board, even by stealth. Perry
  25. Civil War Weekend Cancelled in Manassas

    This topic is closed to further replies, and the subject is not to be revived anywhere else on the board. It states very clearly on the main page under the Campfire Forum that modern-day social or political issues are off-limits for discussion. The initial notice about the cancellation is fine, but that's where it needed to end. Perry
×