Deerbrook Part II

"Deerbrook" was one of a list of novels about English country life that was recommended by Elaine from Random Jottings. From that list I have read "One Fine Day" and now have finished this novel, the only novel written by 19th century writer Harriet Martineau. The book was written in 1839 so it came after Jane Austen, but before Charlotte Bronte and George Eliot.

In a previous post about "Deerbrook," (when I was only 200 or so pages into it) I wrote about that while Austen's novels are primarily about the path to marriage, "Deerbrook" is about the marriage itself. In fact, I was only 1/2 right about that. Cleverly Martineau focuses on the experience of two sisters so that in one case she writes at length about the marriage, the other about the path that may or may not lead to marriage. In that earlier post I also noted that I liked the fact that the book presents the point of view of the men as well as the women - this continued throughout the book and was for me a positive feature.

"Deerbrook" is over 500 pages long so that Martineau can fully develop a wide range of characters who interact with the Ibbotson sisters and play important parts in the novel. One of the attractions of this wide range is that it is not limited to one social class so that the reader gets a fuller picture of life in the village and the interaction among the classes. The picture of the village of Deerbrook is clearly not idealized as we see the people at their worst, first in their treatment of the local doctor and then in their self destructive behavior when a plague like illness hits the village.

The first instance was somewhat eye opening in terms of destroying some images of life in country villages. Most of us, I believe, think of English village life (or rural life in the US) as relatively peaceful with crime and related dangers more present in urban areas. But when violence to property and threats of violence to people break out in a remote rural location there is little or nothing in the way of civil authorities that one can appeal to or rely on.

I enjoyed the book a great deal although it was heavy going in some places as there are long sections where either the narrator or the characters get very philosophical with very little dialogue. As I noted earlier, it started off quickly, but then seemed to slow down, however the last half went very fast with my attention gripped by trying to figure out what was going to happen.

In addition to the drama or dramas of the story, the book raised a number of interesting philosophical propositions such as:

Women are taught a lot about marriage, but little about love.

Forgiveness is always easiest for the happy.

Both the ignorant and the wicked rely on superstition in times of crisis.

I was surprised to read that Martineau was supposedly an atheist later in life, because behavior guided by belief in God seems to be what is most prized and rewarded in "Deerbrook."

This is a book well worth reading and once read, the reader will probably join me in mourning the fact that it is was her only novel. I am more than a little surprised that it hasn't been turned into a movie or a mini series.

Baseball - The Color Line and New Jersey

There was a recent post on SABR's 19th Century Baseball e-mail list asking for help in determining the facts related to an incident at a Newark baseball game in 1887. The incident
involved Adrian "Cap" Anson and two black baseball players, George Stovey and Fleetwood Walker (pictured left). Anson was a great 19th century baseball player, a hard hitting first baseman and member of the Hall of Fame. Unfortunately he was also a world class racist who gets a lot of the responsibility for the color line - the "unwritten" rule that blacks could not play in organized baseball. It is this color line that Jackie Robinson destroyed beginning in 1946 when he played with the Brooklyn Dodger farm team, the Montreal Royals.

In 1887 Stovey and Walker played with the Newark team in the International and on July 14, 1887 they were scheduled to play an exhibition game with the major league Chicago White Stockings. The question to be researched was what actually happened that day - since it was a New Jersey newspaper I volunteered to look in the Newark newspapers of the period that are housed in Alexander Library at Rutgers. As an aside I want to mention that the Alexander library has an outstanding collection of old newspapers on microfilm. Both of my books were infinitely easier to research because of the ability to use those collections. For example, they have the full runs of at least six daily newspapers for 1916 that greatly assisted our efforts to find game accounts.

It turned out that I was only able to find one Newark newspaper for 1887, the Newark Evening News. I knew the paper when back a long way, but didn't realize it was that far - the Newark Evening News was the major paper in our household when I was growing up and it lasted until the 1970's. There were two brief relevant articles in the paper for July 15th, one in the sports page (such as it was) and the other on the front page. The facts are as follows, neither Walker nor Stovey played in the game, the sports page article says that Stovey would have pitched, but he was sick.

The front page article was more illuminating, reporting that Anson had wired the manager of the Newark team (the little Giants) that his team would not play if Stovey or Walker played. No mention is then made of Walker, but the article repeats the story of Stovey being sick. However the article goes on to say that on the same day as the game, representatives of the International League teams meeting in Buffalo had directed the secretary of the league not to approve any additional contracts for blacks. No mention is made of Anson, just the comment that "Jersey City and some of the other clubs insisted that African players drove white men from the league."

When the research request appeared on the e-mail list, someone responded by saying that too much credit or blame was given to Anson for the creation of the color line - the implicit reasoning being that racism was so prevalent in America at the time that there would have been a color line with or without Anson. The articles seems to confirm that and it also seems reasonable, if Anson didn't represent to some degree the mainstream thinking it is unlikely the result would have been the same. None of this is to suggest that Anson does not deserve criticism and blame for his abhorrent attitudes.

When I wrote about the Irvington base ball club a few weeks ago, I commented on how if we in New Jersey don't tell our own history then we leave it to generalists who understandably have little interest in the New Jersey perspective. That is equally true in this case, the issue seems to be Anson and what he did or didn't do, but that doesn't address some fascinating questions/issues such as:

1. How exactly did the Newark team come to have two black players on the squad?
2. Stovey and Walker were a regular pitcher/catcher battery both before and after this incident - how did people in Newark react to what seems to be a fairly radical step?
3. Prominence in the color line drawn approved by the International League is given to the Jersey City club - Stovey pitched for the Jersey City team in the Eastern League the year before - what is that all about?


There are probably a lot of other questions that could also be asked, but once again they illustrate why what happened in New Jersey needs to be looked at from a New Jersey perspective. It is also not without some irony that Jackie Robinson's first game in organized baseball in 1946 was in the International League, a game played in, of all places, Jersey City, New Jersey.

Lincoln Forum - Part V - Was Lincoln a Racist?

I suppose it is probably impossible to have any lengthy discussion about Abraham Lincoln without the question of whether Lincoln was a racist coming up. Harold Holzer
talked about this during the panel discussion on the last day of the forum. He talked about a
conversation that he had with the African-American scholar, Henry Louis Gates on Lincoln's
last public speech.

In that speech Lincoln said that now that the war was over, black veterans as
well as other intelligent or well educated blacks should be given the vote. Gates felt this was no different from the approach taken on black voting in many southern states up until the civil rights movement of the 1960's - little more than a subterfuge to keep the majority of blacks from voting. As Holzer reminded us, in the audience that night in 1865 was John Wilkes Booth who had a very different reaction - telling Louis Paine, "That's the last speech he'll ever make." Tragically Booth was right.

The point that Harold Holzer was making is that we have to look at people in the context of the times in which they lived. I have written previously how I believe that since slavery today is simply unthinkable there is a tendency not to give adequate credit to those who worked to end it. In that regard I am reminded of a statement attributed to the British historian, C.V. Wedgewood who supposedly said something like, "History is lived forward, but written backwards so we know the ending without knowing what it was like to know only the beginning."

Trying then to look at Lincoln and others like him from knowing only the beginning means that for them slavery was not a concept, but a brutal reality. And it is important to remember that this is slavery not imposed upon the victims of conquest, but rather slavery based upon race, specifically based upon beliefs of racial inferiority. For someone like Lincoln, believing in the core values of equality found in the Declaration, the first issue is ending slavery because there can be no significant progress on any other significant issue of race until it is ended.

Whether Lincoln's racist type comments in the 1850's and 1860's were part of some strategy to first end slavery or really represented his beliefs then , beliefs that changed over time is probably impossible to say. But I think it is clear that Lincoln at the very least believed that blacks were equal to others in terms of their right to freedom and to earn their own living. Ideas that were certainly not the norm in the United States in the middle of the 19th century. Perhaps if we try to look at history going forward rather than just backward, we can be fairer to those who lived then while at the same time recognizing where they may have fallen short.

This is the last post on the Lincoln Forum and on the Civil War for a while. One final thing that I forgot to write about when I wrote about Brian Lamb of CSPAN was something he said during his talk Tuesday morning. Brian grew up in Indiana and he said that 15, he knew little or nothing about Lincoln especially the fact that he had lived in Indiana for a number of years. In fact, the schools Lamb attended never visited any of the Lincoln historic sites in the state. Maybe New Jersey isn't the only state with a less than stellar record of knowing its own history!

Lincoln Forum - Part IV - Lincoln/Douglas Debates

The first lecture last Monday morning was by Allen Guelzo on his new book, "Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates that Changed America." It was an excellent lecture one of the best
that we heard, both in terms of the content and its delivery. Guelzo is one of those historians who knows his subject and knows how to present it in an interesting and informative manner. I bought the book at the forum (the only book I bought there - an achievement in itself) and have just started to read it so I can't say anything about the book.

Of course I had heard of the Lincoln-Douglas debates and even seen a little bit of CSPAN's recreation of them some years ago. Brian Lamb talked about this during his presentation. He said that he found a book by Harold Holzer about the debates in his local bookstore and decided to look into doing a series about them. Lamb and an associate flew to St. Louis and then spent the next two days traveling over 1000 miles to the seven sites of the debates plus Springfield, Illinois. Back in Washington, he wrote to the mayors of the seven towns saying that if they would recreate the debates, CSPAN would film them and the rest, as they say, is history or history re-created.

Lincoln's opponent in the Senate contest was Stephen Douglas who was the incumbent. The major issue for Douglas was not slavery per se, but rather westward expansion, especially the transcontinental railroad. To achieve his goals in that area, Douglas wanted state governments in place and the pressing national issue about potential new states was the issue of slavery. Douglas' solution to this question was popular sovereignty, simply that the citizens of a new state would decide by majority vote whether the state would be slave or free.

This had the appeal of being "democratic" and I have seen something of Douglas' statements on this indicating that new states are allowed to decide so many other issues for themselves by majority vote so why not slavery. In his lecture Guelzo stated that for Douglas, democracy was the means to an end - that is, let's find out what the majority vote for and then just go with that. Lincoln on the other hand believed that democracy was the end, in the sense of the prime values of the Declaration - "all men are created equal." Therefore, Lincoln believed that while democratic voting was the best way to achieve those values there are some "unalienable rights" that cannot be taken away by the votes of the majority.

Lincoln was, therefore, focused on the rights of the minority in a free society. I was interested by that because of the recent reading I have done about John C. Calhoun who is supposed to be such an eloquent spokesperson for minority rights. Of course Calhoun's interest was in protecting the right of one minority to oppress another minority. Issues about minority rights are still with us (for example, same sex marriage) and they always will be. That is probably why Guelzo ended his talk by saying that Lincoln and Douglas still wait on the platform for us so that the debate can continue.

Lincoln Forum - Part III - Lincoln President-Elect

Probably about 40 years ago I was looking at a book of essays about Lincoln by David Donald where he said that future writing about Lincoln would probably take the short essay form since there wasn't much more that could be written about Lincoln. Since then I have seen similar thoughts expressed at various times, but Lincoln books keep coming out, someone said almost at the rate of one a day which is probably an exaggeration.

One of the more cynical explanations for this is, of course, the fact that Lincoln books keep getting published because they sell. While there has to be some truth to that, it is not an explanation for books like "Lincoln President-Elect" or Mr. Holzer's book on Lincoln's "Right Makes Might" speech at Cooper Union. These book really do two things, they focus on very specific periods, events or issues in Lincoln's life and they present analysis.

There will be at some point a maximum number of topics even at this level of detail, but there will never be an end to analysis. In large measure this is because like anything or anyone important in the past, the way it is looked at can be, and probably is, different in each generation. An example of this is the way that one generation of African Americans almost deified Lincoln while at least some portion of subsequent generations consider him to be a racist.

I have now read both of these books by Harold Holzer and have enjoyed them a great deal. While clearly someone who likes Lincoln, Holzer works hard to be objective and analytical in his evaluation of Lincoln. This is especially true of the latest book which covers a period that has apparently been commonly seen as one where Lincoln's performance left much to be desired. Mr. Holzer looks at this period in great depth and while acknowledging some weak areas, believes that Lincoln's performance was at least equal to that as President.

My only criticism of this book is that 458 pages (not including Epilogue and appendices) seems excessive to cover a period of about four months. Specifically I felt there was a little too much detail on the time in Springfield and especially the accounts of how Lincoln was besieged by office seekers. But overall Mr. Holzer has obviously done detailed research and he tells the story well including looking beyond Lincoln to describe what is going on the rest of the country especially in the southern states.

As a New Jerseyan I was especially interested to read the section devoted to Lincoln's travels through New Jersey on February 21, 1861. While it was only one day, it apparently included 10 speeches (all relatively short), two of which were important, both in Trenton. In fact, the book has inspired me to do some of my own research on Lincoln's day in our state, specifically to look at local New Jersey newspapers accounts of the day - Mr. Holzer did not appear to use those to any great extent. I doubt very much that there is a book there, but who knows what could come out of it. In any event I highly recommend "Lincoln President-Elect"and look forward to Mr. Holzer's visit to the New Jersey Historical Society tentatively scheduled for June of 2009.

Lincoln Forum - New Jersey and the Civil War

As I noted earlier, the closing program at the Lincoln Forum was Ken Burns' key note address. Prior to the address, a Lincoln re-enactor recited Lincoln' speech to the New Jersey State Senate. The speech was made on February 21, 1861, the day that Lincoln spent traveling through New Jersey by train on his way to his inauguration. A very brief address its highlight was Lincoln's reference to the American victory over the Hessians at Trenton in 1776.

In these brief remarks the President-elect noted how much as a boy he had been inspired by Parson Weem's life of Washington and the story of those dramatic events in New Jersey. He went on to say that "the thing they struggled for," was "something even more than National Independence; that something that held out a great promise to all the people of the world to all time to come."

In his new book about this period, Harold Holzer calls this "one of the most remarkable speeches of Lincoln's entire journey -- arguably one of the most intimate and personal revealing of his career." He goes on to write that "In a sense it was Lincoln's most original address since the marathon at Cooper Union." In that case, Holzer argues, Lincoln relied on "law and precedent," now he was proposing a "new definition of American "civil religion," - "the idea that God shone special grace on the land conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

I had read this speech before, but all of this gave me a renewed sense of its importance. And, perhaps to say the obvious, it is no coincidence that it happened in New Jersey - it happened here because of New Jersey history, specifically those ten decisive days of the Revolution. But that wasn't the only connection of the evening to New Jersey. In his talk, Ken Burns mentioned, as he has before, the importance that Michael Shaara's book, "The Killer Angels," played in his work. Quite simply Burns said, it changed his life.

I don't know if I was the only one there who knew that Michael Shaara is a New Jersey native and Rutgers graduate. Interestingly Shaara's book was rejected by the first 15 publishers that reviewed it. It was ultimately published by a small firm and Shaara was supposedly shocked when it won the Pulitzer Prize. One of the things that means is that two of the greatest novels to come out of the Civil War, "The Killer Angels" and "The Red Badge of Courage" were written by New Jerseyans.

On the surface we may think that New Jersey didn't play that primary role in the Civil War, but the above suggests the opposite. Thinking about the Lincoln speech gave me the idea that perhaps one of the things we should try to do for the 150th Anniversary is recreate that day in February of 1861 when Abraham Lincoln traveled through New Jersey. Recreate the journey and the speeches culminating with the reading of both of Lincoln's Trenton speeches to the State Legislature. Something to think about and food for thought for our 150th Anniversary Task Force.

Lincoln Forum - Part I

Carol and I returned today from our first ever visit to the Lincoln Forum in Gettysburg. Founded about 13 years ago, the Lincoln Forum holds an annual two day - three night symposium with speakers and other programs about our 16th president. Since 2009 is the bicentennial of Lincoln' s birth there was an especially impressive list of speakers. These included John Marszalek on Sherman, Jean Smith on Grant, Allen Guelzo on the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and Jean Baker on Mary Lincoln. Of special note were Harold Holzer on his new book about Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter and the key note speaker, Ken Burns.

It was all very worthwhile and is going to lead to a series of posts as I try to sort out my reactions and what I learned from the experience. As first time attendees, we wondered how welcoming the atmosphere would be and it couldn't have been any better. We were all asked to stand at dinner the first night and we had to total somewhere between 25 and 30% of the 260 or so people in attendance. I had the opportunity to meet the Director of the Lincoln Cottage at the Soldier's Home in Washington, D. C. as well as the director of the William Tecumseh Sherman Home in Lancaster, Ohio. I got a lot out of meeting them and hope to visit both sites at some point in the future.

I also had the chance to personally thank Gerry Prokopowicz in person for his kindness in having me on his Civil War Talk Radio Show. During the interview he had asked me about a character from the 33rd New Jersey named Robert Harriot, who went by the name "Mickey Free." Whatever his name really was, he tried to climb on to the platform during Lincoln's visit to Jersey City on the way to his inauguration only to be knocked off by a policeman. Harold Holzer mentions this incident in his book (about which more in a later post) without naming the individual. I mentioned this to Gerry who said that he had been reading Harold's manuscript as the same time as my book and made the connection.

Of special note was those one of a kind incidents that happened Tuesday morning. Carol and I were sitting in the breakfast room at the Best Western in Gettysburg looking out on Lincoln Square (the conference was at the Holiday Inn). A car pulled up outside the hotel, a man got out and I said to Carol, "That looks like Brian Lamb, the CEO of CSPAN." The reason he looked like Brian Lamb was because he was Brian Lamb. I went out in the lobby a few minutes later and he was asking for directions to the Lincoln Forum. Given that opening, I didn't waste any time offering to help and introducing myself. Brian couldn't have been nicer to me and then to Carol when she joined us a few minutes later - a perfect gentleman just as he appears on television.

This was also a very different experience from a book buying perspective. Usually I come back from this kind of thing with every book that strikes my interest. In this case I only bought one book plus I sold three copies of the "The Mutinous Regiment." This is another example of why I need to listen to my senior partner more often as I wouldn't have brought the three without her urging and she wanted me to bring more. All in all, it was a wonderful experience and I will write more about the content over the next few days - I guess this is Civil War month on this blog!!

For the Union Dead Part VI

This the final post of my Veteran's week's stories of those from the 33rd New Jersey who were killed or were severely wounded in the service of the Union cause. The picture to the left is that of William Cochrane from Jersey City. At the age of 22, Cochrane enlisted in the 21st New Jersey and served with that regiment for its nine months of service.

Not long after being mustered out with that regiment in June of 1863, Cochrane enlisted in the 33rd New Jersey as a first Lieutenant. Because of the death of Captain Bartlett at Dug Gap, he became commander of Company G.

After the failure of Sherman's flanking movement at New Hope Baptist Church, the Union forces returned to their life line of the railroad. The 33rd was next engaged at Pine Knob on June 15-16, 1864. On the night of the 15th the regiment was told not to dig in as they would be moving shortly. This was not correct and the next day, the regiment found themselves exposed to lethal Confederate fire. Of all the regiments engaged at Pine Knob, the 33rd suffered the highest casualties.

One of these casualties was William Cochrane. While firing from behind a tree, Cochrane moved to the other side of the tree to avoid a sharpshooter, exposing himself to another Confederate who fatally shot the young officer. Chaplain John Faull morned his death in a letter to the Sussex County Register, reporting that he "loved him as man and a soldier." Sadly official notice of Cochrane's promotion to Captain arrived two days after this death. He was buried in the National Cemetery at Marietta.

A primary reason for posting the stories of these men and their pictures is to help us connect more effectively with the human side of the sacrifices these men made for our country and for us. There are many other such stories in the 33rd, but these are the only cases where pictures survive. Perhaps at another time, I will find a way to honor the others "who gave their lives, that that nation might live."

For the Union Dead - Part V

Pictured above are James McSorley, a private in Company E of the 33rd New Jersey and Captain Charles Field who was the commander of Company E by late May of 1864. While the 33rd New Jersey was engaged at Dug Gap, other Federal troops moved through Snake Creek Gap, outflanking the Confederates out of their strong positions on Rocky Face Ridge.

Delays by Union General John Schofield in exploiting the success of that maneuver set up a situation at the small village of Resaca similar to that of Dug Gap. Once again the 33rd was engaged with the Confederates while another part of Sherman's army tried to outflank the Confederates. Once again this maneuver was successful, but not before the 33rd was engaged in a long standoff over a battery of Confederate cannon.

Sometime during that day at Resaca (May 15, 1864), James McSorley was shot in the hip. He was totally disabled from the wound and ultimately died from it in earl 1869. I learned McSorley's story from his descendants, Steve and Fred Stickel, who found me in their search for more information about the 33rd. I would say I get two-three such inquiries each year. Fred and Steve have been wonderfully supportive of my book, they supplied the picture of James shown above, they have purchased a number of copies and Steve made a long trip to hear me give a relatively brief presentation about the 33rd before the book was published.

After Resaca, Sherman tried to outflank the Confederates again, this time leaving his railroad supply line. Unfortunately the Confederates anticipated this move, met Sherman's army near New Hope Baptist Church where a long standoff reminiscent of World War I developed. On May 28th, Captain Field was shot through the thigh while posting a picket line. He was evacuated to Chattanooga where he died on June 5th. In remembering his fallen comrade, William Lambert wrote to the Newark Daily Advertiser, that Field was believed by all to be "the finest line officer in the 33rd regiment."

For the Union Dead - Part IV

Captain Henry C. Bartlett was the commander of company G of the 33rd New Jersey, he had previously served with the 7th New Jersey. On May 8, 1864, he was in command of his company at the Battle of Dug Gap near Dalton, Georgia. This battle marked the opening of the Atlanta campaign. Sherman's primary strategy in this campaign was to maneuver the Confederates out strong defensive positions thereby avoiding battles and moving on Atlanta.

On May 8th, the Confederates occupied strong defensive positions on Rocky Face Ridge, a high ridge penetrated only by three rough passes. Fortunately for Sherman, the Confederates apparently did not know about one of these passes and it was undefended. In order to move part of his army safely through this gap, Sherman had to keep the Confederates occupied at the other two gaps. Unfortunately for the 33rd New Jersey, they were part of a force assigned to attack one of these, known as Dug Gap.

The name aptly described the pass, simply a rough road dug into the mountainside. To get to that gap, the 33rd had to scale the heights of Rocky Face Ridge over rough rocky ground while dodging both Confederate bullets and boulders the defenders rolled down the mountainside. During the attack, Captain Bartlett was killed at the head of his company. A resident of what is now Roseland, New Jersey, Bartlett left behind his widow and four daughters, all younger than 10. Lieutenant Joseph Miller was assigned to take Bartlett's place. Almost as soon as he got there he was wounded, then while lying on the ground encouraging his men onward, he too was killed.

Both Bartlett and Miller apparently were Masons and were wearing masonic symbols on their uniforms. This led to them receiving proper burials albeit in unmarked graves. Gary Abrams, a 33rd re-enactor believes that he has located the sites of those graves and is working with descendants and others to remove the remains either to a national cemetery or to a final resting place in New Jersey. This is an important way to honor the ultimate sacrifices of both men and I hope Gary is successful.

For the Union Dead - Part III

The story of John J. Toffey is a little different than that of Boggs and Waldron in that he survived the war, but his day at Citico Creek changed his life forever. After serving as a private in the 21st New Jersey, Toffey was appointed a 1st Lieutenant with Company F of the 33rd. At the time of the battles of Chattanooga, Toffey was sick. In fact, when the regiment was ordered to advance, the regimental surgeon told him he had no business being there and should go to the hospital.

Toffey was not, however, going to miss the regiment's first fight and when Captain Boggs was wounded, Colonel Mindil ordered Toffey to take his place (probably unaware of Toffey's health). Toffey who had struggled to keep up during the advance, immediately went forward to carry out his assignment, working his way as "bullets flew like hailstones."

When the young officer arrived at his command, he was wounded in the thigh before he could even give any orders. Toffey lay on the ground for an hour before being removed to a hospital. Although the wound was not fatal, Toffey's active military service was over and he would be hampered by his wound for the rest of his life. Toffey stayed in the army in the Veterans Reserve Corps (wounded or disabled soldiers who could perform some duty) and happened to be at Fords Theater, the fatal night of Lincoln's assassination.

After the war, Toffey was very active in politics, serving in the state legislature and as Hudson County Sheriff. In 1897, on recommendation of Colonel Mindil, he was awarded the Medal of Honor for his service at Citico Creek. The awarding of medals long after the war was not uncommon. For example, Joshua Camberlain did not receive his Medal of Honor for this actions at Gettysburg until long after the war.

For The Union Dead - Part II

Captain William Boggs was the commander of Company A of the 33rd New Jersey. At Citico Creek on November 23rd, he and his company were ordered forward to serve as skirmishers in front of the regiment's advance. Skirmishers were typically small groups of troops that advanced first to feel out the enemy. In this case the Confederates were there in force, well protected and firing at close range. Boggs went down with bullet wound in the arm.

Boggs was evacuated from the battlefield to a Union hospital. While a wound in the arm does not seem serious, given the level of medical knowledge in the 1860's any would was serious. Boggs eventually died of his wound on December 19th most likely due to infection. Unfortunately for the participants, "germ theory" was unknown in the 1860's allowing for horrible sanitary conditions that claimed more lives than enemy bullets.

Along with his fellow officer, Samuel Waldron, Boggs body was returned to Newark for burial. Like Waldron, Boggs left a wife and, in his case three children. Boggs funeral took place on Janaury 17, 1864, a few days before that of Waldron. Boggs was also buried in Fairmount Cemetery in Newark. Boggs was in his early 30's at the time of his death, he had previously served with the 13th New Jersey.

Veteran's Day 2008

Today Carol and I attended the Veteran's Day observance organized by our friend, Vince Dahmen, at St. Mark's Cemetery in Orange. In working on cleanup of this neglected cemetery, Vince discovered that there are 22 Civil War veterans buried there. On his own he organized this observation and asked for my help which I was happy to give. The program was very short, Gary Abrams, a re-enactor from the 33rd New Jersey fired his musket in salute, Carol and Vince read the names, I said a few words about New Jersey's history in the Civil War and read the Gettysburg address. It was a nice service and I hope that more can be done to properly restore the last resting places of these veterans.

This past Sunday, Elaine over at Random Jottings wrote a very moving post about Remembrance Sunday in England including national television coverage of the ceremony at the Centopath in London and the two minute silence. The timing of all this, of course, is tied into the Armistice that ended World War I which took effect at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month. I think the British have a good idea in having the observation on the closest Sunday to the 11th thereby giving it a whole lot more visibility.

I believe that I am correct that when the U.S moved a number of holidays that were set by date to the closest Monday, Veteran's Day was one of them, but veteran's groups protested so much that it was moved back to the 11th. I wonder, in retrospect if that was a good idea. It's a Federal Holiday so there is no mail and a lot of things are closed, but it feels like more things are open than closed. I was very disappointed to see that my former employer, the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, did not close today.

There is a further dilution in this country because of the fact that we have two days tied into veterans - Memorial Day which is to honor those who died in wars and Veteran's Day to honor all who served. The fact that the British combine them in one day probably brings more focus to it. Memorial Day was originally Decoration Day - the day when people visited and decorated the graves of Civil War veterans. The focus on the date of the World War I armistice is probably tied into the fact that it was considered to be the end of "The War to End Wars." When that proved inaccurate the focus was switched to Veteran's Day. In terms of U.S. involvement World War II was much more significant, but scant attention is paid today to either VE or VJ days.

I find my own role as a veteran somewhat ironic. When I was a kid growing up in the late 1940's and 1950's, everyone's father was a veteran or so it seemed - the unusual cases were those who were not. When I went into the army in 1970, I was probably aware of being a minority, but after spending 20 months with peers all who were doing the same thing, I guess it seemed like the norm. Today in almost every group that I am in, I find myself to be the only veteran or one of the few - it is a strange feeling in some regard. Since most people don't have the experience, they tend to think mine was a lot worse than it was.

That's not to say that it wasn't difficult in some ways certainly in terms of stress. May 23, 1971 will always rank as the worse day of my life or at least so far - it was the day I left for Vietnam. I knew I didn't want my parents saying goodbye to me at the airport so I asked my friend Bill to drive me to Newark airport for the flight to California. It was a beautiful spring day and as Bill turned his car around and we passed my parent's house, I couldn't help of thinking of whether or not I would ever see it or my family again. If it was tough for me, it was worse for my mother who had to go through it twice, once sending her husband off to World War II and then sending me off to Vietnam.

After the ceremony today, there was a reception back at St. Mark's Church. Vince's wife, Mary Anne said grace before the food was served and broke down somewhat talking about the mother's who were sitting in the pews at St. Mark's when their sons went off to the Civil War - the ones who were ultimately buried at St. Mark's cemetery. We all need to connect to the veterans of the past on that kind of human level. After telling the story of the 33rd New Jersey as a regiment, I have realized that underneath that collective story are the stories of the individual soldiers who made up that regiment - something that is true of every Civil War regiment, indeed every military unit in every war. Reading those names out loud today in a small way honored each individual story - we need to continue to do that and more - "Lest we forget, lest we forget."

For The Union Dead - Part I

Since Veteran's Day is this week, I thought that I would post the pictures and the stories of some members of the 33rd New Jersey who made the ultimate sacrifice or were severely wounded in the service of our country. This is limited to those for whom a picture survives.

Captain Samuel F. Waldron was the commander of Company I of the 33rd New Jersey. He wrote a number of letters to the Newark Daily Journal (Newark's anti-war newspaper) under the pen name of "Miles Alienus." As the 33rd and other Union troops gathered in Lookout Valley near Chattanooga, he wrote that while things were quiet, "Certain it is one hundred and twenty thousand men are not massed here for nothing."

They certainly were not and on November 23, 1863, the 33rd was engaged for the first time at Citico Creek. This was the regiment's first combat experience and sadly Waldron was killed instantly by a bullet through the heart. When news of his death reached Newark, newspaper accounts indicated that he had a premonition of his death.

Waldron was a school teacher in the Newark public schools and had been an amateur actor. He had seen prior service with the 27th New Jersey and now left a widow and two young children. Appropriately the people of Newark raised money to help support his bereaved family. Waldron's body was returned to Newark for burial and his funeral took place on January 21, 1864, first at Trinity Church (now Trinity & St. Philip's Cathedral) with the burial at Fairmount Cemetery. In his honor the Newark public schools closed for the afternoon with teachers and students from his school (the Second Ward School) marching behind the hearse.

Obscurity, Rather Than Trivia

Yesterday, Carol and I went to the Rutgers-Syracuse football game with our friends, Karen and Bill. Bill and I first met in high school in 1962 so our friendship has lasted over 45 years, our marriages and four children between us.

On the way to the game we were listening to the pre-game tail gate show where they typically ask some Rutgers trivia questions with various prizes for the winner. When we pulled into the parking lot, the host was asking a trivia question and Bill and I realized three things:

1. We knew the answer to the question.

2. The prize was two tickets to the Army game which Bill wanted for two of his daughters.

3. The host was complaining that there weren't enough people trying to answer the question.

So we parked and walked quickly (as quickly as 60+ year olds walk) to where the show was being broadcast from. We had to wait for them to come back from commercial and while someone else answered the question - incorrectly it turned out. While we were waiting I saw Dick Lloyd (upper left hand corner in the picture) who was waiting to be interviewed on the radio show. Dick was a basketball coach when I was a basketball manager (lower right hand corner of the picture), now he is the color analyst for the radio broadcasts of Rutgers' men's basketball.

Dick's wife, Marion was also there. When she heard what Bill and I are were doing, she said there should be a question about me as the 1968 men's basketball manager. The radio show came back from commercial, Bill answered the question correctly and got the two tickets. Then Dick went on the interview and said to the host that he had a trivia question for them. Who was the 1968 Rutgers' men's basketball manager and then kindly said my name and pointed me out in the vast crowd of 6-8 people.

In response I waived my hand and said - "That's not trivia, that's obscurity." All the same it was nice to be recognized in that way. Given how the day had started, we shouldn't have been worried when Syracuse got off to a 14-0 lead and, in fact, all ended well - Rutgers 35 - Syracuse 17.

Deerbrook - Part I

I thought it was time for a post about fiction since all of the recent posts, for some reason have focused on American History. This is only an interim report on Harriet Martineau's novel as I am only 223 pages into what is close to a 500 page book. I made the mistake of trying to read it while I was reading "Persuasion" and found myself confusing the characters. I put down "Deerbrook" until I finished the other then found I had to go back to the beginning on "Deerbrook" just to keep everything straight.

I found this book through something that Elaine wrote on her Random Jottings blog. The name seemed familiar which was because some of Martineau's writings were an important primary source for Robert Remini's biography of Henry Clay - talk about a small world. It is always good find another writer one likes, the bad news in this case, is that "Deerbrook" is her only novel.

"Deerbrook" is the story of life in an small English village when two young women from Birmingham come to live there. At the beginning I found it very fast reading, but have experienced delays to some very in depth descriptive writing plus some very philosophical discussions. Like many 19th century English novels, the focus is on relationships. One of the things that Martineau does that I like is to present the thoughts of some of the men as well of those of the women.

I also noticed one thing that is very different from Jane Austen, a lot of Anthony Trollope, some of Mary Ann Evans (George Eliot), and Charlotte Bronte (at least "Jane Eyre"). In all or most of those cases the focus in the novel is bringing a relationship or relationships to marriage where the book ends. In at least one major case in "Deerbrook" the marriage came about relatively quickly and the focus is then on the marriage itself. I am not far enough to know if this will happen with the other major female character or not.

I am enjoying this book so far and will write more about it in the future. With a lot on the schedule for the next two weeks, I am not sure when that will be, but I look forward to finishing the book, and then thinking and writing about it some more. As long as I do the latter two things in that order it should be all right.

A Victory For Revolutionary Values

This is the eleventh presidential election that I have voted in and the results of this one seem to exist at two different levels. There are the usual winners and losers and everyone will react to the results in a way that is consistent with their own priorities. At the same time, however, there is another level to these results - a level of which I think we all can be and should be proud.

Obviously and simply it is the result of a predominantly white nation electing a black president - let me say that again - a predominantly white nation electing a black president. What that means, also quite simply is that a clear majority of people thought he was the best choice to be President. That doesn't mean they are correct, only history both short and long term will determine whether this was the right choice or not.

I think this once again honors the values of the American Revolution - the values of the Declaration - "that all men are created equal," which at its most basic level has to include equal opportunity. The white men of property who voted for that document most likely defined "all men" as "all white men" or even "all white men of property." But regardless of what they meant, they didn't say that, thereby, opening the challenge of living into that value to each future generation of Americans. The best example I can give of how that is true, is when Martin Luther King Jr. gave his "I have a dream" speech in 1963, he didn't bother to try to come up with new values or a new way to say it. He simply called on American to live out the meaning of its creed - "all men . . ." - you know the rest.

Back in 2006 the General Convention of the Episcopal Church elected the first woman as Presiding Bishop. Not much was made of the fact that she was elected by a House of Bishops who were probably 90% white males - in relative terms white men of property. Today the Episcopal Church is in trouble with a lot of the Anglican Communion both for that decision, but also for wanting equality for all regardless of sexual orientation. Why is the Anglican church in the United States in such a different place than the rest of those churches that came out of the Church of England? One reason might be because for over 200 years the Episcopal Church has lived in the context of the values of the American Revolution.

When George Washington was inaugurated as 1st President of the United States, he said, "the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." Our choice of our 44th President based on "the content of his character, not the color of his skin," has shown that this generation of Americans still honors those values - still as revolutionary as they were in 1776.

Election Day - Then and Now

By coincidence I just started reading Henry Holzer's new book, "Lincoln President-Elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter" in anticipation of hearing Mr. Holzer speak at the Lincoln Forum later this month. We are also going to be fortunate enough to have Mr. Holzer speak at NJHS in June of next year.

The book begins with election day 1860 which is certainly timely for today's national referendum. According to the book there was an 82% turn out of eligible voters in that historic election. That's hard to believe on any level, but especially considering that Lincoln didn't appear on the ballot in almost every Southern state.

Reading and thinking about this made me think of the first presidential election day and night that I really remember - the 1960 election between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy. I was 14 years old, didn't have any real political opinions and certainly didn't have the generally liberal outlook that I have had for many years. My parents were staunch Republicans who after eight years of Eisenhower were shocked and greatly disappointed by the result.

I thought of that disappointment today when I noticed a number of blogs/e-mails from (I assume) liberals saying that if Obama is not elected that they are planning on moving to Canada or some other location. I am sure that some that is said in jest, but in 40 years of voting in Presidential elections that kind of thought has never crossed my mind. And I say that having been on the losing side more often than not.

Which brings me back to the 1860 election, the one time in American history a significant number of people decided to vote with their feet when they "lost" the election. If we think this election in that context, I hope we can see how shortsighted such thinking is. If we believe in democracy then we have to believe in it regardless of whether we like the result or not. On that level, I would hope that we could see that comments about moving to Canada if the "wrong" person wins are as inconsistent with the values of our nation as they were almost 150 years ago.

New Jersey History - It's Our Story

Part of what I was trying to say in yesterday's post is that New Jersey's history is our history - our story and we can't expect anyone else to tell it for us. To take yesterday's example of the Irvington base ball club a step further - New Jersey had two prominent base ball teams in the pioneer period, the Eureka of Newark and the Irvington clubs. During that time frame they took on the best teams in base ball and more than held their own.

That was no small part in the story of the early days of base ball, but the only way that New Jersey will have its rightful place in the full story is if our state's part of the story is told from a New Jersey perspective. It still has to be subject to the full rigor of academic research and analysis, but looked at from the perspective of what part did New Jersey play in this important phase of the game's history. Heroes have to earn their place in the story, but once they do it is important to honor that place.

The same thing is true in a broader sense when we come to the Civil War. Unless we take the time to tell New Jersey's part in that story both civilian and military, we are at the mercy of the generalists (no pun intended) as to whether New Jersey even has a place in the story. New Jersey had 40 regiments in the Civil War, much has been done about telling their stories, but there is a lot more yet to be done.

Lying underneath the group stories of those regiments are the stories of the indivuals who served in them as well as that of their families who were left behind. Having tried to tell the regimental story of the 33rd New Jersey, I am now trying to tell the personal story of William LLoyd through his letters. Tom Fox did much the same thing with the story of William Magee, the famous or infamous drummer boy of the 33rd. When Tom researched that story he found much of the evidence in the archives of the New Jersey Historical Society, specifically in the papers of Marcus Ward.

Ward was a wealth Newark business man who was known as the "soldier's friend" because of all he tried to do to help the common soldier. His papers are held by NJHS, but it is not enough to just hold those papers. Far too many of the manuscripts in NJHS' collections are unprocessed simply because there has never been enough money to hire the staff to do that important work. Who knows how many other important New Jersey stories go untold because of the lack of funds to catalog or the lack of historians to research and write those stories.

When will this change?

Only when we as a state are willing to make our history, the priority it deserves to be.

New Jersey History - Why It Matters

As part of my research for the pioneer project I am reading William Ryczek's book, "When Johnny Came Sliding Home," which is a general history of base ball from 1865-1870. It was well researched and has been helpful to me in thinking about New Jersey base ball during this period. However, it is has also made me think some more about why New Jersey history is important or more specifically why New Jersey history needs to be researched, written and studied.

Ryczek's goal is to give an overview of this important period in base ball history, a period that saw a rapid expansion and the difficult transition into the professional game. His primary contemporary sources were the New York Clipper, the Spirit of the Times, and the Henry Chadwick scrapbooks. I have not yet looked at the Chadwick scrapbooks which I gather include different newspaper articles. I have worked a lot with the Clipper and a little with the Spirit of the Times, they are basically newspaper equivalents of what Sports Illustrated is today - a weekly publication covering important games, stories etc.

These are good sources and certainly give a good overview, especially when one is trying to write an overview or general account. However, if one wants to tell the full story of a local team one has to spend some time with local sources particularly the newspapers of the day. An example of this is how Ryczek writes about the Irvington base ball club. The Irvingtons, as they were sometimes called, burst on to the national scene when they lured the Brooklyn Atlantics to Irvington on the pretext that they were a "country club" who would benefit from losing from the champion Atlantics. Taken in by this subterfuge, the Atlantics found themselves losing to Irvington - a shock to the sporting world of the time.

For the next two years the Irvington team went on to face most of the top teams of the nation and more than held their own. However, beginning in 1868 they started to lose their best players to more prominent clubs both in New York and beyond. In fact, two members of the Irvington team, Charles Sweasy and Andrew Jackson Leonard, moved on to the Cincinnati Redstockings, the first all professional team that went undefeated on a national tour in 1869.

In writing about the Irvingtons, Ryczek repeats a story found in the New York Clipper (probably written by Henry Chadwick) which says that in 1865 the best players on the Irvington team split up to play for two more prestigious Newark teams before reforming to become the great Irvington team of 1866-67. However a review of the existing box scores in Newark newspapers for the period suggests that the Irvington team also included three players from the Newark club who moved to Irvington in 1866.

By itself this has limited significance, it is more important when we move on to how Ryczek and others describe the Irvington team. The view is basically that with perhaps one exception they were a team of difficult characters who symbolized the change from the gentleman's game of the early 1860's. However, the Newark club which was one of Newark and New Jersey's oldest clubs was very much part of that gentleman's era so it is doubtful if the three men who moved on to Irvington fit that stereotype.

Much of the criticism of the Irvington team both then and now really centers on some of the violence and crowd disturbances that occurred at Irvington matches. While the club may merit criticism for insufficient crowd control that is hardly the fault of the players. In fact, contemporary accounts in the New Jersey papers, indicate that the Irvington club complied with many of the time honored traditions of how to properly host a visiting team. I am not far enough into this research to make definitive claims, but it appears that too much of a broad brush has been taken perhaps because of insufficient attention to local sources.

There are at least two risks in not researching, writing and knowing New Jersey history. The risk that the story will not be told and the risk that it will not be told completely or correctly because of insufficient use of local sources. This is not the fault of those like Mr. Ryczek who are writing a more general work - it is our fault if in one way or another we don't help get this work done. Part of the fascinating thing of researching the pioneer project is that it feels like so little work has been done with these sources. This was also my experience in researching and writing about the 33rd New Jersey especially finding the true story of the regiment's troubled departure from Newark in September of 1863. To paraphrase something written by a noted church historian, a state that doesn't know its history is like an adult who has lost his/her memory - both situations are very sad.

New Jersey and History Perhaps Not So Perfect Together

As indicated in my profile, I am currently the Chairman of the Board of the New Jersey Historical Society, a position I have held since 2005. NJHS is the oldest cultural institution in New Jersey (founded in 1845) and the only state wide historical society. As I have been reading my way through 19th century newspapers researching early New Jersey base ball teams I sometimes find references to NJHS. One of them indicated that the annual meeting had been postponed because of the current crisis - the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in the spring of 1861.

Well Ft. Sumter may not be under attack, but sometimes I wonder about New Jersey history. This has been a very difficult time for NJHS with a number of its funding sources drying up or disappearing. Not surprisingly there has been a major drop in state support which comes through the State Historical Commission. New Jersey has legitimate financial problems, but at the rate things are going there is going be very little public investment in the history of our state. Then just recently I learned that the staff of the State Historical Commission consists of 2 1/2 full time equivalents while the State Museum supposedly has a total staff of seven.

Depressing facts like these would suggest that there is no real interest in New Jersey history, but I am finding that is not the case. Most of the interest is either focused locally or on a specific topic. I knew something about New Jersey's Civil War community, but now that I am more involved in the 150th anniversary work, I have been amazed at the number of groups and individuals that are passionately involved in some way. The same thing is true of vintage base ball where in two years we may go from two teams to five. I am confident that this is in no way limited to these two areas.

How to close this gap between real passionate interest and a lack of financial investment is a real challenge. Significant increases in government funding are clearly not going to happen and given the current economic climate, corporate and foundation financial support will probably decline. The solution probably lies in the area of individual giving. Every study that I have ever seen shows that theoretically not-for-profit organizations should get most of their funding from individuals. Yet every not-for-profit that I know of (and I have a wide range of experience) is in exactly the opposite situation - individual giving is the smallest source of support.

This is certainly the challenge for NJHS as we move into what will be a very difficult year financially. The good news is that there are good people who are equally, if not more, passionate about the work and the institution. I guess the thing to keep in the mind is the Rutgers football motto - "Keep Chopping." In other words if you are lost in the woods, don't worry about getting out of the forest, worry about chopping down the tree in front of you.