William Lloyd Letters - The So What Factor

Last week I noted that I had finished a very rough first draft of the William Lloyd letters - Lloyd served with the 33rd New Jersey throughout its service in the Civil War. The goal, of course, is to publish these letters and one of the things that I have to work on is what I call the "so what" factor. Given how many Civil War letter survive what is it that makes Lloyd's special or unique enough to merit publishing?

One way of approaching this question is to look at Lloyd within the context of his peers. How was he similar or different from his fellow soldiers - both factually and in terms of how he is revealed in his letters. I am going to pursue that basically by using some of the work done on the characteristics of Civil War soldiers and seeing in what ways - Lloyd was similar or different. For example, at 21 and married, he was somewhat younger than the norm and different in that most of his peers were not married.

However, I have also been thinking about Lloyd within a much larger context - the context of men anywhere at any time that serve in the military in war time. There are probably historical/anthropological works on this that look at all the data and do a scientific analysis which is fine. But I have been thinking about it more in relation to how Shakespeare depicts soldiers - specifically in Henry V, a play that spends a lot of time, not so much fighting, but rather talking about war. One of the many reasons for the timelessness of Shakespeare's work is the way that the topics he writes about and how he explores them in relationship to universal themes.

The particular thing that I am thinking about in Henry V, is the scene in Act IV the night before the battle of Agincourt. Leading an exhausted, hungry and badly outnumbered army, Henry tells his nobles he needs some time on his own, and tries to go off wearing a cloak that disguises his identity. Before he can go anywhere, however, he has three different encounters. The third is with three common soldiers, Michael Williams, John Bates and Alexander Court. This is reportedly one of the few times in Shakespeare that common people are given first and last names which some believe indicates their views should be listened to carefully.

Supposedly such encounters between common people and a disguised monarch or leader had two purposes before Shakespeare wrote Henry V. One was to allow the leader to see how much his men loved and worshipped him, the other was as a means for the common people to speak directly to their king, in which case he would always grant their wishes. Shakespeare, however, uses this encounter in a very different way - everything that Henry says the soldiers contradict especially Williams who in the end insults Henry to the point that the two agree to fight a duel if they survive the battle. Williams contrariness continues even after the battle when in peril of his life, he realizes that he had challenged the king himself and tells Henry it was his own fault for being in disguise.

My point here is that Williams and his two fellow soldiers are as contrary as they can be, yet as far as we know they are loyal soldiers who do their duty during the battle. That is very similar to the picture we get of William Lloyd through his letters - he is almost always contrary to authority, complains a lot, and describes a lot of nonmilitary like behavior. Yet at the same time, Lloyd ultimately does his duty and does it well. We know this because he is put into a leadership position (Sgt) at the beginning of his service and stays in one until the end of the war, even being promoted to Lieutenant when the regiment is mustered out of service.

What I think is universal here is that any victorious army and, therefore, any successful general has to rely to some extent on soldiers other than those who are die hard patriots fighting for the cause. In other words, those who don't want to be there in the first place, but ultimately choose to do their duty. Even Henry in his much smaller, rigidly structured army notes that. "There is no king, be his cause never so spotless, . . . . can try it out all with unspotted soldiers." This is even more true in large armies like the Union army in the Civil War. So what I am thinking here is that the "so what" factor of Lloyd's letters is that they give a picture of that kind of soldier - not the ideal warrior, but the one whose performance is essential for the army to be successful. An idea that needs a lot more thought and work, but which I think has some potential.