DOCSLIB.ORG

Author Interview--Robert R. Laven (A Burned Land) Part 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Author Interview--Robert R. Laven (A Burned Land) Part 2 H-CivWar Author Interview--Robert R. Laven (A Burned Land) Part 2 Discussion published by Niels Eichhorn on Thursday, July 29, 2021 Hello H-CivWar Readers: Today we continue our conversation with Robert R. Laven to talk about his book A Burned Land: The Trans-Mississippi in the Civil War, published by McFarland in 2019. Part 1 That is a good point, interesting. I do want to touch on another aspect of the military struggles in the Trans-Mississippi Region. It seems like many of the leading officers were sent into this region after failing elsewhere—Rosecrans, Pleasonton, Schofield, Magruder—how much was this region an exile for failed generals and shows the importance given to the area by the political leadership on both sides? RRL: Let me address this question by those you have mentioned and if I think of any others I will address those as I go along. Let me start with John Schofield who was not really exiled. I don’t think Schofield was sent to Missouri because of any failings on his part. Actually Schofield was brought into the Missouri Military District Command after John C. Fremont. It was Schofield who helped create the Enrolled Militia and the Provisional Enrolled Militia for the defense of Missouri during the war. His actions actually took some pressure off of the U. S. Army to provide active units from being deployed in Missouri. Remember it was John Schofield’s command that parried with John Bell Hood’s Army of Tennessee in 1864 and inflicted enormous casualties on that Army at Franklin, Tennessee. As for William Rosecrans the moniker of exile in Missouri might be true to some extent. Rosecrans replaced Schofield who had been promoted to higher command within George Thomas’s command in Tennessee. Remember Rosecrans had just lost the Battle of Chickamauga in September 1863 and retreated to Chattanooga; here he was replaced by U.S. Grant. Rosecrans was of the type that his nervous energy served him well at Murfreesboro but not so much at Chickamauga. He would bring that nervous energy with him to St. Louis. When Price’s Army of Missouri entered the state in September 1864, Rosecrans immediately communicated to Halleck in Washington his need for more regular troops to defend St. Louis. He was, in this case correct, he had fewer than 5,000 men to defend the city and most of those were manning the forts that surrounded it. He deeply distrusted the local populace and suspended business for days as Price moved into the state. It was from Rosecrans request that Alfred Pleasonton and A.J. Smith’s XVI Corps was redirected from Sherman, in Georgia, to St. Louis. Frankly I think Alfred Pleasonton is underrated, he truly was an excellent Cavalry commander; at least by Grant’s estimation. When he arrived in Missouri there was little coordination among the mounted troops to take action and he immediately corrected this. He also calmed Rosecrans and by the time Price was headed toward Jefferson City Pleasonton was in hot pursuit. I think the fact that Citation: Niels Eichhorn. Author Interview--Robert R. Laven (A Burned Land) Part 2. H-CivWar. 07-29-2021. https://networks.h-net.org/node/4113/discussions/7958409/author-interview-robert-r-laven-burned-land-part-2 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 1 H-CivWar Grant, who was now in command of the Union Army out east, already decided that his Cavalry Commander would be Phil Sheridan. So Pleasanton was sort of the odd man out and it was his good fortune to be sent out west where his service was indeed in need of. His actions helped put the squeeze on Price’s Army and may in some respects contributed to its defeat even more than Samuel Curtis. Well I should not sell Curtis short. I see it this way Curtis became the anvil and Pleasonton turned out to be the hammer. As for the Confederates there were some who were transferred because of their less than stellar performance. For John Magruder his failure with the Army of Northern Virginia during the Seven days, outside Richmond, vexed the commander Robert E. Lee so much that he wanted him out of his Army. Magruder soon found himself in the Trans-Mississippi Dept. under Theophilus Holmes. Here he actually distinguished himself with the recapture of the port of Galveston in 1863. The citizens of Galveston never forgot Magruder. He is buried there. I have at least one more person I should highlight on the Confederate side, Edmund Kirby Smith. By 1863 the situation of the Confederate forces seemed dismal. President Davis saw Theophilus Holmes as being ineffective and soon replaced him with Smith. For Smith, who had been promoted to Lt. General, the assignment seemed to be a demotion but in fact he was sorely needed at the time. It was Smith, at the urging of Davis, to strike a blow at the North and the Union forces. It was Smith who decided on the invasion of Missouri and put Price in command. This disappointed Richard Taylor, another fine officer, who wanted more focus on southeast Louisiana and indeed Taylor, literally took command of that region with the acquiescence of Smith who recognized Taylor’s ability; but was always at odds with him. However, this divided command only ended up weakening the Trans- Mississippi for the Confederacy. It is a complicated list for sure. To slowly draw to a close, I was curious about sources. I noticed that for example the “enlistment” numbers for the N. E. Missouri Cavalry fluctuated quite a bit. Did you encounter any issues with sources? Contradictory material that was difficult to verify? RRL: Niels, you well know that it is all about methodology and the process of demythologizing. Research is always one of foot work. I found that the official reports from the Record of the Rebellion to be reliable but it also contained contradictory individual accounts of what took place in the war. For example I refer to Sterling Price’s report on events during the Raid in Missouri in 1864. His official report and it was a long one; was that the raid was a rounding success. But in William Cabell’s report he indicates that Price made a number of mistakes including poor generalship. Kirby Smith seems to support this conclusion for after the raid he was intent on investigating Price for his failure to follow Smith’s orders. I think that your comment about the N.E. Missouri has some validity. Many of those recruits did not remain long and many fought only locally before simply leaving after Porter moved on. Keep in mind that Missouri had organized what it called Missouri State Guard and the Confederate command in the Trans-Mississippi failed to recognize it as part of the regular forces operating there. In that case it was not as much contradictory material as it was simply difficult to keep recruits in your ranks and the record of those confederate recruits varied from one county to the other. But I have to say I had a lot of good sources, particularly from the Missouri State Archives. Citation: Niels Eichhorn. Author Interview--Robert R. Laven (A Burned Land) Part 2. H-CivWar. 07-29-2021. https://networks.h-net.org/node/4113/discussions/7958409/author-interview-robert-r-laven-burned-land-part-2 Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. 2 H-CivWar There have been quite a few scholars of primarily Virginia who do not think the Trans-Mississippi or West matter much, what do you think is the most important aspect of the fighting in this region that contradicts such a perception? RRL: I really can’t answer for the scholars in Virginia other than to say that every period should be evaluated within the largest possible context; one always needs to be conscious of bias in that regard. Let’s face it the size of the forces operating in Virginia were much larger than those across the Mississippi River. Is that a basis for defining which theatre was more important? We have to be honest with ourselves. I don’t think it should be. I suspect that Lincoln thought otherwise or he would not have suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus in Missouri if he thought the western theatre was unimportant. As I have pointed out in the previous arguments, the fighting was not as defined as it was out east; it was not always large conventional armies maneuvering against one another. I believe one can argue that the war in the Trans-Mississippi took on a more asymmetrical war appearance than that out east in Virginia. I think the scholars in Virginia miss that aspect. Remember there are some Historians who think Champion Hill; a battle fought in the west, was the most decisive of the American Civil War. One more important point I need to make here! It is important to remember that the Confederate government in Richmond siphoned off a great deal of the Trans-Mississippi manpower from the Western Confederacy. So I believe it is erroneous to think that the west did not matter. Without that source the Confederate armies out east would have been even further diminished and the Confederacy would not have existed as it did. I think this was paramount for Virginia’s existence. Do you plan to continue writing about the Civil War? RRL: Niels, as of right now I am not, but that does not mean that something will not percolate in my head at some point.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Murder in Kentucky In
    A Murder in Kentucky http://civilwar150.longwood.edu In late September 1862, most of the nation’s attention was focused on Kentucky, where Confederate forces under General Braxton Bragg were advancing into the central region of the state, while Edmund Kirby-Smith’s command moved into Eastern Kentucky. As Bragg’s army occupied Bardstown, a Union force under General Don Carlos Buell raced northward from Tennessee in a frantic effort to reach Louisville before the Confederates could occupy that strategically important city. On September 25 Buell’s force arrived in Louisville, beating Bragg in the race to the city. The Federals still had much work to do over the following days in order to complete the city’s defenses in the event of a southern attack. Buell also sent a portion of his force towards the Kentucky capital of Frankfort, in an effort to prevent Bragg and Smith from uniting their commands. Buell eventually moved his troops southward against Bragg, which would culminate in the October 8th battle of Perryville. As the Federals strengthened Louisville’s defenses, a bizarre confrontation would occur between two Union generals that would leave one of the men dead. Union Brigadier General Jefferson C. Davis had been born in 1828 and served in the Mexican War, where he earned a promotion to lieutenant. At the outbreak of the Civil War he took part in the defense of Fort Sumter, before leading units at the battles of Wilson’s Creek and Pea Ridge and subsequently being assigned to the command of Major General William Nelson in Kentucky.
    [Show full text]
  • Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant Papers Finding Aid
    Mississippi State University Scholars Junction USGPL Finding Aids Ulysses S. Grant Presidential Library 12-1-2020 Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant papers Finding Aid Ulysses S. Grant Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsjunction.msstate.edu/usgpl-findingaids Recommended Citation Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant papers, Ulysses S. Grant Presidential Library, Mississippi State University This Text is brought to you for free and open access by the Ulysses S. Grant Presidential Library at Scholars Junction. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGPL Finding Aids by an authorized administrator of Scholars Junction. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant papers USGPL.USGJDG This finding aid was produced using ArchivesSpace on December 01, 2020. Mississippi State University Libraries P.O. Box 5408 Mississippi State 39762 [email protected] URL: http://library.msstate.edu/specialcollections Ulysses S. Grant and Julia Dent Grant papers USGPL.USGJDG Table of Contents Summary Information ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Biographical Note: Ulysses S. Grant ................................................................................................................. 3 Scope and Content Note ...................................................................................................................................... 6 Administrative
    [Show full text]
  • CODING: Words Stricken Are Deletions; Words Underlined Are Additions
    FLORIDA HOUSE OF REP RES ENTATIVE S HB 139 2018 1 A bill to be entitled 2 An act relating to the National Statuary Hall; 3 requesting the Joint Committee on the Library of 4 Congress to approve the replacement of the statue of 5 Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith in the National 6 Statuary Hall Collection with a statue of Mary McLeod 7 Bethune; providing an effective date. 8 9 WHEREAS, in March 2016, the Florida Legislature passed, and 10 the Governor signed into law, Senate Bill 310, authorizing the 11 replacement of the statue of Confederate General Edmund Kirby 12 Smith in the National Statuary Hall Collection with a statue of 13 a prominent Florida citizen recommended by the ad hoc committee 14 of the Great Floridians Program within the Division of 15 Historical Resources of the Department of State, and 16 WHEREAS, one of the three prominent Florida citizens 17 recommended by the ad hoc committee is Mary McLeod Bethune, and 18 WHEREAS, Mary McLeod Bethune was born on July 10, 1875, in 19 Mayesville, South Carolina, and she was the first member of her 20 family, including all of her 16 siblings, born free following 21 the conclusion of the Civil War, and 22 WHEREAS, beginning at a young age, Mary McLeod Bethune 23 became engaged with learning and teaching after receiving an 24 opportunity to attend Trinity Presbyterian Mission School in her 25 hometown, and her dedication was evidenced through attending as Page 1 of 4 CODING: Words stricken are deletions; words underlined are additions.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Hy Willism J{*N Ulrich
    Copyright hy Willism J { * n Ulrich i960 THE HCKTHERN MILITARY MIBD IM RBSARD TO RECOHSTRaCTlOH, 1865-1872: THE ATTITUDES OF TEN LEADBKj UMIŒ GENERALS DISSERTATIOH Presented in Partial Fulfillnsent of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Phi losopby in the Graduate School of the Oiio State University By m U A M JŒ3N ULRICH, B.A., H.Ac The Ohio State University 19^9 Approved by AdviS D^artment of History ACKBiaWLEDGMEIfrS The writer must acknowledge his indebtedness to many indivi­ duals idio were of significant help to him in the preparation and cOTçletîon of this manuscript. ^ thanks must go to Professor Henry H. Simms, History Department, of the Ohio State University, It was he who first introduced me to the subject, and gave invaluable and suggestive advice during all stages of the work. Words cannot express adequately sy p r e d a t i o n for the vast services rendered by the staff of the Ohio State University Library, especially the Interlibrary Loan department. The staff of the Library of Congress gave ^lendid assistance as did Mr. Drag and Mr. DePorry of the Manuscripts Division. Mr. Boyer of the Bcwdoia College Library was very cooperative in permitting me to make use of the Howard Psmers. Special thanks are again extended to Mr. Blanchette and staff of the Essex Institute located at Salem, Massachusetts. They allowed me to inspect the Banks Papers. It is nearly icfflossible to say "thank you" enough to my dearest mother for all her sacrifices and words of inspiration. Like­ wise a sincere ^>preciation for all her assistance, encouragement and understanding is due my beloved wife.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Reports of the Selectmen, Clerk, Treasurer, Road Agent, School
    Official Reports 1947 Bristol, New Hampshire Annual Reports of the Selectmen, Clerk, Treasurer, Road Agent, School Board, Firewards, Trustees Minot-Sleeper Library, Kelley Park Commission, Bristol Water Works and other Officials Zowh ofMstoL ft. H. year ending Deeember 31, 1947 Musgrove Printing House Bristol. N. H 352.37 826 I ^4 7 TOWN OFFICERS MODERATOR JOHN O. LOVEJOY TOWN CLERK MYRA K. EMMONS SELECTMEN G. G. CUMMINGS W. JOHN SCHOFIELD BOWDOIN PLUMER TREASURER WILLIAM C. WHITE TAX COLLECTOR DR. JOHN W. COOLIDGE * CLYDE E. SMITH ROAD AGENT NATHAN H. MORRISON AUDITORS CAROLINE F. ALEXANDER FREDERICK J. MORGAN FIRE WARDEN ALFRED M. PAYNE DEPUTY WARDENS LEE A. POLLARD ARTHUR CORNEAU WM. C. HAZELTINE T. T. GOODWIN FRED E. SCHNEIDER WM. B. TUCKER 3 CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF HEALTH GRANVILLE F. WHEELER * SUPERVISORS OF CHECKLIST T. T. GOODWIN JOHN C. RAY DONALD C. LAMSON REPRESENTATIVE TO THE GENERAL COURT GLENN L. WHEELER TRUSTEES MINOT-SLEEPER LIBRARY JOHN'O. LOVEJOY JOHN W. DOLE MYRA P. CAVIS KARL G. CAVIS WILLIAM C. WHITE ELINOR C. PLUMER ISABEL PROCTOR ANNE J. WILLMAN HAROLD J. FOLLANSBEE POLICE OFFICER LAWRENCE A. McKINLEY BUDGET COMMITTEE Harold H. Haney, Dr. John W. Coolidge, Mrs. T W inifred Gray, Fred Schneider, Samuel W'orthen, Miss Harriet Gilman, Rodney Allard, Hadley B. Worthen, Harold J. Follansbee, Mrs. Winifred Goodhue, L. E. Allard, Wm. H. Marston, Mrs. Glenn L. Wheeler, John C. Ray and Morris S. Gray. PARK COMMISSION Morton H. Cavis, Chairman, Harold J. Follansbee, Harold J. Souther, Wilbur K. Doran, John O. Lovejoy, Efvin W. Hopkins. * Resigned THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE To the Inhabitants of the Town of Bristol in the County of Grafton in said State, qualified to vote in Town Affairs : You are hereby notified to meet at the Town Hall in said Bristol on Tuesday, the ninth (9th) day of March next, at nine of the clock in the forenoon, to act upon the following subjects: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Road to Plattsburgh: Progressive-Era Reform, Army Preparedness, and Officer Development
    The road to Plattsburgh: Progressive-era reform, army preparedness, and officer development, 1886-1918 By Alex Kenneth Turpin B.A., University of Central Arkansas, 2011 A THESIS Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF ARTS Department of History College of Arts and Sciences KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 2021 Approved by: Major Professor Dr. Donald J. Mrozek i Copyright © Alex Turpin 2021. ii Abstract In 1869 General William Tecumseh Sherman was assigned as the Commanding General of the United States Army. During his tenure, Sherman cultivated a period of reform in the post- Civil War Army that was featured by a movement among the officers to professionalize the corps and the founding the Infantry and Cavalry School at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in 1881. Although senior officers in the Army resisted the idea that education was necessary after graduating from West Point, the belief persisted that necessary leadership skills and postgraduate training in military art and science was a viable alternative to learning through experience on the battlefield. This period also featured the emergence of progressive reformers such as Frederick Winslow Taylor, whose work on management reform and reducing work to a science marked a turning point in civilian workplace reform during the Industrial Age. Reformers worked to instill order amid the chaos of the Industrial Age, and this work to increase organization and efficiency was influential on the Army’s reform effort in the years leading to World War I. Elihu Root was assigned as the Secretary of War in 1899. Root was charged with reorganizing the Army following its haphazard mobilization for the Spanish-American War.
    [Show full text]
  • A War All Our Own: American Rangers and the Emergence of the American Martial Culture
    A War All Our Own: American Rangers and the Emergence of the American Martial Culture by James Sandy, M.A. A Dissertation In HISTORY Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTORATE IN PHILOSOPHY Approved Dr. John R. Milam Chair of Committee Dr. Laura Calkins Dr. Barton Myers Dr. Aliza Wong Mark Sheridan, PhD. Dean of the Graduate School May, 2016 Copyright 2016, James Sandy Texas Tech University, James A. Sandy, May 2016 Acknowledgments This work would not have been possible without the constant encouragement and tutelage of my committee. They provided the inspiration for me to start this project, and guided me along the way as I slowly molded a very raw idea into the finished product here. Dr. Laura Calkins witnessed the birth of this project in my very first graduate class and has assisted me along every step of the way from raw idea to thesis to completed dissertation. Dr. Calkins has been and will continue to be invaluable mentor and friend throughout my career. Dr. Aliza Wong expanded my mind and horizons during a summer session course on Cultural Theory, which inspired a great deal of the theoretical framework of this work. As a co-chair of my committee, Dr. Barton Myers pushed both the project and myself further and harder than anyone else. The vast scope that this work encompasses proved to be my biggest challenge, but has come out as this works’ greatest strength and defining characteristic. I cannot thank Dr. Myers enough for pushing me out of my comfort zone, and for always providing the firmest yet most encouraging feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Information to Users
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. UMI University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Com pany 300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 Order Number 9325494 “War at every man’s door” : The struggle for East Tennessee, 1860—1869. (Volumes I and n) Fisher, Noel Charles, Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • The Battles of Mansfield (Sabine Crossroads) and Pleasant Hill, Louisiana, 8 and 9 April 1864
    RICE UNIVERSITY DEAD-END AT THE CROSSROADS: THE BATTLES OF MANSFIELD (SABINE CROSSROADS) AND PLEASANT HILL, LOUISIANA, 8 AND 9 APRIL 1864 by Richard Leslie Riper, Jr. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS Thesis Director's Signature Houston, Texas May, 1976 Abstract Dead-End at the Crossroads: The Battles of Mansfield (Sabine Cross¬ roads) and Pleasant Hill, Louisiana, 8 and 9 April 1864 Richard Leslie Riper, Jr. On 8 April 1864 a Union army commanded by Major General Nathaniel P. Banks was defeated by a Confederate army commanded by Major General Richard Taylor at the small town of Mansfield, Louisiana. In Union records the engagement was recorded as the battle of Sabine Crossroads, and the defeat signaled the "high-water mark" for the Union advance toward Shreveport. General Banks, after repeated urging by Major General Henry Hal- leck, General-in-Chief of the Union Army, had launched a drive up the Red River through Alexandria and Natchitoches to capture Shreveport, the industrial hub of the Trans-Mississippi Department. From New Or¬ leans and Berwick, Louisiana, and from Vicksburg, Mississippi, the Fédérais converged on Alexandria. From Little Rock, Arkansas, a Union column under Major General Frederick Steele was to join Banks at Shreve¬ port. Three major infantry forces and the Union Navy under Admiral David D. Porter were to participate in the campaign, yet no one was given supreme authority to coordinate the forces. Halleck's orders were for the separate commands only to co-operate with Banks--a clear viola¬ tion of the principle of unity of command.
    [Show full text]
  • Episode 238: a Conflict Ends Week of April 26-May 2, 1865 in North
    Episode 238: A Conflict Ends Week of April 26-May 2, 1865 In North Carolina during the last week of April 1865 the second major rebel army surrendered, while the remnants of the Confederate government continued its flight southward. Over the next two months the remaining southern forces laid down their arms as the bloodiest and most devastating war in American history finally came to a close. General Joseph Johnston had for ten days negotiated with Union General William T. Sherman over the surrender of his command. The two officers had first conferred on April 17 and the next day had signed a controversial agreement that was quickly repudiated by the U.S. Government because it was perceived as too lenient and having gone beyond the realm of a simple military surrender into a broader peace settlement. Furious with Secretary of War Edwin Stanton for his interference, Sherman nevertheless met again with Johnston on April 26 at Bennett Place near Durham Station, and the two generals signed a surrender agreement based on the one signed between Generals Grant and Lee on April 9. Johnston’s capitulation included about 30,000 Confederate troops in the Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida, leaving only southern forces in Mississippi, Alabama and the Trans-Mississippi still under arms. On the same day that Johnston surrendered, John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of President Lincoln, was trapped by Federal cavalry in a barn in the Virginia countryside. Refusing to surrender, he was shot by one of the Union troopers and dragged from the barn, dying soon after. He was thus spared the fate of his fellow conspirators, virtually all of whom were arrested, tried by military court, and sentenced to either long prison terms or death by hanging.
    [Show full text]
  • “Bug-Out Boogie” – the Swan Song of Segregation in the United States
    “BUG-OUT BOOGIE” – THE SWAN SONG OF SEGREGATION IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY: DESEGREGATION DURING THE KOREAN WAR AND DISSOLUTION OF THE ALL-BLACK 24th INFANTRY REGIMENT BY C2014 Ben Thomas Post II Submitted to the graduate degree program in History and the Graduate Faculty of the University of Kansas in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ___________________________________ Dr. Theodore Wilson, Chairperson ___________________________________ Dr. Adrian Lewis, Committee Member _____________________________ Dr. Jeffrey Moran, Committee Member _____________________________ Dr. Roger Spiller, Committee Member _____________________________ Dr. Barbara Thompson, Committee Member Date defended: August 15, 2014 The Dissertation Committee for Ben Thomas Post II certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: “BUG-OUT BOOGIE” – THE SWAN SONG OF SEGREGATION IN THE UNITED STATES ARMY: DESEGREGATION DURING THE KOREAN WAR AND DISSOLUTION OF THE ALL-BLACK 24th INFANTRY REGIMENT ___________________________________ Dr. Theodore Wilson, Chairperson Date approved: August 15, 2014 ii Abstract In tracing the origins of the movement to desegregate the U.S. Army, most scholars pointed to President Truman’s Executive Order 9981 signed on July 26, 1948. Other scholars highlighted the work done by the “President’s Committee on Equality and Opportunity in the Armed Services,” also known as the Fahy Committee, which was formed as a result of Order 9981. However, when the United States was compelled to take military action following the surprise attack by North Korean forces on June 25, 1950, the U.S. Army units sent into action in Korea were mostly composed of segregated units such as the all-black 24th Infantry Regiment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Irony of Emancipation in the Civil War South Clark Scott Nesbit
    The Irony of Emancipation in the Civil War South Clark Scott Nesbit, Jr. Richmond, Virginia B.A., Swarthmore College, 2001 M.A., University of Virginia, 2005 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Corcoran Department of History University of Virginia December, 2013 2 © Clark Scott Nesbit, Jr., 2013 3 ABSTRACT Nearly everyone in the Civil War South had opportunity to feel the irony of emancipation. This irony arose from the wartime difference between ending slavery as a regime and freeing slaves, as individuals. This dissertation explores the ways in which white southerners sacrificed, or refused to sacrifice, their interest in the enslavement of particular southern blacks for the sake of a regime that would safeguard slavery. It argues that African Americans at times sought their own freedom even if it meant aiding the Confederate regime, and at other times sought to avoid warzones even if it meant remaining legally enslaved. It argues that the Union’s war to defeat the Confederacy was also a war waged against the Confederates’ main source of labor. Such a war meant, for most who became free in the Civil War, emancipation through displacement and integration into a new system for managing former slaves, the refugee camp/plantation/recruitment complex. For those who remained in the wake of Sherman’s marches and other U.S. raids, it meant living in a land with little food. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my dissertation committee, Ed Ayers, Gary Gallagher, Peter Onuf, and Maurie McInnis for their patience and thoughtful critiques.
    [Show full text]