The Slings and Arrows of the Past

Tallyho Dear Readers!

Wow. Time has flown. This is my 100th blog post. I'd have hit this number a long time ago had life and fate not intervened. Thankfully, I am finishing my CJ Master's this week and will submit my final paper to be judged by a panel of three and hopefully passed, lest I have to wallow in the mire of graduate education for another semester. I'm pretty sure I'll be okay. In fact, I really should be finishing said paper now but why do today what you can put off until tomorrow? If anything, my BA, MA, and soon to be MS degrees have taught me that procastination is an art, worthy of Picasso or that dude who cut his ear off and mailed it to a prostitute. But I digress.

The subject of today's meager offering is similar to that of my very first post. They are two bookends, if you will, though my blog will, like the show, go on. I am elbow, or perhaps arse, deep in research at the moment concerning the Battle of Britain and the pilots and ground crews who took part. In a way, my whole life has been research about it as my personal World War Two library, while not as expansive as the one pictured above, consists of several hundred volumes of which a large number touch on the air campaigns. Though I did not know it until after we got married, The Redhead's grandfather was waist gunner on the B-17 Luscious Lucy and made the first daylight raid over Berlin with the 100th Bomb Group. (Keep an eye out for the next HBO/Tom Hanks/Steven Spielberg production which will involve The Bloody Hundredth!) Since there are so many other wonderful volumes written about the Battle of Britain, I do not see a need to add to them, at least not in the traditional sense. No, Dear Reader, I am involved in research for a novel. 

I am interested in the Irish pilots who left the Republic (though it was still the Free State at the time) to battle the foe in the skies over England. I've seen the number listed as 10 but also as 13. Rather than deal with an actual person, I've decided to add an extra fictitious pilot to that gallant band and his story will be representative of the rest as best I can make it. While I'd love to delve into matters of plot and characterization with you, as this is an open blog page, I feel it best to keep that close to my vest lest someone more talented than I take the idea and run with it. But I assure you that you'll be the first to know when I am ready to discuss it. The targeted completion date is 30 June 2016.

Czech Pilots of 310 Squadron

Source

I have long been interested in the process in which writers research and write their books, but especially how authors of historical fiction engage in that delicate dance between balancing the actual events with the story itself. With my work, I decided to make up a squadron that never existed as that gave me a tad bit more freedom, but I also drew from numerous sources about other squadrons in the area to make them as realistic as I could. What strikes me the most, and always has, about pilots in the Battle of Britain was how young they were. Though the movies often depict them as in their late 20s or 30s, the truth is many of them were teenagers or barely in their 20s. This is something I have to keep in mind as I write. As I was a teenage boy once who got into all sorts of mischief, I can't imagine what I would have done in an airplane! 

I don't go for the bodice ripping sort of historical fiction because, at heart, I'm something of a prude. I was listening to an audiobook in the car one day. I had the windows rolled down and was at a red light. The book was a historical one, and not a romance novel. Then some totally random sex scene took place and there I was, windows down, broadcasting it to various and sundry folks in nearby cars. So there is and will be none of that in my book, sorry to disappoint. I prefer to let the reader use their imagination rather than describe in graphic detail various acts that are probably illegal in ten states and five countries. 

My own schedule involves writing 1500 words a day, though I'll allow myself to do more if I feel like it. Sometimes I get it down in an hour. Other times it takes me 8 hours. I'm easily distracted and given my physical limitations, I have to type standing up because sitting down is too painful. Though I use a computer, I sort of wish I had an old manual typewriter. I think that would be great fun though it would probably drive my cats and The Redhead crazy. And speaking of The Redhead, I let her read each chapter as it is done so that she can point out everything I did wrong in it and make notes for me to correct when the joyous time known as editing begins. I'd rather run backwards, naked through a cornfield than edit, but it must be done. Just not yet.

The Redhead and I.

I "may" have my hand on her posterior in this photo.

How cheeky of me!!!!

So, Dear Reader, if you have any tips or advice on the art of writing historical fiction, I'd be happy to hear it. Furthermore, if there is anything you love or hate in historical fiction, I'd be happy to hear that too. Though writing a book may seem like a solitary task, in fact, it involves many people. Each in their own way. Who knows, one of you may have been my inspiration for an evil villain. I jest.....partially.

My name is Lee Hutch and I am a Half A$$ Historian who rather likes his wife's a$$. So until next time, check your six and don't prang your kite or you'll catch a rocket from your supervisor. He can be a right bastard. 

A Lawman's Untold Tale

Friends,

I don't know much about the man seated second from the left in this photo. His name was John M. Cameron and he served as a Texas Ranger, first in Company E of the Frontier Battalion and later as a Special Ranger. His service stretched from 1891 until around 1902. He was my great-grandfather's brother. As he and I were the only two lawmen in the family, I decided to set out to find what I could about him. It isn't much, but I found something. This week I received a nice, thick packet of information courtesy of the Texas Ranger Museum in Waco. I visited many, many years ago and I think it would be nice to go back sometime. Anyway, they dug out thirty pages of records and sent copies my way.

I can now tell you that Uncle Cameron was tall, like me. His enlistment records state that he was 6 feet tall which, in the 1890s, was very tall. He had black hair, brown eyes, and a dark complexion. Like me, he was temperate in his habits. Or at least he said he was on his application. His birthplace was Jackson County, Alabama. His father, a piece of information I already knew, served in the 4th Alabama Cavalry during the Civil War. Uncle Cameron enlisted in Company E of the Frontier Battalion in 1891 at the age of 20. For his service, he received 30 dollars a month which is the equivalent of $800 a month today. He had to supply his own horse and weapon too. Most of the paperwork I received dealt with pay and muster rolls. But there were some other interesting bits too. In 1895, he applied to become (and did) a Special Ranger. They served without pay but still had Ranger authority. There is an interesting supporting document from his company commander as to why such an appointment was necessary. 

The above is his commission. Unlike what you may see in the older westerns, Frontier Battalion Rangers did not carry badges. They above piece of paper had to be kept on their person at all times and served as proof of office and authority.

Above is his application to become a Special Ranger, along with his signed and notarized Oath of Office. The wording of his oath of office is not all that different than that which peace officers in Texas take today.  What follows is the document that his company commander wrote in support of it.

The affidavit reads as follows "The appointment is asked for that Mr. John Cameron may have this much protection being an important state's witness in a murder case and the defendants in said case being enemies of his might seek to take his life in order to get revenge as well as to do away with his testimony in said case. J.H. Rogers, Capt, Commdg, Co. E, F.B." The application was successful and he did serve as a Special Ranger for several years afterwards. One can assume that the men involved in the murder either got sent to prison or to the gallows. If they were found not guilty or the charges were dropped, in any case they did not get revenge.

This is a copy of a report that he wrote in which he describes arresting a man for drunk and disorderly conduct and also a group of men for horse theft. What is also interesting is that contrary to what some may think, the Frontier Battalion of the Texas Rangers did not have quite the same authority that you might think. When they were established after Reconstruction, their main job was to protect settlements from Comanche raids and to deal with groups of bandits that preyed on man and beast alike. They enlisted for short stints of time, sometimes only a month, and served at the leisure of both their captain and the state government. They were really more of a military arm of the state than peace officers, quite unlike the modern day Texas Rangers.

I'm happy to have learned what I could about him, even if it is a little limited. His service to the State of Texas should not go unnoticed and I hope he's happy that I learned more about it. Uncle Cameron and I have a few things in common, including bad handwriting. It is nice when old documents like these make you feel a little closer to long dead relatives that you never knew. 

I may not have been a Texas Ranger, and my trusty steed may have been a Chevy Silverado, but at least I got to wear a cowboy hat. My name is Lee Hutch and I am a Half A$$ Historian.

How the West Was Fun?

Co. E, Frontier Battalion, Texas Rangers

Alice, Texas 1892

John Cameron (seated second from left) is my great-great uncle

 

Dear Readers,

 

I confess. I enjoy a good western, be it a novel or a movie. Maybe it is because when I was a lad, I watched a lot of John Wayne movies with my father.......most of them, I think. El Dorado and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon are my favorites. I'll be the first to admit that westerns do not present a true depiction of life on the frontier. The women characters tend to be very poorly written with minor roles. In real life, women on the west had a bit more freedom than they did in the East which is why, by the time the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, women already had the right to vote (in state and local elections) in every state west of the Mississippi. When you watch cowboy movies, notice you see very few black or Hispanic cowboys. Again, this is contrary to history. Some have estimated that one out of every four Texas cowboys was black. Naturally, the Native American characters are rarely portrayed in a positive light. Instead, they are either warriors, drunkards, or the Wise Indian stereotype. All that being said, I still enjoy watching a good western.

 

The genre has fallen out of favor over the past several decades, with a few exceptions such as the success of the movie Tombstone which, despite being an excellent movie, is also a bit short on historical accuracy. But I can quote every Doc Holliday line in the film! (I'm your huckleberry.) I'm not sure why I like them so much. As far as the novels go, westerns are rarely great literature but they are pretty good reads. Many of them are sort of like a male romance novel. There is a main character, who is quick with a gun and very cool. The ladies all flock to him. And he kills bad guys. They actually have a lot in common with the thriller genre too (think Steve Berry's Cotton Malone series). Fun reads, if somewhat empty of any substance.

 

My dream job!

 

Older western movies are morality plays. There are clear cut good guys (in white hats) and bad guys (in black hats). In the end, good triumphs over evil. Perhaps part of their appeal is because in real life that doesn't always happen. The bad guys win sometimes. But people don't want to pay money to see that. Movies of any genre rarely depict life as it really is but rather as some idealized version of life. Such is true with the western. Life in the west sucked. It was a rough, violent place that created hard people to deal with it. Prostitutes in these movies are usually very attractive. This is a far cry from the gonorrhea ridden ladies of the town which existed in frontier settlements. But again, we don't want to see that on film. The movies show the west as being a simpler time, and perhaps, as our world gets more complex, that is why people like watching them.

 

As someone who worked as a lawman in Texas myself, there is a certain bit of the west that still colors the job here. Having the title of "Deputy Marshal" was very cool, in addition to being historic. Unlike the movie marshal's who tended to smote bad guys on Main Street twice a day, I went to work each day hoping I wouldn't have to use to my gun. Then again, I didn't have to deal with armed bandidos sweeping into town to shoot up the streets. Or as the guy said in the Three Amigos "rape the horses and ride off on the women." My trusty steed was a Chevy Silverado, then a Ford Expedition, then a Dodge Charger, and then another Ford Expedition. I never rode at the head of a posse to apprehend horse thieves, but I did get to arrest some bad people nonetheless.

 

Sure, I know that the western genre, particularly the ones from the 30s-60s, are not politically correct by our standards. But many of them are classics and I like them anyway. I'll keep watching them because I enjoy them, not because I think it in any way reflects how life in the west really was. For me, it is good, mindless entertainment. I don't apologize for my love of these books and novels, because, in the words of Captain Brittles (John Wayne) "Never apologize. It's a sign of weakness." Maybe that is why Wayne was married three times? I never rode off into the sunset on my horse with a redheaded saloon girl in tow like I wanted. But I did marry a redhead. She's not a saloon girl though. Much worse. She's from Missouri.

 

My name is Lee Hutch and I am a Half A$$ Historian. My aforementioned great-great uncle and I are the only two people in the family to have been in law enforcement. He died in the line of duty in 1902. And I got hurt and can't work in law enforcement anymore. Maybe it isn't the right occupation for people in my family.

I'm Back With a Great Book Suggestion!

 

 

Dear Friends,

 

I apologize for my long break from the world of blogging. I don't have a good excuse, so I won't waste your time by giving you a bad one. Just kidding. I actually do have a good excuse. In the past, I've been slaving away as an adjunct teaching 8-9 courses a semester while taking 2 graduate classes of my own as I try to finish my MS in Criminal Justice. This past semester, I reduced my teaching load to six classes and this spring I will finish my Criminal Justice degree (finally!). So there you have it. I do not know if I will be as prolific in the upcoming weeks and months as I have been in the past, but I suppose something is better than nothing. Now on to the subject of today's post!

 

I don't know how I missed these books when they came out. I mean, I heard of them, but I did not read them. I can only surmise that it is for the same reasons given above for not blogging very much over the past months. As I am now making an effort to set aside more time for reading and less time for watching TV, over the Christmas break I was able to obtain the Liberation Trilogy by Rick Atkinson. The actual book titles are An Army at Dawn, The Day of Battle, and The Guns at Last Light. If you do the kindle thing, which I finally started doing in May after I ran out of room for any additions to my 2,000 book collection, you can get the three volumes together in a set for a very reasonable price, around $23. So about a week ago, I got my copies and dove in.

 

It is somewhat embarrassing for me to admit that despite having a lifelong interest in World War Two, my knowledge of the campaigns in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy are more general than specific. I can speak at length and with authority on the Eastern Front, the air war over Europe, and the campaign in northwest Europe from D-Day to the Fall of Berlin. I cannot do that as it relates to Operations Torch, Avalanche, or Husky. Compounding my shame is that my own grandfather commanded an infantry platoon in North Africa and Sicily! (Despite having been in the Army since June of 1940, it was until 1943 that the Army decided an officer who was fluent in French and German might be of more use to the war effort as an intelligence officer rather than an infantry officer.) Thankfully, this wonderful series of books has remedied my lack of knowledge!

 

Mr. Atkinson is a journalist. I say this because it means he knows how to tell a story. While plenty of analysis exists in the pages of his books, it is at its core, a narrative history. When it comes to writing this kind of book, journalists have an edge of academic historians. Academics get bogged down in arguing their thesis and storytelling takes a back seat, if it is even in the car at all. Journalists just make better storytellers, in my opinion. This is quite evident in the Liberation Trilogy. His books move from the halls of Washington to Eisenhower's Headquarters, to those of various generals, and finally, to the soldiers in the foxholes, the sailors in their ships, and the aircrew in the planes. This movement is seamless and the transitions excellent. At no point does it appear disjointed or choppy.

 

What I also appreciate about these books is that the author does not follow what I call the Brokaw/Ambrose school of World War Two history which goes something like this: American soldiers in Europe were all wonderful people who were fighting for freedom and liberty for all and did no wrong. And, of course, they won the war all by themselves. Atkinson covers the war warts and all. He mentions cases of American soldiers murdering prisoners, of various misdeeds both minor and serious, and also of serious command lapses, including on Eisenhower's part. He gives full attention to our allies in the West and covers British, Canadian, and even French contributions too. As his volumes cover the fighting in the West, the books do not fully explore the contributions of our Soviet allies, but this was not necessary for these volumes as it was not the point of the books. I did watch a C-SPAN interview with the author and he did talk about the importance of the Soviet contribution. This, of course, flies in the face of contemporary American history which ignores the Soviet war effort and also the fact that the Soviets took on around 80% of the German Army and caused around 90% of their casualties. Given the Russo-phobia that still exists in this country, this is not surprising.

 

I found his analysis of the various commanders to be spot on as well. With all the political infighting that went on, it is surprising that our combined forces were able to accomplish anything! His account of the 36th Infantry Division (Texas National Guard) and their ill fated attempt to cross the Rapido River was exceptionally moving. My grandfather enlisted in the Texas National Guard in June of 1940. He remained part of that unit until January of 1942 when he went to OCS and was, upon graduation, reassigned to a different unit. And this is just one of the many stories told in these marvelous volumes.

 

My grandfather was in the Army from June of 1940 until July of 1946. He rose from the rank of buck private to Captain. He talked a lot about his time in London, or Paris, or Berlin.....where he was part of the first group of Americans to arrive in the city. Granddaddy did not talk a lot about his time in North Africa or Sicily other than to mention some of his soldiers. Though I knew why he was close mouthed about his time in combat, these books help put it into focus a little better. Sadly, my grandfather passed away on Easter Sunday in 2009 at the age of 88. I'm sure he would have enjoyed these books too.

 

Mr. Atkinson's website says he is now working on a trilogy on the American Revolution which sounds quite promising. Given the fact that he spent 15 years researching and writing the Liberation Trilogy, I sure hope the Revolutionary War books don't take that long! Part of me wishes he would turn his attention to the Pacific Theater, but I'm sure that whatever he writes will be good. I'll certainly be looking forward to it.

 

So, Dear Readers, you should make haste to acquire these books if this is a subject which interests you. I promise that you won't be sorry.

 

My name is Lee Hutch and I am a Half Ass Historian.



For Those Who Still Hear the Guns

Friends,

I believe it was Faulkner who said the past is never dead. It isn't even past. There are those of us for whom the past is just as alive as the present. We hear the fading echos of artillery fire from long ago. We sense the presence of those who tread on many a far flung battlefield with us. They haunt our minds and our thoughts. The past drives us to squander the present while we mentally dwell in a bygone era. We spend money and time that we perhaps do not have to focus on an era in which we will never actually live. Is this foolhardy? Is it misguided? I would say no. The world needs people like us. We keep old memories alive.

I suffer from some pretty serious health issues that seem to be getting more serious. I deal with it by retreating in time to the Civil War where I can spend what time I may have left (I don't know) reading books and watching television programs that tell me of an era when things appeared to be more clear cut. More simple. But, of course, they weren't. My own fear of the future is pushing me further into the past. I don't really see this as a bad thing. In fact, I kind of enjoy it as I have always been a Half A$$ Historian. Obviously the Civil War is my bread and butter, but others of you may have different eras that you enjoy (Great War, WW2, etc). 

Does, for example, the Civil War still matter? Recent events have shown that perhaps it does. The problem is the overall pop-culture version of the Civil War which includes the North's own Lost Cause myth that is taught in schools that bother to teach history means that most of those entering the public discourse have no real historical knowledge of the Civil War. That does not, however, stop them from pontificating on the subject. How many of those tearing down Confederate flags from private property can even name a Civil War battle, much less a General. The decline of historical knowledge in this country is exactly why those of us who "live in the past" must continue to do so!

I get frustrated and angry with "professional historians" for many reasons. First of all, the very idea of a "professional" historian is dumb. What makes you "professional"? Some will say that you must have a PhD. Others say no, just a graduate degree period (like an MA). Others say to be "professional" you have to get paid to teach history or work at a museum. Said professionals scoff at books written by non-PhD people as being "popular history". I wonder if they ever think that there might be a reason for the popular part? Second, though a lot of professional historians do know about history, their knowledge is more limited than you might think. For example, military history is very rarely taught in graduate history programs (with a few exceptions). It is all about race, class, and gender now. If that is what you want to learn about, great. If not, you are screwed. Third, though many of them teach history (and teach it well), there is a difference in teaching history and truly living it. By that I don't mean in the reenacting sense, but rather living with the past in your mind 24/7. 

When I was healthy enough to be able to visit Civil War battlefields, I could still hear the cannons and the muskets. I could see everything unfolding in my mind when I closed my eyes. The Civil War is not simply empty words on paper or some boring and grainy old documentary. It is real. For those of us who still hear the guns, the war rages on in the recesses of our minds and we will forever be prisoners of it. Yes, it still matters. 

What They Fought For

 

Friends,

I've been mulling over writing this for a while. I'd talk myself out of it and then talk myself into it. I've touched on the topic in various other blog posts, but I never have, as of yet, taken pen to hand to address the issue directly. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and outright misunderstanding as it relates to the motives of Civil War soldiers, much of it due to academic historians with no military service ascribing lofty ideals and values on a topic which they really know little about. I think there is a distinction that can be drawn between what causes a war and why men fight in it just as there is between what motivates a soldier to enlist and what keeps him there after the first shots are fired. They are all different. Historians blur the lines between a war's causes and the reasons why soldiers fight. It is an honest mistake, perhaps. I can sum up the traditional view on the Civil War as follows:

1. Northern soldiers enlisted to preserve the Union or to free the slaves.

2. Confederate soldiers enlisted to defend the institution of slavery or at least a society that tolerated the existence of slavery.

This is problematic for a few reasons. Did Northern soldiers enlist to free the slaves? Not really. And certainly not before the Emancipation Proclamation. Historians who promote the Northern version of the Lost Cause Myth (ie: the North was a racial utopia and freeing the slaves was the objective of the war all along) often ignore the fact that enlistments dropped and desertions increased after the Proclamation was issued. Why do you think the North had to resort to conscription? Historians love to gloss over that small point. As to the Confederate side, I've actually read books wherein historians argue that though it is true that most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, they belonged to a society in which they could aspire to slave ownership and thus all enlisted to preserve it. Seriously? You are going to risk being disemboweled by canister rounds because you want to own slaves one day. I don't buy it. Also, consider that when the Confederacy passed its draft law in 1862 which exempted the planter class from military service, Confederate enlistments dropped and desertion increased quite a bit. Why would this happen if the Southern soldier all ran out to fight so that they could own slaves that they didn't actually own. Sure, there are letters and diaries where Confederate soldiers do talk about joining up over the slave question. There are a lot more that don't mention it. The same is true for Northern accounts as well. Some mention wanting to free the slaves but many others are silent on that point. The truth is, more Northerners cared little about the slave question (as the Northern economy relied on Southern cotton). 

So what reasons then motivated soldiers to enlist? They are as varied as the number of soldiers who enlisted. I think it is important to remember that the average Civil War soldier was in his early twenties. Some were older and quite a few were younger. Really, they were no different than the men and women who join the military today. So here are a few reasons why I think soldiers enlisted.

1. Protect their homes. (Very important to the Confederate soldier who's region faced invasion.)

2. Peer pressure. (Men who didn't run out to enlist received women's undergarments in the mail!)

3. Money (more so in the North....especially when bounty money was involved)

4. Adventure. (Most people lived their whole lives within 100 miles of where they were born. The war promised a chance of adventure that their regular lives lacked.)

5. Sense of duty (For many, joining up with everyone else just seemed like it was the right thing to do.)

For some, they may have enlisted for more than one reason. I just think it is insane how historians argue that the average Confederate soldier rushed out to enlist and fought for four long, brutal years because some rich planter wanted him to. Soldiers don't die for causes. They die for their comrades in the ranks. Why would the Civil War be any different? Or is it because historians are sometimes guilty of imposing their own moral judgments and political values on the past. Does this mean that slavery did not cause the war? No, of course not. Slavery was at the root of the Southern economy and if you took it out of the South there would not have been a war. But what causes a war and why soldiers enlist and fight are not always the same thing and historians would do well to remember that. But for those who sit tucked away in academia, far from the smoke and noise of a Civil War battlefield (or any other battlefield) it is too easy to sit in judgment rather than reporting facts. And that is sad.

And yes, I do know that there are documents and letters that may state things other than what I have written about. However, there are also plenty of others which DO support what I am saying. If you discount one because it doesn't support your already arrived at conclusion, then you move lower than Half A$$ Historian and just become an A$$. 

My name is Lee Hutch and I am a Half A$$ Historian. 

NEVER Lose Sight of This

Friends,

This needs to be said. It needs to be read. It needs to be shared. It needs to be shouted from the rooftops for all to hear and understand. While any discussion as to the merits of the Confederate battle flag has its place in our society, we are dangerously close to losing sight of what is really important. And it isn't our fault, really, because the media depictions of the Civil War be they film or television program do no justice to the war. Yes, it is romanticized in our culture and I am not just talking about the Lost Cause mythology either. Has there ever been a Civil War program which truly depicts the horrors of a Civil War battlefield? Do you know what is missing from our collective conscious as it relates to the war? Reality. Plain and simple. Here is what all is missing from our national discussions over the war and also of the flag:

The fact that when canister rounds struck a line of advancing infantry, body parts flew as high as the tops of the trees. The screams of wounded horses which sounded almost human. The screams of wounded men which sounded like an animal. The sheer carnage wrought on the human body by a Mini Ball, far more than a modern round. The coppery scent of blood spraying your clothing from a wounded comrade's shattered body. The palpable odor of fear mixed with the sulfur stench of gunpowder mixed with sweat, and shit, and wet wool. The courage of the Irish Brigade assaulting Marye's Heights and the entire Army of Tennessee making the ill advised charge at Franklin. The fear and pain of having a limb amputated with a dirty saw as surgeons probed with ungloved fingers. Of the morphine addicts made so by their Civil War wounds. And what of those wounded in mind rather than body, many spending their days locked in mental institutions which, in some ways, were worse than prisons. The pain of abdominal cramps brought on by dysentery, more deadly even than combat itself. And typhus. And cholera. There is no glory in dying a long slow death brought on by fluids leaking out of every orifice. But tens of thousands died that very way. And what of the pain of women and children as they waited for word of casualties following a battle. And how you felt grateful when your loved one's name wasn't on it only to feel guilty for feeling relieved when so many others suffered loss. And what of the anguish of entire communities when all the men marched away and yet none came back. What of the generation of widows and orphans? And what of slaves, awaiting their day of liberation and hoping they survived long enough to see it. Some opted to free themselves by escaping to Union lines, only to be used as forced labor. What of those laborers working long hours in dangerous conditions to feed the industrial appetite of the war machine. Of the immigrants enlisted fresh off the boat and sent to fight a war they understood nothing of.

Debates over the battle flag has its place. However, we are in danger of forgetting how brutal the war really was. The war wasn't over a flag. It was the most traumatic event that our nation has ever gone through and to try and sum up the entire experience through a flag is wrong. The flag is not as important as the war and the outcome. It isn't our fault. No one wants to talk about the reality of the war. What I've written above may in fact have disturbed you. Good. That was the point. The Civil War was nasty, ugly business. You cannot praise the courage of one side and denigrate the courage of the other, as courage does not depend on the color of one's uniform or the validity of one's cause. Pardon the pun, but history is not black and white. Southern soldiers were not all evil and Northern soldiers were not all out to free the slaves, contrary to what has been taught and what the media says. Good and evil existed in both armies. Trying to boil everything down to South bad North good is absolutely ridiculous and something that no one who calls themselves a professional historian should engage in, but many if not most do.

We are at risk of whitewashing the entire episode from our history and to what end? So we can forget it and thus risk repeating the same mistakes of the past? We MUST honor the soldiers who fought in the war in whatever way we as individuals choose because of the sacrifices they made for the homes, their families, and their comrades. Not for their cause. Men don't die for causes. They die for their comrades in arms. Brave men fought on both sides. So did cowardly men. So too did men who were not especially brave nor especially unbrave. So too did a few women disguised as men. The whole country was affected by the war. 2 percent of our population died, near 700,000 people! Do NOT simply view them as statistics. They were living, breathing humans with the same hopes and fears as all of us. Most were men, young men, who never got to live their lives as we have.

All of them died for a country that no longer regards their sacrifices as important, but rather a part of an episode in our past that must be forgotten. I am fiercely proud of my Civil War ancestors, on both sides. Yes. I'm proud of my Confederate ancestors. Why? Because they lived through the conditions described above. Or died because of them. How many of you would be willing to do the same? Yes. I am proud of the battlefield exploits. I mourn those who were lost. And I am glad that their cause did not succeed. So fly the flag or not fly the flag, that is your choice as an individual. Personally, I don't but that's my decision. But no matter what you do or how you feel about the flag, for the love of God, NEVER lose sight of what happened during this war. NEVER forget the bloody hell that was a Civil War battlefield. NEVER forget the experiences of soldiers, civilians, adults, children, slaves and free people during, what was the crucible of our national experience. PLEASE don't let those deaths be in vain.

L.H.