1. Who is Daniel E. Sickles? How did he shape
historic and modern societal perspectives on General Meade?
2. Who is John Badger Bachelder? Why do you
believe that he spent so much effort to collect information on the battle of
Gettysburg only to use a small amount of “official reports” for his project?
3. What is the Lost Cause Ideology? When did
it start to emerge? Which major organizations were behind the perpetuation of
the myth?
4. What is monumentation, and who governed
the process at Gettysburg? What are a few examples of inconsistent beliefs on it
that are illustrated in Desjardin’s book?
5. If historians cannot ever accurately prove
the “facts” about many historical events, does Desjardin suggest that studying
history is a fruitless pursuit?
I've really struggled with the idea behind your 5th question. In manner it really does seem like Desjardin's book is towards a sort of fruitless pursuit. But at the same time, this book is sort of a tell all for how the memories of the battle were formed. It is not really suggesting that studying history is fruitless, rather that people need to have a more complete understanding over how the historical record is formed. Remember how Desjardin had the story of the soldeirs lining up after Gettysburg and having their own stories recorded? I really think that some people might actually believe in some way that this is how the historical record is created
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLots of valid questions but I'm only going to touch on a few. Dan Sickles is an iconic figure in Desjardin's novel, representative of the typical slimy politician and opportunistic general. He gets his version of history in the books by brown-nosing some people, like Radical Republics, and slandering others, most notably Mead. I think it's super interesting how everyone bought the testimony of the guy who used the successful first defense of temporary insanity in the courtroom! As to your final question, I don't think Desjardin is necessarily saying the pursuit of history is a fruitless pursuit. I think his goal at highlighting all the inconsistencies is to make people more aware that history is not as black and white as we like to believe, and we should be cautious when using history to make assumptions. If anything, he redefines history and adds the component of human memory of distortion. However, this does not invalidate the whole field.
ReplyDeletebtw- this is from the blog civilwar2012. I'm having technical issues attaching my name (it's Arielle)
I spent a lot of time thinking about your last question. Desjardin makes so many points about how historically inaccurate our own perceptions of history are, but at the same time I don't think that he finds studying history to be a waste of time. If anything, I believe that this book especially is a way for him to make people think about what they think they know about history, and to follow through with it to make sure it's absolutely true. Not all historical accounts are fictitious, but it's also up to us to pursue the possibility that it is. If anything it gives us a better understanding of why history is formed the way that it is.
ReplyDelete