Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.life From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Number is old myth Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 16:22:11 EST Message-ID: \SE B;LIFE;THE CIVIL WAR;LETTERS \HD Number is old myth Robert Lyon Mayall's otherwise excellent article on Marylanders in the Union and Confederate armies perpetuates old myths and mathematical errors in saying that 56,000 Maryland soldiers served the Union. This is a gross overstatement: The best recent estimate is approximately 33,500. The number of white volunteers was about 23,000. Some 6,000 deserted, many to join the Confederacy. See book review, Maryland Historical Magazine, Winter 1987, pages 320-21. BRICE M. CLAGETT Washington Robert Lyon Mayall replies: A West Point instructor once observed that, in the end, history comes down to whether or not George Washington stood up in the prow of the rowboat while crossing the Delaware like an inspired leader or sat down like a sensible man. If you opt for the former, you risk being accused of having been seduced by romantic legend. If the latter, you're guilty of gross revisionist deconstruction. While history should be told with art and style, it remains nonetheless a science - a science of synthesis, of resolution of conflicting accounts, claims, evidence and emotion. There are, however, firm rules to help us, the first of which, in application to the American Civil War, is a reasoned skepticism of all privately published memoirs, state-sponsored regimental histories and commemorative rolls compiled in the life of the participants, and of modern revisionist texts by specialists and researchers seeking a new twist on familiar topics. These must be treated with extreme caution. That does not make a private memoir, group memorial or new study useless. Far from it. But it may be skewed by time, lack of discipline or deliberate case-making. Mr. Owens and Mr. Clagett find me guilty of sins of both omission and comission. The former, taking a Northern view, indicts me for promoting the "Myth of the Lost Cause," an apparent snobbishness and selective research. The latter scolds me for doing a disservice to the South by overstating the number of Marylanders who loyally served the Union. Was there a dispute over the term of enlistment among some Maryland Confederates? Yes. Were they arrested? No, merely confined to company area for speaking too frankly. Did it stop them from fighting at Front Royal? Obviously not. Were the Maryland colors that appeared in Richmond in June 1862 deliberately shredded? I don't know, but they did arrive. Did Kenly try to burn the bridges? Yes, but Stonewall Jackson got across despite the flames. Did Marylanders of "good family" serve the Union? Sure, but most sons of illustrious families tended to go South because of kinship. Are there conflicting revised estimates for Marylanders in the Union? Yes, that's why I sourced archival material. Was desertion high? Yes, North and South, but irrelevant to the point. Once facts are assembled and choices made, selection of theme becomes another limiting factor. I used Front Royal merely as a device to tell the story of Marylanders, not to write a definitive account of a minor battle. Another problem for a historian writing newspaper or periodical features is space. Many interesting facts, anecdotes and personalities simply have to be left out. The final problem for the professional historian writing on the Civil War is the enduring populist nature of the debate. More than any other single event in American history, the Civil War remains wonderfully alive in the popular mind and imagination, a fact that astonishes Europeans. Unlike the 18th century, where I spend much of my time, the Civil War is not primarily the property of trained specialists. Serious and informed readers such as Mr. Owens and Mr. Clagett tend to keep the historian and author alert and, hopefully, honest. I for one appreciate their interest and criticisms and look forward to the former and fully expect more of the latter in the future. This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM