These Honored Dead: How The Story Of Gettysburg Shaped American Memory

by Thomas A. Desjardin

Ever since the guns of Gettysburg fell silent, and Lincoln delivered his famous two-minute speech four months after the battle, the story of this three-day conflict has become an American legend. We remember Gettysburg as, perhaps, the biggest, bloodiest, and most important battle ever fought-the defining conflict in American history. But how much truth is behind the legend?In These Honored Dead , Thomas A. Desjardin, a prominent Civil War historian and a perceptive cultural observer, demonstrates how flawed our knowledge of this enormous event has become, and why. He examines how Americans, for seven score years, have shaped, used, altered, and sanctified our national memory, fashioning the story of Gettysburg as a reflection of, and testimony to, our culture and our nation.

Genres: History, Civil War, Nonfiction, American History, American Civil War, Historical

288 pages, Paperback

First published November 12, 2003

Reviews

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential contribution to the body of literature reckoning with U.S. Civil War memory and the myths within it, Thomas A. Desjardin's fantastic These Honored Dead hones in on Gettysburg -- a three-day battle long considered to be the most important of the conflict. Although recent scholarship has begun to emphasize the greater impact of Grant's conquest of Vicksburg, Gettysburg has retained its outsize place in the public imagination, largely as a result of the wealth of books and films about it. As such, it remains a breeding ground for mythology and misinformation.

In his book, Desjardin sets about dispelling the tall tales and outright lies that have impacted historic understanding of Gettysburg. That shoe factory whose potential capture Shelby Foote claimed motivated Confederate soldiers? No such place. Was General Longstreet really responsible for the failure of Robert E. Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania? Hardly. Did Dan Sickles "win" the battle despite the the bungling actions of George Meade? Nope. In a clear, engaging manner, Desjardin examines the origins of these and other myths, the motives of the men responsible for them, and the alternately unfortunate and comical effects they've had on civil war memory.

I particularly appreciated Desjardin's look at the ways in which the novel The Killer Angels and Ken Burns' The Civil War mini-series further muddied the Gettysburg waters. I had to smile at the notion that Michael Shaara's Pulitzer-winning book still sends hopeful readers out in search of the fictional Buster Kilrain's grave. Less amusing is the way that Ken Burns' decision to have Shelby Foote play historical tour guide on TV allowed the inaccuracies of Foote's work to take root in the minds of undiscerning viewers (why they were more impressed with Foote than the comparatively passionate Barbara J. Fields will always be a mystery to me). Both works, it turns out, would elevate Colonel Joshua Chamberlain to greater fame than he perhaps deserved, but that all led to Jeff Daniels' portrayal of him in 1993's "Gettysburg", so can we really complain?

Readers who have delved into other assessments of civil war historiography ( The Marble Man: Robert E. Lee and His Image in American Society , The Myth of the Lost Cause: Why the South Fought the Civil War and Why the North Won , The False Cause: Fraud, Fabrication, and White Supremacy in Confederate Memory ) will recognise some familiar faces in the crowd of bad actors that Desjardin highlights in These Honored Dead. Jubal Early and Douglas Southall Freeman loom large again, deluded and dishonest as ever. Yet this book isn't simply anti-Lost Cause, with Dan Sickles emerging as the most notable distortionist on the Union side, though he's certainly not alone. There's a sense of non-partisanship to the debunking here that is sometimes absent from similar works, which tend to concern themselves primarily with dismantling falsehoods sponsored by neo-confederates and white supremacists. Monuments enter the discussion, too, and it's not just the elaborate tributes to men like Lee and Forrest that are adjudged to be problematic.

These Honored Dead is a reminder of how and why even the most easily debunked myths of Gettysburg continue to hold sway. People much prefer to view Pickett's Charge as an act of heroism than the folly it really was. So, too, do they wish to cling to the marble image of Robert E. Lee, betrayed by incompetent subordinates like Longstreet and Stuart, not his own mistakes. It's a little sad that a book as great as Desjardin's, for all its illuminating power, stands little chance of competing with more romantic portrayals of Gettysburg. Like Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark , These Honored Dead emphasises the need for scepticism and critical thinking. It's a message that will resonate with many (but not all) civil war buffs.

[robin friedman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gettysburg, History, And Meaning

The Battle of Gettysburg (July 1 -- July 3, 1863) was the largest battle fought in North America and a pivotal event of the American Civil War. The battle, its causes, environs, personalities, events, among other things have been written about and memorialized endlessly, literally from the moment the troops on both sides left the battlefield.

In his study "These Honored Dead", Thomas Desjardin examines some of the legends that have grown around this great battle. He has written a historiography which shows how and why it is difficult to determine what in fact occurred during the battle from the mass of conflicting accounts in the literature. Desjardin holds a PhD in American history. He is the author of "Stand Firm Ye Boys from Maine" which examines the activities of the 20th Maine and Colonel Joshua Chamberlain on Little Round Top during the Battle of Gettysburg.

Desjardin offers several reasons contributing the difficulty of separating fact from memory in understanding a complex historical event such as the Battle of Gettysburg. First, during the battle, the participants were under, obviously, severe stress and tend to focus only on the activities under their direct observation. With the passage of years, memories tend both to fade and to become embellished.

Second, after the battle many of the participants tried to shape the story for ends and meanings of their own. Thus Union General Dan Sickles tried to destroy the reputation of General Meade, the Union commander at Gettysburg, to cover Sickles's own misdeeds in moving his Third Corps to an exposed position which threatened the Federal position and resulted in great loss of life. Similarly, various Confederate writers, including General Jubal Early, tried to find scapegoats for the loss of the battle to foster a "Lost Cause" mythology and absolve General Robert E. Lee from blame for the defeat.

Third, Gettysburg has become regarded as a key moment in understanding and giving meaning to the American experience. Historians, artists, and the public have shaped the meaning and events of the battle to meet perceived national and frequently individual ends.

Desjardins examines a number of key moments of the battle, including the fighting for Little Round Top at the extreme left of the Union line on July 2 and "Pickett's Charge" at the center of the Union line on July 3. A great deal of mythology has grown around these two moments. With respect to Little Round Top, Desjardins examines the bases for some of the claims put forth about Joshua Chamberlain and Gouverneur Warren, among others, and concludes that a number of the claims are extravagant, unsupported by, and in some cases contradicted by the historical record. Desjardin discusses in some detail Michael Shaara's famous novel, "The Killer Angels" and the television series and movie based upon it and shows the fictitious character of much of the account.

A work such as Desjardin's could easily degenerate into an exercise in debunking, which is all-to-common in understanding American history. But I found Desjardin's book moving and instructive precisely because this does not happen. Desjardin discusses a battle and a battlefield that have a great deal of historical and personal resonance for him, and he takes it seriously. Gettysburg may not be, indeed, an American Valhalla, but the site is hallowed ground and it, and its combatants, have earned the study, memorializations, and legends they have received. Taking away some of the legends about Chamberlain or Warren, for example, we are left with highly impressive individuals and with incidents of heroism. Upon completing the book, I was left with the feeling that, in Gettysburg as in so much else, the truth and the search for the truth about what took place, are more impressive and shape the legends. The battle, its consequences, and meanings are properly ways in which Americans discover themselves.

Readers who enjoy this book will also benefit from many other studies about the relationship between history and memory at Gettysburg. An example of such a book is Carol Reardon's "Pickett's Charge in History and Memory" (1997). Desjardin's book will have its greatest appeal to readers who have a background in the Battle of Gettysburg and an interest in questions of historical truth and interpretation.

Robin Friedman

[Gretchen Hohmeyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm going to rate this at 4 stars for the ideas that this book gave me to chew on, but for writing style, it is a 3 star or maybe less. It is hard to untangle those things. On the plus side, this book was *exactly* what I was looking for when I found it at my library. It is not focused on the battle, but rather who were the major players and what the major themes were when, after the battle, a new one began over what and who would be remembered. Like many major historical moments, what we think we know is as much (if not more) fiction as fact. I had no idea about much of what Desjardin talked about in this book and was imminently fascinated. The audiobook (only 8 hours) flew by. On the negative side, for a book that is only 8 hours or under 300 pages, Desjardin repeats himself far too much. There were things that came up across multiple chapters that he felt the need to explain in full again and again, often using the exact same sentences. Also, there were some sections where he just went on a bit too long on the philosophical side instead of just explaining the facts or the events. I would recommend this book if it is a topic of interest, but my recommendation has caveats.

[noreast_bookreviewsnh · Rating 4 out of 5]

These Honored Dead : How the story of Gettysburg shaped American memory by Thomas Desjardin
.
.
While tackling the many persistent myths about the Battle of Gettysburg, the author is able to help the reader understand how and why such myths came about in the first place, explaining how an individuals unreliable memory combined with a need to shape history, we realize that the pen truly is mightier than the sword. Such myths that are addressed; little round top and Joshua Chamberlain’s role, Pickett’s charge and the “high water mark of the confederacy”, battlefield photographs that were inaccurate, Gettysburg was fought over shoes, rebels weren’t outfitted as well as union counterparts, and incorrect monumentation on the battlefield, and so many more. The main point of this book is not so much to address all of these false legends and controversies in depth, but to make the reader realize the power of memory and what the driving forces were behind the people who built the historical narrative of the battle for future generations to interpret. For example, many external influences were responsible for the false narratives that still persist to this day, with a man such as Daniel E. Sickles who was a slimy rascal, but had a very powerful influence over the interpretation of what happened in July 1863 because he was a loudmouth with powerful friends and also happened to outlive many of his counterparts and was able to malign a great commander, George G Meade, who died so early after the war that he couldn’t defend himself. Another issue was the official government historian of the battle of Gettysburg, John Badger Bachelder, who wasn’t at the battle, nor had ever been in battle, who did his best to create a credible account, but quickly realized that memories of men who were at the same event tended to differ on what actually happened. As most veterans concur, they only remember what happened through a narrow perspective or tunnel vision and have great difficulty recalling events where adrenaline was pumping and things happen so fast. In short, Bachelder did the best he could, but it was never going to be very accurate based on mixed memories and passing of time.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Prepare to rethink everything you know about the Civil War battle Gettysburg. In "These Honored Dead," Thomas A. Desjardin reveals the inaccuracy of numerous battle details. Basically, the men who wrote about their experiences on the battlefield did so years later. And their stories are embellished or changed based on how they or the media of the time wanted the battle and its heroes remembered.
Now that I've read this book, I will view Gettysburg in a different light. Details of the battle that are shared on tours and in books may not be accurate, and that's okay. I can accept that politics played a role in the retelling of the story. This fact doesn't change the importance of the battle and makes handwritten letters from the time an even more important resource.
I would change the subtitle. It should be "How Memory Shaped The Story Of Gettysburg."
I recommend this book for history buffs, Gettysburg fans and journalists. It's an interesting look at some of the big myths we believe about the battle and a reminder to look beyond the popular stories to the actual sources.

[Straw · Rating 1 out of 5]

Honestly, I need to figure out how this author got money to publish this because I need to access those funds. This one of the more ridiculous books I've seen produced about Gettysburg. The vast majority of it is found elsewhere in places where it has context and meaning. This seems like a book that should have been subtitled. i found some interesting factoids out about gettysburg - wrote a book about it wanna waste your time reading about it?

[K · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit repetitive, but an interesting exploration of historical narrative construction.

[Jeff Moffatt · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listened on audiotape.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very good book on the story of Gettysburg. Highly recommended!!

[Joel Reichenberger · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it. I love how it dove into how fragile our understand of history really is, how little we ACTUALLY know about even events we think we know well.

[Van Reese · Rating 4 out of 5]

I did learn a little bit about the history of Gettysburg, but this book is mainly about the myths of Gettysburg. More generally, it is about how history is sometimes (often?) a matter of who records the history, and what agendas are being pushed. Sometimes it is dependent on who is in the right place at the right time. Often, (usually in wars or other traumatic situations) a person's mind is not really aware of what is happening. Only later are memories recorded, and they might or might not be totally accurate.
One of the most interesting observations is how we tend to look on our side as right and great. Whether it is sports teams, politics, race, religion, or whatever; our perspective is the right one. Our entire being is tied up in the many groups to which we belong. Even if we did nothing more than watch, if our team wins, we are number one. If they lose, we are losers. It is very personal. The result, as far as history, is that we tend to remember and write accounts to make our side look good and right. Some are no doubt intentionally misleading, but most are factual from the author's perspective. With all these various accounts out there, the ones written by the victors are usually the most dominant. In the end, history is generally correct, but the closer you get to the details, the more fuzzy things become.

[Schoppie · Rating 4 out of 5]

History is not just a collection of facts. It is not always possible to determine what constitute "facts." History is often a collection of inaccurate memories, constructed memories, and sometimes outright fabrication in an attempt to influence the way others remember an event.

Thomas Desjardin's book makes a convincing case that the Battle of Gettysburg is largely remembered and celebrated based on flawed and inaccurate information, and that the history Americans use to connect with the event, and how they choose to view the event tells us more about those who remember rather than those who participated in the battle.

As a sample of the whole, the author details how a handful of the legions of monuments were placed, and he explodes many of the commonly-repeated myths about the famous engagement. From the post-war politics and personalities which determined the placement of individual and regimental monuments, to the inaccurate memories of the participants, often influenced by the flawed memories of other participants, Desjardin addresses how the story of Gettysburg was recorded and how modern Americans arrived at their present view of Gettysburg as a major turning point of the Civil War. The author amply proves that much of what we think we know about Gettysburg is distorted, and that much of history is a flawed construct, regardless of the honest intentions of participants who remember and of historians who record the "facts."

Desjardin shows how both honest and intentionally dishonest participants recorded their memories about the battle, how those early memories influenced those who recorded their memories later, and how historians, politicians, novelists, and artists perpetuated those myths and constructed new ones in order to meet their own needs or the larger needs of their society. In this way, the book is just as much about the recording of history in general as it is about the Battle of Gettysburg. This is the type of book which would be immensely useful in a graduate history theory course, though it is not as dull and dry as those often chosen for such studies.

While some might be disappointed or even angered by Desjardin's research, I found the book to be refreshingly honest and well-written. The author is able to take what could easily be a boring historical "gotcha" book and turn the topic into an engaging read. I am a historian myself, as well as a Gettysburg aficionado, and, rather than ruining my interest in the battle and my love of the battlefield, Desjardin has only heightened my interest and my determination to return to the battlefield - in all of its flawed, constructed, and genuine glory!

[Cheryl Gatling]

You may have heard that 50,000 men died at the Battle of Gettysburg, more than in all of Vietnam. It was really closer to 10,000. You may have heard that Gettysburg was the site of a great battle because the confederate soldiers were coming there to get shoes. But there was really no shoe factory or shoe warehouse or shoe store in Gettysburg, and the confederate soldiers were actually better dressed and supplied than advertised. These are only a few of the misconceptions that Desjardins corrects in this book. The subtitle is "How the Story of Gettysburg Shaped American Memory," but the reverse is even truer: How American Memory Shaped the Story of Gettysburg. Desjardin does venture into the territory of What Gettysburg Means. What it meant to Eisenhower, to Jimmy Carter and Sadat and Begin, to Jack Welch of General Electric, and to all the people who make pilgrimages to the battleground every year. But most of the book is about how we know what we know about the battle. I quote: "There is no 'what really happened' at Gettysburg, only a mountain of varying, often contradictory accounts that are seldom in accord, all tainted in some way or other by memory, bias, politics, ego, or a host of other factors." During the battle, confusion, smoke, and poor communication prevented any soldier from seeing more than a small part of the action. After the battle, the weary and traumatized soldiers just wanted to forget and go home. People didn't start to write their memoirs until years later, at which point the desire to promote their own state, or regiment, or personal glory distorted their recollections. Some men made honest mistakes. The chapter on the placing of monuments is almost comical, as New York vets (for example) tried to outdo Pennsylvania vets with bigger pedestals and prime real estate. When the 72nd Pennsylvania started digging a hole for their monument at "The Angle," they were arrested, because the 69th Pennsylvania complained that the 72nd didn't have a right to that spot. Visitors to the park usually have no idea that there was no overall plan to the statuary, but a mad race of one-upsmanship. There is much more in the book, but the question of how we know what we know is applicable to much of history in general, not just the Battle of Gettysburg.

[Tony duncan · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent book by a historian about the BAttle of Gettysburg.
Now I know that might sound a little arcane and specialized, but this is an important reason why specialization is important. basically this book details very clearly and in well structured ways how history is manipulated and distorted by the individuals involved a the time and those that document it afterwards.
thomas has gone to great lengths to discern the source of a number of pervasive myths about the battle showing how they became to be treated as the truth. It gets ot the point where there is a huge amount of inertia and even when the truth is quite evident if soemthing else has become accepted, it is sometimes almost impossible to rectify.
this has great relevance today. For instance it is repeated over and over again that Iran wants to destroy Israel, and that the leadership is explicitly trying to develop nuclear weapons ot that end. But this idea is almost all based on one quote that was mistranslated. EVERY translation now has the correct quote, but the media and politicians are not interested in reversing themselves, because it is accepted that Iran is trying to destroy Israel, so it would jsut be confusing and undermine support for Israel to do this.

he mentions a number of myths both about Union stands that didn't really happen, and confederate mistakes that woren;t really made. I read now on conservative websites apologists for the Sout that STILL use these arguments 150 years later

[Mike Bigelow · Rating 5 out of 5]

More about the battlefield and the history of the battle than the battle itself. Desjardin tries to explain how some of the stories--both true and not-so-true--might have evolved. I applaud his attempt to incorporate how The Killer Angels and the Gettysburg movie added or distracted to history.

[Todd · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thomas Desjardin, a noted historian of the Battle of Gettysburg, and in my opinion, one of the very best that has served the National Battlefield Park, nailed down some mis-conceptions of the famous 3 day battle in that sleepy little town in Pa. Some incredible insights to facts that totally dispell the legends and lore that has been told, perhaps incorrectly for well over 100 years and even today. From begining to end this book had my attention and the author injects his own subtle humor that lightens up the reading, that if done by most other historians would be chock-full of clinical tactical details that bring on torpidity..

It has insightful viewpoints that many of those same lethargic authors mentioned above have obviously never explored. These viewpoints suggest a common sense that make everything very easy to comprehend and imagine. I was impressed with the subjects of each chapter, but equally impressed with a fresh viewpoint on a battle that I have studied for decades, the town surrounding it, the park service history, and the commanders during and after the war and how they influenced the history as we percieve it today....
Very well done Mr. Desjardin. Very well done.

[Michael VanZandt · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is fascinating in its undertaking of post-Civil War politics as it is with the facts of Gettysburg. Desjardin comes down simply in some cases saying, how are we to know what actually happened? It's honest and probably the best we should expect. In truth, how could those present even know. There were no bird's eye views available for any participant. As Desjardins expresses, the monuments that occupy the fields of Gettysburg are important for us as much for the history that follows this battle as the battle itself. Why is it called Pickett's Charge? How does Longstreet take the fall in the memory of the South? All are explained in the book. It is recommended for anyone interested in historiography.

[Eric Burroughs · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book on the myths surrounding Gettysburg. Some of the chapters are redundant but most of the information is interesting. I specifically enjoyed the myths surrounds Warren on Little Round Top and the death of Hazlett. It was also interesting that Batchelder invented the idea of the copse of trees including the use of the word copse. I also thought it was interesting that art and entertainment referenced themselves instead of history. For example, Don Troiani didn’t put a hat on Chamberlain because he didn’t know what hat to put on him, so the movie has him take his hat off. Definitely a good and quick read.

[Andy Anderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Author debunks the time honored traditions of the civil war: Gettysburg was not started because of a need for shoes, the 20th Maine did not take 'hundreds of prisoners', Meade, Longstreet and Pickett did not single-handedly lose the battle and 50,000 being killed. Great book about the memory of the civil war and how no one person could remember the whole battle let alone his immediate area. Great discussion on what a person goes thru while in battle and the immediate events during and afterwards.

[Richard Budden · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author makes a good case that we can't possibly know exactly what happened at Gettysburg. He adequately sets out the reasons why several sources cited by many historians should not be fully trusted. However, after successfully pointing out that a source isn't entirely objective, the author tends to stretch this into a conclusion that the source is entirely incorrect---an assumption that does not necessary follow.

Overall, an interesting, if overreaching, piece of historiography.

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this book was ostensibly about the Battle of Gettysburg, in fact this was a book about the fallibility of history and memory and the difficulty in uncovering the truth about the events of those three tragic days. The author deals with the legends surrounding the battle and tries to dispel the myriad of myths, describing the personal and political motives behind many of them, but also placing the battle in the context of the American sense of identity.

[Lars · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent series of insights on how mainstream culture creates military myths focusing on the battle of Gettysburg in 1863. Of particular note is the chapter on Col. Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th Maine, and how the myth of his defense at Little Round Top became exaggerated and engraved into the American consciousness, assisted by Ken Burns and Jeff Shaara.

[Stephen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great read for anyone mildly or obsessively interested in the battle. It is a real eye opening account of how history is so easily twisted and distorted, and how even excellent professional historians can fall victim to trusting in faulty historical accounts. Easily one of my favorites on the battle of Gettysburg.

[Kate Willis · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read the uncorrected proofs version, and found it the teensiest bit repetitive in parts. Possibly (presumably, even) the final draft will have addressed this. But I believe that everyone who has ever been to or is planning a trip to Gettysburg should read this book, most especially if their trip is the result of twentieth or twenty-first century Civil War sensationalism. Really wonderful read.

[Jeff Minar · Rating 5 out of 5]

An outstanding historical account that also spans decades after Gettysburg in terms of its analysis. I thought I knew a thing or two about the Battle, but as it turns out, that's all I knew was a thing or two and some of what I "knew" was wrong. Very highly recommended.

[Chuck Leonard · Rating 5 out of 5]

A bit of myth-busting regarding certain historical issues surrounding the battle of Gettysburg but also some reflections on contemporary manipulation of the battle for political purposes.