"Once when Brigham [Young] advised [Orson] Pratt that certain of his writings were not 'sound doctrine,' Pratt replied that he realized it was not his prerogative 'to teach publicly that which the President considers to be unsound.' But he hoped 'that you will grant me as an individual the privilege of believing my present views, and that you will not require me to teach others...that which I cannot without more light believe in.' Brigham contended that, as the Lord's mouthpiece, he had an obligation to assure that the Saints were taught correct doctrine. Convinced that his own views were based on the written canon, Pratt was reluctant to admit error. Convinced he was right, Brigham nevertheless was loath to publicly criticized and demean Pratt, whose mind and energy were among the Church's most valuable assets. Brigham feared the dangerous effects of Pratt's logic; Pratt feared the dangerous extremes to which Brigham might go in his impromptu sermons. Thus there was a continuous tension between Pratt the philosopher and Brigham the Prophet.
...
"'The trouble between Orson Pratt and me,' [Brigham] once said, 'is I do not know enough and he knows too much.'"
-Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Review of Bruce Catton's Army of the Potomac
I'm convinced our modern culture is incapable of understanding the American Civil War without engaging is a lot of prerequisite study first. The fabric of the United States, the very definition of what it means to be a citizen of my country, has changed so much that one can't idly pick up an overview of the war and read it and really understand it.
Bruce Catton was writing in the 50s. The Civil War was on it's way out as part of living memory and the recent conclusion of the biggest war ever fought dominated people's concept of what war was. But even in our time certain myths about the war persist. And none is more pervasive than the myth that the Army of Northern Virginia and its general Robert E. Lee were virtually super human. And since the Army of the Potomac was General Lee's punching bag for much of the war it's legacy comes to us as an pathetic by comparison.
Both these myths Catton seeks to dispel in writing his trilogy of narrative history The Army of the Potomac. He does this by telling the story both from a soldier's eye view and from the view of the officers of the Army of the Potomac. You won't get much else from the narrative. Political and social context as well as happenings in other theaters of the war are limited to what is necessary to understand what's going with the Army of the Potomac. In the 50s I suspect there was more common knowledge about Civil War history. In volume three, for example, General Grant pops into the narrative with out any explanation of where he came from and why. The beginning of the first volume drops the reader into the aftermath of the Second Battle of Bull Run, in medias res as they say, without any build up or preparation.
After this quick overview of General Pope's disastrous tenure, the bulk of volume one is dedicated to General George McClellan, his precipitous rise to the absolute heights of military power, his fall, his second rise, and his ultimate disgrace. McClellan loved his men, and they loved him. But he loved them too much to win a war. His over-cautiousness protracted the war by years. His fear -- I'm sure he would never have used those words -- of General Lee allowed him to be continually out matched when Lee was against the ropes and created a tradition in the Army of the Potomac of an expectation that no matter how well the battle was progressing, Lee was going to win in the end. And only the doggedness of General Grant was able to overcome it.
If McClellan instigated the tradition of Generals Hooker and Burnside kept it up in grand fashion. The second volume is devoted to their failings and culminates General Meade taking command and finally giving Lee such a sound beating he would never be able to go on the offensive again.
Finally the third volume introduces Grant as the hands on leader of all Union armies. He defines the strategy of the war in Northern Virginia from here on out though Meade is still technically in charge of the Army of the Potomac. The final year of the war is extremely bloody. Grant's methods are assault until forward momentum is lost, then move the army around the enemy's right flank. He does this until he's able to lay siege to Richmond and then continues to move around his left until finally General Sheridan is able to bust up Lee's reserves and Lee doesn't have enough men to hold his lines. Lee is forced to retreat and his army is overtaken outside Appomattox and surrenders. Speaking of Sheridan, a description of the Shenandoah campaign is included since the VI corps from the Army of the Potomac participated.
Combined with this bird's eye narrative is the description of the foot soldier's life, the horror and violence and madness of it all. Here Catton his quick to point out that the average soldier that fought for the Union was every bit as good as his opponent. But the soldiers were lead by Generals that were out matched and incapable of using them properly, soldiers who went willingly into battle even though they knew it was suicide. I kept wondering if there was something moral or ethical or good in being so devoted to a cause that one would give up one's life for no effect.
In addition to the bullets and fire there are fascinating interludes of day to day life. I was particularly interested in description of "news bearers". Grant did a much better job than his predecessors at keeping his plans secret. So news bearers, common foot soldiers, would wander up and down the lines gathering information and sharing rumors with their fellow soldiers in different outfits. They would try to synthesize an overall picture of what was going on in order to take the information back to their own units -- and they were famous for stealing anything that wasn't nailed down.
But the most striking thing to me is the camaraderie between the soldiers of the Army of the Potomac and the soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia. When the trenches were built and the battle of the moment stopped they would almost always strike up friendly relationships with each other, trade goods, not interfere with each others outings to gather water or firewood. They'd even warn each other when they were about to start shooting. But this friendliness didn't affect their willingness to fight tooth and nail with each other when the time came. I wonder if there isn't a lesson to be learned here that can be applied to less violent situations of conflict.
Bruce Catton's three volume narrative history The Army of the Potomac is a great overview of a very specific part of the American Civil War. Catton waxes overly verbose and poetic at times. But that was the style in mid 19th century America so I let it slide. But it was a different world back then, a world we can find parallels with in our own, but few direct comparisons.
Bruce Catton was writing in the 50s. The Civil War was on it's way out as part of living memory and the recent conclusion of the biggest war ever fought dominated people's concept of what war was. But even in our time certain myths about the war persist. And none is more pervasive than the myth that the Army of Northern Virginia and its general Robert E. Lee were virtually super human. And since the Army of the Potomac was General Lee's punching bag for much of the war it's legacy comes to us as an pathetic by comparison.
Both these myths Catton seeks to dispel in writing his trilogy of narrative history The Army of the Potomac. He does this by telling the story both from a soldier's eye view and from the view of the officers of the Army of the Potomac. You won't get much else from the narrative. Political and social context as well as happenings in other theaters of the war are limited to what is necessary to understand what's going with the Army of the Potomac. In the 50s I suspect there was more common knowledge about Civil War history. In volume three, for example, General Grant pops into the narrative with out any explanation of where he came from and why. The beginning of the first volume drops the reader into the aftermath of the Second Battle of Bull Run, in medias res as they say, without any build up or preparation.
After this quick overview of General Pope's disastrous tenure, the bulk of volume one is dedicated to General George McClellan, his precipitous rise to the absolute heights of military power, his fall, his second rise, and his ultimate disgrace. McClellan loved his men, and they loved him. But he loved them too much to win a war. His over-cautiousness protracted the war by years. His fear -- I'm sure he would never have used those words -- of General Lee allowed him to be continually out matched when Lee was against the ropes and created a tradition in the Army of the Potomac of an expectation that no matter how well the battle was progressing, Lee was going to win in the end. And only the doggedness of General Grant was able to overcome it.
If McClellan instigated the tradition of Generals Hooker and Burnside kept it up in grand fashion. The second volume is devoted to their failings and culminates General Meade taking command and finally giving Lee such a sound beating he would never be able to go on the offensive again.
Finally the third volume introduces Grant as the hands on leader of all Union armies. He defines the strategy of the war in Northern Virginia from here on out though Meade is still technically in charge of the Army of the Potomac. The final year of the war is extremely bloody. Grant's methods are assault until forward momentum is lost, then move the army around the enemy's right flank. He does this until he's able to lay siege to Richmond and then continues to move around his left until finally General Sheridan is able to bust up Lee's reserves and Lee doesn't have enough men to hold his lines. Lee is forced to retreat and his army is overtaken outside Appomattox and surrenders. Speaking of Sheridan, a description of the Shenandoah campaign is included since the VI corps from the Army of the Potomac participated.
Combined with this bird's eye narrative is the description of the foot soldier's life, the horror and violence and madness of it all. Here Catton his quick to point out that the average soldier that fought for the Union was every bit as good as his opponent. But the soldiers were lead by Generals that were out matched and incapable of using them properly, soldiers who went willingly into battle even though they knew it was suicide. I kept wondering if there was something moral or ethical or good in being so devoted to a cause that one would give up one's life for no effect.
In addition to the bullets and fire there are fascinating interludes of day to day life. I was particularly interested in description of "news bearers". Grant did a much better job than his predecessors at keeping his plans secret. So news bearers, common foot soldiers, would wander up and down the lines gathering information and sharing rumors with their fellow soldiers in different outfits. They would try to synthesize an overall picture of what was going on in order to take the information back to their own units -- and they were famous for stealing anything that wasn't nailed down.
But the most striking thing to me is the camaraderie between the soldiers of the Army of the Potomac and the soldiers of the Army of Northern Virginia. When the trenches were built and the battle of the moment stopped they would almost always strike up friendly relationships with each other, trade goods, not interfere with each others outings to gather water or firewood. They'd even warn each other when they were about to start shooting. But this friendliness didn't affect their willingness to fight tooth and nail with each other when the time came. I wonder if there isn't a lesson to be learned here that can be applied to less violent situations of conflict.
Bruce Catton's three volume narrative history The Army of the Potomac is a great overview of a very specific part of the American Civil War. Catton waxes overly verbose and poetic at times. But that was the style in mid 19th century America so I let it slide. But it was a different world back then, a world we can find parallels with in our own, but few direct comparisons.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Whom To Root For
After watching the last world cup I became fascinated with watching sports. I didn't know anything about soccer but it doesn't take much to see that the team that controlled the middle of the field was able to produce potential scoring opportunities. Watching the way teams attempted to control the middle was wonderful.
I'm to the point now where I'd rather watch a baseball game than a movie, assuming I have any spare time. After all, I pretty much know how a movie is going to turn out after the first couple of minutes. That's not the case with sporting events.
For a number of reasons I'm not much of a fan of college sports. My favorite sports to watch are baseball, hockey, soccer and basketball. I really only watch football if I have to.
So which teams to root for? I try to choose a team or two since I like to have a dog in as many races as possible. I try to get a nice mix of good and bad teams. I pick some for their history and some for their club nickname. I prioritize the west over the east. Most importantly I root for the Arizona club. Arizona is the best state in the union, after all.
The following are teams I root for and why. I've ranked them from favorite to least favorite. If a team isn't on the list I don't care about them. Some teams I root against.
Baseball:
Hockey:
Soccer:
Basketball:
I'm to the point now where I'd rather watch a baseball game than a movie, assuming I have any spare time. After all, I pretty much know how a movie is going to turn out after the first couple of minutes. That's not the case with sporting events.
For a number of reasons I'm not much of a fan of college sports. My favorite sports to watch are baseball, hockey, soccer and basketball. I really only watch football if I have to.
So which teams to root for? I try to choose a team or two since I like to have a dog in as many races as possible. I try to get a nice mix of good and bad teams. I pick some for their history and some for their club nickname. I prioritize the west over the east. Most importantly I root for the Arizona club. Arizona is the best state in the union, after all.
The following are teams I root for and why. I've ranked them from favorite to least favorite. If a team isn't on the list I don't care about them. Some teams I root against.
Baseball:
- Arizona Diamondbacks. They are from Arizona. They've even won a World Series. The only Arizona team to go all the way.
- L.A. Dodgers. Normally I root against California teams but the Dodgers are an exception. When I was a kid my favorite color was blue. Somehow I ended up with a Dodgers t-shirt -- Dodger blue is the best shade of blue -- and would wear it to school. This was in Texas where they take their sports seriously. I wasn't allowed to just wear the shirt because I liked the color, people don't like sports in Texas for such shallow reasons. So I pretended to be a fan. A few years later, 1988 as I recall, my best friend was rooting for the Oakland As in the World Series. Well, when I heard they were playing the Dodgers I became a real Dodgers fan. I've rooted for them ever since, though they've recently taken a back seat to the team at number 1.
- Tampa Bay Rays. The *Rays*, get it? Oh, your just jealous no one named a major league baseball team after you.
Hockey:
- Phoenix Coyotes. Despite not being very good they made it to the post season this year. They are unfortunately deeply in debt and may not be in Arizona much longer. As far as I can tell the NHL only wants them in Arizona so all the snow birds will buy tickets to see Detroit play.
- Columbus Blue Jackets. The only people I see celebrating their Civil War heritage are Southerners. The North fought too, you know.
- Calgary Flames. The Canadian teams are sequestered into two divisions. Got to root for Canada when I can. This is hockey after all. Plus the coolest Canadian I ever met was from Southern Alberta. Rock on Elder Memmott, where ever you may be. Oh, and the Flames started in Atlanta where their name was chosen because the city was burned down by General Sherman during the Civil war.
- Toronto Maple Leafs. First, they are perennial cursed losers just like the Cubs. Second, I love the blue and white uniforms.
- Nashville Predators. Their mascot is a Sabre Tooth Tiger. Not enough extinct prehistorical beasties representing sports clubs.
Soccer:
- Real Salt Lake. I went to school in Utah. They've been doing great. Their colors are red, yellow and blue.
Basketball:
- Phoenix Suns. It's a dry heat. I was living in Arizona when I watched them lose to the Jordan and the Bulls in the NBA championships.
- Toronto Raptors. Do you remember Jurassic Park fever? I read that book when it first came out. I watched the movie opening night. There aren't enough dinosaur mascots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)