proof/editing Book Review - A Rumor of War

Wasted

In January of 1961, President Kennedy challenged the youth of America to “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.”  One young man in particular took that statement to heart and enlisted in the Marines, ready to fight for his country and return home a hero.  Little did he know how the next sixteen months of his life would transform him from an innocent boy to an accused murderer, only to return home opposed to war altogether.  A Rumor of War is the factual memoir of the author, Philip Caputo, and his experience in the Vietnam War.  The reader will see how Caputo struggled with the war and the meaning of it all.  He began by explaining he will not apologize for his acts of war, but cannot condone it either.  With the details to follow, the reader would understand why.

From the start, Caputo’s style of writing effectively draws the reader directly into battle with him.  Told in first person, one can readily identify with the up and down feelings of Caputo.  He uses details which appeal to every sense, drawing the reader into the jungle and every battle alongside him.  He described the stifling heat, the non-stop insects, the monsoon, the fatigue coupled with the constant fear of instant death.  With the first casualty of Sullivan in their troop, they were all hit with the reality of death and their own mortality.  Later, Caputo summed it up so well when he discusses how thousands of people died each week in the war, and the sum of all of their deaths did not make a difference.  The war went on without them, as it could go on without Caputo.  His own death would not change a thing.  He wrote he could not remember having felt an emotion more sublime or liberating than the indifference towards his own death.  Even away from battle in a different position, death took on a uniform look in his number crunching of the dead each day.  Every person looked alike, just a number.  After three men from his company were reported dead, Caputo saw himself as the Officer of the Dead.  Others were dying, being killed, killing themselves, and he just kept adding the numbers.  In the field, anxiety, depression, and fear became the additional enemy.  Men’s loyalty to their country became loyalty to their men.  He described several times the “lack of release” they felt and the anger that accompanied it.  As a reader with a family member who served in combat, they may better understand why that person behaves as they do because of now knowing what they may have been through.

The book quickly became dark around Chapter 3 when characters were introduced and the deaths began.  One of the main themes of the memoir is how the characters, along with Caputo, are desperately trying to learn who they are.  Caputo was just a boy when he enlisted, yet yearns to be the hero of the war in the end.  What he learns is that the few years he spends at war will change who he is forever.  They didn’t express that they had fought in the war, they had shed blood, and they had become men.  Instead, in a way they could not express, they were aware something significant had happened to them.  Had they truly become men because of their experience, or had they been psychologically damaged for the rest of their lives?  Would they hear artillery fire with every thunder crack?  Could they ever enjoy the rain on their faces again?  As they were losing the war, they were also losing their innocence, their morals, and their sanity.  They were learning to hate.  They were in a place where ordinary men could become crazed killers under extreme conditions.  Where dead men only meant a gap in the line that needed to be filled.  Where it was quickly forgotten that each pool of blood meant a person, a real person had died; a person who had a mother and father, who would be missed, and who was gone forever.  The word “wasted” was the term used for someone who was killed, and how fittingly it was.  A life was wasted, all that it had been and all that it could have been. 

The book was written two years after the end of the war, while events and emotions were still fresh in the mind of Caputo.  He wrote it as he lived it.  It makes one wonder how many others sunk within themselves, forever attempting to bury the memories, how many other stories and experiences will never be told.  Whereas Veterans were not treated well upon their return home from a war considered a loss, Caputo’s book helped change the mind of many Americans by illustrating just what they were put through while defending those critical of them.  It is definitely recommended for any reader who knows anyone who has served in the armed forces.  It certainly reveals an inside world one would never want to experience, but can better understand those who have.

proof/editing Book Review - Sitting Bull

The Bull Who Would Not Sit

While there are many history books we study today who tell a tale of the Battle of Little Big Horn from the side of the United States and its loss, there are few who tell the side from the victor who refused to stand down, Sitting Bull.  Gary C. Anderson’s biography entitled Sitting Bull and the Paradox of Lakota Nationhood might just fill in this gap.  The title of the book would suggest this book is not just about Sitting Bull, but suggests an interesting paradox will be illuminated.  Anderson details for the reader the contradictions regarding how hard and long the Lakota had to fight to be established as independent from the government, and the contradictions that are visible when they are finally pronounced as a “nation.”  Even though the government eventually made this pronouncement, they historically continued to fail to recognize them as such.  They actually withheld the pronouncement until such a time when the Lakota Nationhood was least capable of acting as a nation.  Thus, the paradox.  Anderson felt there was much sentimentalism already surrounding Sitting Bull, which wasn’t his goal.  He wanted to tell a less biased account of his rise to chiefdom and what was accomplished under his leadership of his people to attempt to simply survive as they always had.

As the U.S. government used its army to attempt to reign in the “hostile” members of the Lakota people and bully them into adapting to their own culture, Sitting Bull refused to allow this to occur.  He fought against the U.S. Army in many battles as a result of the attempts to use Manifest Destiny to claim the lands moving west.  The U.S. wanted gold, they wanted to expand their railroad, and the Indians were in their way.  By the massive slaughtering of the buffalo, the tribes were depleted of their food source and died off.  By the use of Manifest Destiny to take over the lands and their treaties forcing them to register or be considered hostile, the government continued to press west, with no concern for the claim of the land the Indians had always populated.  Most tribes refused to fight against the government and were unable to defend themselves against their overtaking of their lands.  While others were sitting down and allowing this to occur, one leader refused to comply.  Sitting Bull used his strong, spiritual leadership abilities to battle against the U.S. and their forceful ways of taking the land belonging to his nation.  He refused to sit back and allow this to occur.  Anderson stresses the historic Battle of the Little Big Horn was won not so much as a mishap by Colonel George Armstrong Custer, but more so due to the past successes of the Lakota Nation and the leadership of Sitting Bull, himself.  Finally, a story told from the other side.  Anderson stresses how Sitting Bull’s stand against the American government and its armies has left an impact that has shaped the culture of many Native Americans’ way of life.  While he does not give an in depth look at the life of Sitting Bull, he provides many highlights which make the reader want to know more.  While his political and cultural sides are discussed, there are many areas left unexplored in this short, quick read.

While that may be a plus if you are looking for just an overview or what occurred during a specific time period, it could be a negative for many readers.  Some readers who may not be well-versed in American history may feel as if they are missing the background necessary to get a full understanding of the ideas Anderson is attempting to convey.  The condensed life of the Lakota Sioux during the time of Sitting Bull’s leadership is only covered.  This leaves the reader having to possibly refer to other references in order to get a full understanding of what happened before and after.  Many areas are only touched on by Anderson and not explored as in depth as some readers may desire.  As the title encourages someone to wonder what the “paradox” is going to be, Anderson does not get to that subject until the very end.  This leaves the reader wishing they had that information at the beginning so that they are better able to relate it to all of the material they are reading.  Some may have to go back and re-read the book to get a better understanding of this issue in Anderson’s layout of this writing. 

Whereas individual readers have various purposes for the desire to know more about Sitting Bull, this short read is a start to get an overview and a thirst to know more about his leadership and his attempts to lead his people to independence.  Highlights of his relationship with the U.S. government and his battle to defend their land are covered well, while Anderson also discusses aspects of their culture, such as the Ghost Dance, and Sitting Bull’s importance in that culture.  This biography discusses a crucial conflict in history, the Battle of Little Big Horn, from a new and different interpretation as normally seen.  Anderson felt Americans should acknowledge the willpower, leadership, determination, and courage of a man like Sitting Bull before he and his impact on Native American and American history are forgotten and lost, like much of other history.  This book would be recommended for the reader who wants to know more about the specific time period of the reign of Sitting Bull and the story of his people from their view point.  It is not recommended for the reader desiring an in depth look at the overall life of Sitting Bull.  The reader might want to have other resources available to understand many issues only touched upon, and explore those as well. 

proof/editing Review - Eleanor Roosevelt

Meet the First First Lady

With grace and the voice of a caring mother, Eleanor Roosevelt greeted each wounded soldier as if he were the first and only soldier she had come to see.  Not content with remaining in the White House as a simple hostess, Eleanor Roosevelt traveled to the South Pacific during World War II to interact with those serving their country.  This is just one example of how we meet the first First Lady in J. William T. Youngs’ Eleanor Roosevelt:  A Personal and Public Life.  From before her birth to the time beyond her death, the author describes how she overcame hardship and loss and came out stronger each time, and in the end, redefined the role of the First Lady.

Youngs’ biography is successful in hitting all of the main points of Eleanor Roosevelt’s life and accomplishments from her birth to her death and beyond.  It portrays a real look at the amazing woman she was and her many accomplishments.  It details her overcoming loss, such as losing her parents and brother, all within two years.  She is portrayed as an amazing woman, way ahead of her time.  Youngs creates this easy read in a focused manner which begins and ends as it should, not skipping around.  Although it is a historical and factual novel, it reads more as a work of fiction where the characters come to life and are relatable to current times.  The reader is educated beyond the normal facts known regarding Mrs. Roosevelt, such as her feminist views she shared with her husband and how they influenced her work; her disagreements with some of his policies, which she make public; her grief when she discovers his ongoing affair with her friend; her struggle with his polio causing him to be wheelchair bound; her making public appearances and speaking on his behalf after he became ill; and how she continued to support her husband all the way to becoming president despite all of his downfalls in their marriage.  It appears the more he fell down on his duties, the stronger she became politically and personally.  She maintained a positive outlook despite all of the challenges in her life, termed an “American saint” by the author.  This shows how he viewed her, as well as how she was admired by Americans at the time.  She became the “mother” of America.  Not just the First Lady, she performed way beyond her basic duties.  She was the first spouse to speak at a national political convention!  In a time when women were socially to remain in the background, she rose to the front and recruited other women to join the Democratic Party.  She wrote for a newspaper and was paid to speak as a lecturer, two roles never heard of for women at that time.  Even after her husband’s death, she didn’t fade into the background.  She remained active in the political arena, serving on a panel in the Kennedy administration and worked closely with the United Nations.  She was thought of as one of the most influential and respected women of the 20^th Century.

As a book in a series, formatting decisions must remain the same throughout all of the books.  This formatting may not be appealing to the reader, as well as how the footnotes are structured.  As a short read, if more in-depth information is needed as to any aspect of the life of Eleanor Roosevelt, a reader would have to seek additional reading material.  This book would be suited more as a great supplement to a history class where the series is utilized to explore biographies of figures in American history.

A brief biography focusing on a person whose ideas, actions, and refusal to fade into the normal role as those before her, the author provides a wonderful look at a First Lady who redefined that role and set the standard for those who followed.  While it is a brief peek, a reader wanting more in-depth knowledge regarding her life would need to seek other reading material to supplement the information provided.  However, this book is a great start and overview of very interesting facts regarding her life which may have not been shared in other writings.  Youngs described how she influenced the course of American history in many ways through her outreach and asserting herself publicly in the political arena.  He describes her roles throughout her life in a broader sense as to how she was involved in each change presented and in the lives of Americans.  He paints her as being almost a hero and worshiped by Americans as a mother figure, which she instilled in herself through her actions.  This book is strongly recommended for anyone wanting to finally meet the real first First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt.

proof/editing A Division in Slavery

A Division in Slavery

There are numerous opinions and excellent facts to support those opinions as to why the South lost the Civil War, but the repeating theme continues to show that the South lost as a result of the same division that caused secession:  slavery.  The issue of slavery in itself caused severe separations within the South, which led many Southerners to eventually oppose slavery. 

The South, itself, became divided over the issue of slavery, which brought in the factors of the Border South states, and their having to decide for whom to fight.  Even prior to the Civil War, Border South Whites, and to a lesser degree Middle South Whites, did not have the same sentiments about the institution of slavery as did Lower South Whites.  One reason could have been due to the discrepancy in slave population.  The Border South contained a 12.7 percent slave population on the eve of the Civil War, compared to the 46.5 percent in the Lower South.  Many Border South Whites did not have daily interactions with slaves or slaveholders, nor did they rely economically upon either of them. (Freehling 18-23)  Simply, Border South Whites did not have as much invested into slavery as did Lower South Whites.  This resulted in an increased division between Border South Whites and Lower South Whites at a time when they needed to be united.

The lack of connection between Border South Whites and Lower South Whites became ever more visible during the Civil War.  At the outbreak of the Civil War several Border South states maintained a position of neutrality.  These attitudes would not sustain for long, and eventually all Border South states voluntarily joined the Union, including the new state of West Virginia.  What was more important was the enlistment of Union soldiers from these states.  The Union was able to garner over 200,000 border-state Southerners, along with another 100,000 Middle South Southerners for its cause. (Freehling 61)   Losing over 300,000 southern troops to the enemy was devastating.  In addition, when one adds the inertia of possible soldiers within Kentucky, the 71 percent of Kentucky’s white males of fighting age who decided on inaction during the Civil War, it becomes obvious that anti-confederate white Southerners severely injured the Confederacy’s chances to win the Civil War. (Freehling 54)

The inability of the Confederacy to align itself with the border states reduced its industrial capabilities.  St. Louis and Baltimore were the primary industrial cities in the Border South.  St. Louis was vital for its ship building and repairing expertise, while Baltimore was even more important because of its railroad industries.  Baltimore had the ability to construct railroad bridges, cars, engines and countless miles of track.  The failure of Baltimore to join the Confederacy would prove to be devastating.  Baltimore was a main railroad hub that could deliver troops throughout the South.  Confederate soldiers were spread all across southern territory.  As military action fluctuated from theatre to theatre at different times throughout the Civil War, the South needed the capabilities to transfer soldiers effectively.  The failure of the Confederacy to move soldiers to their desired regions significantly injured southern efforts for victory.  If the South could have garnered the Border South states they would have doubled their industrial output; nevertheless, it was the North who emerged with additional men and resources. (Freehling 61, 63)

The issue of slavery also caused many draft riots, draft dodgers and deserters in the South.  The Confederacy introduced their first military draft law in 1862, which contained the “twenty nigger” rule. This rule stated that a southerner who controlled twenty or more slaves did not have to fight in the Confederate army.  This aggravated the growing tensions between non-slaveholding Whites and slaveholding Whites.  Some Southerners looked at the war as a “rich men’s war and poor men’s fight.” (Freehling 145)  The South was fighting to uphold the institution of slavery, but the institution itself was dividing the ones who were fighting to protect it.

As the South became divided over the slavery issue, it opened the doors for the Union to take advantage in many ways.  The Union’s ability to persuade Border and Middle South anti-confederate White men to enlist against the Confederacy was a major factor for their victory.  This, along with the integration of freed slaves into the Union army and economy, helped their already superior numbers and resources.  Furthermore, the Union’s capability of controlling Border South cities improved its aims toward victory.  It was with the help of these anti-confederates and runaway slaves that the North was able to win and sustain occupancy in the western theatre of the Civil War, thus allowing for a greater concentration of Union men and resources to be allocated to the eastern theatre.  Additional explanations for the outcome of the Civil War have attempted to focus on other external and internal causes to the South’s demise.  However, there are serious questions about the validity of these arguments, which deserve some additional discussion.  Despite these other attempts, the evidence remains:  just as slavery was the cause of the Civil War, it would also become the reason behind southern defeat.

Anti-confederate Whites were only one part of how the Union would exploit the issue of slavery against the South.  Another was assimilating runaway southern slaves into the Union army.  At first the Union was hesitant to incorporate former southern slaves into the army.  Although there was the introduction of Henry Halleck’s General Orders #3, which stated that runaway slaves were prohibited in the Union army, this order became impractical to follow as many Northerners either soundly rejected or often ignored it.  They saw too many benefits in allowing runaway slaves to join and help the Union.  Rejecting slaves and returning them to the South would only help the Confederacy in its bid to win independence.  If the North did not use the slaves, the South surely would have.  In addition, slaves provided the best resistance against southern guerilla attacks.  Slaves had inside knowledge and knew where Confederate soldiers hid and when attacks would take place. (Freehling 101-102) 

In all, over 178,000 black soldiers joined the Union army against the Confederacy. (Freehling 121)  Largely, they maintained and resisted Confederate guerilla attacks over areas recently won by Union forces. For the North to secure an area, primarily an area in the western theatre, only to lose it again to the South did more harm than good.  The North needed to sustain the gains they made in the western theatre.  Leaving behind tens of thousands of white soldiers to protect forts, contraband camps and railroad tracks would injure the Union in future battles. (Freehling 150) The Union army needed the expertise and training of its white soldiers on the front lines.  The North answered this question by substituting the black soldier for the white soldier.  Black soldiers garrisoning conquered territory became essential to Union victory.  Garrisoning work was often unpleasant, boring and dangerous, which white soldiers despised.  Thus, they welcomed the idea of black soldiers performing them.  Most importantly, this concept allowed for more trained white soldiers to fight among the armies of Grant and Sherman.  Their addition also offset the need to draft more Union men.  While the North drafted around 200,000 white men, they gained about the same number of freed slaves. (Freehling 146)  Even though the North did suffer from draft riots, one could make the case that they would have been far worse if not for the enlisting of black men.

Although, not as prevalent as garrisoning forts, but nevertheless equally as important, many Black soldiers also fought on the front-lines in battles for the Union army.  Such battles as Fort Wagner, Milliken’s Bend, Port Hudson and Nashville provide evidence of success due to their assistance.  Even Ulysses S. Grant used black soldiers at the Battle of Petersburg against Robert E. Lee. (Freehling 135)  Whether it was protecting captured land and resources or fighting against the southern army, freed black soldiers were crucial to northern victory. 

Former slaves also expanded the economic capabilities of the North, while diminishing the Confederacy’s ever more.  Freed slaves could produce for Northerners what they had been supplying to Southerners.  Former slaves produced cotton and sugar for the northern economy, only adding to the growing economy the North witnessed during the Civil War.  The Union army also benefited by consuming the food the former slaves produced.  As ex-slaves were boosting the northern economy, the South’s already frail economic situation was worsening.  Many plantations became unattended because of the freed slaves.  This resulted in severe bread riots throughout southern cities and Confederate army units.  This shortage of food compounded the resource disadvantage the Confederacy already faced at the beginning of the war.

With the added naval resource from the obtained border states, the Union was able to control the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.  This prevented European intervention and limited shipments leaving the Confederacy to Europe.  Cities such as New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Natchez and Vicksburg did succumb to the dominant Union navy, thus providing the Union with the opportunity to perform its other military objective.

            With the fall of New Orleans in 1862 and Vicksburg in 1863, along with other major western theatre cities, the North severely divided the South’s landmass.  The Union’s next step was to encircle Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia in the eastern theatre.  The North’s ability to leave behind tens of thousands of black troops to uphold their military gains in the western theatre allowed for more trained white soldiers in Sherman’s army to march east to confront Joseph E. Johnston’s and eventually John Bell Hood’s southern army.  As Sherman advanced eastward towards the sea, Grant gathered his 120,000 soldiers in Virginia and headed towards Lee.  Sherman devastated several southern states while Grant was able to surround and force Lee and his army to surrender.  The ability of the North to have additional men and resources to keep Lee and his army occupied in the eastern theatre for the early part of the Civil War while the North fought and won the western theatre, proved to be the final reason for northern victory on the battlefield.  The North had the added men and resources ultimately due to the South being divided over the issue of slavery, and the many outfalls of that fact.

Historians’ interpretations of why the South lost the Civil War extend over a broad spectrum.  Each popular explanation attempts to show either some sort of internal or external cause for southern defeat.  And since there is not consensus on why the South lost the Civil War, it becomes necessary to address the different arguments and dispute their validities.

            Many historians believe that the South lost the Civil War because it “lacked the will” needed to win, despite the evidence that suggests otherwise.  The authors of Why the South Lost the Civil War believe that “lack of will constituted the decisive deficiency in the Confederate arsenal.” (64)  For these authors, Southerners did not have a firm sense of their own “nationalism” to associate with, thus causing Southerners to lack in conviction for their cause.  These authors point to the fact that the Confederacy’s Constitution was nearly verbatim that of the United States Constitution, the Confederacy had many of the founding fathers on their money and stamps, and the Confederate flag resembled that of the American flag.  What these authors fail to understand is that the Confederacy believed they were the rightful heirs of American nationalism.  The Union was the one that had departed from the founding fathers’ ideals, not the Confederacy.  The Confederacy seceded from the Union to preserve these original American principles. (McPherson 30-31)  If the Confederate money, stamps and flag were not enough to show a sense of “nationalism,” then the fighting on the battlefield was.  Confederate soldiers were fighting for their home, land and family.  Most battles and fighting were on southern territory, making southern commitment more conceivable than that of their enemy.  Even Confederate soldiers’ letters and diaries from the battlefield referred to their country as “my country,” “our nation,” and “the South.”  (Gallagher 63)  “Nationalism” proved to be a strength for the Confederacy, not a weakness.

            Kenneth M. Stampp’s hypothesis of southern “lack of will,” goes beyond that of the previous authors.  Stampp does agree that the lack of southern “nationalism” was one motive in southern defeat, but his main reason for defeat is that Southerners “lacked a deep commitment to the southern cause.” (Stampp 255)  For Stampp, this “southern cause” was slavery.  Stampp argues that Southerners were “tormented by guilt about slavery,” and that many welcomed defeat to escape from this burden. (Stampp 264)  The main problem with Stampp’s concept is that most of the evidence suggests otherwise.  As Gary W. Gallagher explains in his book The Confederate War, “direct evidence that sizeable numbers of Confederates harbored serious doubts about the morality of slavery is scarce.” (Gallagher 46)  Another problem with Stampp’s assertion is:  if Confederates were “tormented by guilt” over slavery, why did they fight for so long? (Stampp 264)  Even in the last years of the Civil War when it became clear that the North would win, Confederate soldiers continued to fight.  If Southerners did have an inner guilt about slavery, their actions before, during, and after the Civil War did not show it.

            Some historians, namely Frank Owsley and David Donald, have held firm to the idea that state rights caused southern defeat.  Owsley’s main contention was that certain southern governors withheld men and arms from the Confederate government just to strengthen their own state militias. (Owsley 1)  Donald, in addition, reasons that democratic practices kept during the Civil War within the southern army and the Confederate government led to the South’s defeat.  The difficulty is, once again, the evidence confirms the opposite.  As the authors in Why the South Lost the Civil War illustrate, “The tangible effects of state rights…had little negative effect on the Confederate war effort.” (Beringer 429)  These same governors and others were the same governors who mobilized men and resources for the Confederate army.  As for Donald’s proposal, the case can be made that the Confederacy did as good a job as the Union did in enforcing the draft and suspending civil liberties; and the Confederacy was harsher on dissenters than the North. (McPherson 25)  When the Civil War began, southern states did not allow state rights or democratic procedures to interfere with their main objective, which was to win the war.

            For many historians it was inevitable that the North would win against a weaker opponent.  The North held a large advantage in men and resources. The Union had a far-superior navy and held a more substantial amount of railroad trains and tracks.  Not only did the North have more resources, but their production capabilities were greater.  (Current 34) Also, most of the fighting and devastation would occur on southern territory and in southern cities.  For historians like Richard N. Current, he seems to find it is obvious to see why the North won:  they had the far-superior numbers.  Yet, there are several problems with this thesis.  First, the Confederacy knew the disadvantage they were up against.  Nevertheless, they believed and fought as if they would win.  Secondly, there are numerous instances of the smaller opponent defeating the favorite.  A prime example was America’s war of independence against Great Britain.  Lastly, the South nearly won the Civil War on a few occasions.  If the South had won a few more battles earlier in the Civil War, or if even one battle, the Battle of Gettysburg, would have ended differently, then the history of the Civil War might be different.  As the evidence confirms, the North winning the Civil War was not inevitable.

            Each explanation fails to live up to its claim as the reason for southern defeat, thus, bringing one back to the original assertion.  The South lost the Civil War because of the issue that created it, slavery.  Slavery divided the Lower South from the border states, and to a certain degree the Middle South.  This allowed for 450,000 anti-confederate Whites and freed slaves to join the Union army.  This does not count the tens of thousands of anti-confederate Southerners and freed slaves who helped in the factories, in the cities and on the plantations for the war effort.  It was with these extra men and resources that the North was able to conduct its military objectives, first in the western theater and eventually in the eastern theater.  Slavery had embodied Southern society and had led the South to secession, but slavery would also lead the Confederacy to defeat.

Proof/Editing Critique

Critique:  The Confederate War by Gary W. Gallagher

            According to Gary W. Gallagher, the reasons for the South’s defeat were not a lack of will, a deficiency in nationalism, or a flawed military strategy. Although these theories have been widely suggested by numerous historians, Gallagher argues in The Confederate War, that the Confederacy lost because they were soundly defeated by a far-superior enemy.  The North had greater human and physical resources than the South, and most of the war was fought through the invasion of southern territory.  Even with these difficulties facing the Confederacy, Gallagher provides a sizable amount of evidence that suggests southerners had and maintained their will for the war and found their nationalism in Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia.  Gallagher believes the military action Lee employed was what was necessary to sustain the support of his soldiers and of the southern people.

 Gallagher presents numerous statistics, letters, and diary entries that demonstrate the determination of Confederate supporters.  Despite a higher mortality rate than the Union, threats from Union soldiers occupying vast areas of southern land, and the realization that European intervention was not going to happen, many southern soldiers still fought to win and civilians still believed they would.  Even after the summer of 1863, which Gallagher believes is when many historians claim the will of the South began to deteriorate, many southerners still held out hope for Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.  Gallagher suggests that it is in this hope for Lee that we find Confederate nationalism.  Apart from all of the other evidence, including the battlefield victories, letters, diary entries and reenlistment statistics that Gallagher offers to support his idea that southerners felt that their Confederacy was a legitimate nation fighting for its independence, national identification can be seen no further than Lee.  He became their hero, their symbol for their national identity.  He became that sense of nationalism. With their victories, Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia gave encouragement to the other soldiers fighting and to southern supporters, while at the same time showing European nations they were capable of maintaining their sovereignty.  This is why, Gallagher argues, the South had to perform an offensive war strategy.  The Confederacy needed to sustain internal support and possibly garner European help, and a defensive or guerrilla-style warfare was not suitable for their purpose.

            Based on the information provided, Gary W. Gallagher’s interpretations of other historian’s views on why the South lost the Civil War appears to be accurately presented in The Confederate War.  It was not a loss of will or a lack for nationalism that led to the Confederacy’s defeat.  They lost simply because they did not have the manpower or physical resources that the North had.  The North could replenish men and supplies faster than the South could, and the devastation and controlling of several southern cities further diminished the few resources they had to begin with. Gallagher’s examples of the Confederate will to fight by its soldiers and civilians during the Civil War and his belief that the South found its nationalism in Robert E. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia is highly plausible and is demonstrative of the type of human behavior still seen to this day.  These people were defending what they believed to be their country and their institutions from a northern enemy who had invaded their territory and sought to change their ways of life.  As for Lee, southerners revered him as their general, and hope for victory rested with him and his offensive strategy.  Southerners might have lost the war, but they never lost the will to fight or their belief in their purpose.  

Proof/Editing Comparative Book Review

Comparative Book Review

Brechin, Gray.  Imperial San Francisco: Urban Power, Earthly Ruin.  Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999.

Righter, Richard W.  The Battle over Hetch Hetchy: America’s Most Controversial Dam and the Birth of Modern Environmentalism.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

             It is enlightening to read these books together, because the similarities and differences between each book become readily apparent. Although Brechin’s book is wider in scope than Righter’s, both give a great illustration of how the development of a city affects the nearby environment.  Brechin focuses mainly on the environmental effect that mining caused to the city of San Francisco and its local environment.  For him, the institution of mining promoted other activities within the city and developed a local society of wealthy elites.  For Brechin, it is the wealth and power of these elites that caused San Francisco to advance the way it did. 

Righter’s book focuses mainly over San Francisco’s attempt and eventual victory in securing an adequate water supply in the Hetch Hetchy water system.  For Righter, San Francisco’s success as a metropolis depended on the acquisition of a secure water supply.  Righter takes the reader deeper than Brechin does by noting the severe opposition that the city of San Francisco faced in its fight for the Hetch Hetchy Valley.  On the argument that wealth and power had a significant influence over the development of the city, Righter agrees with Brechin.  The environment did not determine how a city developed, wealth and power did.

 Most important to Brechin’s thesis is the “Pyramid of Mining” theory.  This theory suggests that mining, being the apex of the pyramid, promoted the activities on the base of the pyramid.  These base activities included mechanization, metallurgy, militarism, and moneymaking or finance.  This is important to understand because the Pyramid of Mining theory differs from the more widely accepted agricultural theory.  As Brechin states, “the miner’s realm is necessarily dead, divisible, and detached, a treasure trove for the taking and leaving.”  Mining was more destructive to the earth, whereas the agricultural theory consisted of less-destructive activities and encouraged the repeated use of land.  For miners, it was normal to mine the land and discard it after use. Deforestation, damaged rivers, or wastelands left behind were of no concern to mining supporters. 

In Brechin’s book, a common attitude among wealthy capitalists towards the environment emerges.  For these capitalists the land is theirs for the taking, and they will decide how the land will be used for the city.  When critics opposed mining activities, mining advocates argued that mining brought in large amounts of capital into the city, state, and national economies.  Supporters also claimed that new industries and technologies were developed because of mining.  Critics could not argue with this.  The development of metallurgy and mechanization industries was because of the mining industry, and mining had helped to invent cable cars within the city.  But on January 7, 1884, Judge Lorenzo Sawyer of the Ninth Circuit Court issued a permanent injunction against the North Bloomfield mining company for dumping materials downstream.  With this injunction, the mining industry within the state of California ended.       

Righter illustrates that when the gold rush began to slow down in the 1850’s, many wealthy elites who had made huge fortunes because of the mining industry looked for new investment adventures.  One such adventure was the acquisition of an adequate water supply.  Water had always been a problem for San Francisco.  San Francisco was situated within the arid West, and its location on the Pacific Coast made the city even more vulnerable.  Surrounded on three sides by salt water and no obvious local choice for water, San Francisco looked to distant areas for supply.  The first source of water came from Mountain Lake and Lobos Creek, but over time, these water sources became inadequate to meet the needs of an expanding city.  What made San Francisco’s water situation worse was that the water supply was controlled privately instead of publicly by the city.  This meant that the water company, Spring Valley Water Company, could determine the rates and thus held significant power in politics of the city.  As Righter suggests, “San Francisco watched the expansion of the Spring Valley system with ambivalence.”  As the city needed more and more water because of expansion, the power of Spring Valley grew.  Finally, in the 1890’s with the election of James Phelan to mayor, San Francisco became determined to locate a new water supply in which it owned.

The solution that San Francisco discovered for its water supply was the Hetch Hetchy water system.  What Righter does over the next few chapters is to illustrate the potential destruction the city wanted to cause to the Hetch Hetchy Valley.  Within these same chapters he discusses the complicated situation involved with the acquisition of the Hetch Hetchy water system from Yosemite National Park. 

The city of San Francisco’s main objective was to dam the Tuolumne River within the Hetch Hetchy Valley.  This would establish a reservoir further up the Tuolumne River, which would allow for more storage of Sierra Nevada snow water and provide the city with the opportunity to generate hydropower for the city.  Why did people object?  For one reason, the Hetch Hetchy Valley was a part of Yosemite National Park, and in 1890 the Yosemite National Park Act required the government to preserve the natural state of the park.  Secondly, it was beautiful.  As Righter illustrates, with the writing of John Muir the famed naturalist, Hetch Hetchy was a sacred place rivaled only by Yosemite. Any alteration to Hetch Hetchy would damage its sacredness and beauty.   The city’s main contention was that in 1901 the government passed the Right-Of-Way Act that authorized the Secretary of the Interior to grant water development for beneficial purposes.  It is in the interpretations of these two acts that the battle over Hetch Hetchy would take place.

The process associated with the acquisition of Hetch Hetcy is long, and one that is outside the scope of this essay, but there are a few points that should be noted.  With the occurrence of the San Francisco fire and earthquake of 1906, the need and desire of an adequate water supply escalated.  The city was severely damaged, and many people accused Spring Valley Water Company of not having an appropriate amount of water for a disaster of that size.  With a destroyed city and sympathy from all over the country, San Francisco attempted to capitalize on the fire and earthquake of 1906.  In 1907, the new Secretary of the Interior, James Garfield, gave San Francisco what it wanted.  With the Garfield Grant, San Francisco was allowed to develop Lake Eleanor and the Hetch Hetchy site.  The fight against the city for the Hetch Hetchy Valley continued, though. 

In January 1910, the new Secretary of the Interior, Richard Ballinger, ordered San Francisco to “show cause” as to why the Hetch Hetchy Valley was needed for their water supply.  With the burden of proof on the city to prove that they needed and not just wanted the Hetch Hetchy Valley, the city’s wealth and power proved too much for the opposition.  The city employed John R. Freeman, who was the most prominent hydraulic engineer in the United States, and with his Freeman Report, San Francisco was able to “show cause” for the Hetch Hetchy Valley.  Finally, with the passing of the Raker Act in 1913, San Francisco was allowed to obtain the Hetch Hetchy Valley for water purposes. 

As Righter notes, the fight for Hetch Hetchy was long and had many twists and turns throughout its duration.  But who were the people trying to save Hetchy Hetchy?  It is in the description of the opposition that Righter’s book excels over Brechin’s.  For Righter, the proponents for the development of San Francisco were easy to identify.  Most were wealthy elitists and middle-class that desired growth and prosperity.  These were men like James Phelan, William Randolph Hearst, Michael de Young, and William H. Crocker.  On the other end were men like John Muir, Robert Underwood Johnson, and William Colby.  These men represented the Sierra Club, an organization designed to save the Hetch Hetchy Valley.  Righter argues that these men and this organization represent the first environmental cause to attract national support.  The Hetch Hetchy controversy involved many women’s organizations and it garnered support from multiple geographical areas.  It was the first time that men and women came together to prevent the destruction of an environment.

Nevertheless, the Hetch Hetchy Valley and other environmental hinterlands succumbed to the city of San Francisco.  Why?  Throughout both books, each writer contributes a significant portion of San Francisco’s success to the wealth and power of its elite class.  Brenin suggests that this elite class started during the gold rush years.  He argues that as mining activity declined, wealthy capitalists moved their interests and money toward other activities.  These activities included water, real-estate, oil, and electricity. 

Righter and Brenin take the influence of wealth and power a step further.  With little government interference, wealthy capitalists in San Francisco were able to manipulate and abuse city, state, and national laws.  Whether it was to delay the enforcement of a law or to ignore it completely, San Francisco capitalists did whatever was necessary to continue their operations.   As both authors note, corruption within San Francisco’s city hall was not uncommon.  Many politicians were associated with the North Bloomfield mining company, the Spring Valley Water Company, and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.  The power that these companies and wealthy elites had on the development of San Francisco cannot be understated.

            These books, along with books such as William Cronon’s Nature’s Metropolis, contribute significantly to the field of environmental history.   All of these books provide great examples of the relationship between environment and city.  Within each of these books it is easy to understand the importance that nature had on the development of the city of San Francisco.  What makes these two books stand apart from other environmental history books is the great description of what power and wealth can do for a city, and against the environment.  Each author details the progress of the city and how influential people influenced that progress. The environment does not determine how a city is built, money and power do. 

What is also remarkable about these two books is that both are able to describe different “varieties” within the field of environmental history.  As J. R. McNeill stated in his article “Observation on the Nature and Culture of Environmental History,” there are three main “varieties” within the field of environmental history.  One is material, another is cultural/intellectual, and the last is political. McNeill also stated that many authors restrict themselves to one variety of environmental history while others are able to move around in all three successfully.  This is why Gray Brechin’s Imperial San Francisco and Richard W. Righter’s The Battle over Hetch Hetchy are excellent books.  Both books are able to discuss the material and political varieties within environmental history.  Each author is able to illustrate the physical and biological destruction of the environment and how it related to the development of the city of San Francisco.  Then each author takes their books a step further by providing significant details about the men and laws that helped to dictate the growth of San Francisco and the damage to the surrounding environment. It is the successful ability of these authors to navigate through these different varieties that make these books interesting. 

As a final point, Righter’s book contains an important viewpoint that Brechin’s does not.  Righter illustrates the influence that one environmental controversy had on an entire nation.  It is Righter’s belief that modern environmentalism is directly associated with the fight for the Hetch Hetchy Valley.  The controversy of the Hetch Hetchy Valley brought people together from different genders, multiple social classes, and from diverse geographical locations.  Hetch Hetchy encouraged people to defend the environment against the urban exploitation.

College Paper - Editing/Proofing "The Chrysanthemums"

Imposed Historical Societal Boundaries on Women as Exemplified by John Steinbeck’s Symbolism of a Single Soul in “The Chrysanthemums”

At any given point in time, there can be examples of societal boundaries placed upon any given person, group, race, or culture.  In John Steinbeck’s “The Chrysanthemums,” he symbolizes in many ways and with many examples of how society imposed certain boundaries and expectations among women during a certain period of time in the past.  Within these boundaries, he demonstrates the desire to move beyond them by one woman, yet her fear of the unknown causes her to settle for what she knows, what is expected of her, and disappear back among her own boundaries she has created.  Presented with several events, such as an unplanned guest, several conversations regarding what women should not do, and her own strength seen and verbalized by her husband, Steinbeck demonstrates the inner struggle of one struggling for equality.

Paragraph 1 discusses how closed off they are from the rest of the world – “fog of winter … It was a time of quiet and waiting” (Steinbeck 237) – like her liberties were at a standstill and all shall remain as is, waiting for equality to come. We see her gardening and snapping heavily at the chrysanthemums, dressed heavily in men’s clothing.  However, she took care of the delicate flowers, as a woman would do – a woman’s job.  It ironic that she can dress like a man but not do anything a man can do.  Her clothing is symbolic of how she represses her situation as a woman not able to live in a man’s world as she would like. She is described as “heavy and blocked with a face that was lean and strong, but eyes as clear as water, as if they were clear and ready for the future” (Steinbeck 237). Then she has the wire fences which “protected her flower garden from cattle and dogs and chickens,” but it also protects HER from the boundaries of the outside world (Steinbeck 238).  The outside world was not one she was supposed to be exposed to in any way except what was expected of a woman.   When attending the fights in town is brought up, her husband asking how a woman could have fun at such a gruesome event quashes her temporary moment of excitement, her desire to do something out of the norm for a woman in those days.  She is quickly struck back down again, reminded of her “place” in society.

As suggested by Gregory J. Palmerino, the conversations between husband and wife demonstrate further issues of dysfunction in the lives of the two – a lack of real communication.  “For everywhere is there a conflict in ‘The Chrysanthemums,’ but nowhere is there a fight.  This absence of friction prevents Henry and Elisa’s relationship from progressing, whether it be as lovers, partners, or parents.” (Palmerino 164)  He goes on to say the initial dialogue between the two “sets the tone for subsequent encounters and reveals the couple’s fundamental problem: they do not know how to fight.” (Palmerino 165)  Even when Henry brings up seeing the fights, “he is incapable of directly stating his desires, too, so he couches his true feelings in a ‘joking tone.’” “Henry and Elisa are neither capable nor willing to pursue a dialogue that might produce discord.” (Palmerino 165)

The stranger’s appearance brought upon a strange and unexpected situation for her.  Leroy Thomas describes the event as a “symbolic sexual experience.”  (Thomas 50)  She slipped into somewhat of a fantasy for a moment with thinking about doing what the man did, living on the caravan, traveling and free.  When she spoke of such a desire, he reminded her it’s not good for a woman, but she snapped back asking how he would know?  Steinbeck’s description of the man and carriage portrays a crazy, haphazard, and dirty, yet free life. They have a discussion about how he doesn’t feel that’s the life for a woman and she states in several terms how she can keep up with the best of them – sharpening her own scissors, fixing pots, yearning for the caravan life (Steinbeck 242). Thomas describes her initially being antagonistic towards him until he asks about her chrysanthemums. (Thomas 50)  The man grows quiet, then changes the conversation to showing interest in and begins to question her about her flowers, which created an excitement inside her she could hardly control.  When he asked about bringing some to a person down the road, her excitement grew even more, quickly yet carefully describing how to care for them for the person he was to bring them to.  She cared for the flowers as if they were the children she did not have in her life.  She shows so much passion when discussing something someone seems actually interested in, a passion not seen when she speaks with her husband.  She lives such a simple life with him, yet inside there is so much more waiting to get out.

At one point she almost touches the man, wanting to intimately know a man that lives this life, “…her hand went out toward his legs in the greasy, black trousers. Her hesitant fingers almost touched a cloth. Then her hand dropped to the ground. She crouched low like a fawning dog” (Steinbeck 241).  He was allowed into her garden, “perhaps a symbol of penetration.”  “It is as if Elisa and the tinker, through a symbolic sexual experience of sorts, have created the chrysanthemums that Elisa puts in the pot for the tinker to take with him.” (Thomas 50)

When she went inside to bathe, “she tore off her soiled clothes and flung them into the corner”, as to rid herself of the ideas she had, “then she scrubbed herself with a little block of pumice, … until her skin was scratched and red” to scrub off even more of the ideas she had had (Steinbeck 243). How silly of her to think she could ever live a life like that.  What on earth was she thinking?  Slipping back into where she was supposed to be as a woman during those times, she put on “the dress which was the symbol of her prettiness” (Steinbeck 243).  She took a lot of time making herself up and transforming from the rugged person outside to the feminine woman she was supposed to be.

While waiting for her husband, “she sat unmoving on the porch” staring toward the river road for a very long time (Steinbeck 243).  What was she yearning? Was she thinking she might see the man on the road at some point?  When her husband finally approached her, he questioned why she looked so nice?  She was puzzled and he went on to described her as “different, strong, and happy” (Steinbeck 243). This was a great shock to her.  She had not realized what she felt inside was showing outwardly. Steinbeck exemplifies the theme of the story further in paragraph 104: “For a second she lost her rigidity. ‘Henry! Don’t talk like that. You didn’t know what you said.’ She grew complete again. ‘I’m strong,’ she boasted. ‘I never knew before how strong’” (Steinbeck 243).

In Steinbeck’s story of this woman, she gets temporarily lost in a moment when the stranger appears and somehow falls weak to his ways, even giving him some of her precious chrysanthemums to bring to someone else.  Her spirit is lifted by this encounter then further lifted by her husband’s describing her as strong.  As they are going to town to eat, her heightened spirit is crushed.  “When she sees her ‘babies’ at the side of the road where the tinker has thrown them, she is catapulted into sadness.” (Thomas 51)  It was as if everything was just a lie.  “The temporary fulfillment that she has experienced with the tinker turns void.” (Thomas 51) When she says “he might have thrown them on the ground”, that would have at least given them a chance to live, but he didn’t care about them at all (Steinbeck 243).  They passed him on the road and she couldn’t even look at him, as if she wanted to deny and forget that the entire event had ever happened.  She had exposed her passion to him, threw off her hat, took off her gloves, and had almost touched a man who falsely showed interest in anything she had to say or who she was.

In the last paragraph “she relaxed limply in the seat”, showing she succumbed to her demise as a woman with limitations and boundaries most cannot cross (Steinbeck 244).  She feels doomed to live in this repressed state she knows all too well. In John Steinbeck’s “The Chrysanthemums,” he symbolizes in many ways and with many examples of how society imposed certain boundaries and expectations among women during a certain period of time in the past. Although three times in the story she is declared “strong”, her weakness shows through with her frustration of being trapped in her simple life with all of her skills and passion going to waste.

Works Cited

            Steinbeck, John. “The Chrysanthemums.” Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing. Ed. X.J. Kennedy and Dana Gioia. University of Southern California: Pearson, 2014. 237-244. Print.