By Brandon Fey, Staff Writer
Every year, the Robert Fortenbaugh Memorial Lecture is given on Nov. 19, the anniversary of the Gettysburg Address. This year marked 160 years since President Abraham Lincoln dedicated the National Cemetery and recited his famous words. In honor of this immortal legacy, the Fortenbaugh Lecture gathers a panel of Civil War historians to discuss their scholarship of the war. This year’s lecture was held in the Majestic Theater at 7 p.m.
The panel consisted of Professor of History Emeritus at the United States Naval Academy and author of seventeen books Craig Symonds, Patricia & Bookman Peters Professor in History at Texas A&M University and author of several books Lorien Foote and Teaching Associate Professor at Oklahoma State University Jennifer Murray, who is currently writing a biography of Union General George Meade.
The theme of this year’s lecture was the state of Civil War Military History. Gettysburg College History Department Chairperson Dina Lowy introduced the event. The discussion was moderated by the Gettysburg College Civil War Institute Director and History Professor Peter Carmichael. He primed the panel with his first question, asking if it is possible to understand the Civil War without placing military affairs near the center of the story.
The speakers concurred that due to the war’s substantial impact on the nation, one must acknowledge military aspects to effectively study the Civil War. They emphasized the importance of understanding armed conflict in American history, as some form of it internally or externally has existed for about 94% of the nation’s existence.
On this point, Symonds stated, “Military history shows you what were the most important central issues in a society, the issues for which that society was willing to expend its treasure and its most valuable asset: the blood of its citizens.”
He further argued that understanding military motivations is key to understanding American growth and change. This brought the conversation to the matter of the recent decline in military history in U.S. academia. Foote suggested that the decline of the field can be traced back to the 1960s and 70s, with a nationwide academic shift towards cultural and social issues in light of the Vietnam War.
Symonds mentioned how reactionary academics tend to view military historians as antiquarians, resulting in a lack of doctorates in the field and a scarcity of junior academics working on traditional military history topics. To this point, Murray predicted a pushback against the current trend of marginalization of military history in academia, with students potentially leading the effort.
They further discussed that military history ought to be studied in the context of society and culture, rather than just as a series of battles and campaigns. This gives it more applicability to a broader range of students. The panel agreed that education in military history offers the practical study of how leaders articulate strategy while managing subordinates, as personalities and circumstances play a crucial role in military campaigns.
Carmichael then asked about how controversial methodologies such as those of Union General William Tecumseh Sherman are to be understood and studied. Symonds described Sherman’s March through Georgia as a pivotal moment in American history, marking a shift in the character of warfare from traditional to total war.
Foote added, “What I find fascinating is that Sherman is representative of an interplay between traditional military history and an understanding of historical culture.”
The panel further discussed the importance of battle studies in understanding the human impact of events. Professor Murray spoke on the rarity of concise and impactful battle studies, noting that it’s difficult to find books that are both intellectually capacious and accessible to students.
They mentioned that the public’s focus on battles is misguided and that a deeper understanding of the war’s logistical and strategic aspects is necessary to truly grasp its significance. For example, the speakers held that Lincoln’s leadership and political savvy were crucial to maintaining public support for the Union during the Civil War. This effort beyond the battlefield was crucial to achieving victory.
Carmichael’s final question was on their opinions of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder in Civil War veterans. Symonds highlighted the need to explore the mental and emotional aspects of the war through the soldiers’ letters and personal accounts which feature topics beyond their combat experiences. The panel mentioned the importance of exploring desertion and execution in the Civil War and the motivations for such occurrences.
That having been said, it was also mentioned that history is often contorted to fit present needs, particularly regarding PTSD and Civil War soldiers. Murray argued that cultural values shape how soldiers process and assign meaning to trauma, with different assumptions on suffering and redemption. She noted the absence of societal-level cynicism and trauma after World War I but acknowledged that veterans still experienced economic loss, mental illness and addiction.
Foote spoke about how the Union and Confederate armies handled accusations of atrocities during the Civil War, highlighting the use of international law to justify actions. Citing military theorist Carl Von Clausewitz, it was said, “War is politics by other means, an instrument for governments to achieve objectives.” According to Foote, Lincoln’s vision for reconstruction after the Civil War was a unified nation.
The panel then took questions from audience members comprising Gettysburg College students and faculty, along with several enthusiasts from the local community and beyond.
They then thanked Professor Carmichael for their invitations and remarked that the student turnout to the lecture was a positive sign for the future of the discipline of military history.
