Mission idea

By Ed Piper

In considering why the idea of the Civil War "clicked" with me back on our walk through the neighborhood in Nashville in 2003, I always contrast the Civil War--which took place in locales far from my home--to the Catholic missions in California.

Born and growing up in Southern California, I learned about the missions early in life and studied them as part of California history in school. My family and I visited missions, especially San Juan Capistrano, where the swallows return each Spring. That seasonal event was a big deal for our mother, and we made the trek from Long Beach, where I was born and where we then lived, down the coast to San Juan Capistrano to see the arrival of the swallows more than once.

Why do I bring up the missions? They were always something known and nearby for me growing up, whereas the Civil War was only something I studied in the history books. It seemed far away, locked away as part of history long before my birth.

In any case, when Dianna and I took a stroll to give her cousin Cara a break during our visit to her home in Nashville, I saw the stone wall near her home, read the historical placard about the Battle of Nashville, and--voila!--I've been hooked ever since.

There is the romantic idea of the Civil War: rifling was new, repeating guns were new, soldiers on the North still stood shoulder-to-shoulder, Napoleon-era style, getting mowed down. As I wrote in another post, the humanness of the conflict appeals to me.

I don't like war. I think it stinks. It's horrible. I'm not a big fan of military strategy. Having never been in the military and having never studied military tactics, I know only what I have picked up by osmosis in reading Catton, Foote, McPherson, etc. (I don't retain much of it; I don't picture much of it well, since I don't take time to place the physical layout.)

What appeals to me is Grant, a guy who failed at everything else, whether working at his father's tanning enterprise or in the shop, or any kind of business (he tried to float ice down from snow country to sell in lower parts, and that was a disaster). Sam Grant, when in war, suddenly became calmer, could think under pressure, and had riding skills to boot. In the U.S.-Mexican War, he rode his horse to get to the U.S. camp while under heavy fire through town by hanging over the side of his horse, just like you see in the cowboy movies.

He opposed President Polk's war, which was instigated to gain land from Mexico. Grant knew it was aggression. But he served faithfully to the best of his ability, as a good soldier. He showed glimmers of what was to happen in the Civil War over a decade later.

A vital skill that historians say Grant had was to write clear orders to his commanders in concise words. This enabled his subordinates to grasp his objective, and to act in the most effective way possible.

Grant had a drinking problem, and when he was away from Julia, his beloved wife (whose dad was a Southern slaveholder), he got into trouble with this.

What appeals to me is Abraham Lincoln. He was a great man. He wasn't perfect, and didn't claim to be. What he did was show an immense aptitude for learning on the job: He didn't have any capable generals who could act as his general-in-chief, so he educated himself by studying war strategy and learning from others more experienced. He played a major role in directing the war, even while he had to work his way through all his bumbling generals, McDowell, McClellan, Burnside, Hooker, Meade, and all the rest.

He had a spirit sensitive to the Almighty, and though not a traditional Christian as we would understand it, he kept a line open to the fact the country was in need of repentance and forgiveness. The curse of slavery had put a blot on the U.S. It was written into the Constitution, as fine a document as that was.

Two great men in their time, Grant and Lincoln.