Student Scholarship

Document Type

Capstone Paper

Abstract

On April 6th and 7th, 1862, the deadliest battle in American history up to that time was waged, with a staggering total of twenty three thousand dead, wounded, and missing.1 Though as guns fell silent on the evening of the 7th, another battle began, the battle for the narrative. It was a battle for the truth of what happened, and it is one that is still waged to this day. Unlike the physical confrontation that took place in 1862, the lines of battle and allegiance are not so easily defined. It is a patchwork of veterans, generals, newspapers, and historians. Some wrote to preserve their image or to tarnish that of others, while others wrote about their perspective as honestly as they knew how. As the years dragged on after the war, even shortly after the battle’s conclusion, it became clear to many that there is an air of misunderstanding surrounding it. Ulysses S. Grant, then commander of Union forces at the battle, stated that it, “has been perhaps less understood, or, to state the case more accurately, more persistently misunderstood, than any other engagement between National and Confederate troops during the entire rebellion.”2 Accounts from other Generals share this same sentiment, and so do those in contemporary newspapers. All sorts of misinformed myths and malfeasances formed about the battle, and this fractured narrative still persists. These myths will be examined from their formation in the battle’s immediate wake, up to the publishing of the Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant. All the while asking the question, what role did Ulysses S. Grant play, through action or inaction, in the battle being remembered the way it is? The overall conclusion is that there was a tremendous difference in how veterans reported and reflected on the battle versus the news media. For the first step in this process, the historiography must be acknowledged.

Publication Date

4-2023

Faculty Sponsor

Marcus Smith

Download

Share

COinS